All the fulness of Deity dwells in Him Bodily !

[ChristisGod]

Using Genesis is laughable - .

Lets begin at the very first part of John 1 compared with Genesis 1

In the beginning was the Word.
en arche en ho logos
εν αρχη ην ο λογος

the phrase "in the beginning" is "en arche". Now if you look in the Septuagint at Genesis 1:1 we find this:
εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος

Now the question we need to ask ourselves is what does in the beginning mean ? One must always remember that context always determines the meaning of words and phrases. If we compare Genesis with John which is exactly what John is doing in his opening to his gospel we can clearly see his point. Moses and John both are discussing the creation of "all things". That makes the passages parallel. Here a some parallels to consider:

1- in the beginning
2- Theos( God) appears in both opening verses
3- Both talk about the creation of all things
4- both use egeneto εγενετο, came into being or existence
5- both use and contrast light and darkness

εν αρχη refers to the beginning of time. Now if John didn't mean the beginning of time he could of easily used another word that he often used which would be the word from"apo" instead of en. He could of also used the phrase came into being(egeneto) to refer to the Word in 1a but he did not. John made it very clear that the Word in his gospel is equal to the God in Genesis.

Now lets look at the verb was"en". This is in the imperfect tense meaning continuous existence. By its very definition it has the meaning of eternal, without beginning. Therefor the Words existence transcends time and is eternal. Here is Dr. Robertson below:


In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1 . But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse Genesis 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Genesis 8:58 "before Abraham came (genesqai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence).

From here we can now look to see who the Word is in John 1:1.


Now that we have established the meaning of the beginning in John 1:1a we can move on to the identity of the Word !


Whoever the Word is , He was alongside God (with Him) and was God. But how can the Word be with God and also be God? Lets examine 1b The Word was with God. John here is making a distinction between the Word and God. The Word existed eternally with God, for the Word (logos) ‎was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros ‎with the accusative shows equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. This clearly reveals a relationship between the logos and theon in 1b. In (Moulton and Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament)"the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" is used to speak of the relationship between the logos and God.

The Word was God- και θεος ην ο λογος . Theos here is without the article. It is predicative and describes the nature of the Word. The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God. If “o theos” had been written then it would mean that no divine being existed outside of the Word. Johns whole gospel comes forth from this verse. The Word is who his gospel is written about and as we will see the words and deeds of Jesus are the words and deeds of God.

John 1:14 and the Word became flesh- και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο. Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai which means came into existence, He became flesh. The Word in one single event is history became man as opposed to “eimi” being or always existed. So we can clearly see the Word who is eternal came into existence in the flesh at a single point in time .

Now if we read further in John we can see that the Word dwelt among us (tabernacled).The Word entering a new mode of existence, became flesh, and lived in a tent (His physical body-a tabernacle) among us. And we beheld His glory.


This Word John the Baptist identifies as Jesus.
15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.

John 1:29-31
29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30"This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.

How was the "Word made flesh"? By the miracle of the Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38). He took on Himself sinless human nature and identified with us in every aspect of our life from birth to death. "The Word" was not an abstract concept of philosophy, a thought or an idea but a real person who could be seen, touched, and heard. The gospel is Christ and Christ is God.

The revelation of God's glory is an important theme in Johns Gospel. Jesus revealed God's glory in His person, His works, and His words. Jesus works, words and deeds are Gods works, words and deeds. That is why He could say he who has seen me has seen the Father because they are one in essence. Jesus could say as well that before Abraham was “I Am” (the self existing One) and taking upon Himself the divine name that God gave to Moses. This is the same wording in the Septuagint.

Jesus also warns us that unless you believe that “I Am” you will die in your sins. John 8:24. We see later with the same audience they tried to kill Him for these very claims. You being a man make yourself to be God. There is no getting around the pre existence Son who created all things and is before all things. He truly is the Creator of Genesis 1 and John 1. Same God, same Creator, same Person.

Verse 1 describes the Word in three ways. The existence of the Word at the beginning is affirmed. The relationship of the Word to God is described. Finally, the actual character or nature of the Word is declared. The first affirmation is of the existence of the Word in the beginning. By doing this the gospel echoes almost exactly the opening words of Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God . . . ." "The Word was face to face with God." The relationship of Jesus and God was more than side-by-side; it was a face to face relationship indicating far more intimacy than that of simply being co-workers. This prepares for the final phrase, "The Word was God."

The affirmation that Jesus is God is not a startling or difficult thought for present day Christians. It may not have been for John's readers, but it was difficult for many first century Christians of Jewish heritage. Every Jew began every morning with these words in prayer, "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one." To claim that Jesus was God would be a very difficult idea for Jews to assimilate. Perhaps the point that we should understand is not just that Jesus was (and is) God, but that when Jesus is seen, God is seen. The Logos provides us access and understanding into the very nature of God.

Verses 2 and 3 return to the eternal existence of the Logos with God and the role of the "Word" in creation. "And apart from Him not even one thing was made." This emphasis on Christ as creator reflects an important insight from Jewish thought. To affirm that nothing was made apart from Christ is to affirm He is the Source on all creation.

Verse 4 introduces the terms, "life" and "light," in relation to Jesus. Life was in the logos. The energy and vitality, the creativity and feeling that we call life has its source in Christ. If life has its existence in the logos then if there is no logos there is no life. John wants to make Christ absolutely the essence and meaning of life. No Christ - no life. We are too tempted to spiritualize this truth. No Christ - no spiritual life. For John the difference between life and mere existence is Christ.

 

[ChristisGod]

Continued from above :

These world renown Greek Scholars and Theologians confirm the above is the TRUTH !


The Word was with God—The preposition translated "with" is pros. In Koine Greek pros (short for prosopon pros prosopon, "face to face") was used to show intimacy in personal relationships (see Matt. 13:56; 26:18; Mark 6:3; 14:49; 1 Cor. 13:12; 6:10; 2 Cor. 5:8; Gal. 1:18). Thus, for John to say "the Word was with God" was for him to mean "the Word was face to face with God" (see Williams’s translation) or "the Word was having intimate fellowship with God." This speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father prior to creation—in fact, prior to everything (see 1:18; 17:5, 24) (JFB).


With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other (RWP).


The preposition "with" in the phrase "the Word was with God" indicates both equality and distinction of identity along with association. The phrase can be rendered "face to face with." It may, therefore, imply personality, coexistence with the Creator, and yet be an expression of his creative being...The preposition ðñ’ò (pros) indicates both equality and distinction of identity. Robertson says, "The literal idea comes out well, ‘face to face with God’" (RHG, p. 623). Thus this implies personality and coexistence with God. Robertson says it bespeaks of "the fellowship between the Logos and God" (EBC).


Thus John’s statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him (Vincent).


Of the character of this relationship to God no further details are given. [Apparently "with God" (pros + accusative) is intended as an indication not only of place but also of disposition and orientation. - note 23] The focus is entirely on the antecedent existence of the Word, that is, that it existed before all that is created, and on the Word's participation in the divine. This latter point is made in no uncertain terms by the emphatic positioning of the predicate noun: "And God was the Word" (Ridderbos).


What we notice about all these examples [of pros in the NT], however, is that in all but one or two peculiar constructions (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:15), pros may mean 'with' only when a person is with a person, usually in some fairly intimate relationship. And that suggests that John may already be pointing out, rather subtly, that the 'Word' he is talking about is a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a personal relationship with him (Carson).


The Greek preposition translated with suggests the idea of communion. The thought is lit. 'towards God', which requires some distinctiveness between God and the Word. But the next phrase adds a further aspect, since it affirms that the Word was God...Since the Greek has no article before God, the term must be taken setting out a characteristic of the Word. Since God is a noun, John must be affirming the Godhead of the Word. It involves not only divinity but deity (NBC).

hope this helps !!!

 

[Heyzeus]

Gods plan to my understanding is:
Tell mankind about Him in increments - as they are capable to receive the knowledge (as we do with children)...and let Man make his own Feewill choices, and man be accountable, for his choices.

Justice Does NOT always prevail ON Earth, and Why we Notice Corruption.
God notices as well, and has His Own Consequences.

I am not familiar with all you precisely speak of. But Known A Church, leader, participants in exacting cruel and unthinkable acts toward people is not Gods Teaching...nor would I point a finger in Blame toward God.

As far as the Trinity. Some seem to infer they have a patent or copyright on that word...and their accompaniment of diagrams are Gospel.

The Prifix tri- as you know simply means 3
And unity- is as a unified bonded 1.

When we get to Revelations we find a whole Title..."Lord God Almighty".

Particularly-
[8] And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Was...since always
Is......presently
Is to come....expectation

Reviewing- baptizing in the Name of:
Father, Son, Holy Spirit...Again 3

Learning throughout Scripture-
God
• Associated with WILL, Desire, Idea, plan, -father, Spirit, Holy, Authority, etc.
Lord
• Associated with Word, Speech, Rabbi, Communication, Teaching, Annointed, Son Holy, Spirit, intercessory, Authority, Wisdom, Seed, Etc.
Holy Spirit
• Associated with Light, Power, Authority, Christ, etc.

In the Beginning of Scripture-
Gen 1:
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3] And God said...

From the get go...we can comprehend The Wholeness of God in unity, in agreement, to accomplish His Will.

We see Gods Idea...Creation
His Power...Spirit
His Word...He Said

I have no issue, with Understanding One God, and the Wholness of Him to accomplish His Desire.

I believe in a similar fashion man is a Trinity, body, soul, spirit.... and man DOES a pretty common and standard terrible job of getting ones Body, soul, spirit in unison, agreement, and optimum coesiveness....
But BY and through the wholeness of the Lord God Almighty...I believe the whole Big Picture of Gods plane is To Make man in His Likeness, wholly Whole and Holy...Body, soul, spirit.

Not sure if this responds Properly to what you are seeking.

Glory to God,
Taken

I have a similar perspective of the "Most High" - although I would never use Revelations - a book that barely made it into Canon - and probably should not have.

Revelations was from dream some fellow had - this fellow attributed his dream to God and wrote it down. Carl Jung had a dream about God as well .. on a big throne taking a large dump. Then there is the problem of trying to figure out what Revelation means ... other than the obvious "earth will be destroyed" - this time with things other than a flood.

I believe some of scripture is inspired .. but I don't believe all of it is - and certainly Revelations is low on my "inspired" list - ranking in with the Book of Enoch and other apocrypha ... of which there was lot at the time - fortunately some of which we have dug up.

I like this stuff ... it is much more fun than other scripture .. but it is apocrypha .. and if Revelations is in there we should put all of the apocrypha..

In any case .. Revelations does not help us with the Trinity. My view is more along the lines of the Subordinatists - That Jesus is subordinate to the Father .. But - if we were to use Revelations it would only help the Subordinatist position.

 

[ChristisGod]

I have a similar perspective of the "Most High" - although I would never use Revelations - a book that barely made it into Canon - and probably should not have.

Revelations was from dream some fellow had - this fellow attributed his dream to God and wrote it down. Carl Jung had a dream about God as well .. on a big throne taking a large dump. Then there is the problem of trying to figure out what Revelation means ... other than the obvious "earth will be destroyed" - this time with things other than a flood.

I believe some of scripture is inspired .. but I don't believe all of it is - and certainly Revelations is low on my "inspired" list - ranking in with the Book of Enoch and other apocrypha ... of which there was lot at the time - fortunately some of which we have dug up.

I like this stuff ... it is much more fun than other scripture .. but it is apocrypha .. and if Revelations is in there we should put all of the apocrypha..

In any case .. Revelations does not help us with the Trinity. My view is more along the lines of the Subordinatists - That Jesus is subordinate to the Father .. But - if we were to use Revelations it would only help the Subordinatist position.

What a joke Revelation 4-5 is the same worship scene with all creation bowing down before the Father and the Son

And the Almighty God, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last who is to come is identified as the Son/Lamb/ Jesus in Revelation.

These passages in Revelation make it clear that Jesus is God. Remember it is Jesus in the NT who is Coming back to earth that every eye will see. It was Jesus who was pierced on the cross for our sins. John is clearly once again calling Jesus God!!!!!!! The Coming and the coming in the clouds never refers to the Father in the NT but always to Jesus.

Revelation 1:7-8
7 BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
8 "I Am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

We know from Revelation 1:8 that Alpha and Omega is the Almighty. So we can see that Christ is the Almighty

Revelation 1:17
17And when I saw Him, I fell at his feet as dead. And He laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I Am the first and the last:

We know from Revelation 1:17-18 that the first and the last is He that lives, was dead but is alive forevermore is Christ.

Revelation 2:8
"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Revelation 22:12-13
12 "Behold, I Am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 "I Am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

We know from Revelation 22:13 that the first and the last is the Alpha and Omega.

Revelation 22:16,20
16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I Am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

The immediate text clearly tells us that it was Jesus who was pierced and who is Coming in the clouds. This person coming in the clouds is God(Jesus-the Son of Man),

Dan 7:13-14
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14 "And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.


Matt 24:30-31
30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

Matt 26:64
Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

1 Thess 4:17-18
Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Rev 1:7-8
7 BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
8 "I Am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."


So we can see that the One who comes/is coming in the NT always refers to Jesus the Son of Man and NEVER refers to the Father. Therefore we can conclude it is Jesus who is coming whom John calls God the Alpha and Omega. This is sound biblical exegesis based on the context of the passage as well as the principle established in both Testaments on the One who is Coming in/with the Clouds- The Son of Man not the Father !!!!!!


Isa 44:6
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.

Isa 48:12
"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.


game, set and match !

hope this helps !!!

 

[kcnalp]

I am not obsessed with it.

I put the verse of Jesus' saying that only God is good to see if someone can explain it.

I see that nobody can, so it is becoming clear that Jesus was saying that he is NOT God in the verse.

He is saying someone else is God aside from himself.

And Jesus IS GOD! Get it? He was always good. Are you denying that Jesus is God too?

 

[kcnalp]

Oh, you see that Jesus was saying he was not God in the verse too?

Interesting, because I thought I was the only one that saw it.

See how God brings out the truth! You're in the same sinking boat as JW's and SDA's!

John 5:21 (NKJV)
21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.

 

[kcnalp]

Right .. so it was not God hanging on the Cross ..as that was a man hanging there - and God is not a man.

There you go twisting Scripture. Why didn't you quote the rest of the verse?

Numbers 23:19 (NKJV)
19 "God is not a man, that He should lie,

 

[ChristisGod]

I am not obsessed with it.

I put the verse of Jesus' saying that only God is good to see if someone can explain it.

I see that nobody can, so it is becoming clear that Jesus was saying that he is NOT God in the verse.

He is saying someone else is God aside from himself.

Already debunked your false interpretation here !

Only God is Good !

 

[Taken]

I have a similar perspective of the "Most High" - although I would never use Revelations - a book that barely made it into Canon - and probably should not have.

Revelations was from dream some fellow had - this fellow attributed his dream to God and wrote it down. Carl Jung had a dream about God as well .. on a big throne taking a large dump. Then there is the problem of trying to figure out what Revelation means ... other than the obvious "earth will be destroyed" - this time with things other than a flood.

I believe some of scripture is inspired .. but I don't believe all of it is - and certainly Revelations is low on my "inspired" list - ranking in with the Book of Enoch and other apocrypha ... of which there was lot at the time - fortunately some of which we have dug up.

I like this stuff ... it is much more fun than other scripture .. but it is apocrypha .. and if Revelations is in there we should put all of the apocrypha..

In any case .. Revelations does not help us with the Trinity. My view is more along the lines of the Subordinatists - That Jesus is subordinate to the Father .. But - if we were to use Revelations it would only help the Subordinatist position.

Can't say I agree with you about Revelations.
I think it paramount to have a wrap-up/ climax perse' of "Separation" that deals with All of mankind and All Angels.
The World is exponentially getting more and more bizarre, and the young kids for a large general populous have no clue of history, Principles or discipline.

Son of man/ Word of God, could be viewed positioned as a "subordinate" role "temporarily." A buffer as Sorts, intercessory, Because God is Holy, too Holy to directly communicate with that which is corrupt.
In respect;
Gods Throne is Heaven.
Earth is Gods Footstool.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Heyzeus]

Lets begin at the very first part of John 1 compared with Genesis 1

In the beginning was the Word.
en arche en ho logos
εν αρχη ην ο λογος

the phrase "in the beginning" is "en arche". Now if you look in the Septuagint at Genesis 1:1 we find this:
εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος

Now the question we need to ask ourselves is what does in the beginning mean ? One must always remember that context always determines the meaning of words and phrases. If we compare Genesis with John which is exactly what John is doing in his opening to his gospel we can clearly see his point. Moses and John both are discussing the creation of "all things". That makes the passages parallel. Here a some parallels to consider:

1- in the beginning
2- Theos( God) appears in both opening verses
3- Both talk about the creation of all things
4- both use egeneto εγενετο, came into being or existence
5- both use and contrast light and darkness

εν αρχη refers to the beginning of time. Now if John didn't mean the beginning of time he could of easily used another word that he often used which would be the word from"apo" instead of en. He could of also used the phrase came into being(egeneto) to refer to the Word in 1a but he did not. John made it very clear that the Word in his gospel is equal to the God in Genesis.

Now lets look at the verb was"en". This is in the imperfect tense meaning continuous existence. By its very definition it has the meaning of eternal, without beginning. Therefor the Words existence transcends time and is eternal. Here is Dr. Robertson below:


In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1 . But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like

.

What is this cut and pasted gibberish in an attempt to apologize for this source of yours .. completely lying about the Matt passage ?
Good grief what I am going to find if I continue ..

You then pick John 1 - and talk about "The Logos" completely diverting from the massive lie that this source engaged in - in some attempt to defend another lie w/r to Genesis..

There is no modern Trinity in Genesis - anyone who tells you otherwise .. is lying to you. The folks writing the story had no conception of our modern trinity to begin with .. and that is certainly not what they were trying to convey in Genesis .. nor in any other place in the OT.

Then - you talk about the Logos .. forgetting that it was I who taught you what the logos was .. so what is the point of cutting and pasting stuff that I have already explained to you .. and repeating it to me

All of this dancing .. and not one iota of support for your position so far .. perhaps some of the other passages this source cited had merit ?

While one may claim that John puts Jesus in the more divine category - more one with God - and so on this we agree - that Jesus is presented in John as "Divine" .. what you completely ignore is that while presented as divine .. this personage is also presented as Subordinate to the Father.

and it is getting tiresome ... my continuously pointing out that this was a subordinate relationship that is being described in scripture .. with example after example ... Clear Examples .. not vague and mysterious ..

and saying hmmmm looks like a Father/Son Relationship to me !? and having you railing and screaming .. throwing a tantrum - calling me a Gnostic ..and any other label you can affix..

because you have a slightly different understanding of this Father/Son relationship than I do...

The difference between your position and mine is what I say "Subordinate" you say "Co-Equal"

and lets say you are correct - and validated by scripture - and so on .. How are you a better follower of the teachings of Jesus on this basis than some other Christian who views from my perspective ?

I will give a short list of support for my position - and I will do it without demonizing you for having a different perspective - though a may demonize the perspective that you hold .. take a few shots at its foundation.

So the folks you wish to call heretics these people who believe that God is one - but believe that Jesus did not have the power of the Father - least not while down here on earth.. and nor did Jesus seem to think it.

The early Church all believed Jesus was Subordinate to the father .. as did the disciples - as did Jesus.
Polycarp, Ignatius, .. all the way up to Origin .. all maintained this belief... as did large parts of the Church until around 700AD.. and shortly thereafter the non Arians finally took back the Vatican.

So why is your position right ? you know you got crushed from a scriptural perspective .. The Jesus depicted in the Synoptics and in John is Subordinate ... regardless of whether or not you can point to some vague Rauline scripture that says otherwise.

Do you not understand this ..

My foundation - Mark, Matt, Luke, John - you were crushed - each depicting Jesus as subordinate.. you would not even try to defend the Jesus of Matt/Mark ... actually criticizing me for relying on this.

I then took John away - John 5 - clearly referencing Jesus as subordinate in numerous places .. never mind elsewhere in that Gospel.

So now we are at Paul - and some stuff that is in Paul's name but was written by someone else.

Shall we knock knock that one down as well ? I already gave you a link which stated this...

Hupostasis occurs five times in the New Testament, twice in Paul and thrice in Hebrews. The two Pauline instances are 2 Corinthians 9:4 and 11:17, where in both verses the term means something like "situation" (not "confidence"). In Hebrews 1:3 Christ, as Son of God, is called the "reflection of [God's] glory and the stamp [charaktēr ] of his hupostasis," that is, of God's transcendent reality. Hebrews 11:1 contains a famous definition of faith (pistis ) as "the hupostasis of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," wherein the word hupostasis means "realization" (rather than "assurance," as in the usual psychologizing interpretation; see Mathis, 1922, p. 87). Hebrews 3:14 should be interpreted accordingly: In this verse hupostasis refers to the "realization" (by faith) of Christ, already commenced in the life of the Christian community. (See Koester, 1972, p. 587.

Hypostasis | Encyclopedia.com

and had you read the part on early Christianity you would have seen that the way that this term was used was not in relation to the aspects of the trinity we are discussing... are no help in answering the Subordinate/Co-Equal question.

So far - you have presented no scripture from Paul that supports your claim in a way.... but .. even if you had .. this one reference .. of which you have yet to produce.. and cite .. stands against the backdrop of Mark,Matt,Luke,John ... saying something different . in a clear and easily understandable way .. over and over .. and over

The Trinity Doctrine is a man made doctrine .. regardless of whether or not this doctrine is True, False - or somewhere in the middle.

All the terminology and concepts used come from Greek Philosophy - from the ideas of man.

Is there some inspiration in there ? Who am I to say otherwise .. I find the study of such things both fascinating and inspiring .. not something to cause me to fear for my eternal soul .. which is the perspective you are coming from.

Both subordinantists and Trinitarians can believe in the Sacriment one as much as each other .. and "The Most High" is not going to split hairs over such a thing .. because "The Most High" is not an idiot .. and neither is Jesus .. and having such belief was certainly not a requirement in his salvation formulation .. not one iota .. doesn't care .. leave the heavens to the heavens would likely be how my bro Heyzeus .. would address that one .. above your pay grade ..

Why ? .. because neither The Most High .. nor Jesus are idiots .. and I do not believe in an Idiot God .

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Right .. so it was not God hanging on the Cross ..as that was a man hanging there - and God is not a man.

Twisting = deceiving = lying

 

[ChristisGod]

Twisting = deceiving = lying

ditto !

 

[kcnalp]

"a Child is born"
"a Son"
"Mighty God"

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Amen Jesus! You are God.

 

[ChristisGod]

There you go twisting Scripture. Why didn't you quote the rest of the verse?

Numbers 23:19 (NKJV)
19 "God is not a man, that He should lie,

Exactly she/he cannot even get that simple sentence right so its no wonder the person is lost regarding who God is.

 

[kcnalp]

Oh, you see that Jesus was saying he was not God in the verse too?

Interesting, because I thought I was the only one that saw it.

One verse destroys your heresies, Mighty God, Everlasting Father! Oh and Wonderful, not evil as you say!

"a Child is born"
"a Son"
"Mighty God"

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV)
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Heyzeus]

Twisting = deceiving = lying

You are projecting your issues onto others again.

 

[ChristisGod]

You are projecting your issues onto others again.

now that is what is called IRONY.

Thanks so much for the LAUGH.

 

[Heyzeus]

Can't say I agree with you about Revelations.
I think it paramount to have a wrap-up/ climax perse' of "Separation" that deals with All of mankind and All Angels.
The World is exponentially getting more and more bizarre, and the young kids for a large general populous have no clue of history, Principles or discipline.

Son of man/ Word of God, could be viewed positioned as a "subordinate" role "temporarily." A buffer as Sorts, intercessory, Because God is Holy, too Holy to directly communicate with that which is corrupt.
In respect;
Gods Throne is Heaven.
Earth is Gods Footstool.

Glory to God,
Taken

I like the OT version of Satan better than the NT version - and am generally against apocalyptic narratives combined with religion -

I believe in judgement - don't need the Black vs White - Good vs Evil - God vs Devil paradigm clouding the issue - in hollywood format.

at the same time .. I also believe in prophecy - that some of the Bible is inspired - since I don't do Black vs White paradigms combined with established religion - and religious dogma in particular. That is the path to the dark side . the path to a weak foundation.
Once one realizes that God is not the author of stupidity - the Bible makes a lot more sense.

I single Paul out as one of the most misrepresented of the apostles - but for good reason - I am looking for the real Jesus - canonical non canonical - historical - what ever I can find to understand better .. but as importantly ... what can be defended. Since Paul tells us nothing about the life of Jesus .. that is not the best place to start .. and I will leave it at that.

but back to prophecy and inspired ! and from the most famous Sermon of the Divine one .. who are the "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" ?

The teachers of the Law and the Pharisee's .. once again .. who are the wolves ? and look at what these wolves did to the Church...
It was these wolves that brought us Trinity doctrine as well lest we forget.

This is a doctrine of men - a doctrine of Greek Philosophy - but this does not make the Trinity wrong. What it does do is make it a doctrine of Men - not inspired..

bad men .. who then killed other Christians for hundreds of years because although they all believed God is one - That Son was Subordinate to the Father could not be tolerated.

Hey .. perhaps these folks lucked out and got it right .. even a broken clock is correct twice a day .. but then I remember my rule .. that God is not the author of the idiocy which ended up killing Christians for 400 years ... and then when in these folks secured Rome in 700AD - having been in Arian hands for a few centuries ..thus ensued the 1000 years of horror ... broken by the enlightenment round 1700.

there .. how is that for prophecy Look out for those wolves ..

Even if you like the Black vs White narrative - and the hollywood version of revelations (I have a version as well .. just more fun )

Do you think it is different today ? .. that Satan is going to show up sporting red horns and a tail ? - that he was not able to corrupt - the holy book ? - but only to a point perhaps .. as The OT tells us that Satan only acts according to God's will in Job ... and this also a Father and Subordinate son relationship.

So if Satan messed with the book .. and certainly he has messed with the Dogma - "how will you recognize them" ?? Matt 7

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

The 1000 years of horror was not good fruit ... but have things changed ? They are still the Bad fruit - as per the Prophecy of Jesus.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers

You can call "Jesus Jesus" all you like - "OH I believe in the sacrament" - that don't mean Jesus is answering back... not so simple Simon met a pie mon..

What is Truth - Matt 7:12 .. is the answer .. to the question - "What is the will of the Father" but hearing is not enough .. one must now go out and do unto others as you would have done to you ...

For "this Rule Sums up the Law and the Prophets" and now hearing this .. you need to go out and do it - follow this rule ... as this is how you will be judged. this is how one builds foundation on rock.

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

anything involving the word "Fool" was very strong language back in the day ... don't want to be on that side of the fence.

 

[Heyzeus]

now that is what is called IRONY.

Thanks so much for the LAUGH.

Chris .. it is going to be OK - worry not - some of the arrows fired hit the mark .. and if not .. hey .. can't help everyone now can we

 

[kcnalp]

I also believe in prophecy - that some of the Bible is inspired -.

Some of the Bible? The parts you like maybe?