Jesus is a human being but not the one true God

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
OzSpen said:
kerwin,

...

You have provided zero exegesis of the texts I presented to demonstrate that Jesus is and was God. ZERO! B)

....

Oz

I am going to start out here and point out that your claim is both invalid and untrue. To demonstrate you claim is not solid I merely point out that my argument itself is based on the principle that best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture as it does not contradict itself. You desire to claim that the same being can be 100% of one kind and 100% of another kind and yet you know that a human being cannot be a cat.

What is true is that Jesus has both the flesh and the Spirit and chose not to live by the flesh but instead walked according to the Spirit even though he was tempted even as we are today. That is the only way he had two natures and even then he could only live by one of them at a time and he chose to walk by the Spirit always.

I will try to get to the rest later.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
kerwin said:
I cannot convince you that your interpretation of the evidence because you are in denial. By claiming that evidence even exist you are implying that Jesus lied and Scripture can indeed be broken. If he lied then he clearly is not the Son of God.

The true teaching is not internally broken therefore Jesus is either fully the one true God or he is fully human.

You insist you have proof Jesus is God and I insist you misinterpret those Scriptures and there is no meeting in the middle. I know how I came to my view and it simply took guidance from God, seeking for an unbroken answer that would not be in conflict with other passages and constantly questioning my conclusions.

The truth is that Jesus that is accused of claiming to be God by his opponents and who has scripture which in its original context is speaking of God applied to him. He also claimed to be God in relationship to those human beings who Scripture calls gods.




The Father and I are one is another way of claiming that God are I are united and is clearly a reference to him being united with God in Spirit, just as it is literally written in the book of Ephesians. Many Trinitarians claim this is a reference to the Trintity that is not literally mentioned anywhere in Scripture. I instead go for the teaching that is literally written therein.

Then his opponents accuse him of claiming to be God; which I have pointed out a mistaken interpretation.

His answer was to continue with his own teaching while using there words to point out their error. He did this by using a inductive reasoned argument based on a Passage from Psalms where the Hebrews are gods because they received the word of God, namely the Law of Moses. He then compared himself to that group and said that compared to them he is the Son of God and then goes on to teach what the title means. So it is literally his accusers and not himself that say he claims to be God.

He did not even do it in relationship to that merely received the Law of Moses being called gods in Scripture but instead used his lesser title that is equivalent but makes it more clear he is not the one true God.
kerwin,

Since this is in the Unorthodox Doctrine Forum, this give you the opportunity to promote your heterodox view that Jesus is not God.

I've provided evidence to counter that view but you are not open to receive it.

I've presented other biblical evidence in support of the deity of Christ in my two articles:

Oz
 

Born_Again

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2014
1,324
159
63
US
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
BA,

This is one diagram that was used as a 'mud map' of the Trinity in the early church. It is limited in its content but it does give a basic understanding that the Son is God but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. But the Father and the Holy Spirit are each a part of the Godhead.

Oz




trinity-11.gif

(image courtesy Christianity 201)
Works for me!
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
kerwin said:
You judge me wrong when it is you that are in error but human beings have been doing that for ages.

It is true that the Spirit is also required or even inductive reasoning can lead one astray.

Jesus used inductive reasoning when pointing out to the Sadducees that there was a resurrection from the dead. If you had been one of them would have stood by your traditions? Too many do.
I'm pretty sure that as the majority of people that respond to you on this forum conclude the same thing, it is not those people that are wrong, it is your ability to accept criticism and proper teaching that is at issue.
As such I've decided to put you on my ignore list because you are incapable of being taught.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
StanJ said:
I'm pretty sure that as the majority of people that respond to you on this forum conclude the same thing, it is not those people that are wrong, it is your ability to accept criticism and proper teaching that is at issue.
As such I've decided to put you on my ignore list because you are incapable of being taught.
The difference is that you choose to trust in human beings you consider experts and I do as little as possible because human beings are flawed by nature.

Those that communicate as they are carried along by the Spirit are not so flawed buy they are an endangered kind at best.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Born_Again said:
Works for me!
BA,

Pragmatism should not be our guide. The Trinity is supported scripturally.


The persons and deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
The NT revelation of the trinity includes the following:

bronze-arrow.png
God, the Father, is regarded as God. ‘For on him God the Father has set his seal’ (Jn 6:27 ESV); ‘God our Father’ (Rm 1:7 ESV); ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Father’ (Gal 1:1, 3). Isn’t that clear enough? The Father is God.

bronze-arrow.png
God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity: (1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24); (2) Omniscience (Jn 2:24-25; 16:30; 21:17); (3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13); (4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8; Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18); (5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8); (6) He does the actions of deity: creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16); holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3); forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6); raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28); he will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10), of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15), the nations (Ac 17:31), Satan (Gen 3:15) and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42).

bronze-arrow.png
God, the Holy Spirit, is regarded as God. The Holy Spirit is a person. Take John 16:13 as an example. the neuter substantive pneuma [Spirit] is referred to by the masculine pronoun ekeinos [he], thus recognising the Holy Spirit not as a neuter ‘it’ but as a person, ‘he’. He is the Comforter/Helper (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). No ‘it’ can do this. The Holy Spirit has the attributes of Deity. He is eternal (Heb 9:14), omniscient (1 Cor 2:10-11; Jn 14:26; 16:12-13), omnipotent (Lk 1:35), omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10). And have a guess what? He does the works of deity in creation (Ps 104:30), regeneration (Jn 3:5), giving us Scripture (2 Pt 1:21; and raising the dead (Rm 8:11).

Oz
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
OzSpen said:
...

Take John 16:13 as an example. the neuter substantive pneuma [Spirit] is referred to by the masculine pronoun ekeinos [he], thus recognising the Holy Spirit not as a neuter ‘it’ but as a person, ‘he’.

...

Oz

That is a terrible argument since Koine Greek does not refer to the gender of the individual. If a male pronoun is used then it is representing a male noun in some way.

It is a puzzle and perhaps it is a special circumstance that I have not heard of yet.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
OzSpen said:
...
Take John 16:13 as an example. the neuter substantive pneuma [Spirit] is referred to by the masculine pronoun ekeinos [he], thus recognising the Holy Spirit not as a neuter ‘it’ but as a person, ‘he’.
...
Oz
Do you agree with it because I looked at a couple of Trinitarian theological commentaries on the verse and neither of them mentioned it. I know you supposed to have some knowlede in the area and I wondered if I had to even bother looking into it.

It is a side issue because that is not even an argument between Jews who do not believe in the Trinity and Christians who do. Both believe the spirit has characteristics of a person but each concludes different things from that basic agreement. John is a Jew and a Christian.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
kerwin said:
I cannot convince you that your interpretation of the evidence because you are in denial. By claiming that evidence even exist you are implying that Jesus lied and Scripture can indeed be broken. If he lied then he clearly is not the Son of God.

The true teaching is not internally broken therefore Jesus is either fully the one true God or he is fully human.

You insist you have proof Jesus is God and I insist you misinterpret those Scriptures and there is no meeting in the middle. I know how I came to my view and it simply took guidance from God, seeking for an unbroken answer that would not be in conflict with other passages and constantly questioning my conclusions.

The truth is that Jesus that is accused of claiming to be God by his opponents and who has scripture which in its original context is speaking of God applied to him. He also claimed to be God in relationship to those human beings who Scripture calls gods.




The Father and I are one is another way of claiming that God are I are united and is clearly a reference to him being united with God in Spirit, just as it is literally written in the book of Ephesians. Many Trinitarians claim this is a reference to the Trintity that is not literally mentioned anywhere in Scripture. I instead go for the teaching that is literally written therein.

Then his opponents accuse him of claiming to be God; which I have pointed out a mistaken interpretation.

His answer was to continue with his own teaching while using there words to point out their error. He did this by using a inductive reasoned argument based on a Passage from Psalms where the Hebrews are gods because they received the word of God, namely the Law of Moses. He then compared himself to that group and said that compared to them he is the Son of God and then goes on to teach what the title means. So it is literally his accusers and not himself that say he claims to be God.

He did not even do it in relationship to that merely received the Law of Moses being called gods in Scripture but instead used his lesser title that is equivalent but makes it more clear he is not the one true God.
kerwin,

John 10:30 in the Greek text says, ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν = ego kai ho pater en esmen. The ESV translates as 'I and the Father are one'.
What is the Greek exegesis?
One of the greatest Greek grammarians of the 20th century, Dr A T Robertson, provided this exegesis of John 10:30,

One (εν — hen). Neuter, not masculine (εις — heis). Not one person (cf. εις — heis in Galatians 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural συμυς — sumus (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by υνυμ — unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (John 5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (John 17:11, John 17:21). Note εν — hen used in 1 Corinthians 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in John 17:11, John 17:23 of the hoped for unity of Christ‘s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ‘s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger (A T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, John 10:30, StudyLight.org).

Contrary to your teaching, John 10:30 demonstrates that 'I (Jesus) and the Father are one in essence or nature'. They are both God. That's Bible and for you to doubt it demonstrates that your presuppositions are imposing on the text.

I will leave this discussion with you as you are not accepting the exegesis of the text. Your own personal statement of faith on this forum demonstrates that you do not accept Jesus' deity. If you were open to Greek exegesis, I'd spend some further time discussing with you, but you are not.

Bye,
Oz :wub:
 

Born_Again

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2014
1,324
159
63
US
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
BA,

Pragmatism should not be our guide. The Trinity is supported scripturally.

The persons and deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
The NT revelation of the trinity includes the following:

bronze-arrow.png
God, the Father, is regarded as God. ‘For on him God the Father has set his seal’ (Jn 6:27 ESV); ‘God our Father’ (Rm 1:7 ESV); ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Father’ (Gal 1:1, 3). Isn’t that clear enough? The Father is God.

bronze-arrow.png
God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity: (1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24); (2) Omniscience (Jn 2:24-25; 16:30; 21:17); (3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13); (4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8; Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18); (5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8); (6) He does the actions of deity: creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16); holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3); forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6); raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28); he will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10), of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15), the nations (Ac 17:31), Satan (Gen 3:15) and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42).

bronze-arrow.png
God, the Holy Spirit, is regarded as God. The Holy Spirit is a person. Take John 16:13 as an example. the neuter substantive pneuma [Spirit] is referred to by the masculine pronoun ekeinos [he], thus recognising the Holy Spirit not as a neuter ‘it’ but as a person, ‘he’. He is the Comforter/Helper (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). No ‘it’ can do this. The Holy Spirit has the attributes of Deity. He is eternal (Heb 9:14), omniscient (1 Cor 2:10-11; Jn 14:26; 16:12-13), omnipotent (Lk 1:35), omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10). And have a guess what? He does the works of deity in creation (Ps 104:30), regeneration (Jn 3:5), giving us Scripture (2 Pt 1:21; and raising the dead (Rm 8:11).

Oz
Just so there is not confusion, I support the Trinity. I was raised Lutheran. 3 in 1. All part of the Godhead.
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
OzSpen;

I used logical reasoning to reveal that Jesus is 100% human and not the one God and you are using other means in attempt to disprove it. Those other ways fail to disprove the inductive reasoning because they neither reveal premises I gave as false nor to they reveal the reasoning as invalid.

What you are doing instead is taking different passages of Scripture and interpreting them in such a way that they are in conflict with one another and then deny that conflicts despite all evidence to the contrary. That method fails to disprove anything.



John 10:30 New English Translation (NET Bible)

30 The Father and I are one.”
Interpretation 1:

The Father and I are one in being the one true God.

Interpretation 2:

The Father and I are one in the Spirit.

The first interpretation conflicts with the claim Jesus is a human being and that conflict is resolved by simply denying it exists.

The second interpretation agrees with an idea expressed in Ephesians and does not conflict with any other Scripture and so denial is not necessary to reconcile it to anything.

Which makes more sense to use reason to evangelize?
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
kerwin said:
I used logical reasoning to reveal that Jesus is 100% human and not the one God ...

Which makes more sense to use reason to evangelize?
kerwin,

Not your kind of reason, which commits a begging the question logical fallacy.

How do I know?

Your personal statement of faith associated with your avatar states, 'I believe that the Human being Jesus Christ is the promised Anointed of God and therefore his chief Son of the Spirit'.

You start with 'Jesus is not God' and you conclude with 'Jesus is not God' through your autonomous reason. That's a begging the question fallacy. It's fallacious reasoning and we can't have a logical conversation when you use that kind of illogical process.

In addition, I've provided biblical evidence to counter your claim that Jesus is not God in #s 75, 78, 82, 86 and 89. But you aren't listening.

Oz
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
OzSpen said:
kerwin,

Not your kind of reason, which commits a begging the question logical fallacy.

How do I know?

Your personal statement of faith associated with your avatar states, 'I believe that the Human being Jesus Christ is the promised Anointed of God and therefore his chief Son of the Spirit'.

You start with 'Jesus is not God' and you conclude with 'Jesus is not God' through your autonomous reason. That's a begging the question fallacy. It's fallacious reasoning and we can't have a logical conversation when you use that kind of illogical process.

In addition, I've provided biblical evidence to counter your claim that Jesus is not God in #s 75, 78, 82, 86 and 89. But you aren't listening.

Oz

kerwin said:
Premises;

  • Scripture states
1 Timothy 2:5-6New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

5 For there is one God.
There is also one mediator between God and the human race,
Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as ransom for all.
This was the testimony[a] at the proper time.

Footnotes:

2:6 The testimony: to make sense of this overly concise phrase, many manuscripts supply “to which” (or “to whom”); two others add “was given.” The translation has supplied “this was.”
  • Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35-36)
  • A being is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another.
Using deductive reasoning it is quite easy to see that since all these premises are true then Jesus is 100% human and 0% the one true God.

The following is a comment about fallen human nature but is off topic though related. Feel free to address it as well.

Assuming most people are rational human being it follows they should agree unless they suspend disbelief of the claim that Jesus is God. The suspension of disbelief is not faith but rather a form of denial. It is therefore an internal decision that rational arguments cannot address but rather requires the work of the Spirit.
That is my statement of faith and not a premise of my argument therefore I am not using circular logic. I am claiming something that is self-evident and therefore either a individual chooses to disbelief it despite the evidence or they believe it. It is like argue those that have chosen to believe that water is dry.

The most honest claim of its supporters comes from those that claim the Trinity cannot be explained by human reason. Paul on the other hand used "human" reason to preach the gospel.

You choose to believe what you want but the belief in the Trinity is not based on reason and therefore by definition is irrational.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
kerwin said:
That is my statement of faith and not a premise of my argument therefore I am not using circular logic. I am claiming something that is self-evident and therefore either a individual chooses to disbelief it despite the evidence or they believe it. It is like argue those that have chosen to believe that water is dry.

The most honest claim of its supporters comes from those that claim the Trinity cannot be explained by human reason. Paul on the other hand used "human" reason to preach the gospel.

You choose to believe what you want but the belief in the Trinity is not based on reason and therefore by definition is irrational.
kerwin,

Now you give me another logical fallacy - a red herring.

For logical conversations to happen, it means giving up the illogic of fallacies and their erroneous reasoning.

Bye,
Oz :popcorn:
 

kerwin

New Member
Aug 17, 2016
582
7
0
OzSpen said:
kerwin,

Now you give me another logical fallacy - a red herring.

For logical conversations to happen, it means giving up the illogic of fallacies and their erroneous reasoning.

Bye,
Oz :popcorn:
There is no logical reasoning about the Trinity since is is not a doctrine that is claimed to be based on reason.

I cannot not even get you to admit that the words"the Father and I are one" are speaking speaking of the unity of the Spirit and not Jesus claiming that he and the Father are two person's in the one true God.

The bottom line is any characters Jesus exhibits that are evidence he is not God are attributed to the claim he is 100% human. For example Jesus was tempted even as we are but God cannot be tempted by evil. By claiming that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God one can claim the contradiction that he is tempted even while he is not tempted.

There is no way to accept such a claim by using reason as reason tells one it cannot be.

You believe 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 1 but only in the case of three Gods being one God and one being have two physical natures. Even as it does not work in math so it does not work using reason.

I did change my line of reasoning because you never actually address my former line. Instead you tried an argument that left the break I was addressing broken. My first argument rests on the premise that each being has one and only one physical nature and a couple other premises that are even harder to prove flawed. My second line is to point out the futility to attempt to argue for the Trinity using reason.

In short I conclude we will continue to disagree because I choose to go be reason and a more ancient and you choose to go by a more recent doctrine that abandons the use of reason.
 

Odn

New Member
Jan 13, 2017
16
3
0
67
Phoenix AZ subborb
kerwin said:
Premises;

  • Scripture states
1 Timothy 2:5-6New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

5 For there is one God.
There is also one mediator between God and the human race,
Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as ransom for all.
This was the testimony[a] at the proper time.

Footnotes:

2:6 The testimony: to make sense of this overly concise phrase, many manuscripts supply “to which” (or “to whom”); two others add “was given.” The translation has supplied “this was.”
  • Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35-36)
  • A being is either of 100% of one kind or 100% of another not 100% of one kind and 100% of another.
Using deductive reasoning it is quite easy to see that since all these premises are true then Jesus is 100% human and 0% the one true God.

The following is a comment about fallen human nature but is off topic though related. Feel free to address it as well.

Assuming most people are rational human being it follows they should agree unless they suspend disbelief of the claim that Jesus is God. The suspension of disbelief is not faith but rather a form of denial. It is therefore an internal decision that rational arguments cannot address but rather requires the work of the Spirit.
I agree that 'Jesus' was a man/human, flesh and blood like any of us here. But in Heaven with the Father, before He came to earth he couldn't of been flesh and blood, made of dust human because he was there with the Father when God created the heaven and the earth through the Son, and after decided to create man in his, and his son Words image, remember?

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

Genesis 2: 4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5. before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6. but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
7. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

1 Corinthians 15:40
There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

So the Son Word in Heaven couldn't of been flesh and blood, .. but obviously after God turned him into DNA (or whatever information the Son is made of)


Matthew 1:20
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.


.. and by His Spirit transplanted His Son into one of the eggs of the virgin named Mary. where then he became flesh, .. so yes, after he was born of Mary,Jesus was all flesh, .. or so it is written.

I mean look at Genesis 2:7 above, who are we really?
God said He created us, or as it is written: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" which is the body, right? But is that who we are? That would be 'what' we are:

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”

But that's not all 'who' we are, for God, in whose image we were created put Himself into the body of flesh: "..and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" The 'created' part represents the Son, and the uncreated spirit/breath part is God, fulfilling what God said; “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness"

The dust part of Adam would be laying there in the dirt even today because it was just dust. Instead, it was when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; when man became a living being, correct? Our mind is spirit, it is OF God, and is God, and when the body is destroyed will return to Him who gave it.. What makes this created dust a living being/soul is the 'breath of life', which is from God Himself, Spirit, .. or so I understand from what I read in the Bible!?
If I am wrong, that's why I'm here, ready for correction, admonishment, or whatever I seem to be lacking, .. and I have a list, a looong list!

God bless.
 

Guestman

Active Member
Nov 11, 2009
618
72
28
70
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The conflict between those who believe Jesus is God and those who don't came into play in early part of the 4th century C.E., coming to a head at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. and in which Roman Emperor Constantine presided over and of which an Alexandrian (of Egypt) priest named Arius (250-336 C.E., who taught that Jesus was not God and was rejected at the Council) was in a battle with another Alexandrian priest named Athanasius (who believed that Jesus is God, yet never wrote the Athanasian Creed) over the issue of who Jesus is.


The distortion about who Jesus Christ is, was actually started long before this, for shortly before his death, the apostle John said in about 98 C.E.: "Young children, it is the last hour (before the foretold apostasy or "falling away" of Christianity; Matt 13:24-30, 36-43; 2 Thess 2:3-6), and just as you have heard that the antichrist (meaning "against (or instead of ) Christ", a false religious movement (especially Christendom) that eventually overwhelms true Christianity, supplanting it after the death of the apostles, assuming its role though counterfeit) is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour (just before true Christianity ["wheat"] is overtaken by "weeds" or imitation Christians, Matt 13:25, 26)".(1 John 2:18)


"They went out from us, but they were not of our sort (rejecting the channel for accurately understanding God's word, that Jesus had established in the 1st century, the apostles and later "the faithful and discreet slave" in our time frame, Matt 24:45-47), for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out (teaching distortions and lies about God and Jesus as well as the rest of the Bible, 1 Tim 4:1-3) so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort.......Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ (or "anointed one of God", not God) ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son (as separate and distinct, with the Son inferior to the Father, John 14:28; Matt 24:36 and in which there is no mention of the holy spirit)".(1 John 2:19, 22)


John writes within this same letter, that "no one (or human) has seen God at any time".(1 John 4:12) He also put these same words within his gospel of John at John 1:18, saying: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained him". Hence, Jesus is a god, but not the Almighty God.


Many take issue with this, accepting the Trinitarian view, but these fail to properly see and reason on the Bible. They often use John 1:1 that says according to many Bibles: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".(King James Bible)


Is this accurate ? No. How can this be known ? For one, Koine (or common) Greek in the 1st century did not have an indefinite article such as "a", but did have a definite article such as "the". So if a person wanted to express something as indefinite, it was not really possible. If they wanted to say "a house" instead of "the house", it had to understood that was what they were saying by the receiving party.


For example, the King James Bible says "a house" at Mark 3:25. It is understood to mean this, despite there is no indefinite article. So the translators took the liberty to insert the indefinite article "a" in this Scripture, because the context said to do so.


Thence, at John 1:1, there is no indefinite article that can assist a person reading it to grasp that Jesus is "a god". But it is of real interest that John uses the definite article "the" before "Word" (or "the Word") both times and once as "the God", but not when expressing who "the Word" is, allowing the reader to understand that "the Word" is indefinite or "a god" and not "the God".


There has been found an ancient manuscript of Sahidic Coptic (spoken in Egypt in centuries immediately following Jesus death), a language that has an indefinite article ("a") and of which John 1:1 was translated from Greek. The Anchor Bible Dictionary says of Sahidic Coptic: "Since the [Greek Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament] were being translated into Coptic during the 3rd century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant (or existing) witnesses".


The Sahidic Coptic rendering of John 1:1 reads: "in the beginning existed the Word and the Word existed with the God and a god was the Word".(Chester Beatty manuscript 813, located in Dublin, Ireland) For more on Jesus not being God, please consider Matt 3:17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 7:17, John 8:29, 30, Hebrews 5:7-10, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 3:14, to name just a few.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Guestman said:
The conflict between those who believe Jesus is God and those who don't came into play in early part of the 4th century C.E., coming to a head at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. and in which Roman Emperor Constantine presided over and of which an Alexandrian (of Egypt) priest named Arius (250-336 C.E., who taught that Jesus was not God and was rejected at the Council) was in a battle with another Alexandrian priest named Athanasius (who believed that Jesus is God, yet never wrote the Athanasian Creed) over the issue of who Jesus is.

The distortion about who Jesus Christ is, was actually started long before this, for shortly before his death, the apostle John said in about 98 C.E.: "Young children, it is the last hour (before the foretold apostasy or "falling away" of Christianity; Matt 13:24-30, 36-43; 2 Thess 2:3-6), and just as you have heard that the antichrist (meaning "against (or instead of ) Christ", a false religious movement (especially Christendom) that eventually overwhelms true Christianity, supplanting it after the death of the apostles, assuming its role though counterfeit) is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour (just before true Christianity ["wheat"] is overtaken by "weeds" or imitation Christians, Matt 13:25, 26)".(1 John 2:18)

"They went out from us, but they were not of our sort (rejecting the channel for accurately understanding God's word, that Jesus had established in the 1st century, the apostles and later "the faithful and discreet slave" in our time frame, Matt 24:45-47), for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out (teaching distortions and lies about God and Jesus as well as the rest of the Bible, 1 Tim 4:1-3) so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort.......Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ (or "anointed one of God", not God) ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son (as separate and distinct, with the Son inferior to the Father, John 14:28; Matt 24:36 and in which there is no mention of the holy spirit)".(1 John 2:19, 22)

John writes within this same letter, that "no one (or human) has seen God at any time".(1 John 4:12) He also put these same words within his gospel of John at John 1:18, saying: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained him". Hence, Jesus is a god, but not the Almighty God.

Many take issue with this, accepting the Trinitarian view, but these fail to properly see and reason on the Bible. They often use John 1:1 that says according to many Bibles: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".(King James Bible)

Is this accurate ? No. How can this be known ? For one, Koine (or common) Greek in the 1st century did not have an indefinite article such as "a", but did have a definite article such as "the". So if a person wanted to express something as indefinite, it was not really possible. If they wanted to say "a house" instead of "the house", it had to understood that was what they were saying by the receiving party.

For example, the King James Bible says "a house" at Mark 3:25. It is understood to mean this, despite there is no indefinite article. So the translators took the liberty to insert the indefinite article "a" in this Scripture, because the context said to do so.

Thence, at John 1:1, there is no indefinite article that can assist a person reading it to grasp that Jesus is "a god". But it is of real interest that John uses the definite article "the" before "Word" (or "the Word") both times and once as "the God", but not when expressing who "the Word" is, allowing the reader to understand that "the Word" is indefinite or "a god" and not "the God".

There has been found an ancient manuscript of Sahidic Coptic (spoken in Egypt in centuries immediately following Jesus death), a language that has an indefinite article ("a") and of which John 1:1 was translated from Greek. The Anchor Bible Dictionary says of Sahidic Coptic: "Since the [Greek Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament] were being translated into Coptic during the 3rd century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant (or existing) witnesses".

The Sahidic Coptic rendering of John 1:1 reads: "in the beginning existed the Word and the Word existed with the God and a god was the Word".(Chester Beatty manuscript 813, located in Dublin, Ireland) For more on Jesus not being God, please consider Matt 3:17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 7:17, John 8:29, 30, Hebrews 5:7-10, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 3:14, to name just a few.
This is all very well thought out and presented. However, John claims that this god created everything that exists. John also points out that this god came into being in the beginning. Well, actually strike that because if that were the case he would have actually said that. Instead he states that this god "was"(past tense) in the beginning. This god literally existed in the beginning, and everything that exists, exists through him. He is what is. He is the foundation or ground of existence itself(not to be confused with the source of existence).

Unless one is prepared to deny the transcendence of the Father, I don't see what the problem is here. Jesus is pointing out that he is the image of God. He brings definition to a transcendent Father. This is not to say that a definition can define what is transcendent, but to show that what is transcendent can only be immanent in the Son; in being and existence itself. Therefore we aren't conflating transcendence with immanence; we are distinguishing them, but at the same time noting that what we define as God can only be through the Son who reveals the Father. The fact that Jesus revealed this as a man doesn't negate the relationship.

Scripture plainly states that he became a man which by definition is far less than a transcendent God. To state the obvious isn't really an argument that denies that the Son is the very definition of God. It simply points out that this definition became flesh. Notice the contrast between "was" and "became".
 

Just a Mirror

New Member
Jan 29, 2017
6
1
0
49
Earth
OzSpen said:
BA,

This is one diagram that was used as a 'mud map' of the Trinity in the early church. It is limited in its content but it does give a basic understanding that the Son is God but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. But the Father and the Holy Spirit are each a part of the Godhead.

Oz




trinity-11.gif
(image courtesy Christianity 201)​
Thats not exactly correct, the little triangle.

The Father is the Fullness of "God".
The Holy Spirit came from the Father, just as Eve came from Adam.
The The Word proceedeth from The Father, THROUGH The Holy Spirit.
The Word, Now since the Manifestation in the flesh through the Virgin woman., is considered the Son of Man AND the Son of God.

The ignorant and childish arguments based on peoples limited understanding of The Creator is expected but depressing.

Most ancient religions follow this template.

But the template is written in the Heavens, if you can read such things.