John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[PinSeeker]

Would you mind explaining why my not agreeing with you is "stone headedness"?

That was not my suggestion, Rich.

I think it's a pretty convoluted answer you gave to 1 Cor 8:6.

Not at all. Paul makes his context very clear there, and the sentence structure is very clear.

Did you ever do sentence diagramming in school?

I would ask you the very same question, Rich. From this "question," I trust that you know what a complex appositive phrase is, and that's exactly what we're looking at in 1 Corinthians 8:6, as I said. Here it is again:

"...yet for us there is one God, the Father, from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist."​

As I said, 'God' is further defined by the compound appositive phrase that follows: "the Father... and one Lord." It is compound because of the connecting 'and, ' which serves as the correlative conjunction between the two simple appositive phrases. And further, "Father" is the antecedent of its own complex prepositional phrase ~ "from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist," and in like manner, "Lord, Jesus Christ" is the antecedent of its own complex prepositional phrase ~ "through whom are all things and through whom we exist." And these are compound also because of the correlative conjunctions ('and' in both) between the two simple appositive phrases, respectively. It's complex, but not hard to diagram. Give it a try, Rich. Ah, well, I'll do it here, as much as I can in this format (not being able to write it out freehand):

"...there is
[SUBJECT ('there'), VERB ('is')]

(one) God,
[DIRECT OBJECT MODIFYING THE VERB 'is'; ANTECEDENT 1]

the Father,
[APPOSITIVE PHRASE 1 PART A, MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 1 ('God')] [ANTECEDENT 2]

from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist,
[COMPOUND PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 2 ('Father')]
​

and
[CORRLATIVE CONJUNCTION WITHIN APPOSITIVE PHRASE 1, CONNECTING PARTS A AND B]

(one) Lord,
[APPOSITIVE PHRASE 1 PART B, ALSO MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 1 ('God')] [ANTECEDENT 3]

Jesus Christ,
[APPOSITIVE PHRASE 2, MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 3 ('Lord')] [ANTECEDENT 4]

through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist."
[COMPOUND PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 4 ('Jesus Christ')]​

...you might try applying it to Corinthians.

That's precisely what I did, and correctly. We need to hear it exactly as they did.

I think it would say that only the Father is God and that Jesus is Lord...

Rather, Rich, that there is only one God and one Lord, not multiple gods, which was a prevalent belief in those days. They knew very well from what we now call the Old Testament that YHVH was called Lord multiple times... and that Jesus claimed to be one with the Father and thus YHVH.

I trust you know that not all lords are God...

Of course, but the one Lord is God.

But apart from Corinthians, how about John 17:3? Would you agree that Jesus wasn't talking to himself when he said, "that they may know thee, the only true God"? Seems like whoever he directed his speech was is the one true God.

Discussed at length in multiple threads. Sure, He was not "talking to Himself," but remember also that Jesus, in the same breath, called on the Father to glorify Him in the Father's own presence with the glory that He ~ Jesus ~ had with the Father before the world existed. Jesus here acknowledges that He possessed the same glory as the Father with the Father ~ He had previously said that He and the Father are one in John 10 ~ from all eternity, Jesus knew the Scriptures intimately ~ He is the Word made flesh (John 1:14), after all ~ and was not calling on the Father to do something contrary to what He said in Isaiah 42:8, where YHVH said, "I am the LORD; that is My name! I will not yield My glory to another..."

Psalm 16:2 is talking about Yahweh, period.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

David was simply saying Yahweh was his Lord...

Agreed.

No need or justification for bringing Jesus into the verse.

You are welcome to your opinion (as if I have anything to do with that anyway), but it is what it is.

The Bible in Psalm 110:1 actually gives the Messiah the title that never describes God.

No, that would be 'Messiah,' itself, and 'Christ.' Those titles are never ascribed to the Father. But 'Lord' is ascribed to both, not only in Psalm 16 and 110, but elsewhere, also.

The word is adoni, and in all of its 195 occurrences in the Old Testament it means a superior who is human (or occasionally angelic), created and not God.

Nope.

So Psalm 110:1 presents the clearest evidence that the Messiah is not God, but a supremely exalted man. When the word "lord" is applied to God, it is always adonai. The Hebrew Lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs (BDB), considered by many to be the best available, makes the distinction between these words. Note how in BDB the word adoni refers to “lords” that are not God, while another word, adonai, refers to God.

This is a distinction without a difference.

In Psalm 16:2, David says ~ actually sings ~ "I say to the LORD, 'You are my Lord...'"
In Psalm 100:1 David says again ~ actually sings again ~ "The LORD says to my Lord..."

I say again, the Hebrew root word is exactly the same in both. The אֲדֹנָי of Psalm 16:2 is an emphatic form of the אָדוֹן of Psalm 110:1. No forced ~ and thus false ~ parsing necessary. To expound on that just a bit, In Psalm 16, David ~ inspired by the Holy Spirit ~ is actually singing to YHVH personally and praising Him as his Lord, and in Psalm 110 David ~ again, inspired by the Holy Spirit ~ is recounting a conversation between the Father and the Father's Christ. Thus, the more emphatic nature of Psalm 16:2 as compared to Psalm 110:1. It is at least loosely equivalent to me addressing you as "Rich, my friend!" on one hand and saying to someone else "I said to my friend Rich..." on the other. There is no difference in substance.

Grace and peace to you, friend.

 

[PinSeeker]

Hey PinSeeker,

1.) God is the author of Creation, Jesus is the Word of Creation, and the Holy Spirit is the means of Creation.

Its all the same....

2.) God Spoke creation into existence, and Jesus is the Pre-incarnate WORD...

John 1:10

Its the same....


God is "A" Spirit.
Jesus is The Messiah, and has a body., but before He did, He was Christ pre-incarnate, as John 1. The Word was God., and the "word became flesh".

Its the same..


God breathed the Holy Spirit into ADAM, and Jesus BREATHED the Holy Spirit into the 11 Apostles after Jesus rose from the Dead.

Its GOD doing that in both cases... just a different manifestation.


Thomas said....>"My Lord and my GOD" upon 1st seeing the Risen Messiah, and Jesus didn't correct Him, as why would God correct the Truth.


Moses said....>"what is your name".... And God said..>"I Am that I Am". (no beginning and no ending)
Jesus said to the Pharisees, "before Abraham was born I AM"... who is "the alpha and omega"..

Its the same.


God is The Father, the Creator
Jesus is the Pre-Incarnate CHRIST, the WORD of Creation, and God manifested in the Flesh.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and "God is A Spirit".

These 3 are One.

I'll take all this... stuff... ... as a 'yes' to my assertion that the Holy Spirit is a third distinct Person, Who is one with the Father and the Son and they one with Him (in the same manner as Jesus said that He and the Father are one, that He is in the Father and the Father in Him).

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Wrangler]

Not at all. Paul makes his context very clear there, and the sentence structure is very clear.

I’ve learned when trinitarians use this expression, it means not explicit but the trinitarian doctrine can be read into the text.

If I say to my neighbor, we have one POTUS, one Governor, one major and one alderman-at-large, few would conclude all these are the same Being and saying so is ‘very clear.’

 

[PinSeeker]

I’ve learned when trinitarians use this expression, it means not explicit but the trinitarian doctrine can be read into the text.

Nope. Very clear means very clear. Such wrangling ~ pun intended ~ is totally unnecessary. And false doctrine, which, yes, often results from false reading and imposition, is... false doctrine. Rather than you having learned that, I would say that you've manufactured that for yourself because of what you've "learned" from your false teachers. So be it.

If I say to my neighbor, we have one POTUS, one Governor, one major and one alderman-at-large, few would conclude all these are the same Being and saying so is ‘very clear.’

Ah, well, the analogy falls short, of course, but a better way to put it would be, our one Federal government (here in the United States, of course) ~ which is supposed to function as one but far too often does not ~ is made up of three distinct branches, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial, and have three distinct roles.

Grace and peace to you, Wrangler.

 

[Rich R]

And of course as I said before and now here from another common source:
"...yet for us there is one God, the Father, from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist."

As I said, 'God' is further defined by the compound appositive phrase that follows: "the Father... and one Lord."

I ate an apple and a peach. Was "it" red or yellow? I know. It makes no sense. There is no answer to such a nonsensical idea.

You first assume that Jesus is God and then squeeze that idea into the verse so as to fit that assumption. How about their being one God i.e., Yahweh and one Lord i.e., Jesus? Two different people, one the true God and the other Lord. That's the simple, unvarnished meaning of 1 Cor 8:6.

Acts 2:36,

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.​

Here we see Jesus was made both Lord and Christ by God. Clearly one person made another person something. And I might point out there is no indication whatsoever that they share in the same essence or whatever, not in this verse nor in any verse in the Bible. For any hint of an "essence" we must appeal to Plato loving philosophers disguised as Christians.

Peter's entire speech in Acts 2 is about what God did for Jesus. Why would God have to make Jesus anything at all if he was God? The entire speech would make no sense if God and Jesus were the same entity.

 

[Rich R]

I’ve learned when trinitarians use this expression, it means not explicit but the trinitarian doctrine can be read into the text.

If I say to my neighbor, we have one POTUS, one Governor, one major and one alderman-at-large, few would conclude all these are the same Being and saying so is ‘very clear.’

I have to wonder if PinSeeker is a troll. Him and a few others here. They don't seem to care about making sense. They just want to tear down anything that does make sense. I'm pretty sure that's more of less what a troll is. Forgive me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[Rich R]

"...there is
[SUBJECT ('there'), VERB ('is')]

(one) God,
[DIRECT OBJECT MODIFYING THE VERB 'is'; ANTECEDENT 1]

the Father,
[APPOSITIVE PHRASE 1 PART A, MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 1 ('God')] [ANTECEDENT 2]

from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist,
[COMPOUND PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 2 ('Father')]
​

and
[CORRLATIVE CONJUNCTION WITHIN APPOSITIVE PHRASE 1, CONNECTING PARTS A AND B]

(one) Lord,
[APPOSITIVE PHRASE 1 PART B, ALSO MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 1 ('God')] [ANTECEDENT 3]

Jesus Christ,
[APPOSITIVE PHRASE 2, MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 3 ('Lord')] [ANTECEDENT 4]

through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist."
[COMPOUND PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE MODIFYING ANTECEDENT 4 ('Jesus Christ')]​

That is not how to diagram a sentence, but that's kind of beside the point. What is important is to understand is that using the word "and" to connect two nouns (God and Jesus in this case) does not make those two things one.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I ate an apple and a peach. Was "it" red or yellow? I know. It makes no sense. There is no answer to such a nonsensical idea.

You first assume that Jesus is God and then squeeze that idea into the verse so as to fit that assumption. How about their being one God i.e., Yahweh and one Lord i.e., Jesus? Two different people, one the true God and the other Lord. That's the simple, unvarnished meaning of 1 Cor 8:6.

Acts 2:36,

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.​

Here we see Jesus was made both Lord and Christ by God. Clearly one person made another person something. And I might point out there is no indication whatsoever that they share in the same essence or whatever, not in this verse nor in any verse in the Bible. For any hint of an "essence" we must appeal to Plato loving philosophers disguised as Christians.

Peter's entire speech in Acts 2 is about what God did for Jesus. Why would God have to make Jesus anything at all if he was God? The entire speech would make no sense if God and Jesus were the same entity.

thats why the trinity is so hard to understand

Jesus and the father are not one entity, that's why Jesus was sent by the faith, was empowered by the spirit. and Jesus had to go back so the father could send the holy spirit.

 

[theefaith]

Jesus saying all things are possible with God is figurative as you explained. Trinitarians are forced to resort this expression means jettisoning the constraints of logic.

the angel also said it in Lk 1:37

God is truth and does not contradict His own nature!

hum seems like someone else is the truth also? Who could that be? Jn 14:6 maybe

 

[Wrangler]

I have to wonder if PinSeeker is a troll. Him and a few others here. They don't seem to care about making sense. They just want to tear down anything that does make sense. I'm pretty sure that's more of less what a troll is. Forgive me if I'm wrong on that.

I don’t think pinseeker is a troll. He is a try believer in mystical dualism and has no interest in making sense, in being internally consistent.

 

[Wrangler]

What is important is to understand is that using the word "and" to connect two nouns (God and Jesus in this case) does not make those two things one.

It depends. Winner AND still champion = one person. Mister AND Misses = 2 people.

Point is, trinitarians claim their doctrine is implied. However, a true implication is a necessary consequence, not merely a possible interpretation.

I cannot tell you how big of a deal this logical extrapolation is to their false doctrine. And I just realized this year that we’ve been giving their ‘implications’ far too much credit.

Once you realize they are reading their doctrine into the unitarian text, relying on only possible interpretation, it really is a non-starter. In other words, they MUST start with their doctrine. No one would read Scripture in a vacuum and walk away concluding God is a tri-une being where your salvation depends on believing it.

 

[Rich R]

It depends. Winner AND still champion = one person. Mister AND Misses = 2 people.

Good point. It depends on whether "and" is connecting two nouns or two descriptives.

Point is, trinitarians claim their doctrine is implied. However, a true implication is a necessary consequence, not merely a possible interpretation.

I cannot tell you how big of a deal this logical extrapolation is to their false doctrine. And I just realized this year that we’ve been giving their ‘implications’ far too much credit.

Once you realize they are reading their doctrine into the unitarian text, relying on only possible interpretation, it really is a non-starter. In other words, they MUST start with their doctrine. No one would read Scripture in a vacuum and walk away concluding God is a tri-une being where your salvation depends on believing it.

I've said that many times myself about someone reading the scriptures with no prior idea that Jesus is God. The idea comes first, and then the scriptures are made to fit the idea. Of course that can't actually end up with anything intelligible, but that doesn't seem to bother 98% of Christians. In any case, it'd be hard to find someone who hasn't already heard that Jesus is God. It's in the very air we breath. I myself started out that way but I changed when I saw the truth.

 

[PinSeeker]

That is not how to diagram a sentence, but that's kind of beside the point.

Ah, shifting the point away from the point. I see... But yes, the parts of speech, the modifiers... it's all there. But because this is just a message board, I couldn't draw it out here as I could have on a whiteboard. But it would have looked... well, sort of like so:

What is important is to understand is that using the word "and" to connect two nouns (God and Jesus in this case) does not make those two things one.

No, Rich, I think you well understand that the 'and' is what we call a correlative conjunction connecting the two parts of the compound appositive ~ 'Father' and 'Lord' ~ which, together, modify the one antecedent, 'God.'

But "playing around" with words and making them out to convey a different meaning... that's what non-trinitarians do. I mean, they're not alone in doing that, but so it is.

Grace and peace to you, my friend.

 

[Rich R]

Ah, shifting the point away from the point. I see... But yes, the parts of speech, the modifiers... it's all there. But because this is just a message board, I couldn't draw it out here as I could have on a whiteboard. But it would have looked... well, sort of like so:

No, Rich, I think you well understand that the 'and' is what we call a correlative conjunction connecting the two parts of the compound appositive ~ 'Father' and 'Lord' ~ which, together, modify the one antecedent, 'God.'

But "playing around" with words and making them out to convey a different meaning... that's what non-trinitarians do. I mean, they're not alone in doing that, but so it is.

Grace and peace to you, my friend.

There are two distinctly different subjects in 1 Cor 8:6, God and Lord. "Father" describes God and "Lord" describes Jesus.

All things come "from" (Greek ek) God, the Father and "through" (Greek dia) Jesus the Lord. Something can't originate form one source and also pass through that same source.

But if you don't like 1 Cor 8:6, how about John 17:3.

John 17:3,

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
​

Was Jesus the true God or the one God sent? If you say the "and" between "God" and "Jesus Christ" mean the same person, then the last part makes zero sense. Who is the "whom" and who is the "thou" is the question. I suppose abandoning logic could make them one person, but that's the only way it could be done.

 

[Rich R]

I don’t think pinseeker is a troll. He is a try believer in mystical dualism and has no interest in making sense, in being internally consistent.

That makes sense. I'd hate to think he is actually a troll.

 

[PinSeeker]

There are two distinctly different subjects in 1 Cor 8:6, God and Lord.

Nope. Look at it again, Rich.

"...there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."​

Not even the word 'God' is the subject; the subject is actually understood, and 'is' is the verb. 'God' is the direct object of the understood subject, coming after the verb in the predicate of the sentence. And the rest of the sentence after 'God' is a compound appositive, set off by the comma immediately following 'God' and includes 'Father' and 'Lord.' I know you see it, Rich. No matter how tightly you close your eyes and try to shake it off. It is what it is. It's not difficult.

But if you don't like 1 Cor 8:6...

Ohhh... <enter British accent here > I like it. I like it a lot.

...how about John 17:3.

Yeah, you brought that up, and I'll say again, that Jesus is calling on the Father to glorify Him (Jesus) in His (the Father's) own presence with the glory that He (Jesus) had with Him (the Father) before the world existed. This is John 17:5. And then later in that same prayer, prays for those whom the Father has given Him, that they may be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:11, and again in John 17:21 and again in John 17:22). And of course this is very shortly after He said those very words to Philip (and all his disciples, and us by extension):

“Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, or else believe on account of the works themselves." (John 14:9-11)

Believe, Rich. Believe.

Was Jesus the true God or the one God sent?

Yes. With the Father and the Spirit the one true God, and the One, the Savior, sent by the Father, which Jesus is very clear in saying in John 14. The Father sent Jesus, as Jesus says in John 14:24.

If you say the "and" between "God" and "Jesus Christ" mean the same person, then the last part makes zero sense.

Okay, but that's... not what I'm saying. God ~ YHVH ~ is three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But remember what Paul says in Philippians 2, that in coming to earth, Rich, Jesus, though in the form of (morphe' in the Greek, the very thing itself) God, humbled Himself and set aside His position as the second Person of the triune Jehovah for our sake.

I suppose abandoning logic could make them one person, but that's the only way it could be done.

You have my permission to remain there. But I implore you to come out. Into His marvelous light, as Peter says.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[PinSeeker]

I have to wonder if PinSeeker is a troll.

LOL! No...

...don't seem to care about making sense. They just want to tear down anything that does make sense.

That seems to be all you, Rich. You and your cohorts here. But I don't think that makes you (or other like-minded folks) a troll. Just... wrong. And wrongness is deserving of being called out for what it is and refuted. But a "troll" is one with ill intent towards his or her counterpart in a discussion. Wrangler's ill intent is explicit and well-chronicled. But yours... well, maybe it was always there and is just now emerging... That's... troubling. And that seems to be the common thread among Jehovah's Witnesses and other "unitarians." They get mad, become progressively less civil, and at some point start hurling insults. As for me, I think I've been very civil and very respectful, even in the face of incivility and lack of respect. Eh... I may have had a slip-up here or there that I don't remember; nobody's perfect.

I don’t think pinseeker is a troll. He is a try believer in mystical dualism and has no interest in making sense, in being internally consistent.

Ah, you're just ticked off. Attempting to tear people down (with silly insults and ridiculous accusations) in order to build yourself up. Now THAT is "troll-like."

Now... "no interest in making sense, in being internally consistent"... Yes, internal consistency... and consistency in general... is of great importance to me. The issue is not consistency or lack thereof. Even you and Rich have been very consistent, as have I. As I said to Rich, the issue is wrongness. And regarding who among us is guilty of that, we will just have to agree to disagree, at least for now.

Mister AND Misses = 2 people.

Ah, now, doesn't God in Genesis 2 ~ and Paul, referring to God's statement in Genesis 2, in Ephesians 5 ~ proclaim that in a true covenant marriage, the man leaves his parents and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh? I mean, I agree that they are two people, but there's much more to it than that.

Point is, trinitarians claim their doctrine is implied.

No, it's quite explicit.

...a true implication is a necessary consequence, not merely a possible interpretation.

Absolutely. Agreed.

...I just realized this year that we’ve been giving their ‘implications’ far too much credit.

Ah, I would rethink that if I were you.

Once you realize they are reading their doctrine into the unitarian text, relying on only possible interpretation, it really is a non-starter. In other words, they MUST start with their doctrine.

That's exactly what we would say of you and your... well, like-minded folks. Trinitarians don't reject the unitarian-ness of God; understood correctly, both ~ the one-ness of God and the three-ness of God ~ are irrefutable.

No one would read Scripture in a vacuum and walk away concluding God is a tri-une being where your salvation depends on believing it.

Ah, you know, I wouldn't say believing in the triune Jehovah is what your salvation depends on. But not believing Jesus is Who He claims to be is certainly a disqualifier.

I'm pretty sure that's more of less what a troll is. Forgive me if I'm wrong on that.

I forgive you, of course. But I was never concerned with what you or anybody else thinks of me. My identity is in Christ.

Grace and peace to you both.

 

[Wrangler]

No, Rich, I think you well understand that the 'and' is what we call a correlative conjunction connecting the two parts of the compound appositive ~ 'Father' and 'Lord' ~ which, together, modify the one antecedent, 'God.'

There are two distinctly different subjects in 1 Cor 8:6, God and Lord. "Father" describes God and "Lord" describes Jesus.

Exactly. I no longer believe it is merely indoctrination and reading comprehension but point blank intellectual dishonesty - anything to rationalize the man-is-god thesis.

Such passion for it, folks like PinSeeker fail to realize IF he is correct that 2 modify the one antecedent, a trinity does not make. How is a desperate trinitarian to handle that? Artificial synthesis. We'll just tack on the HS at the end. No one even knows his name anyway.

And this goes back to their "implications" which rest on merely 'possible' interpretations; they give no credence whatsoever to such verses that, by focusing on 2, deny the trinity.

 

[Wrangler]

of great importance to me. The issue is not consistency or lack thereof.

You got that right.

 

[Wrangler]

God's statement in Genesis 2, in Ephesians 5 ~ proclaim that in a true covenant marriage, the man leaves his parents and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh? I mean, I agree that they are two people, but there's much more to it than that.

Simple poetic way to express producing life. Not mystical dualism.