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

[PinSeeker]

I don’t think he’s being purposefully obtuse. He really can’t see it. It hasn’t been revealed to him. It sounds like foolishness to him.

Well, you're right, sbg... that's the Biblical answer regarding the things of God and the Gospel. Yes, the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18). Yes, it's God, by the work of His Spirit, Who has to make the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the lame to leap like a dear, the mute tongue to sing for joy (Isaiah 35). So I agree with you on that.

But that's not quite what I was talking about. The "purposefully obtuse" thing was really in response to a dodge on Rich's part, a misdirection, which I'm sure he was fully aware of, making something I said ~ and what the Bible clearly says (Paul, in Philippians 2) ~ into something else. I was really speaking on a more conversation and reading comprehension level. There are things in the Bible that can sound valid in different and even opposing ways; they can be misconstrued in a way, though it makes sense, is still misconstrued and thus wrong. That's certainly not to say that God, in relating His Word to us, was or has been deceptive in any way, of course. But Rich can understand exactly what I was saying, I'm sure, but restating it in a ridiculous, purposefully obtuse way.

And, you know, by the same token, I can understand what he is saying regarding some of the things we've been talking about and even see the coherence in it, but at the same time know that it is very wrong.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Jesus was MADE his God via the full indwelling of his God in him bodily, after his God raised him from the dead and made him a quickening, omnipresent human spirit.

Hm. Hey, @stunnedbygrace , I think this needs some work. You concur, I feel certain... Goodness gracious.

That is how Jesus is God today...by default.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Jesus was never not God, just not the Father.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rich R]

This ignoring is terribly misdirected:

1. "Non-trinitarians" read John 1:1 ~ "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" ~ and then ignore, as non-trinitarians do, John 1:14-18 ~ "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth... For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, Who is at the Father’s side, He has made him known."

2. Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man. "Non-trinitarians" ignore the latter.

3. "Non-trinitarians" are quick to point out John 17:3-4 ~ "And this is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent. I glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work that You gave Me to do." but ignore John 17:5 ~ "And now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed."

I've brought this up several times, only to meet with silence, which not surprising in the least.

Grace and peace to all.

We can't use John 1:14 to say the logos is Jesus by simply saying the logos is Jesus. That is essentially how this verse is used as a proof for the trinity. The logos is not Jesus unless you want to make him the Father as per John 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6, both declaring the Father to be the only true God.

The word "among" is the Greek word "en" and it is almost always translated as "in," not "among." The bias of the translators shows there. Also the word "dwelt" is the "tabernacled." First God tabernacled in a tent. Then He tabernacled in the temple. Now He tabernacles in us. It's that simple and we no longer have to explain why God is the head of Christ, as well as a bunch of other things that would preclude Jesus from being God, not the least of which Jesus being called the SON of God almost 40 times.

Why not believe the 3rd phrase on John 1:1 and simply believe, "...and the logos was God?" I'm going to guess you already know about the word "pros" in the second phrase, "...and the logos was with (pros) God." As I recall, pros is used over 700 times and is almost always translated as "to," or "towards." Look it up and you will see the primary meaning is that it is a reference to something or that it points to something, in this case it points or references God, which is confirmed in the third phrase, "...and the logos was God." Translating it as "with" shows the translators Trinitarian bias. Unfortunately it also creates many problems, not the least of which how to explain Jesus being the Father. But those thorny problems are simply put under a basket and forgotten.

Understanding the logos to be God, we no longer have to explain the Platonic eternal soul, that before he was actually born, Jesus existed in some corporal form or another. The Jews gagged at such a thought. They understood pre-existance in a completely different way than Plato and Greek philosophy. I think I pointed out that God chose us in Him from before the foundation of the world. Were we literally with God then? Nope! It must mean something else. I'd suggest going to ancient Jewish sources to see that. After all, God gave the scriptures to them in terms they would understand. God said nothing to Plato!

There, now you've had a non-trinitarian answer to John 17:5. The logos existed in the beginning the same way we did. I'll leave it up to you to figure out exactly how we and the logos existed before the cosmos was created.

BTW, in the OP I asked that we confine the discussion to John 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6. I was wondering how those verses do not preclude Jesus from being God since, as far as I know, even Trinitarians understand Jesus to be the Son, not the Father. I brought that up only to be met with silence, which is not surprising in the least.

 

[Truther]

Hm. Hey, @stunnedbygrace , I think this needs some work. You concur, I feel certain... Goodness gracious.


Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Jesus was never not God, just not the Father.

Grace and peace to you.

Jesus was a microscopic God embryo in Mary?

 

[farouk]

"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." Isaiah 9:6
Wrestle with that one. That's a big one, profound and deep. Difficult to discern without divine assistance. What you have there is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit wrapped up in ONE.

There is an idiom there, 'everlasting Father' in Hebrew is 'father of eternity'. In other words, the Son is Lord of eternity; consistent with how the Son is revealed in John 1 and Hebrews 1.

 

[Rich R]

When He made Himself nothing, taking on human form, the Father was greater than He. During that time of His earthly life, the Father was greater than He.

I think you are saying God was greater only during his earthly life. I'm not sure where you see that in the scriptures, but we'll let it go. But let's look to the actual scriptures, leaving tradition aside.

Would someone being the head of someone else be considered as equal? How about someone being subject or subordinated to another?

1Cor 11:3,

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
​

That is right now, after Jesus ascended. It's not something that has changed. God has always been and always will be the head of Christ. Jesus said over and over that he said and did nothing by himself, that he only said and did what the Father told him to say and do.

1Cor 15:28,

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.​

subject:
G5293 ὑποτάσσω hupotasso (hï-po-tas'-sō) v.
1. to subordinate.
2. (reflexively) to obey.

That's the future. The son will be subordinated to God.

 

[Truther]

The son has every bit of his God inside him bodily, making him God by default.

 

[Rich R]

LOL! You're being obtuse, Rich. Purposely so, it seems. It's put very well by stunnedbygrace above; Jesus made Himself nothing (though still certainly... Something). Jesus was, is, and always will be the Son of God. But, likewise, since His birth, the Son of Man. Neither one can be soft-pedaled, much less ignored. Paul most certainly does not in Philippians 2 or in any of his other epistles.

Obtuse? Which of these propositions you just mentioned have I denied or not spoken to?

The only thing I've said that you disagree with is that Jesus is not God. I've offered many verses that would preclude him from being so. Every now and then I may get a direct, albeit weak, answer to my assertions. Usually I'm just given more verses that supposedly say Jesus is God. I've answered to them and showed how they don't have to be taken that way, that they can be taken in a way that agrees with John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6 and many others.

No idea what Mr. Communism is all about, but junk logic ("logic," in quotes, as I said) is certainly a problem for which there is no place.

Communism is largely devoid of logic. Up is down, evil is good, war is peace, etc. The State will determine what's true and what isn't. No need for people to think logically with their God given brains. In the present context, it is the orthodox church that tells us things like three is really one. Then they say not to think about it, just blindly accept it along with all the problems it creates.

Junk logic? Really?

1. Jesus and Paul both said the only true God is the Father
2. Trinitarians say Jesus is God

I said that given those bare facts it logically follows that Trinitarians make Jesus the Father. Where's the junk in that?

"...but I'm going to keep doing it." Got it.

Nitpicking.

...says Mr. Purposefully obtuse/

Covered above.

hhhh... there you go "thinking" again...

I guess the fact that I think is why I can see that Jesus' and John's statement about the only God being the Father precludes Jesus from being God. Don't Trinitarians think? Thinking is good.

Phil 4:8,

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.​

Ah, I would so appreciate a bit of honesty...

Not sure where I've been dishonest. I will confess to being fascias at times, but that is a legitimate tool of grammar to emphasize something. I prefer humor in proving a point over personal attacks about things like someone's intelligence because they happen to think. Of course, each to his own.

Ah, yes, "thinking."

What's wrong with thinking? Think about it.

Two lumps there are, I'm sure. But are you and your wife not one flesh, in the sense that Paul alluded to in Ephesians 5 (and referred to Genesis 2:24)? I mean, that would be a problem...

Well, you've not told me what it means either.

Or are you just avoiding speaking to and acknowledging that?

Well, there is only so much time in the day. That's precisely why I wanted to confine this discussion to only 2 verses. But as usual, and as I specifically asked everyone to avoid, all I get are more verses that, taken in a Trinitarian way, contradict those 2 verses in a major way.

 

[Rich R]

The Word (Logos in Greek) in John 1:1 is Jesus because John wrote "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory" (John 1:14) in reference to Jesus.

Essentially you are offering proof that the logos is Jesus by saying that the logos is Jesus. No different than saying, "up is down because up is down." Why not find out what the logos really is?

 

[Rich R]

No, because you're saying Jesus was perfect from the start.

That's not the case; He was in sinful flesh from the start and wasn't perfected in the flesh until He took His final breath, defeating sin in the flesh.

Our redemption required the sacrifice of a lamb without blemish as per the Passover. Jesus is called our Passover, so he was he true lamb without blemish.

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.​

There was not suddenly finding out He was God. He knew He was God and knew what His mission was. There is Scriptural evidence of Him at a very young age teaching grown men, experts of the Bible, about the Bible and telling His parents that He must be about His Father's (God's - which is who He is and was) business.

How does Jesus saying he must be about his Father's business make him the Father? When read as written we see a son and his Father, and unless we redefine "son" and "father," that means two distinct persons.

All of that is a detour from the topic of discussion, but I brought it back there at the end, see.

Yes you did! Thanks brother..

 

[Rich R]

There is an idiom there, 'everlasting Father' in Hebrew is 'father of eternity'. In other words, the Son is Lord of eternity; consistent with how the Son is revealed in John 1 and Hebrews 1.

Isa 9:6,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
​

"..his name shall be called..." is decidedly different than "...he shall be..."

Joshua means " Yahweh-saved" but that doesn't make the son of Nun God. My name is Rich. While I'm quite comfortable in life, I don't own a 250' yacht nor a private jet. There are hundreds of people in the OT with "el" or "ja" in their name, but none are actually God. Being named something doesn't make one to actually be that something. Naming in the ancient Near East is an interesting study in itself. They looked at it quite differently than we in the modern West.

And why do you suppose Joseph and Mary named Jesus "Jesus" instead of all those monikers in Hebrews and Isaiah?

 

[Rich R]

The son has every bit of his God inside him bodily, making him God by default.

If that's all it takes to be God, then we are all Christ!

Col 1:27,

To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
​

God in Christ is not the same as God is Christ. Otherwise everything in our silverware drawer would make the drawer itself to be silverware.

 

[Rich R]

I don’t think he’s being purposefully obtuse.He really can’t see it. It hasn’t been revealed to him. It sounds like foolishness to him.

What can't I see? A son being his own Father? Let's see about that.

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English:

"Father" - One who has begotten a child, whether son or daughter; a generator; a male parent

"Son" - A male child; the male issue, or offspring, of a parent, father or mother
​

For a son to be his own father, he would need to have begotten himself. But he couldn't have done that until he himself was begotten. It's really quite confusing, so, no, I really can't see it. I just can't get past Jesus being the son of God. But I'm OK with that. I'm confident that I'm on solid ground.

​

 

[GEN2REV]

I think this needs some work…

Have at it.

 

[tigger 2]

Isa 9:6,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
​

"..his name shall be called..." is decidedly different than "...he shall be..."

Joshua means " Yahweh-saved" but that doesn't make the son of Nun God. My name is Rich. While I'm quite comfortable in life, I don't own a 250' yacht nor a private jet. There are hundreds of people in the OT with "el" or "ja" in their name, but none are actually God. Being named something doesn't make one to actually be that something. Naming in the ancient Near East is an interesting study in itself. They looked at it quite differently than we in the modern West.

And why do suppose Joseph and Mary named Jesus "Jesus" instead of all those monikers in Hebrews and Isaiah?

........................................................
Is. 9:6

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

….

And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e.,`[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”

And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, ‘Wonderful, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

And,

‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).

Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [1]"quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]"For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

 

[Rich R]

........................................................
Is. 9:6

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

….

And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e.,`[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”

And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, ‘Wonderful, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

And,

‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).

Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [1]"quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]"For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

Solid piece of research there!

As you alluded, some verses in and of themselves can be translated in different ways. However if one of those ways cause contradictions with straight forward, simple verses, then they must be eliminated. Obviously we can't have contradictions.

It is poor scholarship to elevate a few unclear verses, i.e., verses that could, maybe, possibly be translated in more than one way, over the many simple and clear verses. The original proposition in the OP is that if Jesus is God, then according to the simple assertions in John 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6, Jesus has to be the Father, which is of course highly problematic to Trinitarians.

It never ceases to amaze me at the mental gymnastics one must go through to make the trinity fit with such clear verses as John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, and many others. We are told that God is the head of Jesus and that Jesus will be subjected to God in the future. That totally breaks the Athenasian Creed, but few think anything about. No attempt is made to square that with the trinity doctrine. The trinity idea has persisted for more than 2,000 years now, ever since Paul warned the early church that some were preaching another Jesus who he did not preach (2 Cor 11:4).

 

[GISMYS_7]

Eternal God IS Father,SON and Holy Spirit= the one true God!!!

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

The ONE God was "multitasking"

So He was praying to Himself ... back and forth, praying and then pretending He is doing what the Father tells Him to do. A charade? Nope.
"I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot recive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; bu you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you."John 14:16-17
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in MY name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all theings that I said to you." John 14:26
Do you see the distinction between them? Jesus is not talking about Himself, anotherwise He would say, "Listen, I must go to the Father, but then my Spirit will come back and I will live in you and/or the Father will send Me back to you in spirit." No, you sends another Helper, Who is God, Who is distinct from Jesus and the Father, since He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
Here Jesus sends the Comforter, Who testifies of Jesus. Jesus is not tesitfying of Himself: "But the when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truthm, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me." Acts1:8

Ok now show me scripture of anyone baptized with "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"

Jesus differentiates the Father from the Holy Spirit and Himself - or do you think He a shifting back and forth, putting on a show.
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:19
Didn't you get the memo? Everyone who is a born again Christian has been baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! This was a command, to all nations.
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. " 1 Peter 1:2
God isn't switching back and forth to different modes.
"For through HIm we both have access by one Spirit to the Father." Eph.2:18

 

[stunnedbygrace]

For a son to be his own father, he would need to have begotten himself.

Yeah, and for a man to be born again he would have to climb back into his mother’s womb. Oh and don’t get me started on talking donkeys! Donkeys can’t talk!!

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

There is an idiom there, 'everlasting Father' in Hebrew is 'father of eternity'. In other words, the Son is Lord of eternity; consistent with how the Son is revealed in John 1 and Hebrews 1.

I read an interesting perspective on God the Son and the Father. He wasn't the Son of God until He was born. Prior to that He was God, the Second person of the Trinity, who emptied Himself and became a Son.
"For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”? Heb. 1:5
In the beginning He was with God, He was God. That implies at least two persons. You're aren't with yourself, so you must be with someone else, God. And then we see all three at Jesus baptism which cancels out modalism.
Anyways, I think I had enough of this bunch. Most of them have me on ignore since I exposed the darkside of the JW's (Auntie Jane's posts about Christendom). That was it, I am an Opposer now ... a memo was sent out. It's a dead end.