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

[Rich R]

We do not have dwelling in us all of the fullness of the Godhead, bodily.

That was only reserved for one man,

Well, Col 1:27 plainly says Christ is in us. If, as you correctly said, the Godhead dwells fully in Christ, then how is the Godhead not in us?

 

[PinSeeker]

I have a challenge for you, and any other person that keeps parroting John 10:30 means the Father is the same as the Son or visa versa, interchangeable, as in one essence or being or whatever you imagine it to mean. This is pure nonsense and shows ignorance in the understanding of scripture. Even a serious trinitarian student would be ashamed of what you guys think this verse means.

I think I would need to understand what you really think you're hearing from me, APAK. Not trying to dodge or evade in any way, but quite honestly, the clumsy way you state this supposed position of trinitarians ("John 10:30 means the Father is the same as the Son or visa versa, interchangeable, as in one essence or being") is quite confusing in and of itself. I'm really not sure what you think trinitarians actually believe. Maybe you can clarify your own thoughts; I think that would be helpful.

I'll tell you what, let me attempt to open your minds up and get the old stale knots out of it and do some serious refreshing Bible study of this verse alone.

Sure, we can do that. But we should get away from this belittlement of other folks; this "attempt to open your minds up and get the old stale knots out of it" language is ridiculous. In a real way, you are implying an ability that no person has the capability of doing; as I said before, one cannot understand (discern) correctly things of the Spirit without the Spirit ~ Who I think you don't even believe exists, but I may be mistaken there, and hope I am, actually. Yes, I'm all for a good Bible study, for sure. But if you're not relying on God, by His Spirit, to open your heart and mind to His Word, then I'm afraid it's going to do you no good.

Write a short commentary showing how John:10:30 is directly related to John 14:11 and 23 at least, and John 17:11 and 21. Take a day or two, I do not care.

Again... not trying to be evasive in any way, APAK, but several of us have been doing this all along. I think it would be far more productive to hear your thoughts on this first... especially since many of us have been doing this in this very thread prior to now. I'll say this, APAK, in an effort to head off the charge of evasiveness that I feel sure is coming: I think we can focus specifically on John 17:22-23, where Jesus prays to the Father on our behalf that we...

"...may be one even as we..." ~ they; the Father and the Son ~ "...are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one."​

I think we can say a lot ~ probably a whole lot ~ about what it means to be perfectly one, what this perfect oneness is, and who ~ Who, actually ~ had at the time of Jesus's prayer, has now, and always had, this perfect oneness (and who someday will). What it cannot mean is that the Father and the Son are not distinct Persons; we can easily discern from other texts like Matthew 28:19 and John 14:16-17 that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons.

Yahshua carries on with persistence and a sense of urgency a common theme surrounding John 10:30 as he keeps getting interrupted. He seriously wants to convey an important message to his audience and his Father.

Hmmm, interesting... "seriously wants to convey an important message to his Father"? As I'm sure you know, Jesus said also:

"the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." (John 5:19)​

"For I have not spoken on My own authority, but the Father Who sent Me has Himself given Me a commandment ~ what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.” (John 12:49-50)​

So, are you suggesting here that the Son was trying to convey some message to His Father that His Father did not know or was not aware of? You'd have to explain yourself a bit here...

I hope you take me on. We all can learn something this way. Thanks.

Well, I'm not going to "take you on." But sure, let's talk. We can learn, even in the way you mean that, if the Holy Spirit gives us discernment. But at the very least, we can (possibly) learn more about each other.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Well, Col 1:27 plainly says Christ is in us. If, as you correctly said, the Godhead dwells fully in Christ, then how is the Godhead not in us?

Yes and no ~ it is now, but it is also not yet, in the same vein as the fact that we are saved and at the same time are being saved. And also that the kingdom is here now (has been since Jesus came) but not here in its fullness yet (will be when Jesus returns). Interesting that you're quoting Paul, who also is very clear that we still struggle against the sinful nature (Romans 7) and exhorts us to put off the old man and put on the new (Ephesians 4)... If we were perfectly one with the Father and with Christ, then we would be without sin, which is surely not the case now or at any time in this life... but will certainly be, as we will one day be just like Christ. Still not Christ, but just like Him.

And ~ to tie this together with what I said to APAK above ~ this is what Jesus prays for in John 17, that we will be, one day, perfectly one with them as They (the Father and the Son) always were and are now and forever will be. And... someday, one great Day (the Day of Christ), we will be. Forevermore.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rich R]

Yes and no ~ it is now, but it is also not yet, in the same vein as the fact that we are saved and at the same time are being saved. And also that the kingdom is here now (has been since Jesus came) but not here in its fullness yet (will be when Jesus returns). Interesting that you're quoting Paul, who also is very clear that we still struggle against the sinful nature (Romans 7) and exhorts us to put off the old man and put on the new (Ephesians 4)... If we were perfectly one with the Father and with Christ, then we would be without sin, which is surely not the case now or at any time in this life... but will certainly be, as we will one day be just like Christ. Still not Christ, but just like Him.

And ~ to tie this together with what I said to APAK above ~ this is what Jesus prays for in John 17, that we will be, one day, perfectly one with them as They (the Father and the Son) always were and are now and forever will be. And... someday, one great Day (the Day of Christ), we will be. Forevermore.

Grace and peace to you.

Colossians 1:27 is yes and no? How about John 3:16? How do you determine which is which?

 

[APAK]

I think I would need to understand what you really think you're hearing from me, APAK. Not trying to dodge or evade in any way, but quite honestly, the clumsy way you state this supposed position of trinitarians ("John 10:30 means the Father is the same as the Son or visa versa, interchangeable, as in one essence or being") is quite confusing in and of itself. I'm really not sure what you think trinitarians actually believe. Maybe you can clarify your own thoughts; I think that would be helpful.


Sure, we can do that. But we should get away from this belittlement of other folks; this "attempt to open your minds up and get the old stale knots out of it" language is ridiculous. In a real way, you are implying an ability that no person has the capability of doing; as I said before, one cannot understand (discern) correctly things of the Spirit without the Spirit ~ Who I think you don't even believe exists, but I may be mistaken there, and hope I am, actually. Yes, I'm all for a good Bible study, for sure. But if you're not relying on God, by His Spirit, to open your heart and mind to His Word, then I'm afraid it's going to do you no good.


Again... not trying to be evasive in any way, APAK, but several of us have been doing this all along. I think it would be far more productive to hear your thoughts on this first... especially since many of us have been doing this in this very thread prior to now. I'll say this, APAK, in an effort to head off the charge of evasiveness that I feel sure is coming: I think we can focus specifically on John 17:22-23, where Jesus prays to the Father on our behalf that we...

"...may be one even as we..." ~ they; the Father and the Son ~ "...are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one."​

I think we can say a lot ~ probably a whole lot ~ about what it means to be perfectly one, what this perfect oneness is, and who ~ Who, actually ~ had at the time of Jesus's prayer, has now, and always had, this perfect oneness (and who someday will). What it cannot mean is that the Father and the Son are not distinct Persons; we can easily discern from other texts like Matthew 28:19 and John 14:16-17 that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons.


Hmmm, interesting... "seriously wants to convey an important message to his Father"? As I'm sure you know, Jesus said also:

"the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." (John 5:19)​

"For I have not spoken on My own authority, but the Father Who sent Me has Himself given Me a commandment ~ what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.” (John 12:49-50)​

So, are you suggesting here that the Son was trying to convey some message to His Father that His Father did not know or was not aware of? You'd have to explain yourself a bit here...


Well, I'm not going to "take you on." But sure, let's talk. We can learn, even in the way you mean that, if the Holy Spirit gives us discernment. But at the very least, we can (possibly) learn more about each other.

Grace and peace to you.

I believe you really enjoy dissecting words of others instead of trying to understand the spirit or intent of their purpose in writing to you. I do not! BL: What do think John 10:30 means to you once more, without the trimmings and frills.

 

[farouk]

"Today I have begotten you". That day is referring to His physical birth, and His death, physical.
"ever and ever" means ages and ages, a time period going forward. He became the Son of God, He became King, became High Priest, became our sacrificial Lamb, became our Savior. He soon will have a physical earthly kingdom for 1000 years and sit in Jerusalemnas King.
It is arguable that before His birth He did not have those titles. He was God, Who emptied Himself and became flesh in time and fulfilled hundreds of prophecies and will fulfill hundreds more in the near future.

"Only begotten" in John 3.16 refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, and not to the Lord Jesus' physical birth. He was the Son already - gloriously so - when God sent Him as the Saviour. 'Only begotten' refers to that unique relationship, while 'first begotten' refers to His preeminence over Creation.

 

[APAK]

I believe you really enjoy dissecting words of others instead of trying to understand the spirit or intent of their purpose in writing to you. I do not! BL: What do think John 10:30 means to you once more, without the trimmings and frills.

@PinSeeker since you are short of thoughts and words and you would like an input from me first to start you off, he's one, and there are many more if required. There are many ways to show the Son and the Father were/are not the same God, not the same will, not the same spirit and not the same essence.

Goal A or B: to either show John 10:30 means A. the Son and the Father works as one in unison, as one mind, as in one purpose, as one will and spirit, and not the same substance or essence. Or for others, the opposite, goal B.

Support 1 for Goal A: in John 10:29, the Son said the Father is greater than 'all.' And that no one can snatch his chosen out of the Son's 'hand.'

Now your turn for support 1 for Goal B?

 

[tigger 2]

Farouk wrote:
"'Only begotten' in John 3.16 refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, and not to the Lord Jesus' physical birth."
.......................................................................
“Onlybegotten” (monogenes)

Anything that is “begotten” or “born” (or a “son”), then, is something that at one time did not exist and then was brought into existence. (E.g., Adam, the creation of God was called the “SON of God” - Luke 3:38.) This does not refer simply to Jesus’ earthly existence but also to his original heavenly existence as shown by 1 John 4:9 which refers to the time when Jesus was “in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” - (John 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24). At that time he was already “the only-begotten [monogenes] Son.” - 1 John 4:9, NASB, ASV, KJV. Even the highly trinitarian NT Greek scholar, W. E. Vine, in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 813, admits that Jesus was the Father’s “only-begotten Son” before he came to earth.

How can we understand the Son of God being God’s only-begotten? This would have to mean that the Son was the first (firstborn) and only (only-begotten) creation by God himself. The rest of creation was done through the Son and not directly by the Father.

Since angels are called “gods” and “sons of God” in the Bible itself (see DEF-4, 5), Jesus cannot properly be called the “only” god or the “only” Son of God as some trinitarians want to translate monogenes (“only-begotten”) at John 1:18. But they (as trinitarians) still don’t like Jesus being described as “only-begotten” because they insist on his eternal existence (as God).

So some try to claim that the last half of the word monogenes is not from ginomai (“to come into being” [‘born’]) but from genos (“kind”). Hence, they claim, the term refers to “the only one of a class or kind.” Thus some trinitarian translations speak of Jesus as the “only Son” (see RSV, NEB, JB, AT quotes at beginning) rather than the “only-begotten Son” of God (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9) - KJV, ASV, NASB.

However, even if we accept the claim that genos is the correct source word for monogenes, we need to examine the claim of some trinitarians that genos does not include the meaning of “begotten”/”made.” The Greek word genos has “offspring” and “birth” as some of its meanings even in my trinitarian NT Concordances (Young’s Analytical Concordance of The Bible; Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible; and New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, p. 1640).

The very trinitarian W. E. Vine in his highly-regarded An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 805, admits that genos is “(akin to ginomai, to become), [and] denotes an offspring.”

Yes, even the trinitarian RSV and NEB (noted above as rendering monogenes as “only” in certain verses relating to Jesus - including Jn 1:18) were forced to use the proper meaning of “offspring” for genos itself at Rev. 22:16 - “I Jesus....am the root and offspring [genos] of David.” Compare Acts 17:28, 29 - “’For we indeed are his offspring [genos].’ Being then God’s offspring [genos], we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, silver or stone...” - RSV.

According to certain trinitarians, then, the above scriptures plainly state that Jesus must be one of the kind [genos] of David [or of the David kind]- Rev. 22:16, and Christians and non-Christian Athenians must be of the God kind [genos] - Acts 17:28, 29. This is obviously ridiculous and the proper meaning of “begotten” or “made/produced” cannot be avoided in these scriptures! Christians (and the men of Athens whom Paul was speaking to) were made or created by God and are His genos (“offspring” or “begotten”) in that sense!

And, if we want a more neutral source, we could go to a secular authority - the ultimate authority for speakers of American English - Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged). In tracing the source of the prefix gen- this outstanding reference book tells us it comes from the Greek genos which comes from “the stem of [the Greek] gignesthai to be born.” We can see then that the Greek word genos literally must include the meaning of “birth,” “production,” “creation” [whether you choose to translate it as “race,” “kind,” etc. or not] and cannot mean an only kind (which has always existed)!

And, perhaps more important, that same highly-regarded authority tells us that the suffix -gen comes from the Greek suffix -genes [as in monogenes above] which means “born, fr[om] root of gignesthai to be born.” (Also see -gen in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.) Here we can see that the Greek suffix in monogenes actually comes from gignesthai (not genos which some trinitarians prefer but which also comes from gignesthai anyway) and it truly, properly means to be born. Gignesthai itself is simply the infinitive form (“to be born”) of gignomai (or ginomai) which are present tense forms of this same passive verb. - see pp. 168, 85, 86, and 97 in Marshall’s New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan, 1962.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[tigger 2]

(continued)

Even the very trinitarian NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible agrees that genos comes from ginomai [or gignomai 3] which means “to come into being” - p. 1640. And respected trinitarian scholars Liddell and Scott tell us (under “monogenes”) that monogenes is from gignomai.. Then (under “gignomai”) they say that gignomai means “to come into being, Lat. gigni: 1. of persons, to be born .... 2. of things, to be produced” - An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press.

Notice what famed trinitarian scholar of New Testament Greek, Dr. Alfred Marshall, tells us about ginomai (also written gignomai):

“The verb now before us [ginomai], on the other hand, denotes the coming into existence of what did not exist before.... This verb is therefore not used of God, save as He is relatively to the creature, as in Heb. 11.6 [‘God... becomes (ginetai) the rewarder of those seeking Him.’].”

Dr. Marshall goes on to say that even though it seems necessary for translators to sometimes use verbs such as “is,” “are,” etc., for the ginomai/gignesthai verbs because of the peculiarities of English, we must remember that the idea of “come into existence” must still be understood!

“The discrimination between eimi and ginomai [or gignomai] is one of the most fruitful subjects of N.T. study, and the student should never ignore it.” - p. 106, New Testament Greek Primer, Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.

Therefore, the scripture mentioned by Dr. Marshall (Heb. 11:6), for example, is sometimes translated in English as, “God ... is [ginetai] a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” - KJV and others. This must be understood, however, (because of the actual meaning of ginomai/ginetai), not that God rewards certain individuals throughout their entire existence, but that he becomes a rewarder of them some time after they have begun diligently seeking him.

In the same way, other related forms of this verb should retain this same understanding (“born,” “created,” “brought into existence”) even though the translator may use a more familiar rendering for English-speakers. So, even though some translators sometimes render genos as “race” or “kind,” it must, nevertheless, retain the meaning of a “race” or “kind” that has “come into existence” or the “race” or” kind” that one has been created in or born into and not something that has always existed. And it cannot be applied directly to God (for He has always existed), but only to his creation.

For example, the KJV renders genos as “kind” in only 3 places: Matt. 13:47; Matt. 17:21; and Mk. 9:29. But it must be with the understanding that these are “kinds” that have come into existence or been created. Matt. 13:47 says “like a dragnet cast into the sea and gathering [fish] of every kind [genous].” - NASB. This means, of course, “every created thing [“fish” is not in the original text] found in the sea.” And Matt. 17:21 says “this kind [which has come into existence] goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” - KJV. (Mark 9:29 is a parallel account.)

E. Robinson’s A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament gives the definition of monogenes as “only born, only begotten, i.e., an only child.”

W. E. Vine says about monogenes: “only begotten ([monos] and genos, offspring)” - p. 811.

W. J. Hickie’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1963 ed.) also gives: “only begotten.”

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by G. Kittel (Vol. iv, pp. 738-741, 1967 ed.) says, speaking of the use of monogenes in the New Testament,

“It means ‘only-begotten.’ ... In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9; [and John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.... In [the writings of John, monogenes] denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In John ‘monogenes’ denotes the origin of Jesus. He is ‘monogenes’ as the only-begotten.”

And even the very trinitarian Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and the equally trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible both tell us that monogenes is derived from monos (“alone”) and ginomai (“to come into being”) and means “only begotten”! - p. 1667, NAS Exhaustive Concordance (cf. Strong’s #3439 and #1096).

So it is not surprising that the famous NT scholar (and a trinitarian, of course), the Rev. Alfred Marshall, translated monogenes in his most literal, word-for-word rendering of John 1:18 as “only begotten,” p. 265, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1975. And since God has always existed and was never created or “begotten,” Jesus must be an “only-begotten god” at Jn 1:18!

 

[Pearl]

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

Jesus is not God the Father. He is God the Son. Also Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Three separate persons in one being. I never heard of a true Christian that couldn't understand this before i come to this site.

 

[APAK]

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

Jesus is not God the Father. He is God the Son. Also Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Three separate persons in one being. I never heard of a true Christian that couldn't understand this before i come to this site.

To be frank and you have voiced this sentiment before, you must have led a sheltered religious life all these years and steeped in the doctrine of the Trinity that is absent from the Bible. What you quote above and believe in was formed into several creeds and doctrines invented by the 5th century, by those that decided that knew better that the word of God and the Holy Spirit to guide them into the truth.

 

[tigger 2]

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

Jesus is not God the Father. He is God the Son. Also Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Three separate persons in one being. I never heard of a true Christian that couldn't understand this before i come to this site.

..............................................

The knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ is understood to be of primary importance and is everlasting life (or death) to those who believe the Bible (John 17:1, 3; 2 Thess 1:7, 8.) And God demands He be worshiped in truth - (John 4:24)

And, yet, the scriptural evidence for the worship of a trinity is unclear, disputed, and highly interpreted.

The history of the Jews up to the Council of Nicaea (at the very least) has always admitted of only one person as God, and anything else was blasphemy. The very first Christians (were accepted as a sect of Judaism and even were accepted in and taught in synagogues). If they had believed that anyone except the Father alone were God, they would have not only been cast out of the synagogues, they would have been stoned to death for this one teaching alone. Pagan writers of pre-Christian and earliest Christian times accused them both of many things (including sacrificing their children), but never accused them of having a God of more than one person. This single-person God was the great distinction of the Jews (and first Christians).

...............................................

"trinity ...1. [cap.] Theol. The union of three persons or hypostases (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons or hypostases as to individuality. 2. Any symbol of the Trinity in art. 3. Any union of three in one; a triad; as the Hindu trinity, or Trimurti." - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., 1961. (underlined emphasis added by me.)
………………………………..

Athanasian Creed:

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

"HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY."
....................................................
"Trinity, the Most Holy

"The most sublime mystery of the Christian faith is this: 'God is absolutely one in nature and essence, and relatively three in Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are really distinct from each other." - p. 584, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1976.
........................................................

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
"1. The Term 'Trinity':
"The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence." - p. 3012, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984.
………………………………....

(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is shown as more than one person.

(This is really not that difficult. Either there is a vision, dream, description, etc. somewhere in scripture clearly showing the one God as three persons or there isn't. Either way, it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)

(B) Please show where in scripture God is ever described using the word "three."

(( Notice how the 'Christian' God is described by Christendom itself in the beginning paragraphs of this study ['three']! Either God is described somewhere in scripture using the word "three" or its clear equivalent (just as He is clearly and frequently described with the word “one” or its equivalent - “alone,” “only,” etc. ), or He is not. Either way it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.))

(C) Please find a clear, direct, undisputed statement (equivalent to 'Jesus is the Christ' or "YHWH [Jehovah] is the Father" which are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declares:

'YHWH is the Son,' or 'YHWH is the Firstborn,' or, 'YHWH is the Messiah (or "Christ"), or any other equally clear, undisputed statement (or personal name) that 'Jesus is YHWH' (the only God according to scripture).

Since the Father is clearly, directly, and indisputably called "God, the Father," “God, our Father,” “God and Father,” etc. many, many times, and the Son and Holy Spirit are said by trinitarians to be equally the one God (in ‘three distinct persons’):

(D) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where Jesus is called "God" (equal to those which declare "God as the Father" – Ro. 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:11; Col. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; 2 John 3; Jude 1; etc.)

and,

(E) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where the Holy Spirit is called "God, the Holy Spirit."

 

[PinSeeker]

Colossians 1:27 is yes and no? How about John 3:16? How do you determine which is which?

Come on, Rich. It's both now and not yet, meaning it's not yet in it's fullest, complete, final sense, but we can live now as if it's already fully true, because it is a certainty. Come on. I think more of you than your intentionally ridiculous statement here... or maybe it's not so intentional...?

I'm not sure why you bring up John 3:16; for purposes of ridicule, I guess, but no matter.

Come on.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Pearl]

To be frank and you have voiced this sentiment before, you must have led a sheltered religious life all these years and steeped in the doctrine of the Trinity that is absent from the Bible. What you quote above and believe in was formed into several creeds and doctrines invented by the 5th century, by those that decided that knew better that the word of God and the Holy Spirit to guide them into the truth.

John 1:1-5
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God. 2 He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him (Jesus) nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him (Jesus) was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Now I am a true non-denominational Christian who believes that Jesus is God. @APAK I would like to know your religious background which teaches you that he isn't. Please share.

 

[farouk]

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

Jesus is not God the Father. He is God the Son. Also Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Three separate persons in one being. I never heard of a true Christian that couldn't understand this before i come to this site.

@Pearl God in Three Persons is indeed deeply present in Scripture; so many references could indeed be given.

 

[Pearl]

@Pearl God in Three Persons is indeed deeply present in Scripture; so many references could indeed be given.

But there are some religious organisations who refute that.

 

[Jack]

John 1:1-5
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God. 2 He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him (Jesus) nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him (Jesus) was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Now I am a true non-denominational Christian who believes that Jesus is God. @APAK I would like to know your religious background which teaches you that he isn't. Please share.

I agree, Jesus is God, as Thomas who knew Jesus confessed, "My Lord and my God".

 

[farouk]

But there are some religious organisations who refute that.

@Pearl Yes; they are cultish in doctrinal orientation if they reject the simple, Scriptural statements about the Person of Christ and about the Godhead.

 

[PinSeeker]

I believe you really enjoy dissecting words of others instead of trying to understand the spirit or intent of their purpose in writing to you.

"enjoy dissecting words of others"... I mean, sometimes it's necessary. Your previous statement was ~ no offense ~ kind of a jumble of okay and not okay stuff, so to speak.

I do not!

Never say never... I think you probably do sometimes, and there's nothing wrong with that when necessary.

...since you are short of thoughts and words...

I'm certainly not, unless you just mean I'm being too short for you.

...and you would like an input from me first to start you off.

It's just on you to answer your own query first.

...he's one, and there are many more if required.

Do you mean to say, "here's one"?

There are many ways to show the Son and the Father were/are not the same God, not the same will, not the same spirit and not the same essence.

I would say there are none with any credibility.

Goal A or B: to either show John 10:30 means A. the Son and the Father works as one in unison, as one mind, as in one purpose, as one will and spirit, and not the same substance or essence. Or for others, the opposite, goal B.

Support 1 for Goal A: in John 10:29, the Son said the Father is greater than 'all.' And that no one can snatch his chosen out of the Son's 'hand.' (

Now your turn for support 1 for Goal B?

You know, APAK... Wow. I'm sorry, but this seems like some kind of stream of consciousness that I can't even follow. I'm not sure what you're saying here, and I don't even know what you're really asking me for. Tell me if I'm understanding you correctly: You support "Goal A," and you offer one support ("Support 1" above) for that. And you think I support "Goal B" ~ which apparently is the opposite of "Goal A," but I'm not even sure what that is, what you mean by that ~ and you want me to provide a "Support 1" for it? Is that right? I really am not following; maybe I'm just having some kind of dense moment... Maybe you can make this a little clearer and more, um, systematic...? Sorry.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[tigger 2]

@Pearl Yes; they are cultish in doctrinal orientation if they reject the simple, Scriptural statements about the Person of Christ and about the Godhead.

..................................................

So, take the simple, easy 5-part test in post 172 above. These things are straightforward, important aspects of a Biblical trinity.