One and Triune God.

[tigger 2]

That's absolute nonsense and is nothing more that a Jehovah's Witness lie.

The Scriptures declare that there is only ONE true God - and all the rest are FALSE gods (Exod. 20:1-6, 1 Cor. 8:6). JWs may contradict themselves - but God doesn't.

You've been duped, friend . . .

....................................
I know you don't bother to read anything over one sentence long (at least not with any understanding). So for others, here is my reply:

Examining the Trinity: God and gods (from BOWGOD study)

 

[Rich R]

I also believe in the God of 1 Cor. 8:6.

The difference between you and me is that I believe in the Gos of the REST of the Scriptures as well, whereas, YOU isolate the definition of God to a single verse - as if that were possible.

Check out some of my older posts. You should be able to find many verses I used to support the nature of Jesus and God. I showed that:

1. God knew things Jesus didn't know
2. Jesus said God was greater than he was
3. Jesus had a God
4. Jesus has a Father, the same Father as us. His name forever is YHWH.
   
5. Jesus was tempted (as opposed to the truth that God can not be tempted)
6. Jesus had a different will than God
7. Jesus was given power (as opposed to God who simply had power)
8. Jesus was given authority to judge (God wouldn't need to be given authority by anyone)
9. Several verses that explicitly called Jesus a man (as opposed to God of whom it is explicitly stated is not a man)

There's more things I pointed out that would preclude Jesus from being God. Things that actually agree with 1 Corinthians 8:6, as opposed to the claim that 1 Corinthians 8:6 does somehow not say, "but to us there is but one God, the Father...: How such a simple statement can be mangled into saying God the Son is also God is beyond my comprehension. Gosh, all I know is how to read English. When I read, "but to us there is but one God, the Father..." I take it to mean, ""but to us there is but one God, the Father...:"

 

[Cooper]

U

Instead of substituting "Jesus" for "Word" in John 1:1, might it not be better to find out exactly what the word "Word" really means? It is the Greek word "logos" and it doesn't mean Jesus. I think you'll find it means what is in someone's mind, like a plan. That's what God had in the beginning.

Just reading John 1:1 in most translations ought to raise the question of how the Word can be with God and how it can be God at the same time. In any other realm we would find it odd to say, "the thing was with Bob, and the thing was Bob." Clearly there is something there that is not meant to be taken literally.

Also, as John stated at the end of his Gospel, he wrote it to show that Jesus is the anointed one, the son of God. He had no intentions of showing that Jesus is God.

Simply substituting "Jesus" for "Word" does a grave disservice to both God and Jesus. It minimizes the brilliance of the logos in a big way. Since death came by man it was necessary that redemption from death should also be accomplished by a man. God had to come up with a plan to convince fallible creatures like us to do His will. How He did that is beyond my comprehension, but He's God and I'm not. In any case, for God to just come down and do the work completely minimizes the logos of John 1:1.

The typical reading of John 1:1 also minimizes the work Jesus did for us. He was a man with like passions, tempted just like the rest of us. Despite that, he obeyed God to the very end.

As I've said before, God obeying Himself and believing He'd raise Himself from the dead is quite frankly boring. If that's all it was, the scriptures would have been about 1 page. But for God to work with idiotic humans in such a way that He convinced them to preserve His plan so Jesus would be able to learn it (yes, Jesus came into this world like every other baby, knowing nothing. He had to grow in wisdom as he faithfully studied the Jewish scriptures) and follow it is far and away the best story ever told.

Too bad so few believe John when he said,

John 20:31,

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
​

Too many want to change both John 1:1 and John 20:31 to something that agrees with tradition. The attitude seems to be, who cares what the scriptures actually say? We'll just change a word here and there so as to agree with tradition. I mean it's a 2,000 year old tradition. How could it possibly be wrong? News Flash: the scriptures are much older than the trinity tradition. John 20:31 does not say John wrote so we might believe Jesus is God. To read John with any other idea than Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, is to succumb to a lie. There's no way around that.

Verse 1 In the beginning was the Word, (Logos G3056) and the Word (Logos G3056) was with God, and the Word (Logos G3056) was God. Verse 14 And the Word (Logos G3056) was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
.

 

[JunChosen]

There's no way around that.

SURE THERE IS! The problem with people is that they read and critic the Bible like it's an ordinary book instead of it being the Word of God, and must therefore be spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14 reads:
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

We know that God is the only One that can raise people from the dead. Yet, we read Jesus declares in John 2:19: ".... Destroy this temple, and in three days I WILL RAISE IT UP AGAIN."
21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

Now no mere man can say the above unless he IS God!

God the Father declared in Hebrews 1:8: "But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for eve and ever...."

AND, in John 8:24, Jesus declared: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he [God, the great I AM], ye shall die in your sins. Also declared in Exodus 3:14.
Note: the printer is warning the English reader that all italicized words in the KJV Bible are not in the original manuscripts.

Any more Scripture references will not suffice if the above scriptures are not understood.

To God Be The Glory

 

[GEN2REV]

Jesus doesn't lie. Before you can understand those verses, you need to accept in Matt. 28:19 the apostles were instructed to baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, and that at the same time those three are considered singular:

"πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες (baptize) αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα (in the name [singular]) τοῦ πατρὸς (of the father) καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ (and of the son) καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (of the holy spirit)..." (Matt. 28:19)

Can you explain away these three consecutive verses, spoken by Christ, in a way that supports your position?

John 14:21-23

I will sum up what they say briefly:

v. 21 Jesus says that those who love Him will be loved by His Father and loved by Jesus, and Jesus will manifest/reveal Himself to them (come to them as the Holy Spirit).

v. 22 Jesus is asked by His disciple how this is possible that He will reveal Himself to them (come to them) without revealing Himself to the world.

v. 23 Jesus responds, partially repeating Himself, but gives a stunning clarification. He says that if a man loves Him, His Father will love that man and 'we' (they both- Jesus and the Father) will come unto that man and will make their home with him - indisputably claiming that Jesus and the Father ARE the Holy Spirit.

What do your greek translations have to say about that?

After all of the verses in the book of John where Jesus Himself claims to be one with the Father, at a minimum, this would reduce the Trinity to a duo since the Holy Spirit is never mentioned in these exclamations. But in light of the above verses in John 14, that duo appears to be reduced, once again, to a single person.

Just as the Old Testament tells us repeatedly. We know that "God is a Spirit." John 4:24 It appears that Spirit is ONE person "and there is no God beside Him."
Isaiah 43:10-11
Isaiah 44:6
Isaiah 45:5-6
1 Samuel 2:2
Revelation 1:8

 

[BreadOfLife]

Check out some of my older posts. You should be able to find many verses I used to support the nature of Jesus and God. I showed that:

1. God knew things Jesus didn't know
2. Jesus said God was greater than he was
3. Jesus had a God
4. Jesus has a Father, the same Father as us. His name forever is YHWH.
5. Jesus was tempted (as opposed to the truth that God can not be tempted)
6. Jesus had a different will than God
7. Jesus was given power (as opposed to God who simply had power)
8. Jesus was given authority to judge (God wouldn't need to be given authority by anyone)
9. Several verses that explicitly called Jesus a man (as opposed to God of whom it is explicitly stated is not a man)

There's more things I pointed out that would preclude Jesus from being God. Things that actually agree with 1 Corinthians 8:6, as opposed to the claim that 1 Corinthians 8:6 does somehow not say, "but to us there is but one God, the Father...: How such a simple statement can be mangled into saying God the Son is also God is beyond my comprehension. Gosh, all I know is how to read English. When I read, "but to us there is but one God, the Father..." I take it to mean, ""but to us there is but one God, the Father...:"

And ALL of this, as I pointed out in an earlier post is your failure to understand not only the Trinity – but Jesus’s TWO natures.

Jesus is FULLY Man and He is FULLY God. He unites to Himself these TWO natures which are indivisible. This is known as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.

Now – although He has TWO indivisible natures – Jesus, in His flesh, experiences EVERYTHING that we did except for sin.
- He got tired and needed rest (Mark 4:38).
- He got hungry and ate (Matt. 11:9, Luke 24:41-42).
- He got thirsty and drank (Matt. 11:9).
- He felt pain and suffered (Heb. 13:11-12).
- He wept (John 11:25).
- He was tempted (Matt. 4:1-13).
And, by the way – WHAT did He tell Satan when He rebukeg him?
He said:
Matt. 4:7
“Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Jesus experienced these things in His HUMANITY – not in His DEITY.
He often referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” to His followers – to show them that Hye experienced the same things they did. There were the times, however, that He needed to show them that He was also Divine (John 8:58, John 15:9).

Jesus in His humanity has a God.
Jesus, the Son is sent by the Father. AS the Father and the Son – they have different ROLES in the Godhead. The Father didn’t come down to be offered as the sacrifice – the expiation for our sins. That was the Son’s role.

So – YOUR problem isn’t that this is “impossible” for God.
It’s just that YOU amply refuse to believe it. Good luck with that . . .

 

[Cooper]

Jesus declared: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he [God, the great I AM], ye shall die in your sins. Also declared in Exodus 3:14.

Any more Scripture references will not suffice if the above scriptures are not understood. To God Be The Glory

The Father is the Son and the Son is the Father in the flesh. One God, or as it says in the Bible "God is One."
.

 

[EloyCraft]

• God knew things Jesus didn't know

• Jesus said God was greater than he was

• Jesus had a God

• Jesus has a Father, the same Father as us. His name forever is YHWH.

• Jesus was tempted (as opposed to the truth that God can not be tempted)

• Jesus had a different will than God

• Jesus was given power (as opposed to God who simply had power)

• Jesus was given authority to judge (God wouldn't need to be given authority by anyone)

• Several verses that explicitly called Jesus a man (as opposed to God of whom it is explicitly stated is not a man)

Funny thing about Scripture, not one of them mean to me what they do to you.
God calls God God.
Jesus had a body like Adam's. Omniscience isn't possible for a human brain or consciousness.
All Father's are greater than their sons no matter what. Because a father is a generator.
Etc.

 

[Rich R]

We know that God is the only One that can raise people from the dead.

Where does it say that? Not saying it doesn't, but I don't know where.

Yet, we read Jesus declares in John 2:19: ".... Destroy this temple, and in three days I WILL RAISE IT UP AGAIN."
21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

Now no mere man can say the above unless he IS God!

That is indeed a verse that is hard to understand. But if we take to to say Jesus is God, we open up a huge can of worms, given the huge number of verses that would make it impossible for Jesus to be God. Start with him being called the son of God about 50 times. In order for Jesus to be God, we need to change the meaning of the words "father" and "son" since in the normal usage of words, a son can not be his own father. Then there's the whole idea that Jesus said God was greater than himself, that God knew things he didn't know, Jesus had the same God as we do, He has the same Father as we do (hence he calls us brothers. Are we brothers of God? I don't think so), the many verses that explicitly call him a man as opposed to no verses that explicitly call him God, Jesus was tempted whereas God can not be tempted, Jesus had a will that differed from God, and more. All of these verses would somehow have to fit with John 2:19. Good luck with that!

As I've said, there are a few verses that could be taken as Jesus being God. But when the few unclear contradict the many clear verses we have to make a choice. Make the few unclear fit with the many clear or visa versa. Seems pretty clear that it would be better to make John 2:19 fit with all the clear verses that make it impossible for Jesus to be God.

Any idea why John said the reason he wrote his Gospel was to show that Jesus was the Christ (the anointed one) and the son of God (John 20:31)? If he thought Jesus was God, why didn't he just say that?

God the Father declared in Hebrews 1:8: "But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for eve and ever...."

We in the modern West think the word "God" always refers to YHWH, but that's not true. The Bible talks about many gods. Look up the word in Strong's and you will see it means anyone with power and authority. Since God gave Jesus power and authority (that's weird, someone giving God power and authority?) he would be considered a god. Still, he's not YHWH.

I think failing to call God by His name, YHWH, causes a lot of confusion. It is not true to say there is one god, but it is quite true to say there is only one YHWH

AND, in John 8:24, Jesus declared: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he [God, the great I AM], ye shall die in your sins. Also declared in Exodus 3:14.
Note: the printer is warning the English reader that all italicized words in the KJV Bible are not in the original manuscripts.

So every time someone says "I am" in the Bible it makes them YHWH?

As I mentioned above, all verses in John are written so that we might know that Jesus is God, oops, I mean that he is the Anointed One and the SON of God. I'm not my father, you're not your father, Adam was not his father, but somehow Jesus was his father? That would be infinitely more difficult to explain than John 2:19 not saying Jesus is God. But somehow all verses have to fit.

God bless.

 

[Rich R]

And ALL of this, as I pointed out in an earlier post is your failure to understand not only the Trinity – but Jesus’s TWO natures.

Jesus is FULLY Man and He is FULLY God. He unites to Himself these TWO natures which are indivisible. This is known as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.

Where does it say that? Specifically, where does it say that in the scriptures? I know it says that in the creeds and catechisms, but I don't see it in the scriptures themselves.

Now – although He has TWO indivisible natures

So do we.

2Pet 1:4,

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.​

Romans chapter 7 is a great chapter where Paul explains the war going on between his two natures.

Having a divine nature does not make one YHWH.

- He was tempted (Matt. 4:1-13).
And, by the way – WHAT did He tell Satan when He rebukeg him?
He said:
Matt. 4:7
“Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Read the context. The devil told Jesus to cast himself down, that God could hold him up. Jesus replied that he would not do that because that would be tempting God, something he wasn't willing to do. He didn't say the devil was tempting God.

Jesus

experienced these things in His HUMANITY – not in His DEITY.
He often referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” to His followers – to show them that Hye experienced the same things they did. There were the times, however, that He needed to show them that He was also Divine (John 8:58, John 15:9).

Jesus in His humanity has a God.
Jesus, the Son is sent by the Father. AS the Father and the Son – they have different ROLES in the Godhead. The Father didn’t come down to be offered as the sacrifice – the expiation for our sins. That was the Son’s role.

There is not one verse that says Jesus had a God in his humanity. They all say he has a God, period.

So – YOUR problem isn’t that this is “impossible” for God.
It’s just that YOU amply refuse to believe it. Good luck with that . . .

Not exactly. It's not that I just refuse to believe 3 persons are actually one person. It's actually quite impossible to believe such rational disconnect.

 

[Rich R]

Verse 1 In the beginning was the Word, (Logos G3056) and the Word (Logos G3056) was with God, and the Word (Logos G3056) was God. Verse 14 And the Word (Logos G3056) was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
.

Doesn't the fact that John 1:14 says the logos "became" flesh mean anything? The Word "became" flesh when? When Jesus was born. Before that the logos was not flesh. While the logos was with God in the beginning, Jesus was not. Jesus was key to the plan, but until the house is actually built, it only exists on paper so to speak.

If we take it that way, it fits perfectly with John's purpose in writing his Gospel, i.e. to show that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God (John 20:31). If we take to to say Jesus was God, we would then need to correct John and rewrite John 20:31 as, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is God; " I'll pass on that one!

How do you explain a thing such as a "word" actually becoming a "person" anyway? That's not the normal usage of words. In any language, when something can't be taken literally, it must be a figure of speech which is used to emphasize something. Figures of speech are legitimate tools in grammar that have specific meanings that we all agree on.

 

[Cooper]

Doesn't the fact that John 1:14 says the logos "became" flesh mean anything? The Word "became" flesh when? When Jesus was born. Before that the logos was not flesh. While the logos was with God in the beginning, Jesus was not. Jesus was key to the plan, but until the house is actually built, it only exists on paper so to speak.

If we take it that way, it fits perfectly with John's purpose in writing his Gospel, i.e. to show that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God (John 20:31). If we take to to say Jesus was God, we would then need to correct John and rewrite John 20:31 as, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is God; " I'll pass on that one!

How do you explain a thing such as a "word" actually becoming a "person" anyway? That's not the normal usage of words. In any language, when something can't be taken literally, it must be a figure of speech which is used to emphasize something. Figures of speech are legitimate tools in grammar that have specific meanings that we all agree on.

The heaven and earth were created by the Word of God (Genesis 1:3 and Jesus is the Word (John 1:3). He existed from the beginning before coming down from heaven’s glory in the image of man, humbling himself to be like us, to take our sins upon himself so that we shall be saved. It is while he was in the flesh that he exhibited the characteristics of humanity that you use against him, while still healing the sick, raising the dead and stilling the waves in a demonstration of his deity so that we might believe. Thousands did.
.

 

[bbyrd009]

I think that not calling God by His name, YHWH, has caused much of the confusion as to who God and Jesus are

ive meant to embark on a study of when Theos is used rather than YHWH, and why

The changing of the word YHWH to LORD gives the wrong impression

i agree

Figures of speech are legitimate tools in grammar that have specific meanings that we all agree on.

well, or at least that they all agreed on, eh

 

[tigger 2]

SURE THERE IS! The problem with people is that they read and critic the Bible like it's an ordinary book instead of it being the Word of God, and must therefore be spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14 reads:
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

We know that God is the only One that can raise people from the dead. Yet, we read Jesus declares in John 2:19: ".... Destroy this temple, and in three days I WILL RAISE IT UP AGAIN."
21) But he spake of the temple of his body.

Now no mere man can say the above unless he IS God!

God the Father declared in Hebrews 1:8: "But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for eve and ever...."

AND, in John 8:24, Jesus declared: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he [God, the great I AM], ye shall die in your sins. Also declared in Exodus 3:14.
Note: the printer is warning the English reader that all italicized words in the KJV Bible are not in the original manuscripts.

Any more Scripture references will not suffice if the above scriptures are not understood.

To God Be The Glory

........................
The Father raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus raised up his resurrected body from a prone position.

Examining the Trinity: RU - Jesus Raised Himself?

Even a number of trinitarian translators render Heb. 1:8 (and its OT source) as "thy throne is God".
Examining the Trinity: Hebrews 1:8 - “Thy Throne, O God”

 

[Rich R]

Even a number of trinitarian translators render Heb. 1:8 (and its OT source) as "thy throne is God". Examining the Trinity: Hebrews 1:8 - “Thy Throne, O God”

The renowned Greek scholar and Trinitarian, A. T. Robertson noted that the Greek word theos (God) could be understood as a vocative, “O God,” or as a nominative, as in the phrase, “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” The former contradicts many clear verses whereas the latter fits like a hand in a glove with the many clear verses. If we want contradictions in the Bible, choose the former, because it'll sure introduce many contradictions with other verses on the subject.

Even though many scholars are Trinitarian, at least they recognize that much of the traditional proof texts used by the not so scholarly folks, those who just believe what they hear from the pulpit without Bereans style verification (Acts 17:11), does not hold water.

The trinity may enjoy a 2,000 year old tradition, but the Bible goes back way many more years than that. The Bible should be our only rule of faith and practice. God knows more than the Emperor Constantine.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where does it say that? Specifically, where does it say that in the scriptures? I know it says that in the creeds and catechisms, but I don't see it in the scriptures themselves.

Where does it say “Bible” in the Scriptures? Chapter and Verse, please.

Where does it say in the Bible that everything we believe must be explicitly mentioned in the Scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.

And, if this is the case – where does the Bible show the list of Books that belong in it? Chapter and Verse, please.

The fact is that I have already shown you several places where the Bible states that Jesus is God (Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 4:7, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 15:9, John 20:28, Phi. 2:6, Colo. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Tit. 2:13).
YOU simply refuse to accept it.

So do we.
2Pet 1:4,
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Romans chapter 7 is a great chapter where Paul explains the war going on between his two natures.
Having a divine nature does not make one YHWH.

Careful – your ignorance if Scripture is showing again.
Yes, we do have 2 natures – but NEITHER of those natures is divine like Jesus.

2 Pet. 1:4 is a promise of things to come,
It does NOT say that WE are divine.

Read the context. The devil told Jesus to cast himself down, that God could hold him up. Jesus replied that he would not do that because that would be tempting God, something he wasn't willing to do. He didn't say the devil was tempting God.

WRONG.

The entire context of Matt. 4 is JESUS being tempted in the desert by Satan.
Did Satan show disrespect to the Father by what he said? Absolutely – but he didn’t tempt Him. He tempted the Son.

It wasn’t the Father who was suffering from hunger and thirst in the desert.
It wasn’t the Father who Satan was offering the kingdoms of the world to.
He had no flesh – so there was NOTHING to tempt.

There is not one verse that says Jesus had a God in his humanity. They all say he has a God, period.

There are MANY verses that show Jesus was human. There are ALSO man verse that show He is God. God the Son HAD to become flesh in order that He be the perfect High Priest and sacrifice for our sins - and it is in this sense that he had a God. It’s not rocket science . . .

Heb. 2:16-18
For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Not exactly. It's not that I just refuse to believe 3 persons are actually one person. It's actually quite impossible to believe such rational disconnect.

And this last statement of yours illustrates your utter failure to grasp the Trinity.

3 Persons are NOT 1 Person – they are THREE Persons.
Three Persons in ONE Being. It’s 3 WHOs (Persons) in 1 WHAT (God).

YOUR refusal to believe is simple ignorance of Scripture coupled with an obstinate spiritual pride.
Don't blame the Bible for not having the answers . . .

 

[Rich R]

Where does it say “Bible” in the Scriptures? Chapter and Verse, please.

You are quite correct on that point. We should call them "scriptures" which word is used many times.

Where

does it say in the Bible that everything we believe must be explicitly mentioned in the Scripture? Chapter and Verse, please.

So we can get doctrine from Harry Potter? Where does it explicitly say we can't?

And, if this is the case – where does the Bible show the list of Books that belong in it? Chapter and Verse, please.

Your intimation here is further proof that we can include Harry Potter to formulate our rule of faith and practice.

The fact is that I have already shown you several places where the Bible states that Jesus is God (Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 4:7, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 15:9, John 20:28, Phi. 2:6, Colo. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Tit. 2:13).
YOU simply refuse to accept it.

I'll address a few of those verses.

Is 7:14 says Jesus' name will be called Immanuel. It does not say he will be Immanuel. Living close to the Southern border, it's not unusual to run into a guy named Jesus. A name does not make someone what the name represents. God was certainly in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) and thus God was present wherever Jesus was. Since Christ is in you (Col 1:27) and God was in Christ, God and Christ are wherever you are. Kinda neat.

I wonder if Mary and Joseph were unaware of Isaiah's writings? They must have been since they didn't name him Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6

Does not say, "... he shall be..." It says, "his name shall be called..."

We in the modern West don't fully appreciate the meaning of names to the Ancient Near Easterner. It's a good study though, and it will help illuminate Isaiah 7:14 and many other verses that talk about names.

If Jesus should have been named all those things, this verse also offers further evidence that Mary and Joseph were not familiar with Isaiah. They didn't get even one name correct! What's wrong with them?

Matt 7:4

It does not say the devil was tempting God. The devil tempted Jesus to tempt God and Jesus said, "no way Jose! I'm not going to tempt God by throwing myself down."

John 1:1

Does not say, "In the beginning was Jesus. Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." Nobody wants to find out exactly what the word "Word" means. It's the Greek word logos. I've done at least 2 posts showing what "logos" means. It does not mean "Jesus." Totally different. I also showed John's purpose in writing his Gospel was to prove that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God. I'm sure John was perfectly capable of saying "God the Son" had YHWH inspired him to do so.

John 1:3

Grammar dictates that a pronoun refer to it's nearest antecedent. That would be God from verse 2. God created the universe, just as Genesis describes.

John 8:58

Says nothing about Jesus being God. Read the context. Jesus was saying he is greater than Abraham.

John 10:30

It doesn't read, "I am my Father." It says Jesus was one with his Father, just like we are one with both of them (John 17:22). I'm not Jesus nor God though. Better see what being one with someone else actually means.

John 15:9

Says God loves Jesus, Jesus loves God, and that we should remain in God.

I think that's enough for now. If anything, all the verses you gave me demonstrate the power of suggestion. Because of a 2,000 year old tradition, something is read into a statement that is simply not there.

Careful – your ignorance if Scripture is showing again.

What to say when one is unable to say anything of substance.

Yes, we do have 2 natures – but NEITHER of those natures is divine like Jesus.

2 Pet. 1:4 is a promise of things to come,
It does NOT say that WE are divine.

2Pet 1:4,

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.​

"ye might be partakers" is in the Greek Aorist tense in the passive voice. The Aorist tense indicates a one time action in the past. The passive voice indicates something was done to the subject. We are the subject and God made us partakers of the divine nature in the past.

What is the distinction between Jesus' divine nature and our divine nature anyway?

WRONG.

The entire context of Matt. 4 is JESUS being tempted in the desert by Satan.
Did Satan show disrespect to the Father by what he said? Absolutely – but he didn’t tempt Him. He tempted the Son

Not WRONG. RIGHT. Well, the part where you said the devil was not tempting God, that he was tempting Jesus is right. But that's a little strange. If Jesus is God and the devil tempted Jesus, then wouldn't he be tempting God? Awfully confusing. Maybe you're not right about even that.

Let's make it simple. The devil was tempting Jesus to temp God. He told Jesus to cast himself down and that God would hold him up. Jesus simply said he wasn't going to temp God that way. He quoted an OT verse that said he ought not do that.

Heb. 2:16-18
For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Terrible verse to prove the trinity. It says Jesus was, "...fully human in every way..." Doesn't "fully" and "every way" mean anything at all? If Jesus was part God then he would in no wise be fully human in every way. Not even close! I'm fully human and yet I'm totally unaware of also being God.

Do you think Jesus knew he was God? If so, and he's just like us, why don't we know we are God?

And this last statement of yours illustrates your utter failure to grasp the Trinity.

3 Persons are NOT 1 Person – they are THREE Persons.
Three Persons in ONE Being. It’s 3 WHOs (Persons) in 1 WHAT (God).

So your God is a "what?" How sad. The scriptures speak of a very personal God. God is not a "what." He is a loving Father.

YOUR refusal to believe is simple ignorance of Scripture coupled with an obstinate spiritual pride.
Don't blame the Bible for not having the answers . . .

I'll abstain from answering to that. I don't know what to say about it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are quite correct on that point. We should call them "scriptures" which word is used many times.
So we can get doctrine from Harry Potter? Where does it explicitly say we can't?

That's a ridiculous question - and opens the door to even more ridiculous questions like: Where does the Bible explicitly sayit's wrong to watch pornographic movies?

The Bible is crystal-clear that christ's Church is our final earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23). NOWHERE does the Bible make this claim about itself.

Your intimation here is further proof that we can include Harry Potter to formulate our rule of faith and practice.

WRONG.

The onus is on YOU to prove that the Bible make this claim about itself.
I already showed you where it make this claim about the CHURCH.

As you refuse to address any of the verses I gave you that would make it impossible for Jesus to be God.

However, I am actually very willing to address your verses (at least a few- time is limited).

Is 7:14 says Jesus' name will be called Immanuel. It does not say he will be Immanuel. Living close to the Southern border, it's not unusual to run into a guy named Jesus. A name does not make someone what the name represents. God was certainly in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) and thus God was present wherever Jesus was. Since Christ is in you (Col 1:27) and God was in Christ, God and Christ are wherever you are. Kinda neat.

I wonder if Mary and Joseph were unaware of Isaiah's writings? They must have been since they didn't name him Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6
Does not say, "... he shall be..." It says, "his name shall be called..."

We in the modern West don't fully appreciate the meaning of names to the Ancient Near Easterner. It's a good study though, and it will help illuminate Isaiah 7:14 and many other verses that talk about names.

If Jesus should have been named all those things, this verse also offers further evidence that Mary and Joseph were not familiar with Isaiah. They didn't get even one name correct! What's wrong with them?

The Hebrew word used here for "Name" ALSO means "Reputation".
It is clear that "Immanuel" is a TITLE - and NOT a proper name of Jesus.

Matt 7:4
It does not say the devil was tempting God. The devil tempted Jesus to tempt God and Jesus said, "no way Jose! I'm not going to tempt God by throwing myself down."

John 1:1
Does not say, "In the beginning was Jesus. Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." Nobody wants to find out exactly what the word "Word" means. It's the Greek word logos. I've done at least 2 posts showing what "logos" means. It does not mean "Jesus." Totally different. I also showed John's purpose in writing his Gospel was to prove that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God. I'm sure John was perfectly capable of saying "God the Son" had YHWH inspired him to do so.

John 1:3
Grammar dictates that a pronoun refer to it's nearest antecedent. That would be God from verse 2. God created the universe, just as Genesis describes.

John 8:58
Says nothing about Jesus being God. Read the context. Jesus was saying he is greater than Abraham.

John 10:30
It doesn't read, "I am my Father." It says Jesus was one with his Father, just like we are one with both of them (John 17:22). I'm not Jesus nor God though. Better see what being one with someone else actually means.

John 15:9
Says God loves Jesus, Jesus loves God, and that we should remain in God.
I think that's enough for now. If anything, all the verses you gave me demonstrate the power of suggestion. Because of a 2,000 year old tradition, something is read into a statement that is simply not there.

2Pet 1:4,
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
"ye might be partakers" is in the Greek Aorist tense in the passive voice. The Aorist tense indicates a one time action in the past. The passive voice indicates something was done to the subject. We are the subject and God made us partakers of the divine nature in the past.

What is the distinction between Jesus' divine nature and our divine nature anyway?

We don’t have a divine nature.
We SHARE in HIS divine nature by GRACE - NOT by design.

This doesn’t make us “gods”. It DOES mean that we will be LIKE him in Heaven (1 John 3:2).

As to the verses you presented as “evidence” against the deity of Jesus -
John 1:1
If you had bothered to read on a little further, v, 14 explicitly states:
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”.
The rest of the narrative from that point on refers to JESUS.

John 1:3
WRONG.
The subject here in these first 3 verses is the WORD, which we have already establish is Jesu/God. Verse 3 refers to Jesus.

John 8:58
WRONG.
Saying that He was greater than a mere man would NOT have been a justifiable reason for stoning Him to death – which the Pharisees tried yo do (John 8:59). ONLY blasphemy - by claiming Himself to be God (I AM) would have justified their actions according to the Law.

John 10:30
WRONG.
John 17:22 doesn’t say that YOU or I are ONE with the Father. It says that Jesus is ONE with the Father – and that Her was ants US to remain as ONE with each other – just like He and the Father are ONE.

John 15:9
I got the verse number wrong on this one.
It’s:
John 14:9
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Not WRONG. RIGHT. Well, the part where you said the devil was not tempting God, that he was tempting Jesus is right. But that's a little strange. If Jesus is God and the devil tempted Jesus, then wouldn't he be tempting God? Awfully confusing. Maybe you're not right about even that.

Let's make it simple. The devil was tempting Jesus to temp God. He told Jesus to cast himself down and that God would hold him up. Jesus simply said he wasn't going to temp God that way. He quoted an OT verse that said he ought not do that.

And now, you’re being dishonest.
I NEVER said that the devil didn’t tempts God. I said that He wasn’t tempting the FATHER. He DID tempt God – in the Person of Jesus, the Son.

Satan could NOT tempt the Father because the Father didn’t get hungry or thirsty or tired. The Father didn’t desire material wealth as a HUMAN like Jesus would. So, YOUR argument that it wasn’t Jesus, but the Father who was being tempted falls flat on its face . . .

Terrible verse to prove the trinity. It says Jesus was, "...fully human in every way..." Doesn't "fully" and "every way" mean anything at all? If Jesus was part God then he would in no wise be fully human in every way. Nolt even close!

That’s a really stupid point.

The answer is that this verse doesn’t address His deity like MANY other verses already do (John 1:1, m 1:14, John 8:58, John 14:9). It was addressing the thing that qualified Him as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. Namely, that He was flesh and blood and that He lived a sinless life.

So your God is a "what?" How sad. The scriptures speak of a very personal God. God is not a "what." He is a loving Father.

This is an even more stupid point.
EVERY single living being is a “what”.

 

[JunChosen]

To all Unitarians,

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the pages of Holy Writ but nevertheless, the doctrine is well taught in both the Old and the New Testaments, seeing that there is only one Author who wrote both Testaments.

The words "omniscient" and "omnipresent" do not appear in the King James Version of the Bible and yet no serious Bible student denies that the scriptures do teach that God is omniscient and omnipresent, that is He is all powerful and everywhere present. The only guarantee that we have that God is one God and subsisting in three different persons, is His word for it. Man realizes that his only final authority is the Scripture itself. We have to find out what does the Bible say.

When the Apostle Paul writes to the Church of Corinth in the thirteenth chapter of verse fourteen he speaks of the blessings in their behalf, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen."

Since the Bible definitely shows that the Son is God and it also indicates that the Father is God, and teaches that the Holy Spirit is God.this verse also definitely shows there are three persons subsisting in the Godhead.

Rather than arguing with the carnal mind which the unregenerate mind like Nicodemus, "How can this things be?"

Let us learn what the Word of God reveals concerning the Holy Trinity and accept it's doctrine even though we have to confess we don't know everything that we find. Let God be true and all men liars! Let the Scripture stand as His Word.

Genesis 1:1 reads:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Now the word God is "Elohim" and that's plural, "created" however is singular. The noun God is plural in form, the verb "created" is singular. This is particularly important when we remember that the Lord Jesus declared, that every jot and tittle is inspired or God breathed, so that every letter as well as every word in the original autograph of the Bible is given by God.

@Rich R - You will love this as you are a tickler for grammar.

In the Hebrew Language there are three numbers. We only have two in our language. The three numbers are:
1) Singular speaks of one.
2) Dual speaks of two.
3) Plural speaks of three or more.
When a Hebrew noun ends in "im" the plural number is indicated. In Genesis 1:1 it says it's "Elohim" note the plural form in the ending was the creator. Not just one, not just two, but at least three are involved in the act of creation.

The verb however is singular "bara" we might render it quite properly in this way: "In the beginning God [plural] He [singular] created [singular] the heaven and the earth.
Seems like a real contradiction doesn't it?

If the subject God is plural, than the verb and inferred personal pronoun should be plural as well according to the rules of grammar.

In other words, "In the beginning God [they] created the heaven and the earth."

The point is however; the Bible teaches that God subsists as three different persons, He is still one God and NOT three Gods.

The opening verse of the Bible is not the only place that we find it interesting, interesting in the combination of the singular and the plural.

Genesis 1:26-27 reads:
26} And God (Elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... [paraphrased]
27) So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created he them.

Now in this passage [verse 26] the word said is singular, And God said so it is and Elohim he said NOT they said, uni-plural noun Elohim is declared to be one by the singular personal pronoun as inflected in the word said.

Elohim [plural] said [singular] let us [plural] make man in our [plural] image so that God [plural] created [singular] man in His [singular] own image.

Notice, in verse 26 the personal pronouns are plural. In verse 27 the personal pronouns are singular.

This interchange of singular and plural numbers defies such a carnal philosophy, Nor, are we dealing with three Gods for the same interchange and combination declares that Jehovah though He is three persons is one God.

There will be more segments of this nature to follow.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Rich R]

@Rich R - You will love this as you are a tickler for grammar.

In the Hebrew Language there are three numbers. We only have two in our language. The three numbers are:
1) Singular speaks of one.
2) Dual speaks of two.
3) Plural speaks of three or more.
When a Hebrew noun ends in "im" the plural number is indicated. In Genesis 1:1 it says it's "Elohim" note the plural form in the ending was the creator. Not just one, not just two, but at least three are involved in the act of creation.

The verb however is singular "bara" we might render it quite properly in this way: "In the beginning God [plural] He [singular] created [singular] the heaven and the earth.
Seems like a real contradiction doesn't it?

If the subject God is plural, than the verb and inferred personal pronoun should be plural as well according to the rules of grammar.

In other words, "In the beginning God [they] created the heaven and the earth."

The point is however; the Bible teaches that God subsists as three different persons, He is still one God and NOT three Gods.

The opening verse of the Bible is not the only place that we find it interesting, interesting in the combination of the singular and the plural.

Genesis 1:26-27 reads:
26} And God (Elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... [paraphrased]
27) So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created he them.

Now in this passage [verse 26] the word said is singular, And God said so it is and Elohim he said NOT they said, uni-plural noun Elohim is declared to be one by the singular personal pronoun as inflected in the word said.

Elohim [plural] said [singular] let us [plural] make man in our [plural] image so that God [plural] created [singular] man in His [singular] own image.

Notice, in verse 26 the personal pronouns are plural. In verse 27 the personal pronouns are singular.

This interchange of singular and plural numbers defies such a carnal philosophy, Nor, are we dealing with three Gods for the same interchange and combination declares that Jehovah though He is three persons is one God.

There will be more segments of this nature to follow.

To God Be The Glory

I'm a stickler for grammar? Why? Because I say a son can't be his own father? Or is it any of the other clear verses that would not make Jesus to be God, such as:

• God knew things Jesus didn't know (Mark 13:32)
  
• Jesus has a God, the same God as we have to be precise (John 26:17 and about 6 other verses)
• Verses that clearly state Jesus was a man (Rom 5:15 and about 6 other verses)
• God is NOT a man (Hos 11:9 & Num 23:19)
• Jesus had a different will that God (Luk 22:42 and a few others)
• Jesus was tempted just like you. Do you feel 100% God when tempted? (Heb 4:15 and a few others)
• God is the head of Jesus (1 Cor 11:3)
• God is good, Jesus is not (Luk 18:19)
• God is greater than Jesus (John 14:28)
• Jesus did not have his own doctrine, he relied on God's doctrine (John 17:16 and a few others)
• God gave Jesus his power. God gave Himself power? (Matt 28:18)
• God taught Jesus. God teaching Himself? (John 8:28)
• Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. God lower than angels? (Heb 2:9)
• In the future, Jesus will be under God (1 Cor 15:28)

There are more, but, how about this one?

1 Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.​

So while there is actually a God the Father in the scriptures and He is said to be the one God, we can't find any mention of a God the Son or a God the Holy Spirit.

I'm afraid I'm really not being a stickler for grammar. Any 6th grader could read those verses and understand what they say.

Elohim - You do know that there are many spiritual being in heaven with God I trust. There are angels, principalities, powers, cherubim, and more. I trust you also understand they are actually called elohim in several places. I can read all the verses I quoted and make them gel with Gen1:26 by simply understanding that God was referring to to those entities when He said, "Let us..."

I really don't have to resort to a lot of grammar to see these things. I just read what's written without introducing extraneous ideas from Pagan doctrines. Not to be judgmental, but you appear to resort to some really intense, dare I say obscure, grammatical constructs in an attempt to prove your point.

Anyway, I love you as a brother and I appreciate your love for our God and our savior. I'd have to guess you are a born again child of God. As such we are brothers despite our disagreement on the scriptures. None of us know it all, but when Jesus returns, the fog will be lifted and we'll know it all.

1 John 3:2,

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
​

Maybe we can talk face to face with our new bodies (Phil 3;21) in paradise! I'll look for you.

God bless