Proof that Jesus is God

[Cooper]

you are TOTALLY deceived by the devil! My LAST response to you, because you REJECT what the Bible Teaches!

There is One omnipresent God. You know that, and I know that, but to monotheists it looks as though Trinitarians have three gods.

Monotheists have an additional problem in-as-much as they do not believe Jesus is God with us.

Now would be a good time to set about bridging the gap between the two groups who worship the same Father God, while some reject the presence of the omnipresent God with us on earth.

Deceived, in what way?
.

 

[keithr]

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God.

That's not explaining John 1:1, it's just quoting it and changing the word 'Word' to 'Jesus'.

A similar sentence, logically, is, "Last week Mary was with Jim and Mary was Jim". It doesn't make sense! That's why we need to pay more attention to the original Greek text, and to try and understand what John meant when he wrote it. In the following verses, which John also wrote, it is clear that John thought that Jesus, the Word, was God's only son, and that Jesus was not God:

(John 1:14) The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John 1:18) No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
[They had seen Jesus, therefore Jesus could not be God.]

1 John 1:1-3 (WEB):
That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life (and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us); that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

(2Jn 1:3) Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

(Rev 1:1) This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

(Rev 1:5-6) and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us, and washed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a Kingdom, priests to his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

As an explanation of John 1:1 -

The obvious deduction from verse 2 ("The same was in the beginning with God") is that Jesus and God are two different beings. The confusion comes from the incorrect translation of verse 1, which should be translated "the Word was with God, and the Word was a God". To quote from "Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 5" by Charles T. Russell:

... nothing whatever in the words used distinguishes the Father from the Son in the words rendered Lord and God. The matter is left entirely to the judgement of the reader, and indicated only by the construction of the sentance - except where the word Theos is used twice in the same clause the Greek Prepositive Article is sometimes used, so as to give the effect of THE God in contrast with A God. An illustration is found in John 1:1 - "the Word was with the God [ho theos] and the word was a God [theos]." But the careful student (freed from prejudice) will generally have no difficulty in determining the thought of the apostle. Indeed, the language is so explicit that the wonder is that we were heedless of it so long.​

As an explanation of the grammar of "the Word was a God", I'll include a soc.religion.christian newsgroup response from 25 years ago that I have a copy of (I think from somebody who was a Jehovah's Witness):

Grammatically speaking, "a god" is quite correct. A qualitative "god" without the "a" is also grammatically acceptable. However, the definite "god" without the "a" is unacceptable.

The expression "the Word was God" leads many to believe that Jesus is "ho theos," or Jehovah, and this is not what John 1:1 teaches. I will grant you that "the Word was a god" can also be interpreted ambiguously in the following way:
​

[Hmm, there may be something missing here.]

I recommend as must reading "Qualitative Anarthrous Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version" by Henry Wakefield Slatten. I also humbly but straightforwardly submit that persons trying to understand the John 1:1c significance will be greatly assisted by reading this book. The critic of "a god" will learn much regarding grammar.

Henry Wakefield Slatten makes the following observation (which I summarize from memory since I do not have his book with me).

I can say "Frederick is a prince." What do I mean? I can mean:

1) Indefinite:
Frederick is a son of a monarch but may or may not be princely in character.
2) Indefinite and Qualitative with Indefinite emphasis:
Frederick is a son of a monarch and also has a princely character with some but little reference to his having a princely character.
3) Qualitative and Indefinite with Qualitative emphasis:
Frederick is of princely character and is also the son of a monarch with some but little reference to his being the son of a monarch.
4) Qualitative only:
Frederick is princely in character but may or may not be the son of a monarch.

We NEVER mean that 'Frederick is the Prince' from 'Frederick is a prince.' The translation 'Frederick is princely' is fine. However, it restricts the range of possibilities of "a prince" to the qualitative only #4.

With this in mind, let us focus on John 1:1c....

"The Word was a god." (Greek= kai theos [w/o the def. article] En ho logos)
What do we mean? We can mean:

1) Indefinite only: "The Word was one of the group of those who can be called gods.'
2) Indefinite and Qualitative with Indefinite Emphasis: 'The Word was one of the group of gods with some but little reference to the qualities he possesses.'
3) Qualitative and Indefinite with Qualitative Emphasis: 'The Word was godlike with some but little reference to the group.'
4) Qualitative only: 'The Word was godlike.'

All of these are grammatically possible with John 1:1c. But NOT 'the Word was the God.' The most common, statistically speaking, is #3.

Here is the limitation of grammar. WHICH of these possibilites must be decided by context and what we believe the point the author was trying to make.

The critics of the NWT "a god" usually focus on interpreting "a god" in the sense of #1 above. In so doing, they miss the point somewhat. This is because Jehovah's Witnesses view the anarthrous theos as having qualitative emphasis (I will return to this in a moment).

As far as theology is concerned, interpreting "a god" as indefinite only (#2, and not the position of Jehovah's Witnesses) is still permissible, scripturally speaking but not unitarian speaking. This is due to the Jewish monotheistic view of human and angelic gods that represented the true God (Ps 8:5, Heb 2:7, Ps 82:1). These were not worshipped and so the Jews were not committing polytheism. Thus John COULD have been referring to #2 only and not have violated his monotheism.

There is a Watchtower reference that says that Jehovah's Witnesses view the anarthrous theos in its usual sense of both qualitative and indefinite. Therefore, this would place the expression "the Word was a god" as meaning that 'the Word has the qualities and characteristics of Jehovah (is like Jehovah without being Jehovah) and is also among the body of all those who represent Jehovah and can be called gods, with little emphasis on the group'. Thus, the translation "the Word was godlike," although grammatically possible, limits the interpretation to #4 does not fully express the usual flavor of the anarthrous predicate nominative that preceeds the copulative verb.

I hope that this necessarily lengthy explanation explains why we think the term "a god," although have a limited range of possibilities, is closer in meaning to the sense of the greek grammar than "God," which can be interpreted erroneously as definite, although it too can be interpreted as qualitative. The damage done by understanding it as definite "god" is shown by the confusion of so many people who use this verse to explain that Jesus is Jehovah.

Sincerely,
Wes​

[Before you ask, no I am not a Jehovah's Witness!]

 

[keithr]

It doesn't take much working out once you know Jesus was God with us. Sometimes he spoke as a man and sometimes as the Almighty.

Jesus was a god with us, but he was not almighty God Yahweh with us. Immanuel means "god with us" or "with us is god", where 'el' is a Hebrew word meaning strength or mighty, which is a generic word used to refer to any god (including Yahweh).

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

That's not explaining John 1:1, it's just quoting it and changing the word 'Word' to 'Jesus'.

A similar sentence, logically, is, "Last week Mary was with Jim and Mary was Jim". It doesn't make sense! That's why we need to pay more attention to the original Greek text, and to try and understand what John meant when he wrote it. In the following verses, which John also wrote, it is clear that John thought that Jesus, the Word, was God's only son, and that Jesus was not God:

(John 1:14) The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John 1:18) No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.
[They had seen Jesus, therefore Jesus could not be God.]

1 John 1:1-3 (WEB):
That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life (and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us); that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

(2Jn 1:3) Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

(Rev 1:1) This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

(Rev 1:5-6) and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us, and washed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a Kingdom, priests to his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

As an explanation of John 1:1 -

The obvious deduction from verse 2 ("The same was in the beginning with God") is that Jesus and God are two different beings. The confusion comes from the incorrect translation of verse 1, which should be translated "the Word was with God, and the Word was a God". To quote from "Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 5" by Charles T. Russell:

... nothing whatever in the words used distinguishes the Father from the Son in the words rendered Lord and God. The matter is left entirely to the judgement of the reader, and indicated only by the construction of the sentance - except where the word Theos is used twice in the same clause the Greek Prepositive Article is sometimes used, so as to give the effect of THE God in contrast with A God. An illustration is found in John 1:1 - "the Word was with the God [ho theos] and the word was a God [theos]." But the careful student (freed from prejudice) will generally have no difficulty in determining the thought of the apostle. Indeed, the language is so explicit that the wonder is that we were heedless of it so long.​

As an explanation of the grammar of "the Word was a God", I'll include a soc.religion.christian newsgroup response from 25 years ago that I have a copy of (I think from somebody who was a Jehovah's Witness):

Grammatically speaking, "a god" is quite correct. A qualitative "god" without the "a" is also grammatically acceptable. However, the definite "god" without the "a" is unacceptable.

The expression "the Word was God" leads many to believe that Jesus is "ho theos," or Jehovah, and this is not what John 1:1 teaches. I will grant you that "the Word was a god" can also be interpreted ambiguously in the following way:
​

[Hmm, there may be something missing here.]

I recommend as must reading "Qualitative Anarthrous Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version" by Henry Wakefield Slatten. I also humbly but straightforwardly submit that persons trying to understand the John 1:1c significance will be greatly assisted by reading this book. The critic of "a god" will learn much regarding grammar.

Henry Wakefield Slatten makes the following observation (which I summarize from memory since I do not have his book with me).

I can say "Frederick is a prince." What do I mean? I can mean:

1) Indefinite:
Frederick is a son of a monarch but may or may not be princely in character.
2) Indefinite and Qualitative with Indefinite emphasis:
Frederick is a son of a monarch and also has a princely character with some but little reference to his having a princely character.
3) Qualitative and Indefinite with Qualitative emphasis:
Frederick is of princely character and is also the son of a monarch with some but little reference to his being the son of a monarch.
4) Qualitative only:
Frederick is princely in character but may or may not be the son of a monarch.

We NEVER mean that 'Frederick is the Prince' from 'Frederick is a prince.' The translation 'Frederick is princely' is fine. However, it restricts the range of possibilities of "a prince" to the qualitative only #4.

With this in mind, let us focus on John 1:1c....

"The Word was a god." (Greek= kai theos [w/o the def. article] En ho logos)
What do we mean? We can mean:

1) Indefinite only: "The Word was one of the group of those who can be called gods.'
2) Indefinite and Qualitative with Indefinite Emphasis: 'The Word was one of the group of gods with some but little reference to the qualities he possesses.'
3) Qualitative and Indefinite with Qualitative Emphasis: 'The Word was godlike with some but little reference to the group.'
4) Qualitative only: 'The Word was godlike.'

All of these are grammatically possible with John 1:1c. But NOT 'the Word was the God.' The most common, statistically speaking, is #3.

Here is the limitation of grammar. WHICH of these possibilites must be decided by context and what we believe the point the author was trying to make.

The critics of the NWT "a god" usually focus on interpreting "a god" in the sense of #1 above. In so doing, they miss the point somewhat. This is because Jehovah's Witnesses view the anarthrous theos as having qualitative emphasis (I will return to this in a moment).

As far as theology is concerned, interpreting "a god" as indefinite only (#2, and not the position of Jehovah's Witnesses) is still permissible, scripturally speaking but not unitarian speaking. This is due to the Jewish monotheistic view of human and angelic gods that represented the true God (Ps 8:5, Heb 2:7, Ps 82:1). These were not worshipped and so the Jews were not committing polytheism. Thus John COULD have been referring to #2 only and not have violated his monotheism.

There is a Watchtower reference that says that Jehovah's Witnesses view the anarthrous theos in its usual sense of both qualitative and indefinite. Therefore, this would place the expression "the Word was a god" as meaning that 'the Word has the qualities and characteristics of Jehovah (is like Jehovah without being Jehovah) and is also among the body of all those who represent Jehovah and can be called gods, with little emphasis on the group'. Thus, the translation "the Word was godlike," although grammatically possible, limits the interpretation to #4 does not fully express the usual flavor of the anarthrous predicate nominative that preceeds the copulative verb.

I hope that this necessarily lengthy explanation explains why we think the term "a god," although have a limited range of possibilities, is closer in meaning to the sense of the greek grammar than "God," which can be interpreted erroneously as definite, although it too can be interpreted as qualitative. The damage done by understanding it as definite "god" is shown by the confusion of so many people who use this verse to explain that Jesus is Jehovah.

Sincerely,
Wes​

[Before you ask, no I am not a Jehovah's Witness!]

you do NOT understand Greek grammar, and your arguments are MOOT!

 

[keithr]

do you agree that no one can or has seen God at any time?

That is what the Scriptures says.

The Person Who was with Abraham ON EARTH in Genesis chapter 18, Spoke as YHWH, ... and in verse 33, "And the Lord went His way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place". These verses show that this was not some dream or vision that Abraham had here. as these three men, One being YHWH, was PHYSICALLY with them on earth, and ATE food, etc. WHO then is this YHWH on earth, Whom Abraham SAW?

Considering that no one has seen God (Yahweh) at any time, I would interpret that passage as Yahweh was speaking through the angel. The angel may have been Jesus, or it may have been another spirit being - we have no way of knowing for sure.

 

[keithr]

you do NOT understand Greek grammar, and your arguments are MOOT!

Well that totally convinces me (not)!

 

[robert derrick]

Notice the number of 'likes' a self confessed non-Christian gets while identifying as a Christian. It causes me to wonder. Even JW's identify as 'Christian' while at the same time claiming Jesus was only a man. If their faith is Christian, then according to the meaning if the word 'faith' they need to worship Jesus, whose deity they deny. Either they worship Jesus, in which case according to their religion, they are worshipping a human being, or if they worship a different 'deity' then their religion is not Christian, but probably similar to that of the unbelieving Jews who crucified Jesus, on the grounds he was only a man. We know according to scripture what their end will be.
.

They do not worship Jesus, because they cannot worship Jesus, because they cannot worship a created being, even if they want to pretend that created being was 'blessed' with immortality after his death. They can only 'worship' Jesus as a god, the same way the pagans could worship as a god, because the myth-makers claimed he was 'blessed' with immortality in Olympus by the god that made him in the first place: Zeus.

Jehovaites are paganist myth makers, which is why their forefather Arian was rightly shoved off the Christian stage, when he first began to claim Jesus was not the God in the 2-300's A.D., and due to the schism being brought in, the church leaders of the day were compelled to defend the simple written fact that Jesus was indeed Lord and God.

These same intruders today, with twisted intellectualism now try to claim that the doctrine of Jesus as Lord was being made up at the time of Arian, rather than defending the common faith of the apostles (Jude 1).

These are not serious believing Christians. They are not even serious people to be taken seriously. All they are is pretenders who get their intellectual kicks by displaying a whole lot of Greek craft to say something the Bible never said, and to deny something the Bible plainly says.

But that is fine, because all things work to the good to them that love the Lord Jesus, and so we get to prove once again their heresy, even as the church leaders of Arian's day. Jehovaites are the new Arianites.

 

[robert derrick]

Is interesting you make and have made references to "Greek Mythology" more then a coupla times throughout this thread.

Which tells me you are not one of those subscribing to the 6,000 year old earth doctrine/tradition/precepts of man! (ie. things that make void the Word of God) Which is a good thing!
Although, you do come off as an arrogant sob that still clings dearly with those "stars" that were "swept by the dragon's tale (purposely misspelled, for its persuasive INTENT). AND? the reason and cause for the DEMISES AND DESTRUCTION/S of previous earth and heaven AGES! Not the 3rd rock from the sun itself! But? the "government and governmental structures" of both that which happens in the heavens, with a particular focus on that which occurs on this planet, that which was/is created on this planet, especially where it is concerned with the souls/spirit of man, which God in his good pleasure created! Which is not a good thing!

Which is the why it can be said and is true, AND? is written concerning Christ's role in this "section of eternity" "that by him, and FOR Him was ALL this universe created and EVERYTHING in it!

But? not so much as being destroyed, as much as those heavenly bodies (planets, galaxies, constellations, etcetera, etcetera) being REARRANGED!

And that which has happened SHALL happen again!

Hence the increase in the speed of godlessness and lawlessness we are at this time baring wittness to!

Because, although you yourself may not be aware of it! But, yer daddy does!
"Yer TIME is SHORT!"

You are mistaking my sarcasm of the natural conclusion to the folly of thinking Jesus was created a natural man to 'perform' the creation.

I do not believe the obvious paganism of it, I am mocking it.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Before you ask, no I am not a Jehovah's Witness!

Really? you are using THEIR faulty arguments for your post!

 

[robert derrick]

It sure sounds like you are of the Unitarian persuasion!

Inasmuch as you are giving Christ ALL the credit, while robbing His Father and God of ANY SUBSTANCE WHATSOEVER!
Certainly NOT an aspiration I would want to subscribe to!
But? "Hopeless Romantics" would!
Yep? Misguided, polluted, corrupted, and misplaced agape love can!

Once again, I am mocking the folly of the Creator creating Jesus to perform the creation act...

 

[robert derrick]

Notice the number of 'likes' a self confessed non-Christian gets while identifying as a Christian. It causes me to wonder. Even JW's identify as 'Christian' while at the same time claiming Jesus was only a man. If their faith is Christian, then according to the meaning if the word 'faith' they need to worship Jesus, whose deity they deny. Either they worship Jesus, in which case according to their religion, they are worshipping a human being, or if they worship a different 'deity' then their religion is not Christian, but probably similar to that of the unbelieving Jews who crucified Jesus, on the grounds he was only a man. We know according to scripture what their end will be.
.

The number of 'likes' are the number of loyal fellow Jehovaites coming specifically to add their 'likes'.

"We know according to scripture what their end will be."

"They that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness." (2 Peter3)

 

[Cooper]

Jesus was a god with us, but he was not almighty God Yahweh with us. Immanuel means "god with us" or "with us is god", where 'el' is a Hebrew word meaning strength or mighty, which is a generic word used to refer to any god (including Yahweh).

That is far too complicated, I lost track of what you were saying and stopped reading halfway through, sorry.

Don't forget God is neither male, nor female.

We know Jesus is the Word, and in verse 1 we are told the Word (Jesus) is God.

Then in verse 14 we are told the Word in heaven, (God) became flesh, and elsewhere we read God humbled himself and became man for 33 years, while on earth.

He then returned to heaven from whence he came, all the time retaining his perfect divinity, even while being in the flesh, and when he returns again, nobody will be in any doubt as to who the Word actually was then, and is today.

The important thing to remember is that we are talking about 1 omnipresent God in heaven and on earth.
.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Well that totally convinces me (not)!

Dr Mantey's Letter

 

[Cooper]

The number of 'likes' are the number of loyal fellow Jehovaites coming specifically to add their 'likes'.

"We know according to scripture what their end will be."

"They that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness." (2 Peter3)

It concerns me, judging from the number of likes, that the number of Jehovahites are in the majority over the Christians. This on a Christian forum indeed. Perhaps this has opened up a new mission field?
.

 

[Cooper]

Jesus was a god with us, but he was not almighty God Yahweh with us. Immanuel means "god with us" or "with us is god", where 'el' is a Hebrew word meaning strength or mighty, which is a generic word used to refer to any god (including Yahweh).

Whether God with us, or God absent from us, there is only 1 God.
.

 

[robert derrick]

Jehovaites are trying to worship a title for the Lord. Jesus is the name given to the Lord, when Jehovah was begotten in the world by the Spirit and sent by God. Up to that time, the Lord Jehoavah refused to give His name, nor be called by a name, other than His title 'Jehovah'.

The only reason the Lord Jehovah began to be referred to as the Son, and Begotten, was because the Lord chose to be the One to come into the world as the Messiah, while the true God remaining in Heaven was thus now referred to by the Son as the Father. Jesus would be the name of the chosen One Lord to Personally come to earth and redeem His people. And this name of the Lord could only be given by God, wehn he came into the earth as a begotten child.

The unbelieving Jews did not reject Jesus, believing it was blasphemy for the Lord Jehovah to come into the world as a babe, for they knew Messiah would do so in Bethlehem (Matthew 2). They later rejected Him as Lord Messiah, because they refused His reestablishing the authority of Scripture over them, which they had perverted to their own ends of power over the people (Mark 7). They did not want to relinquish their power over the nation to this Christ, though they knew Him to be so (John 3, 11). They wanted another Jehovah on earth more to their liking, and still wait for such.

They did not reject the Biblic prophecy of the Lord Himself coming into the world as the Son of the Blessed. They were not Jahovaites-Arianites that believe the Messiah and Christ would be a newly created being to do some good work on earth, and then be blessed with immortality. They knew that would be as the paganism of the day, as with Herakles.

Jesus is the Lord Jehovah come in the flesh as Christ, Savior, and Redeemer of the Jews first, and then the gentiles. And Jehovah's name was first made known in the Gospels with His birth into the world.

(Then Judaizing Jews of the day began to reject the salvation of the Gentiles by the Lord Jesus, and only relented if they would be circumcised into the Law of Moses, which was done away with the Old Covenant of Jehovah, for the New Covenant and Law of Jesus Christ (Heb 7). You see, the truly orthodox Jews were a truly stiff-necked people, in that they wanted to worship Jehovah then and Jesus now, but only according to their dictates of rule and law added to that of God.)

 

[robert derrick]

Of course it is not necessarily the actual words spoken as it is what is in our heart that causes the words to be spoken. God knows and won't judge us too harshly if we are sincere and working at it... but we must be working at it. I cannot work at it for anyone else.

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matt 12:36-37

I can accept that. The law-worshippers I have known, and was one of, preached that curse words were sin always, which is true, but also that the curse words were evidence of a corrupt heart and unsaved soul, because out of the heart the mouth speaks...

And yet, I at times would need to clamp down on a 'curse word' that was welling up within me at times of laughter and merriment, having nothing to do with anger and bitterness. (You know the drill) And of course I would then question my own salvation.

Since leaving that group, I believe Scriptures preaches the wickedness of lying men with cursing lips, who corrupt everything they speak of (Psalm 59, 120)(Eph 4); however, curse words in themselves are not evidence of a foul heart and unredeemed soul.

I would say though, that the answer to not being caught unawares and natural cursing do to unexpected and disastrous events, is found in continued prayer in the Spirit and thankfulness to Jesus for forgiveness and deliverance from the sins of the world.

 

[Wrangler]

It concerns me, judging from the number of likes, that the number of Jehovahites, are in the majority, over the Christians. This on a Christian forum. Perhaps this has opened up a new mission field?
.

I have no idea why you are parsing trinitarians from Christians. Never heard the term Jehovahites before but it is my understanding that JW, unitarian Christians and Messianic Jews consider themselves Christian while rejecting trinitarianism.

Is Jesus God? Absolutely not! And the Bible says this over and over and over again. Just from today's devotional reading in the 4th chapter of the beloved Gospel of John:

v24 God is spirit.
v42 We know indeed that this man is the Savior of the world.
​

Man is flesh & blood not spirit. Ergo, the man-is-God thesis is defeated AGAIN. Trinitarians falsely equate believing in the trinity with accepting Jesus as your master and savior. Proof is what is missing from Scripture. No where is the trinity in the Bible - not the word, not the concept. This is a glaring fact lost on trinitarians. Rather than cite verses that 'support' this doctrine, please tell me the verse where Jesus teaches the trinity - and believing the trinity is a condition to be saved? Thanks!

Jesus said to follow him to live @ Matthew 16:24-26. He never said you have to believe the trinity to be saved. Jesus also said God is greater than him, know more than him, sent him, told him what to say, and was going to him after he was resurrected (John 20:17) etc. This is not what one would say if one were God. Ever read the prologue to the Epistles? Not, the Son but the Father is the LORD God alone. The Bibles says it over and over again and not once does it say God the Son or God the Holy Spirit.

And he will call out to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’
Psalm 89:26

“Don’t cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
John 20:17

For us, there is one God, the Father
1 Corinthians 8:6

May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
2 Corinthians 1:2

I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.
Galatians 1:1

May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
Ephesians 1:2

May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
Philippians 1:2

May God our Father give you grace and peace.
Colossians 1:2

I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.
Galatians 1:1

We are writing to the church in Thessalonica, to you who belong to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 & 2 Thessalonians 1:1

May God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord give you grace, mercy, and peace.
1 & 2 Timothy 1:2

May God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior give you grace and peace.
Titus 1:4

May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.
Philemon 1:3

For God never said to any angel what he said to Jesus: “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.”
God also said, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.
Hebrews 1:5

Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring
James 1:27

God the Father knew you and chose you long ago, and his Spirit has made you holy.
1 Peter 1:2

when he received honor and glory from God the Father.
2 Peter 1:17

We proclaim ... our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:3 (NOTE: Again no reference to the HS)

Grace, mercy, and peace, which come from God the Father
2 John 1:3

He has made us a Kingdom of priests for God his Father.
Revelation 1:6

 

[Wrangler]

That's not explaining John 1:1, it's just quoting it and changing the word 'Word' to 'Jesus'.

No matter how many times you explain it, trinitarians read into what is not there. Beings are not words. John 1:1 is a figurative expression and it shows their desperation to have anything supersede explicit language. When cornered, they resort to dualism, like Jesus is the Anointed AND did the Anointing. The Big Reveal in Jesus' life was that he was the Messiah, the Chosen One, the Anointed (Anointed by God).

High Priest: Are You God’s Anointed, the Liberating King, the Son of the Blessed One?
Jesus: 62 I am.
Mark 14:61-62

 

[keithr]

Really? you are using THEIR faulty arguments for your post!

Not entirely. I was also quoting verses that John wrote that say Jesus was God's only son, to show that John did not believe that Jesus was God, and therefore supporting that John 1:1 should be translated differently, perhaps like the Revised English Bible translates it:

"In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God's presence, and what God was, the Word was."​

Here are some other verses that John wrote that I didn't mention:

John 3:16-18 (WEB):

16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
17) For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him.
18) He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.​

1 John 4:9,10,14-15 (WEB):
9) By this God’s love was revealed in us, that God has sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
10) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
14) We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as the Savior of the world.
15) Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God.

Jesus also referred to God as his God, and his father:

Matthew 27:46 - About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lima sabachthani?” That is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
John 20:17 - Jesus said to her, “Don’t hold me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
(Rev 2:7) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of my God.
(Rev 3:2) Wake up, and keep the things that remain, which you were about to throw away, for I have found no works of yours perfected before my God.
(Rev 3:12) He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.
(Rev 3:21) He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father on his throne.

These are all plain, straightforward to understand verses, that clearly state that Jesus is God's only son. A father and his son are not the same person - that's also plain and simple to understand. So there is no excuse not to believe the simple truth that's repeated throughout the Bible. Even the demons acknowledge this truth:

Matthew 8:28-29 (WEB):

28) When he came to the other side, into the country of the Gergesenes, two people possessed by demons met him there, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that nobody could pass that way.
29) Behold, they cried out, saying, “What do we have to do with you, Jesus, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”​