Is God a Trinity? Does one God exist in three Persons?

TKDB

@AlofRI

"They are books against people USING religion to overthrow America's "Freedom of Religion" by making U.S. a "single religion country". This is, and has always been, a recipe for war … in Gods name … of course, because the other countries have a "Phony god" … according to Christians. If WE don't back one specific "god" that's one less reason to fight U.S. 

And it's sadistically sickening, how some humans have manipulated religion, so that they can use said religion as a platform device, or as an excuse to hurt, maim, cripple, or kill other humans, with their own human hands, because again, religion in general, has nothing to do with how some humans have chosen to WAR, against other humans?

AlofRI

HEY, we agree! That's exactly my point! I'm not against religion, I'm against those who USE it, in different ways, to control the masses, and grab power with it! Religions do a LOT of good, OFTEN outweighed by others who use it for greed or power purposes! The Constitution says: " ….. no religious test shall EVER be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That means we can NOT be considered a Christian country, alone.

I have nothing against ANYONE'S religion, just PLEASE don't use it to control (or force it on), those who believe differently.

kevin_burke

This isn't a debatable topic. As a catholic I have been taught that this is a mystery of faith. It cannot be explained through human understanding. 

YeshuaBought

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS-lLTfCI7c

YeshuaBought

I am so sorry for not responding. I have been sick with thyroid problems, but am ready to try and debate this issue.

all4actt

I don't believe there are 3 gods that are one but one god that the main different major religions referred to under diietent names.

Most majr religions believe in virtually the same things.

It is the fanatical extreme versions of those religions that don'blieve that we are all worshiping the same god. 

Sand

Yes there is one God. (Mark 12:29) Faith is based off of evidence. (Hebrews 11:1) So Faith without works is dead. (James 2:17) The works of the law God requires in the Bible is the Law of Love, which should restrict servants from hurting, maiming, crippling, or killing other humans. Especially those of different beliefs, so if someone thinks differently about the Bible or the Laws within. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to defend our beliefs with mildness and deep respect of others viewpoints and beliefs.

The problem is most religious people refuse to speak to others and learn different viewpoints. Having discussions like this allows everyone to hear and learn other viewpoints of the same information.

Of course my viewpoint is I feel the foundation of every religion should be Love. I feel that more study and understanding is needed on Love.

Neopesdom

Sand said:

It is what the bible says.

So it is the Angel who says “I Jesus”! How could this be when Jesus is clearly worshiped on other occasions? Jesus no doubt can accept worship in connection to the Father, but not directly to himself, because he is not God. As he says here he is a fellow servant. This is proof that Jesus is an Angel. There is another indication that Jesus is an Angel, one of his titles mentioned there is the bright Mourning Star, Mourning Stars are Angels in Job 38:7.

The angel is reading from a scroll. 

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.So He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs. 

For to which of the angels did God ever say:

“You are My Son; today I have become Your Father” ?

Or again: “I will be His Father, and He will be My Son” ?

And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all God’s angels worship Him... (Heb 1:3-6)

And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? (Heb. 1:13)

The Son is the image of the invisible God,... (Col. 1:15)

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. 2:9)

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (Phil. 2:6)

"We are not stoning You for any good work," said the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God." (John 10:33)

Do you not know that we will judge angels? (1 Cor. 6:3)  For if God did not spare angels when they sinned (2 Peter 2:4)

Clearly there is a distinction between angels and Jesus.

As for the debate topic...

God is one (Hebrew: echad) in unity, not one (Hebrew: yachid) in singularity, as in Deut 6:4: "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one (Echad)."

The main Hebrew word (yachid) for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God.

Sand

@Neopesdom

You said:

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.So He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs. "

I agree with both of these statements.

But you overlooked the scripture.

He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs.

The word became indicates he was just as the angels at one point in time.

The scripture also says how he is far superior, as the name is excellent. So Jesus only has a name better than the angels, according to scriptures.

So Jesus is only better than the Angels because of his name. This is verifying that Jesus is an Angel, the only difference is a name. In verse 9 the Angels are called Jesus companions, fellows, friends, partners. It also says the only reason he was anointed because he hated lawlessness and loved righteousness. So if one of the other Angels had loved righteousness and hated lawlessness more, they would have been selected. Verse 5 says “today” I have become your father. Showing a starting point in Jesus becoming the Son. This kind of indicates that this is a title.

Lets address worship:

2 Chronicles 18:12-22 show the angels being called God, when a rare scene is explained of what really happened in heaven.

The Angel is not only called God, but identifies themselves as God.

Exodus 3:2 shows another Angel identifies himself as God, uses the famous words of “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be” or “I am what I am”.

This Angel was called God, worshiped, and claimed to be God. If this is idolatry then your definition of idolatry is not the same as God’s. If the Angel represents God then worship to the Angel is worship to God.

According to Jesus words at John 5:37 - No one has heard the Father’s voice at any time.

This means every instance in the Bible where God’s words were heard it was an angel 

So we worship whoever God says worship in connection to God, and only for that time.

Lets look back at the scripture:

when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all God’s angels worship Him... (Heb 1:3-6)

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Notice it is when God bring Jesus into the world. So the Angels did not worship Jesus before that point. It is only when God brought Jesus into the world.

We also know it is not continuous because in Revelation Jesus is telling John not to worship him. - Revelation 22:8

The Son is the image of the invisible God,... (Col. 1:15)

Every firstborn is made in God's image.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." - Genesis 1:27

Adam was the human image of God, Jesus is the angelic image of God.

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. 2:9)

Jesus did not always have the Godhead, it was given to him after he pleased the Father.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; (Colossians 2:19)

The fact that he did not alway possess the Godhead, proves he is an angel.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (Phil. 2:6)

This scripture is in old english. A robber only takes what he does not possess. So this scripture is saying Jesus who is a spirit (form of God) never was equal and will never think of being equal with God. This is proven also by the previous scripture "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:" Phillippians 2:6. Are we to always think we are equal to God and possess equality to God? Or are we to always think we are never equal with God? So this scripture is proving Jesus is an angel.

"We are not stoning You for any good work," said the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God." (John 10:33)

Lets look how Jesus responds to these thoughts.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?- John 10:34-36

Jesus was claiming to be God's Son, not God.

Let me say, most people do not know those scriptures. I am happy of your study of the Bible. Look up more so we can dig deaper. More study leads to more understanding!

Neopesdom

@Sand ;

>>You said:

>>>"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs. "

>>The word became indicates he was just as the angels at one point in time.
>>The scripture also says how he is far superior, as the name is excellent. So Jesus only has a name better than the angels, according to scriptures.

   Something is not necessarily the same as something if that something becomes better than that other something. A comparison does not make an equivalency. That is not a correlation that can be made, but an illicit assumption. Never is Jesus identified as an angel. The point in Romans 1:5 is to say that God never said such a thing to any angel. 

   The fact here you seem to be missing is what the condition of Jesus was when he became superior to the angles (not that He wasn't before) and why at the time He was inferior (not because He was the same as them). "Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. (Philippians 2:7 )" Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: (Heb. 2:7)(Psalm 8:5). He became superior once again when he had made purification for sins and triumphed over death and Satan. Jesus was the first born over a new creation, the only 'begotten' Son at His resurrection because he was never initially born, he always existed (in the form of God), unlike created beings, which must be born again/born from above or begotten. Even angels long to look into these things. (1 Peter 1:12)

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1) By believing in Jesus we are born again, this is a spiritual birth. “hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Peter 1:3)

  Some have asked how Jesus could not know things like which "Time Or Hour" if He was God, it was during this temporary emptying or lowering that this was possible. A glorious member of the Godhead, came down from His divine position and humbled Himself into the form of a man, taking on the role of a mere son, a servant, a glorious act of selflessness.

>>Verse 5 says “today” I have become your father. Showing a starting point in Jesus becoming the Son. This kind of indicates that this is a title.

  That is whole other debate topic I wouldn't mind engaging in, Eternal Sonship vs Incarnational Sonship. It's all about context and perspective. God is omnipresent, therefore from God's perspective Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, regardless at what point in the material timeline from a human perspective you have this or that title bestowed. Jesus is called 'Son of God' because He is God, and He is called 'Son of Man' because he is also was manifested in the flesh as a man. 

“....God was manifest in the flesh, ...” 1 Timothy 3:16 English versions before the King James (such as the Geneva and Bishops Bibles), read "God". Of better known modern versions, only the NKJV, MKJB , 21st Century King James, Darby, Young's Literal Translation, New Millennium Bible and English Majority Text have "God". The rest including NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV,RSV, ASV, Phillips, and most others go with "He". Scrivener's Greek New Testament (1894, Textus Receptus), has Theos (God). All the Greek copies undoubtedly agree in this rendering, ‘God manifested in the flesh’ (manifestation - materialization: an appearance in bodily form).

“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” 1 John 5:20 “These words, when read without any preconceptions or prejudices, teach us that Jesus is God, or more specifically, "The true God and eternal life". One may try to understand them otherwise, especially when constrained by the preconception that God is limited to being singular in nature, and not as the scriptures teach - that He is one in unity.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God with us.

A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Isaiah 40:3 Isaiah speaks of a messenger preparing the way for “our God”. Mark shows that Isaiah’s prophecy spoke of John the Baptist’s preparing for the coming of JESUS! Truly He is “our God”. It is small wonder that Thomas, beholding the resurrected Son, could cry, “My Lord and my God!”

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. Isaiah 43:10-11. If Jehovah is the only saviour, and in 1 John 4:14 we read “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world,” therefore Jesus is also Jehovah. “And at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior. To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.”  Titus 1:3-4 Note: “God our Savior” (vs. 3) and “Christ Jesus our Savior” (vs. 4). Jesus Christ is God; Jesus Christ is the Savior. 

Jesus is referenced prior to incarnation, as the "WORD" (John 1:1), or as an angel put it "that holy thing" (Luke 1:35) and as we have just seen as God, (1 Tim. 3:16). 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

Therefore by inclusion of all things, the WORD created angels. Angels are created beings, the Word is eternal because the Word was God and with God. 

What impression did the early post apostolic theologians have about the identity of Jesus? 

Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117AD) - ...will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).  "For our God, Jesus Christ, .... (ibid., 18:2). ".... the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]). 

Aristides - “... God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Tatian the Syrian - ".... we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

Melito of Sardis - ".... world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, .... he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai's The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus of Lyons - ".... in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on Earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria - "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning, .... He alone. is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190])... [Jesus is] the Expiator, the Savior, the Soother, the Divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son." (ibid., 10:110:1).

Tertullian - "God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God" (The Soul 41:3 [A.D. 210]). "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6-7 [A.D. 210]). "That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).

Origen - "Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was. God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]). "While we have been sketching the proof of the divinity of Jesus, ...." (ibid., 4:1:6).

Hippolytus - "Only [God's] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]). "For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).

Cyprian of Carthage - "One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253])

Arnobius - "'..excited man will say, 'Is that Christ your God?' 'God indeed,' we shall answer, 'and God of the hidden powers'" (Against the Pagans 1:42 [A.D. 305]).

Lactantius - "He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh that is, both God and man" (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).

>>Lets address worship:

“Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” Exodus 34:14 “Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” Matthew 4:10 “And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” Hebrews 1:6 In Exodus God commands that He alone be worshiped. Jesus reiterated the commandment to worship God only. Yet God the Father’s command in Hebrews 1:6 that His angels worship the Son indicates that the Son too is God. If Jesus were not Deity, this would be idolatry.

“Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” Romans 9:5

Sand

>>>>”Something is not necessarily the same as something if that something becomes better than that other something. A comparison does not make an equivalency. That is not a correlation that can be made, but an illicit assumption. Never is Jesus identified as an angel. The point in Romans 1:5 is to say that God never said such a thing to any angel. ”

Good wisdom - A comparison does not make an equivalency

I just showed you Jesus being identified as an Angel in Revelation 22:16 “I Jesus”. Nevertheless if this is not Jesus who is speaking? If you look back at verse 8, John falls to worship a Angel, who corrects him and directs him to worship God. Notice verse 10, “He also tells me” indicating he was still speaking, and this Angel finishes the remaining statements. So it is the Angel who says “I Jesus”! How could this be when Jesus is clearly worshiped on other occasions? Jesus no doubt can accept worship in connection to the Father, but not directly to himself, because he is not God. As he says here he is a fellow servant. This is proof that Jesus is an Angel. There is another indication that Jesus is an Angel, one of his titles mentioned there is the bright Mourning Star, Mourning Stars are Angels in Job 38:7.

Need more identification? 1 Thessalonians 4:16 shows Jesus using the voice of an Archangel. If you are calling the dead, wouldn’t you want to use the strongest voice? Why would Jesus use the voice of an Archangel? Wouldn’t the Archangel’s voice be lesser than God’s? Why not use his own voice, the voice of God? Unless……..his own voice is the Archangel, because he is an Angel.

 

>>>>> “ The fact here you seem to be missing is what the condition of Jesus was when he became superior to the angles (not that He wasn't before) and why at the time He was inferior (not because He was the same as them). "Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. (Philippians 2:7 )" Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: (Heb. 2:7)(Psalm 8:5). He became superior once again when he had made purification for sins and triumphed over death and Satan. Jesus was the first born over a new creation, the only 'begotten' Son at His resurrection because he was never initially born, he always existed (in the form of God), unlike created beings, which must be born again/born from above or begotten. Even angels long to look into these things. (1 Peter 1:12)”

 

I am glad you recognized this about Jesus.

If he was only begotten at his resurrection then they falsely called him this throughout the gospels. He did not become this until he was resurrected. An explanation needed to be given to why they called him the only begotten before he died and correlated this to his resurrection. No one made such a comparison. They did however state he was the only begotten. This proves he did have a beginning.

He is called firstborn when Paul is mentioning him creating. If he did not become the firstborn until he died and was resurrected, this would be misleading. But no explanation is given in the scriptures. It just calls Jesus the firstborn. This supports my viewpoint that Jesus is the first Angel, used by God to create everything else. Notice more in Hebrews 5:9, Paul writes about Jesus being ‘made’ perfect by God. This indicates that Jesus was created.

The words firstborn, only begotten have only one meaning in the scriptures, that Jesus is a created being.

The fact that he is ‘made’ says he is a created being.

Want another word applied to Jesus. Creation - Revelation 3:14 - “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;”

Jesus here is called creation, meaning he was created, by a creator.

 

 
>>>Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1) By believing in Jesus we are born again, this is a spiritual birth. “hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Peter 1:3)  Some have asked how Jesus could not know things like which "Time Or Hour" if He was God, it was during this temporary emptying or lowering that this was possible. A glorious member of the Godhead, came down from His divine position and humbled Himself into the form of a man, taking on the role of a mere son, a servant, a glorious act of selflessness.

I am glad you brought this up. The trinity cannot not stand by Reference. 

Matthew 24:36 - “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” - NASB

That is a good explanation for Jesus but why not the Holy Spirit? Why doesn’t the Holy Spirit know the day and the hour?

“Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:” - John 8:54

Why not the holy spirit? Why couldn’t he say it is the father and the holy spirit that glorifies me? Why is only the father glorifying the son? If you notice Jesus refers to the Father as God. He never refers to the Holy Spirit as God. The father never refers to Jesus as God. If you always refer to a part as a whole and exclude yourself it is logical to conclude you are not part of the whole. Jesus excludes himself when he says “he is your God”. If you notice again that he also excludes the Holy Spirit in his reference to God.

John 8:17, 18 - “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.”

Why didn’t Jesus use the Holy Spirit? He should have said, at the mouth of two men a matter is made firmly established, the Holy Spirit is one and my father is the other. But, nobody has respect for the Holy Spirit, not Jesus, the Apostles, nor the Angels. In many of the letters opening and closing remarks Jesus and the Father are referenced but not the holy spirit. Jesus always prays to the Father but never to the Holy Spirit. The Father resurrects Jesus but not the Holy Spirit. A throne is seen for Jesus and the Father but no throne for the Holy Spirit. No where in the Bible is it shown the Holy Spirit being worshiped, I mean no where! Why isn’t the holy spirit respected as God? In Revelation in the end, all life everywhere says thanks to the Son, thanks to the Father, but no thanks to the Holy Spirit? No worship, no throne, and no thanks, its ruff for the Holy Spirit.

 

>>>That is whole other debate topic I wouldn't mind engaging in, Eternal Sonship vs Incarnational Sonship. It's all about context and perspective. God is omnipresent, therefore from God's perspective Jesus is the Eternal Son of God, regardless at what point in the material timeline from a human perspective you have this or that title bestowed. Jesus is called 'Son of God' because He is God, and He is called 'Son of Man' because he is also was manifested in the flesh as a man.

I never saw a scripture to prove omnipresent, which means present everywhere. This would mean Jesus is God, I am God, You are God, and Satan is God. If God is present everywhere then the absent of one place would refute that claim. Is God in the idols that he claims is lifeless? I would like to see more support for this claim.

 

>>>>“....God was manifest in the flesh, ...” 1 Timothy 3:16 English versions before the King James (such as the Geneva and Bishops Bibles), read "God". Of better known modern versions, only the NKJV, MKJB , 21st Century King James, Darby, Young's Literal Translation, New Millennium Bible and English Majority Text have "God". The rest including NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV,RSV, ASV, Phillips, and most others go with "He". Scrivener's Greek New Testament (1894, Textus Receptus), has Theos (God). All the Greek copies undoubtedly agree in this rendering, ‘God manifested in the flesh’ (manifestation - materialization: an appearance in bodily form).

That is an altered text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture

 

>>>>“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” 1 John 5:20 “These words, when read without any preconceptions or prejudices, teach us that Jesus is God, or more specifically, "The true God and eternal life". One may try to understand them otherwise, especially when constrained by the preconception that God is limited to being singular in nature, and not as the scriptures teach - that He is one in unity.

And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

This scripture is not saying Jesus is God, it is referencing God the reference of “even in his Son” shows the noun it is pointing to is God not Jesus.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God with us.

>>>>A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Isaiah 40:3 Isaiah speaks of a messenger preparing the way for “our God”. Mark shows that Isaiah’s prophecy spoke of John the Baptist’s preparing for the coming of JESUS! Truly He is “our God”. It is small wonder that Thomas, beholding the resurrected Son, could cry, “My Lord and my God!”

Prophetic identification as God, the angels also have prophetic identification as God, so does Moses and David.

Exodus 3:8 - God says “And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey”

When we know that an Angel fulfilled those prophecies

Isaiah 63:8 ,9 shows that God is the savior, then says the angel of his presence is the savior.

 I already showed you an Angel is not only called God, but identifies himself as God.

Exodus 3:2 shows that Angel uses the famous words of “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be” or “I am what I am”.

 So Angels have prophetic identification as God, treated as God, and the verbal claim of God.

 The reason Angels are not considered God is because they have the Father as their God.

Jesus also considers the father God. There are too many locations in the Bible where Jesus calls the Father “My God”. If we are to believe Jesus is considered God because of people calling him God and worshiping him. What connotation are we to get with Jesus worshiping and calling the Father “My God”? Jesus on many occasions prayed to the father an act of worship. Then he compares our viewpoint and his viewpoint and places them on the same level in spirit form. He told Mary “My God” and “Your God” - John 20:17. With that statement he identified himself with humans in spirit form. Why would he do that? He is no longer ‘limited’ or in ‘human form’ like the Trinitarians repeatedly stress. If anything Jesus should have said, “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my rightful place as God.” But by referring to a part as a whole and separating himself from the whole, concludes he cannot be God. Jesus refers to the Father as God or the whole, if anything he is referring also to himself in the third person. But by stating the word ‘My’ separates himself from the whole so he couldn’t be referring to himself in the third person anymore. Jesus confirms this by comparing himself to a human while in spirit form, now we know Jesus is not God. The same reasons that is used to prove Jesus is God is the same things Jesus does to the Father. So a Trinitarian believing Jesus is God, and Jesus saying, “My God”, the Trinitarian would have to admit Polytheism. This is not a bad thing it just shows Trinitarians cannot believe in tota scriptura. They would have to make a new conclusion in order to realign themselves in tota scriptura. Because this scripture here is undeniable proof Jesus is not God.

 

>>>Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. Isaiah 43:10-11. If Jehovah is the only saviour, and in 1 John 4:14 we read “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world,” therefore Jesus is also Jehovah. “And at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior. To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.”  Titus 1:3-4 Note: “God our Savior” (vs. 3) and “Christ Jesus our Savior” (vs. 4). Jesus Christ is God; Jesus Christ is the Savior. 

 

Here is three other saviors - Judges 3:15; 1 Samuel 23:5;2 Kings 13:4, 5;

But your wisdom is clear for Jesus - A comparison does not make an equivalency

 For Jesus to be God - Everything must line up.

 The Biggest part that separates Jesus is he died - he could never be considered immortal

Because the definition of immortal is cannot die.

Look at some other words in the Bible that is overlooked by trinity believers:

 

Sent

Jesus on many occasions said he was sent from heaven. This is a problem because that word is only used for representatives or messengers. Because if Jesus is a part of God or God, he should have used a different word. Like the word “came”. Why is Jesus sent? If he is God the better terminology would be “I came” here to save mankind. Yahweh in the Hebrew scriptures always speaks with authority, even when he is not personally doing things, he said “I”, “myself”, and “who else”. For Jesus to say “sent” like that requires restructure of sentences and specific choice of words. The word sent means the person is not going under their own authority, or of their own volition, but they are under so form of compulsion.  What makes it worst is Jesus’ statement about sent persons, at John 13:16. Jesus here is calling himself a slave. As a slave to the Father could Jesus really be called an equal? Do we know any situation where a slave is considered an equal to his master?

 

Ask

If you are God would you ask permission from anyone? Everything is yours, just do it. Jesus constantly defers to the Father, praying to him, asking the father for things. There are somethings he says with authority, but not in all things. The Son will ask the father constantly, why…..you are God. You know when you ask for permission is when you do not have absolute authority. Not to say you don’t have any authority, but not absolute. The question I have, if Jesus is God, did he ask his Father permission to be God?

 

Will

This is a very interesting view. Does Jesus want to die for mankind? The answer may seem obvious. But Jesus indicates otherwise. He on many occasions speaks about not coming of his own self. He seeks not his own will, but of the will of the one who sent him forth. If Jesus is a slave this statement indicates he is just being obedient or humble. But if he is God this statement indicates he didn’t want to die for us. The choice of words is different for someone in authority. It means that the Father’s will was that Jesus come to die for our sins. But Jesus will was different, and the holy spirit agreed with the Father, so Jesus was forced to come down here. So if you are a Trinitarian, it is better to thank the Father and the holy spirit than to thank Jesus, because Jesus didn’t willfully die for your sins he did so reluctantly. Two different wills show two different lines of thought. Especially when the wills are compared from the same person. Why even say something like that if you are collectively God? How often does this happen? This builds skepticism.

>>>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

Jesus has title of God, just as the Angels have title of God.

>>>“Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” Romans 9:5

You might want to stick to the NASB and KJV they show a clearer picture of that scripture.

That Jesus is not called God but is God blessed.

 

New American Standard Bible

whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

 

King James Bible

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

 

Wonderful job on your research!

ethang5

Your analysis ignores much of the bible. There are verses that explain conditions and situations, you ignore them. Or worse, are unaware of them.

Your tactic is typical. Bury them in a wall of text so that each point is lost in an avalanche of verbiage.

But if taken logically and individually, your points can easily be put to rest.

God is an office occupied by 3 persons.  God is not a name. It's a title. Each person occupying the office has a name, but one title.

The only real question is, Is the bible correct or not? If the bible is correct, then Jesus is God. If the bible is not correct, no further discussion is necessary.

Sand

@Neopesdom

@ethang5

I appologize for the mountain of text.

If God is an office occupied by 3 persons. Then when you refer to God you refer to all three.

Jesus by his references to God excludes himself. The disciples by their references to God excludes Jesus.

This means that Jesus is not God. The Bible is correct and Jesus is not God.

Logic's law of Identity and law of contradiction, proves Jesus is not God.

Sand

Lets analyze this scripture by scripture.

John 17:3 - "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

This is an incorrect statement if Jesus is God.

If Jesus is God then he would need to say this:

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true Father, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

or this:

"This is eternal life, that they may know me, the only true God and Christ."

But because he orchestrated his words to say 'You', separating himself, then pointing 'You' to the office of God.

Then he futher separates himself by using the conjuction 'and' which means 'in addition to'.

He validates he is not of that office of God.

Neopesdom

@Sand

>>I just showed you Jesus being identified as an Angel in Revelation 22:16

Explain how this cannot be an angel reading from a scroll or quoting Him? After all does it not say at the beginning of the verses in question that ""I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony"?? It's obvious that this angel is speaking on His behalf. If sent my butler to give you a message on my behalf are going to think I'm a butler too?

>>Notice more in Hebrews 5:9, Paul writes about Jesus being ‘made’ perfect by God. This indicates that Jesus was created.

If I adjust the seat of my car to make it perfect for driving, does that mean that it did not exist prior to the adjustment? Does it indicate the condition of the car seat in and of itself? 

>> Why not use his own voice, the voice of God? Unless……..his own voice is the Archangel, because he is an Angel.

If I roar like a lion are you going call animal control and put me in a zoo?

>>Want another word applied to Jesus. Creation - Revelation 3:14 - “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” Jesus here is called creation, meaning he was created, by a creator.

The word is better translated as Originator ἀρχὴ (archē)

Strong's Greek 746: From archomai; a commencement, or chief.

He is in actuality called the creator. The originator of all that there is.

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)

>>I never saw a scripture to prove omnipresent, which means present everywhere.

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good. (Proverbs 15:3)

Sand

@Neopesdom

>>>The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good. (Proverbs 15:3)

So his eyes are everywhere but he is not present everywhere. - meaning he sees all things.

omnispective not omnipresent

>>>The word is better translated as Originator ἀρχὴ (archē)

I'm not even talking about that word. The word I am refering to is translated Creation κτίσεως (ktiseōs)

Strong's Greek 2937: creation, creature, institution, ordinance

>>>If I roar like a lion are you going call animal control and put me in a zoo?

I think everyone would agree you would still sound like a man's voice making a lion like sound.

The point is to use a lessor's voice you loose authority.

Why would you ever use a lessor's voice? If you are God use your own voice, or command a lessor to do it for you. Unless you are not God.

>>>If I adjust the seat of my car to make it perfect for driving, does that mean that it did not exist prior to the adjustment? Does it indicate the condition of the car seat in and of itself?

please explain what definition of 'make' does this refer to?  #1 form, #2 cause, #3 compel, #4 constitute, #5 gain or earn, #6 arrive at, #7 go or prepare to go

the other definitions are used for other things

Because all of it denotes Jesus was lacking in someway in his previous state

In your illustration - Yes, It doesn't mean it did not exist, but your statement did mean it needed some kind of adjustment to attain perfection.

If Jesus existed as you say, he was imperfect in some way that is why adjustment was needed.

>>>Explain how this cannot be an angel reading from a scroll or quoting Him? ...... If sent my butler to give you a message on my behalf are going to think I'm a butler too?

It is true you could assume this Angel is reading form a scroll - but the scripture doesn't say that.

Why would Jesus write in the scroll "I am a fellow servant" or "the bright morning star" terms used for created beings?

So if the butler says in the message "hey, I'm just an employee" or "I make minimal wage just like you" am I to assume the butler is speaking or you?

Whether Jesus said it in a message or in person, he is saying he is a created being.

ZeusAres42

With all due respect but I think you're angling for some kind of compromise between all religions here. Assuming there is a God this just isn't possible as another person of another religion would say their God is the only god. Furthermore, other issues I see here are:

1. You're engaging in a debate about something that is not falsifiable.
   
2. You're citing to a random YouTube video.
   

Also, one can't help but wonder if what you're doing are acts of desperation as you've begun to question the validity of your faith? 

Sand

By you commenting you are engaging in it also.

Neopesdom

@Sand

>>Lets analyze this scripture by scripture. John 17:3 - "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

>>This is an incorrect statement if Jesus is God.

>>But because he orchestrated his words to say 'You', separating himself, then pointing 'You' to the office of God. Then he futher separates himself by using the conjuction 'and' which means 'in addition to'. He validates he is not of that office of God.

That is no doubt is the way any Millennial Dawnist would misinterpret and twist this passage, on its own, with no context. It does however fit in perfectly with a trinitarian position, that Jesus is indeed a separate person within the one true God, not one and the same as the Father, which Unitarians would have people believe. The Father is the only true God, but where the votaries of Russellism lose their marbles is that they don't accept that Jesus is also the only true God. It is not a denial of the office they both share, but an affirmation of it! 

>>If Jesus is God then he would need to say this:

The point that is being made is that the Father and Son is not a false god or gods, but the true God. The word you bolded only(monos) is also use in Mark 6:47 "And when even was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he alone(monos) on the land." By your reckoning then, he was the only thing on the land, no rocks, plants, nothing, just him on the land to the exclusion of everything else.

If there were other things on the land this statement is incorrect.

If there were other things on the land it would have to say this...

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.” Psalms 45:6 “But about the Son he says,

Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.” Hebrews 1:8 “Your throne, O God” — The

Old Testament Hebrew word used here is Elohim, used for “God” well over a thousand times in the Bible. This exact scripture from the Psalm

is quoted in Hebrews and is applied to Jesus the Son. Jesus is God! The New Testament Greek word for “God” that is specifically applied

to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8 is Theos, used for “God” over 1,300 times in the New Testament.

Sand

@Neopesdom

>>>By your reckoning then, he was the only thing on the land, no rocks, plants, nothing, just him on the land to the exclusion of everything else.

I am not saying how many are in the office of God, it may be 3, 10, 100, 1000, etc.

The scriptures say by Jesus, consistently over and over that he is not part of that office.

>>>It does however fit in perfectly with a trinitarian position,

I'm sure it does.

What I am trying to say, it is not scriptural.

>>>The point that is being made is that the Father and Son is not a false god or gods, but the true God.

I am sure this is what you got from that scripture.

Nevertheless, this is not what Jesus said. Jesus words excluded himself twice from being the true God.

And this is not the only time Jesus does this. He does it over and over.

Trinitarians mask these words of Jesus.

Then they do what you just did.

They show a prophecy and show how Jesus fulfills it. Point to the Greek word 'Theos'. Which is good!

I am very happy Jesus fulfilled that prophecy.

Psalms 45:6 to” Hebrews 1:8

My point is in the next verse of Hebrews

Hebrews 1:9 - "You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore god, your god, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions."

It shows the criteria for selecting Jesus apart from the other angels, or companions.

Did you also notice the words "your god"? Who is Jesus' God? How can Jesus have a God? In other words, How can God have a God?

Trinitarians will laser focus verse 8, and overlook, mask, or paint over verse 9.

And it is right there!

Jesus has a God!

Neopesdom

@Sand

>>The scriptures say by Jesus, consistently over and over that he is not part of that office.

You cannot focus on Jesus as God without considering the condition that He was in and at which point in time you are looking at. Jesus as a person is the same today, yesturday, and tomorrow, but the condition of him is different at in various points in time. What happened when the Word became flesh?

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Philippians 2:7)

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren.. (Heb 2:17) 

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death (Heb. 2:9)

What did this lowering to the level of man entail? 

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2:52)

When Jesus took on the form of a man he also had to grow like a man.

And what was one thing that Jesus did as a man?

...leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, (1 Peter 2:21)

Are you saying that Jesus did not talk and respond as God??? He talks and responds exactly as one would expect Him to talk in His humbled position.

Sand

@Neopesdom

 

But here is the thing, some of Jesus words are not just humility or limitations, they are flat out lying.

 

Look at the situation in Mark 10:35-40:

 

“Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came over and spoke to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do us a favor.”

“What is your request?” he asked. They replied, “When you sit on your glorious throne, we want to sit in places of honor next to you, one on your right and the other on your left.” But Jesus said to them, “You don’t know what you are asking! Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of suffering I am about to drink? Are you able to be baptized with the baptism of suffering I must be baptized with?”

“Oh yes,” they replied, “we are able!” Then Jesus told them, “You will indeed drink from my bitter cup and be baptized with my baptism of suffering. But I have no right to say who will sit on my right or my left. God has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.””

Here James and John ask Jesus to give them position when he is back in his glory. In other words, when you are God again, when you are in your kingdom, when you are king, when you have no limitations, when you have no need show humility.

Look at what Jesus says, “I have no right”, “not for me to grant”, “not mine to grant”, “do not have the right to choose”, “is not mine to give”.

“This is for God to decide”, “he has chosen”, “it is God who will give”.

 

But you are God! If Jesus is God, this is a flat out lie! This is not humility, not limitations, this is a flat out lie!

Unless he really is a servant, a created being, an angel.

 

You go to a Trillionaire!

You ask for $100, and he says the money is not mine to give.

Is he really being humble?

Just say no! Or not now! But don’t say it is not mine to give, because that is a lie!

Unless it is really not his money.

Neopesdom

@Sand

>>But you are God! If Jesus is God, this is a flat out lie! This is not humility, not limitations, this is a flat out lie!

You are trying to suggest that Jesus is all that there is to God, which He is not, I certainly didn't make any such point. Is strawmanning all that you can do?  Also I referred to humility of position, not demeanor. 

So Jesus replied, "Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does. (John 5:19)

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:3)

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man." -wiki

The ultimate truth regarding the nature of God is a mystery. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16 co Romans 11:33-36.

Often the use of analogies are made to express the concept of God, such as the three points on a triangle, the three states of water or three interconnected circles. Analogies can be helpful, if they accurately express the reality. However, they can be very damaging if they do not. Jesus is said to be both the root and a branch (Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; Rom. 15:12; Rev. 5:5; especially 22:16 “"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."). This is beyond our comprehension. You cannot diagram it; you can’t explain it, but this is what Scripture says. Scripture does not state that God is three points of a triangle, but it does state that Jesus is both the root and the branch. This we must affirm whether or not we can explain it. This answers the issue of distinction which we see in the Bible. From the viewpoint of Jesus as root, he is God Almighty and can be called such. From the viewpoint of Jesus as a branch, he can legitimately be distinguished from God as His Son. He is both the Creator and part of the creation. How this is possible is not given to our finite mind, but this is what Scripture affirms.

Sand

@Neopesdom

>>>You are trying to suggest that Jesus is all that there is to God, which He is not, I certainly didn't make any such point. Is strawmanning all that you can do?  Also I referred to humility of position, not demeanor.  

No, I think you missed my point. (I think)

I previously asserted that Jesus separates himself from the office of God.

You asserted he does this because he is in a humble position, to set the example for us.  

You said:

>>>You cannot focus on Jesus as God without considering the condition that He was in and at which point in time you are looking at.

I showed you a scripture where James and John made a request for the future point in time (not as a human) and different condition (Ruling as king). Jesus response was the same. He said it was not his to give. For him to say that shows not only separates himself from the office of God as a human, he will do it as a spirit.

Now he could have said it is not mine alone, or I will make that decision later. But he said it is not mine to give, separating himself again from the office of God. This is not humility of position, because they asked him when he gains glory in the future. It is a lie because if he becomes of the office of God in the future it becomes his to give, whether partially or fully. Unless he is not really of the office of God.

And like he said to the disciples, he did it when he became a spirit again.

John 20:16, 17 - “Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’”

He told Mary “My God” and “Your God”. With that statement he identified himself with humans in spirit form. Why would he do that? At this point in time he is supposedly of the office of God. By referring to office God with the word ‘My’ separates himself from the office of God. He is showing he has a God in spirit form. Jesus confirms this by comparing himself to a human while his position is in spirit form, now we know Jesus is not God.

Who is Jesus' God? How can Jesus have a God? In other words, How can God have a God?

Feel free to correct me, if I am mistaken.

billbatard

How many angels will dance on the head of a pin? This is all  obscene fantasy polluting your mind, you need re education.

Sand

@billbatard

I believe I answered your question before, the fact that you are restating it without rebuttal, shows your own educational level has reduced.

Neopesdom

@Sand

>>I previously asserted that Jesus separates himself from the office of God. You asserted he does this because he is in a humble position, to set the example for us.  

I don't believe that I made such an assertion, just because His condition changed does not mean His 'office' changed, only His role within the 'office'. He did take on flesh and lived as a man, yet we read, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. 2:9). The change of condition in no way takes away from His Godhood, or who He is as a person.

>>I showed you a scripture where James and John made a request for the future point in time (not as a human) and different condition (Ruling as king). Jesus response was the same. He said it was not his to give. For him to say that shows not only separates himself from the office of God as a human, he will do it as a spirit.

After He was resurrected He did not cease to be the Son of God. As the Son of God, calling the Father God is not inconsistent with His condition as both man and God. Just as the Father calling the Son God is not inconsistent. "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Heb. 1:8)

>>Now he could have said it is not mine alone, or I will make that decision later. But he said it is not mine to give, separating himself again from the office of God. This is not humility of position, because they asked him when he gains glory in the future. It is a lie because if he becomes of the office of God in the future it becomes his to give, whether partially or fully. Unless he is not really of the office of God.

Perhaps if James and John did not comprehend what they were asking, maybe you don't comprehend it either, and the fault does not lie in how Jesus responded, but your understanding of what was being asked. 

>>By referring to office God with the word ‘My’ separates himself from the office of God. He is showing he has a God in spirit form. Jesus confirms this by comparing himself to a human while his position is in spirit form, now we know Jesus is not God.

That would only be the case if He said 'Our' instead of 'My'. By using 'My' instead of 'Our' He connects Himself to God in a way that no other human could and this is yet another way of letting us know that He is God. 

Sand

@Neopesdom

>>>His 'office' changed

How do you know he was of this office before he was on earth? What gives you an indication that he was God before he came to earth?

 

>>>He did not cease to be the Son of God

The title “Son of God” means angel.

Job 1:6; Genesis 6:2; Shows that title is applied to certain ranking Angels. Jesus attained that title because he was the first Angel created. Jesus is not a literal ‘Son’of God. Just like Adam is not a literal ‘Son’of God - Luke 3:48. Both Jesus and Adam were created ‘Sons of God’. Before Jesus came to earth, he did not have access to God. Only the “living creatures” are allowed to be close to God. “Living creatures” are some of the highest ranking angels.

 

>>>Perhaps if James and John did not comprehend what they were asking, maybe you don't comprehend it either, and the fault does not lie in how Jesus responded, but your understanding of what was being asked. 

If this information is beyond our comprehension then why is it recorded? Why is it documented? The disciples moved by holy spirit were inspired by God to have it recorded for our understanding. I think you feel it is beyond comprehension because you do not like what the information leads to. That Jesus is not God. He compared himself to God and said not his to give but God’s. That clearly means Jesus is not of that ‘office’.

 

>>>That would only be the case if He said 'Our' instead of 'My'. By using 'My' instead of 'Our'  

‘Our’ is the same with two people as ‘My’ and ‘Your’. So he technically did say ‘Our’, by saying ‘My’ and ‘Your’.

 

>>>He connects Himself to God in a way that no other human could and this is yet another way of letting us know that He is God.

You pointed out Thomas saying ‘My God’

 >>>Thomas, beholding the resurrected Son, could cry, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus is not a human in this scene, he is a spirit. Now you are saying ‘My God’ means ‘He is God’? Is Thomas saying he is God? Or is he separating himself and applying that term to Jesus. Just like Jesus separates himself and applies that term to ‘the Father’. The word ‘and’ means ‘in addition to’, so if Jesus is saying he is God, then he is also saying Mary is God. So is Mary of the office of God also?

The trinity teaching makes this scene very complex, when it is very simple.

Jesus is not God.

Sand

I do want to present what I feel is a real challenge to salvation and the Trinity teaching. If Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God, and all together they are God, then when you sin against God you sin against them all. In fact any sin against anyone is a sin against God. The problem is Jesus words which has profound effects. At Matthew 12:31, 32 Jesus says, “Therefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. ” So with Jesus words if the Holy Spirit is God then no one can get life. Jesus sacrifice would not cover sinning against the Holy Spirit, not in this world or the world to come. This is proof that the Holy Spirit cannot be a part of God or Jesus.

YeshuaBought

@Sand Jesus said He and the Father are One, in John 10:30.

Sand

@YeshuaBought

But, how are they one?
Jesus clarifies in his prayer to the Father at John 17:21, 22:

I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they be one, so that the world will believe that you sent me. I gave them the same glory you gave me, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one

The ‘they’ in this passage is the disciples. Jesus asks the Father that the disciples be one just as he and his father are one. So when he says ‘one’ he doesn’t mean literal one entity. Obviously he means one in thought and purpose.

Good scripture, please send me more!

Sand

Notice this conservation with Jesus and Satan, I find it very intriguing. But it builds many questions. Why is it tempting to Jesus to prove he is the Son of God? Shouldn’t he be trying to prove he is God? And if proving he is the Son of God proves he is God, then why does he want to prove this? Also why does Jesus quote scripture to Satan? If Jesus was talking to a Jewish man I would understand why he would quote scripture because this the authority the man recognizes. But Satan would recognize the authority of God his creator, who he would know is Jesus, right? Then why quote a scripture, why not just say the words? Who ever quotes themselves, its redundant. You see a people only quote others or an authority, because the authority is from a different source, especially when speaking with Satan. But Jesus as God has no need to quote the Bible, so he doing so is strange.  Without quoting he could very well say this:

 

And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF MY MOUTH.”

       Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’; and ‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’”

Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, YOU SHALL NOT PUT ME YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.”

       Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan!, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP ME, AND SERVE ME ONLY.’”

 

But Jesus over and over quotes the Bible, as if it has a higher authority. If you are the actual authority that gives the book the power, then why would you quote a lesser authority?

 

And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’”

       Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’; and ‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’”

Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.’”

       Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’”

 

If you look at the previous conversation with God and Satan, every request by Satan was made with the word ‘please’, showing God respect. Notice no such respect with Jesus. Also notice the previous conversation had no quotations. In fact they speak as if they are very familiar with each other, in a regular conversation mode. But the first thing Satan says to Jesus is “If you are the Son of God” as if he needed to prove himself. Then Jesus response was like he could not go beyond what is written. Why couldn’t Jesus speak outside the Bible?

Sand

In conclusion the answer to this question is 'No'.
God is not a Trinity, he does not exist in three persons.
Jesus is an Angel.
It is ok to believe the Trinity as long as you understand it is a belief, it is not scriptural.
The Trinity is illogical. It cannot be illustrated by anything. It cannot be understood.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Jesus is not God. That is why the majority of religious people whether Jewish, Muslim, and some Christians do not agree with Trinitarianism. Plus Jesus says too many things to indicate he is not God. The reasons Trinitarians use to prove Jesus is God are the very same reasons that could be used to prove he is not God. Then there is the clear disrespect of the Holy Spirit with no regard. The fact Jesus is mortal, temptable, limited, and begotten is heavy proof he is an Angel. But not the only evidence Jesus is an Angel. Jesus is has the keys to the Abyss, but in Revelation only one Angel has the keys to the Abyss. Jesus uses an Angel’s voice to call the dead. In Revelation an Angel claims to be Jesus.  The reason why the direction was not clear before, is because fourth century Christians banished and killed those who argued against their  viewpoint. Now Trinitarians will say they have way more evidence that proves Jesus is God. Nevertheless, I have way more evidence that proves Jesus is not God.

Neopesdom

@Sand

>>God is not a Trinity, he does not exist in three persons.

The trinity does not describe what God is and never was meant to, it is a term used to describe what God is in relation to what God is not. It is a relative term that cannot be used unless you consider what alternatives were being brought forward. 

The term trinity is understood in contrast to non-trinitarian positions, which include Binitarianism (one deity/two persons), Unitarianism (one deity/one person), the Oneness belief held by certain Pentecostal groups, Modalism, and Mormons who view of the Godhead as three separate beings who are one in purpose rather than essence.  Heresy and the the threat of syncretism were the main reasons why councils brought the doctrine of the Trinity forward, questions of relationship between Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, especially as concerns their distinction and their unity. Heresies, which affected the ability to maintain doctrine, such as Docetism, Gnosticism, Apollinarianism, Psilanthropism, Arianism, Valentinianism, Modalism, and more.

>>It is ok to believe the Trinity as long as you understand it is a belief, it is not scriptural.

Athanasius, who was a participant in one of the councils, stated that they were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the Biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what was considered to be a heretical sense. They therefore commandeered the non-scriptural term homoousios ('of one substance') in order to safeguard the essential relation of the Son to the Father that had been denied by Arius. The creed is made up of complicated trinitarian

formulations. In the creed, we read that the Son is of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father. Semi-Arians, however, believed that essence was not the same but similar (homoiousios), as against the outright Arians who taught that the Son was unlike the Father (heterousian).

The difference was enough to cause great debate and disruption. These questions were hotly debated over the ensuing centuries, and the .orthodox church. resolved the issues by drawing up creeds.

>>Jesus is an Angel. 

You can call someone you like very much an angel in order to show affection, especially when they have been kind to you or done you a favor. - collinsdictionary

In this sense Jesus is an Angel.

>>The Trinity is illogical. It cannot be illustrated by anything. It cannot be understood.

That's why it's called a mystery. You think your finite corporeal mind has even the smallest chance of conceptualizing an infinite spiritual being? Of course it cannot be fully understood.

>>There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Jesus is not God.

You have yet to present any substantial evidence for that hypothesis. Your arguments are rudimentary at best, bordering on complete absurdity at the very least.

 
>>That is why the majority of religious people whether Jewish, Muslim,...

What kind of statement is that even?  The majority of so called 'religious' people don't even acknowledge your erroneous claims of Jesus being an angel! lol

>>... and some Christians do not agree with Trinitarianism. 

In terms of number of adherents, nontrinitarian denominations comprise a small minority of so called 'Christianity' and a number of cults, such as Mormons,  Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Christian Scientists. Some groups have even had to go so far as to rewrite the Bible to support their heretical claims, such as the 'New World Translation'.

Earliest Christian sources outside the New Testament don’t at all seem confused about the divinity of Jesus. It wasn't until our modern times that cult groups such as the 'Millennial Dawnists' claim that Jesus was an angel. Take for example the 'Epistle to Diognetus' ;

"But the truly all-powerful God himself, creator of all and invisible, set up and established in their [Christians’] hearts the truth and the holy word from heaven, which cannot be comprehended by humans.  To do so, he did not, as one might suppose, send them one of his servants or an angel or a ruler…"

The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (Greek: Πρὸς Διόγνητον Ἐπιστολή) is an example of Christian apologetics, writings defending Christianity from its accusers. The Greek writer and recipient are not otherwise known; estimates of dating based on the language and other textual evidence have ranged from AD 130 (which would make it one of the earliest examples of apologetic literature), to the late 2nd century, with the latter often preferred in modern scholarship. -wiki

>> The reason why the direction was not clear before, is because fourth century Christians banished and killed those who argued against their  viewpoint. 

Speaking of erroneous, you think people who murder and torture people can be considered Christians? Wow, you don't even know what a Christian is, how can you understand what is in their Holy Book! 

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. (1 Cor. 2:13)

Sand

@Neopesdom

 >>>Speaking of erroneous, you think people who murder and torture people can be considered Christians?

Maybe I shouldn’t call people who believe Jesus is God, Christians.

Athanasius and those creeds are exactly what I was alluding to.

They are the ones who did the killing.

 

I want you to think about what you just said.

 >>>Wow, you don't even know what a Christian is, how can you understand what is in their Holy Book!

 You question my understanding of the Bible because I called the people who made and supported the Athanasius creed, Christians. You said this because I tied them to killing people who disagreed with Jesus being God. Then what are we to say about the people who followed through with the action of killing to keep the Trinity alive?

 You are right Athanasius was not a Christian.

https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-athanasius/

 So this pagan creed is the foundation of the idea of Jesus being God.

 

>>>"But the truly all-powerful God himself, creator of all and invisible, set up and established in their [Christians’] hearts the truth and the holy word from heaven, which cannot be comprehended by humans.  To do so, he did not, as one might suppose, send them one of his servants or an angel or a ruler…"

 Excellent scripture that applies to Epistle to Diognetus.

>>>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. (1 Cor. 2:13)

Seems to me this scripture is describing all those who believe the trinity.

Diognetus - “which cannot be comprehended by humans”

Neopesdom - “This is beyond our comprehension. You cannot diagram it; you can’t explain it”

 

If it cannot be understood nor explained, how do you know for sure it is true? 

I showed you scripture on top of scripture of Jesus excluding himself from God. You tried to explain it (something you feel cannot be done) that this was humility of position. Then I show you scriptures where Jesus does this referencing a future request. And scriptures where Jesus does this outside of humility of position. So now:

 

>>>You have yet to present any substantial evidence for that hypothesis. Your arguments are rudimentary at best, bordering on complete absurdity at the very least. 

I don’t have substantial evidence? What needs more evidence: Jesus is God? Jesus is an Angel? Which one is harder to prove: Jesus is God? Jesus is an Angel?

 

My arguments are rudimentary?

And your hypothesis is incomprehensible and inexplicable?

Are you being completely objective?

 

Diognetus was wrong.

The Bible many times calls Jesus a servant.

Acts 3:13 - "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him."

Acts 3:26- "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways."

Isaiah 53:11 - "As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities."

Isaiah 42:1 - "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.”

 

So Jesus calls the Father - “My God”

And the Father calls Jesus - “My Servant”

 

Neopesdom you are very knowledgeable in God’s word, and very sharp on its applications.

Are you sure you are looking at this objectively?

Neopesdom

@Sand

>>Athanasius and those creeds are exactly what I was alluding to. They are the ones who did the killing.

I don't think Athanasius personally did any killing, but maybe you have some document to show otherwise?

>> You are right Athanasius was not a Christian.

Never claimed he was, yet 2+2=4 no matter who says it. Isn't a broken clock right twice a day?

>>So this pagan creed is the foundation of the idea of Jesus being God.

Just because some people formulated things into creeds doesn't mean the underlying truth did not exist before. It is hardly the foundation, I would call it a reiteration, despite all their other short comings.

>>Diognetus was wrong. The Bible many times calls Jesus a servant.

We already went over this, a member of the Godhead lowered himself into human form and became a servant, yet at same time He is still God. 

>>Then what are we to say about the people who followed through with the action of killing to keep the Trinity alive?

I'm pretty sure they were just trying to keep their pocket books alive, not the trinity. 

Debate over the nature of God did not begin or end at the councils, it is still going on to this day, here, now. The important question, however, is whether there is support in Scripture for the Christological decisions and definitions on the nature of Jesus, not what the “councils” decided. Christianity is not ruled by established institutions, traditions, or the popular views of men, but on God-breathed Scripture.

“...not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words...” (1 Corinthians 2:12-13) 

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:..”  (2 Tim. 3:16), 

To claim authority above and beyond the Word of God is a grievous sin called pride and a clear and unobstructed sign of falsehood. “ It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons. 

Do we look at these hypotheses as heretical attacks on God by unbelievers, or earnest but misguided attempts by the faithful to fathom the fathomless? 

>>If it cannot be understood nor explained, how do you know for sure it is true?  

It's not that the triune nature of God can't be explained, it's how such a being is even possible, that is the mystery, We are finite material beings, the whole spiritual realm is a mystery. We can comprehend certain things within our limits, yet not everything. It cannot be fully explained how spiritual beings exist, but certain aspects about them from what Scripture reveals can be. It is a fine line, but a line nonetheless. 

The Bible says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23) All, not just humans, but all created sentient beings including angels. When you understand that only someone who is sinless can pay the penalty for all sin, then you will understand that that someone can only be God. This is what is alluded to in the Old Testament when the sacrifices required an unblemished lamb and also to "...which things the angels desire to look into" (1 Peter 1:12).

YeshuaBought

@Sand I have already proven that Jesus is God, and you have ignored the evidence.

Sand

@YeshuaRedeemed

The evidence you presented was taken out of context. I already clearified the evidence proving that Jesus is not God, and you have ignored the clarification.

YeshuaBought

@Sand You have the right to your opinion, but you have failed to disprove the evidence I have provided. Here's more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLlWmB-ZqBE&t=20s

Sand

@YeshuaRedeemed

I watched your videos, I can prove all of this was taken out of context. Where would you like me to start?

Sand

@Neopesdom

@YeshuaRedeemed ;

Why does Jesus have to be God?

Neopesdom

@Sand

Why does Jesus have to be God?

In short because that's what it says...

In verbose, Jesus being the example given for our lives would naturally act and speak as though we should act and speak. God gave of Himself to be a living human example on how we should conduct our lives and stand before Him. As Jesus said He was subordinate to the Father, so should we be ourselves subordinate. We should do nothing of ourselves but follow the will of God. We do not follow our own teachings(delusions), but those of God (truth). We are dependent upon Him, we are the children, the Father is superior. These words also spoken by Jesus were meant to teach us, not give us insight into His nature. To contend that Christ was here denying his own deity would be an absurd conclusion. Elsewhere he strongly contended for his divine nature and his claims were perfectly clear, even to his adversaries. No interpretation may be placed upon this context that forces Jesus into conflict with Himself.

Jesus is the image our human perceptions can grasp by which unlimited God can be know to our limited selves. Do not, however, think that Jesus is limited in glory or status, for God is God no matter form or manifestation is being expressed. Jesus, the Son of God, is the intermediate manifest aspect of God between man, thus making it clear in relative context that the Father is greater in absoluteness. Jesus being in the limited form of a man makes it understandable that God in relative absoluteness knows things that the lowered form is not given to perceive, not limited in identity, but limited in function with regards to interacting with mankind on a more intimate and mediatorial level. Hence, He voluntarily hid certain knowledge from His manifest form as a man. And thus, in every aspect, till we have known the divine majesty that is in Jesus Christ, and our human weakness which he hath taken upon him, it is impossible for us to have any hope, or to be capable of having recourse to the true nature of God.

Again God in absoluteness is beyond our limited physical senses. The Son is the "image" of the invisible God, the One who declares, reveals, embodies His essence in manhood. We are also made in the image of God but in a different context, we are not the  brightness of his glory, nor are we the expression of his substance or the exact representation of His being, the redeemed can only be a reflection of His glory, a lamp stand which reflects the light of the indwelling spirit within all believers. Only Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. He is the eternal, living Word, which was "in the beginning with God" (John 1:2), and which "was God" (John 1:1).

A student of Scripture must seek to determine, in context, what the background of the text may be. He is not at liberty to extract, from his own imagination, an “interpretation” that is foreign to the historical record, or that stands in contradiction to information found elsewhere in scriptures. It is nothing short of exegetical criminality to substitute one’s personal “expository agenda” for that which the inspired word has stated explicitly. While God is thus absolute, He has been pleased also to take up a relative mediatorial position. He has created and He has entered into relation with His creatures and the names He has taken, as presented in Scripture, contemplate this relativity. 

Yeshua or Yahshua (Joshua) Christ's name in Hebrew, means God saves. Thus, the name Yeshua tells you two altogether beautiful facts about Christ...

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21)

After the angel calls Jesus by another name - "Immanuel." It completes the picture and tells us that:

Jesus is Yahweh, the LORD GOD, and He is YOUR salvation!

The LORD is exalted over all the nations,

His glory above the heavens.

Who is like the LORD our God,

the One enthroned on high?

He humbles Himself to behold

the heavens and the earth.

(Psalm 113:4-6)

Sand

>>>He is not at liberty to extract, from his own imagination, an “interpretation” that is foreign to the historical record, or that stands in contradiction to information found elsewhere in scriptures. It is nothing short of exegetical criminality to substitute one’s personal “expository agenda” for that which the inspired word has stated explicitly.

 

These are powerful words.

 

Nevertheless, The scriptures do not explicitly say that Jesus is God.

 

Because no one is debating if the Father is God.

Because the scriptures explicitly says that.

 

We are debating if Jesus is God.

Because the scriptures explicitly says Jesus is God’s Son. (Huge difference)

Even John 1:1 says it.

The original Greek explicitly says Jesus is ‘a divine being’. (Huge difference)

 

>>>that stands in contradiction to information found elsewhere in scriptures.

God’s Son in the scriptures mean Angel. Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; Job 2:1

Only Trinitarians exposit that Jesus form was ‘limited’.

This convenient idea tries to make the square peg fit in a round hole.

If Jesus was ‘limited’ then why was the Holy Spirit 'limited' also.

Matthew 24:36 - “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”

TKDB

@billbatard

"How many angels will dance on the head of a pin?

"This is all  obscene fantasy polluting your mind, you need re education."

Is some of the below information, maybe a probable idea, of the type of a (re education,) that you're possibly alluding to? 

https://blog.feedspot.com/atheist_blogs/ ;

Top 30 Atheist Blogs And Websites Every Atheist Must Follow in 2019

Last Updated Mar 8, 2019

"Atheist Blogs List.
The Best Atheist blogs from thousands of top Atheist blogs in our index using search and social metrics. Data will be refreshed once a week. Also check out Atheist Podcasts & Top Atheist Youtube Channels list for Top videos on Atheist.
If your blog is selected in this list, you have the honour of displaying this Badge (Award) on your blog."

"Atheist Newsletter

Atheist newsletter is a comprehensive summary of the day's most important blog posts and news articles from the best Atheist websites on the web, and delivered to your email inbox each morning. To subscribe, simply provide us with your email address."

Neopesdom

@Sand

>>Nevertheless, The scriptures do not explicitly say that Jesus is God.

If you are looking for explicitly, where does it explicitly say that Jesus is not God, where does it explicitly say that Jesus is an angel?

Not only does it explicitly say that Jesus is God, it screams it from its very pages!

John 1, Inspired by God, John explicitly says that Jesus is God. The Word was God, the Word became flesh. Someone would have to have scales over their eyes not to see this. 

John 10:33, explicitly says Jesus claimed to be God.

John 8:58-59 explicitly says Jesus is God.

John 5:18 explicitly says Jesus is equal to God. Equal (isos) as in isosceles, or equal-sided triangle.

1 Timothy 3:16 explicitly says God became flesh.

1 John 5:10 explicitly says Jesus is God

Titus 2:3 explicitly says Jesus is God

2 Peter 1:1 explicitly says Jesus is God

Romans 9:5 explicitly says Jesus is God

Isaiah 9:6 explicitly says that the Son is God

Hebrew 1:8 explicitly says the Son is God

Revelation 17:14 explicitly says Jesus is God

 >>God’s Son in the scriptures mean Angel. Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; Job 2:1

Gen 6:2 doesn't say anything about angels. 

Job 1:6, 2:1 doesn't prove son only means angels, in fact you forgot or didn't know about Malachi 2:10 which destroys your entire premise.

Sand

John 1, Inspired by God, John explicitly says that Jesus is God. The Word was God, the Word became flesh. Someone would have to have scales over their eyes not to see this.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word wasGod.
En    archē    ēn    ho    Logos    kai    ho    Logos    ēn    pros    ton    Theon    kai    Theos    ēn    ho    Logos
In [the]    beginning    was    the    Word,    and    the    Word    was    with    the    God,    and    god    was    the    Word.

If Jesus is 'the Word' in this sentence.
Then he would not be 'a word' in this sentence.
Why is Jesus not called 'the God' in this sentence?
The explanation is that the sentence is saying 'Jesus is a divine being'

>>>Someone would have to have scales over their eyes not to see this.
You should be able to see clearly that:
ton Theon and Theos
are totally different words
Just as in John 5:38
tonLogon is not the same as ho Logos

Angels are the same kind of God as Jesus.
Psalms 82:6
I said, "You are Gods, And all of you are Sons of the Most High.


John 10:33, explicitly says Jesus claimed to be God.
The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
This is what the Jews thought about Jesus. Jesus corrected their thinking by referencing men as Gods, and asked how could he be considered higher than those men?
Are we to take the Jew's thoughts as evidence? Because they also thought Jesus had a demon.


John 8:58-59 explicitly says Jesus is God.
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
If you are saying Jesus existed before Abraham. I agree. Jesus was an Angel and existed befor Abraham.
Of course if you are referencing the words "I am" the person who said them was an Angel.
Jesus right here is calling himself an Angel.


John 5:18 explicitly says Jesus is equal to God. Equal (isos) as in isosceles, or equal-sided triangle.
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
This is what the Jews thought about Jesus, dispite Jesus saying otherwise.
Are we to take the Jew's thoughts as evidence? Because they also thought Jesus had a demon.


1 Timothy 3:16 explicitly says God became flesh.
This is the third time you referenced this scripture, and it is an altered scripture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture
You already talked about religions that alter scriptures to fit their belief.


1 John 5:10 explicitly says Jesus is God
The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a , because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
Person believes the Son, Atheist made that Person a , because the Atheist does not believe the testomony of God about the Son.
Maybe you can explain how this explicidly says Jesus is God.
It must read differently in your translation.


Titus 2:3 explicitly says Jesus is God
"Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,"
No God


>>>2 Peter 1:1 explicitly says Jesus is God
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
'and' means 'in addition to'
Like the sentence:
Joe and Bob
It doesn't mean Joe is Bob.

>>>Romans 9:5 explicitly says Jesus is God
whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Whose are the fathers? And from whom?
The Christ is not the subject of this sentence. The people Paul is refering to is.
So unless you are saying the people are God.
Or maybe the people are God blessed.

Isaiah 9:6 explicitly says that the Son is God
These are names of Jesus
Unless you believe Jesus is the Father

>>>Hebrew 1:8 explicitly says the Son is God
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
Who is speaking to the Son?
Isn't God the 'He' in this scripture?
So when they say 'O God' they are referencing the Father.

>>>Revelation 17:14 explicitly says Jesus is God
"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."
So lord of lord king of kings makes you God?
What happens when Jesus gives up the kingship?

Sand

Neopesdom 

>>>John 1, Inspired by God, John explicitly says that Jesus is God. The Word was God, the Word became flesh. Someone would have to have scales over their eyes not to see this.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
En    archē    ēn    ho    Logos    kai    ho    Logos    ēn    pros    ton    Theon    kai    Theos    ēn    ho    Logos
In [the]    beginning    was    the    Word,    and    the    Word    was    with    the    God,    and    god    was    the    Word.

If Jesus is 'the Word' in this sentence.
Then he would not be 'a word' in this sentence.
Why is Jesus not called 'the God' in this sentence?
The explanation is that the sentence is saying 'Jesus is a divine being'

>>>Someone would have to have scales over their eyes not to see this.
You should be able to see clearly that:
ton Theon and Theos
are totally different words
Just as in John 5:38
ton Logon is not the same as ho Logos

Angels are the same kind of God as Jesus.
Psalms 82:6
I said, "You are Gods, And all of you are Sons of the Most High.
Psalms 8:5
For you have made him only a little lower than the gods, crowning him with glory and honour.
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.


>>>John 10:33, explicitly says Jesus claimed to be God.
The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
This is what the Jews thought about Jesus. Jesus corrected their thinking by referencing men as Gods, and asked how could he be considered higher than those men?
Are we to take the Jew's thoughts as evidence? Because they also thought Jesus had a demon.


>>>John 8:58-59 explicitly says Jesus is God.
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
If you are saying Jesus existed before Abraham. I agree. Jesus was an Angel and existed before Abraham.
Of course if you are referencing the words "I am" the person who said them was an Angel.
Jesus right here is calling himself an Angel.


>>>John 5:18 explicitly says Jesus is equal to God. Equal (isos) as in isosceles, or equal-sided triangle.
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
This is what the Jews thought about Jesus, despite Jesus saying otherwise.
Are we to take the Jew's thoughts as evidence? Because they also thought Jesus had a demon.


>>>1 Timothy 3:16 explicitly says God became flesh.
This is the third time you referenced this scripture, and it is an altered scripture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture
You already talked about religions that alter scriptures to fit their belief.


>>>1 John 5:10 explicitly says Jesus is God
The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a , because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
Person believes the Son, Atheist made that Person a , because the Atheist does not believe the testimony of God about the Son.
Maybe you can explain how this explicitly says Jesus is God.
It must read differently in your translation.


>>>Titus 2:3 explicitly says Jesus is God
"Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,"
No God


>>>2 Peter 1:1 explicitly says Jesus is God
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
'and' means 'in addition to'
Like the sentence:
Joe and Bob
It doesn't mean Joe is Bob.

>>>Romans 9:5 explicitly says Jesus is God
whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Whose are the fathers? And from whom?
The Christ is not the subject of this sentence. The people Paul is refering to is.
So unless you are saying the people are God.
Or maybe the people are God blessed.

>>>Isaiah 9:6 explicitly says that the Son is God
These are names of Jesus
Unless you believe Jesus is the Father

>>>Hebrew 1:8 explicitly says the Son is God
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
Who is speaking to the Son?
Isn't God the 'He' in this scripture?
So when they say 'O God' they are referencing the Father.

>>>Revelation 17:14 explicitly says Jesus is God
"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."
So lord of lord king of kings makes you God?
What happens when Jesus gives up the kingship?

Sand

Neopesdom

>>>Gen 6:2 doesn't say anything about angels. 

Job 1:6, 2:1 doesn't prove son only means angels, in fact you forgot or didn't know about Malachi 2:10 which destroys your entire premise.

So who are these Son's of God that came down and had sex with the daughters of men?

Malachi 2:10 - "Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?

We all have one father, but the scripture does not call us 'Sons of God'.

Lets go your way lets say we are all 'Sons of God'. So the next question is we are called 'Sons of God' because God created us.

That would mean God created Jesus.

Can't say it destroys my premise.

It only confirms it.

Neopesdom

@Sand

Before we look at your first dubious claim, let me thank you on choosing the corrupt "New World Translation" rendering of this verse, it only takes away from 'your' erroneous interpretation of the Greek text. The anonymous translators of this version had no credentials in being able to take on such an undertaking. Like most cults, they supposedly had some sort of special interpretive powers bestowed on them to make their own private interpolations.

The publishers believe that "the particulars of [the New World Bible Translation Committee's members] university or other educational training are not the important thing" and that "the translation testifies to their qualification"  -The Watchtower, December 15, 1974, p. 768.

Indeed education and training is lacking here! Appealing to this translation of the Greek is usually made by desperate Muslims trying lower the status of Jesus from God into something that fits better with their own corrupt book. Let's now talk about trying to fit a square into a circular hole. A better name would of been the 'New Occult Translation'. 

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

En    archē    ēn    ho    Logos    kai    ho    Logos    ēn    pros    ton    Theon    kai    Theos    ēn    ho    Logos

In [the]    beginning    was    the    Word,    and    the    Word    was    with    the    God,    and    god    was    the    Word.

>>If Jesus is 'the Word' in this sentence. Then he would not be 'a word' in this sentence. Why is Jesus not called 'the God' in this sentence?

The simple way to test your claim is to see how consistent this is throughout the New Testament. If you are correct we will only find that Theos use without the article refers to god(s), and not God, or the God. 

I'm glad your such an expert in Koine Greek, you can also explain why God the Father here is not called 'the God' in this sentence?

"Jesus replied, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God (Theos), is the one who glorifies me.’" (John 8:54)

or this one?

And God (theos), which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; (Acts 15:8)

or this...

For God (theos) commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. (Mat. 15:4)

how about...

"Jesus replied, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God (Theos), is the one who glorifies me.’" (John 8:54)

Also explain why in John 20:17 there is no definite article (the God).

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God(Theon), and your God(Theon) ( John 20:17 ).

or 

No man hath seen God (Theon) at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.(John 1:18)

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God (Theon). He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (2 John 1:9)

>>The explanation is that the sentence is saying 'Jesus is a divine being'

What is actually happening in John 1:1 is that a distinction is being made between God and the Word. John wants the reader to know that while they are one, there is also a distinction to be made. Exactly what the Trinity teaches.

"Neither in LXX Greek nor in secular Greek is a firm or a fine distinction drawn between the articular and the anarthrous theos, with ho theos denoting, for a example, a specific god and theos designating deity in general or emphasizing the qualities of godhood. This is not to say that the use of the article is totally capricious or that the above distinctions are never drawn. But it does mean that in certain contexts it is as possible for ho theos to refer generically to divinity as it is for theos to denote God or a particular god." (Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1992], p. 29

Sand

@Neopesdom

>>>Before we look at your first dubious claim, let me thank you on choosing the corrupt "New World Translation" rendering of this verse, it only takes away from 'your' erroneous interpretation of the Greek text.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think I quoted anything from the corrupt “New World Translation” rendering of this verse. A majority of my quotations is from the Online Parallel Bible site.

>>>If you are correct we will only find that Theos use without the article refers to god(s), and not God, or the God.

This is not a claim that we cannot use Theos as God.

In such a highly debated scripture where the Trinity balances heavily on, I find it best to educate myself on this subject, so I can look at this scripture objectively.

The noun Theos in the subject form is used 298 times in the New Testament, 274 times a definite article is used. The definite article specifies that the reference is to God with three exceptions.

2 Corinthians 4:4

Philippians 3:19

Acts 14:11

This leaves 24 instances where “a god” should be used.

Luke 20:28

Mark 12:27

2 Corinthians 1:3

Revelation 21:7

2 Thessalonians 2:4

John 1:1

A lot of Bibles translate John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word. Based on your words is criminality.

>>>It is nothing short of exegetical criminality to substitute one’s personal “expository agenda” for that which the inspired word has stated explicitly.

This is why Goodspeed and Moffatt's Versions are more accurate in this verse than most translations.

 

>>>John wants the reader to know that while they are one, there is also a distinction to be made. Exactly what the Trinity teaches.

 Do not follow the footsteps of a cult and exposit the trinity.

The distinction here is denoting that Jesus is a divine being.