Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

nomadictheist said:

You quote it, and yet you still ignore it. Through His Word, who (not which) is His Son. Not which became His Son. Which is His son.

So this same Word through which the heavens and the earth were made is Jesus Christ, the Son.

And you have repeatedly said that Jesus Christ did not exist in any real sense until He was created. This is not what Irenaeus, John, or any of the apostles spoke.

Also, I can't help noticing that you ignore where St. Irenaeus says that God "being all mind, and all logos."

And once and for all you cannot take any of the Bible or the writings of the church fathers and pit it against the rest. The Bible says we have only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created. That Jesus Christ was the Word (Irenaeus terms it the Word of the Father, but his understanding of this can be properly understood by his capitalization of the Word whenever he speaks in the context of the son). In book I, he demonstrates that Jesus is fully man and fully the Divine Word, that is God according to the gospel of John. The other books build on this. They don't contradict it.

But sadly, it seems you will not admit this.

To believe that Jesus is a created being is to disavow the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Himself, the church fathers (although you still do your best to take them out of context to say that somehow Jesus, who they declare to be the Word, who is declared to be God, is not God), and the apostles.

Click to expand...

Where does it say in scripture, that Jesus was his Son before birth into the world?

What I said, is that Jesus did not preexist as a person. The word was with God, and was God, which are His thoughts, His mind, and His word became flesh.

Not sure what you are referring to, I was the one saying the Logos was God, His thoughts, or His mind.

I don't think Irenaeus put those Caps there, nor the chapter and verses.

He had to be creation, if not, then he was not man. I did not say he was not God, what I said was he is not the God. He is the son of God, and son of man. Scripture states God was in him. The Father is the only true God, as Jesus stated. How do you understand this statement of Jesus?


Still waiting for the scriptures you use to show Jesus raised himself from the dead, if you don't mind sharing them.

7xlightray said:

Where does it say in scripture, that Jesus was his Son before birth into the world?

What I said, is that Jesus did not preexist as a person. The word was with God, and was God, which are His thoughts, His mind, and His word became flesh.

Not sure what you are referring to, I was the one saying the Logos was God, His thoughts, or His mind.

I don't think Irenaeus put those Caps there, nor the chapter and verses.

He had to be creation, if not, then he was not man. I did not say he was not God, what I said was he is not the God. He is the son of God, and son of man. Scripture states God was in him. The Father is the only true God, as Jesus stated. How do you understand this statement of Jesus?


Still waiting for the scriptures you use to show Jesus raised himself from the dead, if you don't mind sharing them.

Click to expand...

God is Spirit and since the very thoughts of God were inprinted into the man Jesus of Nazareth, then the person of the Father is seen through the Son. As scripture declares.....

No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. (John 4:26)

Click to expand...

No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the one being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Himknown. (John 1:18)

Click to expand...

Jesus said......

30I and the Father are one.”

Click to expand...

31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:30-33)

Click to expand...

Not only does Jesus claim to be one in the same as the Father who is God, but also the Pharisees understood his claim to being God, not a god, but God himself.

Jesus would make it clearer by saying.....

John 14:9-10
9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

Click to expand...

So the thoughts and mind of God were imprinted in the man Jesus of Nazareth and in this respect it was God walking amongst them in flesh as the Emmanuel.

So when Jesus points to God as the only true God, he is not ruling himself out as the God of the Bible, rather he is projecting to the true God through himself. The only way we can see the true God is through the Son and when we do, we should be satisfied that we have seen the Father through the Son as Jesus told Philip.

7xlightray said:

Where does it say in scripture, that Jesus was his Son before birth into the world?

Click to expand...

Hebrews 1:
But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10 And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

What I said, is that Jesus did not preexist as a person. The word was with God, and was God, which are His thoughts, His mind, and His word became flesh.

Click to expand...

What you said was that Jesus pre-existed as God's thoughts "the same way the earth pre-existed as God's thoughts." That the Word became flesh "just like the Word became the earth." That is not the same as saying that Jesus truly pre-existed.

Are you retracting those statements now? Or do you still hold that Jesus is no more the Word than the heavens and the earth?

Also, by person, do you mean human person, or person in the sense that we relate it to God the Father?

Not sure what you are referring to, I was the one saying the Logos was God, His thoughts, or His mind.

I don't think Irenaeus put those Caps there, nor the chapter and verses.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what Irenaeus put there, it's clear from his other writings and passage what he believed. As has been shown.

He had to be creation, if not, then he was not man. I did not say he was not God, what I said was he is not the God. He is the son of God, and son of man. Scripture states God was in him. The Father is the only true God, as Jesus stated. How do you understand this statement of Jesus?

Click to expand...

Again, this is unclear. Are you trying to say that Jesus was a created being because He was a man? Because if so that isn't what the Bible says. Or are you trying to say that He is all of creation, because according to you the Word became everything that God spoke in creation? If so, this is commonly known as pantheism, and not Christianity.

Still waiting for the scriptures you use to show Jesus raised himself from the dead, if you don't mind sharing them.

Click to expand...

No. You're still waiting for scriptures other than Jesus' own words. You say that - when Jesus said "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in 3 days" and John explains that He was talking about His body - He wasn't literally talking about raising His body up, even though that's what He said.

You also say that when He says He has authority to take up His life again, He doesn't actually mean authority. He just means that by living a good life He's assuring His resurrection.

So even though I have shown plain scriptures where Jesus Himself states that He will raise his body from the dead, you deny them on the basis of your philosophy.

7xlightray said:

Where does it say in scripture, that Jesus was his Son before birth into the world?

What I said, is that Jesus did not preexist as a person. The word was with God, and was God, which are His thoughts, His mind, and His word became flesh.

Not sure what you are referring to, I was the one saying the Logos was God, His thoughts, or His mind.

I don't think Irenaeus put those Caps there, nor the chapter and verses.

He had to be creation, if not, then he was not man. I did not say he was not God, what I said was he is not the God. He is the son of God, and son of man. Scripture states God was in him. The Father is the only true God, as Jesus stated. How do you understand this statement of Jesus?

Still waiting for the scriptures you use to show Jesus raised himself from the dead, if you don't mind sharing them.

Click to expand...

God's "thoughts, His mind, and His word" cannot have memory of it's existence before the world was. Jesus said He did have such memory ergo Jesus was a sentient being before the world was.

Berean777 said:

God is Spirit and since the very thoughts of God were inprinted into the man Jesus of Nazareth, then the person of the Father is seen through the Son. As scripture declares.....

Click to expand...

I agree to a point. When Jesus was two months old, was he speaking as he did when he was 30 years of age? He is the image of God, but he did increase in wisdom. So then, if Jesus was the God, he must of forgotten many, if not all things, if he grew in wisdom.

Berean777 said:

Not only does Jesus claim to be one in the same as the Father who is God, but also the Pharisees understood his claim to being God, not a god, but God himself.

Jesus would make it clearer by saying.....

Click to expand...

Does not mean the the Pharisees understood correctly. Lets see if they did, by letting Jesus answer for himself...


Jesus is not claiming to be the God, but the son of that God. Which would mean he was like (image, equal as to an image of) his Father, Who was God. He is saying, if the scriptures call some men gods, then why are you making a big deal, because I say I am the son of God.

Jesus also prayed we would be one “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” - John 17:21. We understand that this does not make us the God. So, this is not a good bases to turn someone into the God.

He also said, they believed that Jesus came out from God (in the Greek this refers to the Father doing the action). God the Father sent His word-logos which comes out from Him, and His word-logos became flesh.

Berean777 said:

So the thoughts and mind of God were imprinted in the man Jesus of Nazareth and in this respect it was God walking amongst them in flesh as the Emmanuel.

Click to expand...

I would agree, though I don't know what you mean by imprinted, or how, or to the whole.

Berean777 said:

So when Jesus points to God as the only true God, he is not ruling himself out as the God of the Bible, rather he is projecting to the true God through himself. The only way we can see the true God is through the Son and when we do, we should be satisfied that we have seen the Father through the Son as Jesus told Philip.

Click to expand...

Well, Jesus did not say “God” is the only true God, but the "Father" is the only true God. Huge difference this makes, that would rule out anyone else, but the Father.

7xlightray said:

I agree to a point. When Jesus was two months old, was he speaking as he did when he was 30 years of age? He is the image of God, but he did increase in wisdom. So then, if Jesus was the God, he must of forgotten many, if not all things, if he grew in wisdom.

Click to expand...

In Greek the active voice means the subject, in this case, Jesus performed the action. It was here, between vss. 8 and 9, where everything happened that some people don't inderstand, "If Jesus was God how could He grow in wisdom? etc. etc.

nomadictheist said:

Hebrews 1:
But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

Click to expand...

Cleaver, but this does not say Jesus was a son before his birth.

nomadictheist said:

10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

Click to expand...

This one, Psalm 102 is not the Father speaking to the son, read it. It's the son speaking to the Father. What the writer is arguing is who did the Father put over the works of His hands, not an angel. The next passage from Psalm 110 speaks of the son who was put over the works of His hands, by sitting at His right hand. Verse 10 is a start of a new argument.

nomadictheist said:

What you said was that Jesus pre-existed as God's thoughts "the same way the earth pre-existed as God's thoughts." That the Word became flesh "just like the Word became the earth." That is not the same as saying that Jesus truly pre-existed.

Are you retracting those statements now? Or do you still hold that Jesus is no more the Word than the heavens and the earth?

Click to expand...

I remember you were having a hard time understanding what I was saying, and got side tracked into debating a thought. I was using the earth as an example to help you understand that it is the Word that comes out of God.

It's not the same, for one, the earth is an object, and are not a full image of God. God does not put His mind, His character, the expression of Himself, the image of Himself in the earth, but in a man He can. Two, I don't know how God does these things, all I know from scripture is basically, He speaks His word, and it comes out of His mouth. Do I fully understand the process, no, but we do know it was the living, true word that dwelt in him. He was the true life, that is to be lived, if we are to become sons of God.

Adam was formed from the earth, but in the case of Jesus the word became flesh, there is a difference in creation, with same results as being human, yet different results, in resisting his own desires. Jesus the full expression of the Father, God with us.

nomadictheist said:

Also, by person, do you mean human person, or person in the sense that we relate it to God the Father?

Click to expand...

The Bible says (I know you don't believe Isa. 45:4,5 refer to Jesus), Jesus did not know the Father before his birth, yet he was in the Father. That sounds like every birth I know of. So he could not have been a person, in the sense that he would retain memory. So, no, not a person as we would normally think of a person. He was in God, I don't even know what Spirit is, never seen God, nor do I know how He creates a single thing. Jesus became a person when the word became flesh, but the word always was with the Father, and was the Father.

nomadictheist said:

Again, this is unclear. Are you trying to say that Jesus was a created being because He was a man? Because if so that isn't what the Bible says. Or are you trying to say that He is all of creation, because according to you the Word became everything that God spoke in creation? If so, this is commonly known as pantheism, and not Christianity.

Click to expand...

Nope, not trying to say he is all of creation.
If Jesus had flesh, flesh is creation. And the Bible teaches Jesus came in the flesh, a man. The word became flesh, is what the scriptures teach.

nomadictheist said:

No. You're still waiting for scriptures other than Jesus' own words. You say that - when Jesus said "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in 3 days" and John explains that He was talking about His body - He wasn't literally talking about raising His body up, even though that's what He said.

Click to expand...

What we were talking about was, the scriptures state the Father raised him from the dead. And I was asking you were does it state that Jesus raised himself from the dead, not “would raise himself.”

He says Jesus was referring to his body, because they thought he was referring to the temple. Jesus was referring to his body, but not that he would literally raise it, but by the way he lived his life, as he tells his disciples to do. The Bible explains itself, and we read Jesus did not raise himself, but the Father did, and we are given the explanation in John, what Jesus meant.

So, again if you have a verse that states Jesus literally raised himself from the dead, would you care to share it?

nomadictheist said:

You also say that when He says He has authority to take up His life again, He doesn't actually mean authority. He just means that by living a good life He's assuring His resurrection.

Click to expand...

Power/authority means choice. Jesus was given this choice (exousia), to become the son of God by the resurrection, as we are given this choice (exousia), when we turn to God, to become the sons of God John 1:12. This is what it means: G1849 – exousia – authority, power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.

nomadictheist said:

So even though I have shown plain scriptures where Jesus Himself states that He will raise his body from the dead, you deny them on the basis of your philosophy.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about him saying he will, we are talking about were it says he did! No, I am using scripture to interpret scripture, you haven't given me the passage yet were it states he did. I have given you passages that state the Father raised him (if not, I can), we are still waiting for yours.

If they had not specified, that Jesus was not referring to the temple, but his body, would you still be arguing Jesus was referring to the temple, and not his body? So, we know Jesus did not literally mean the temple building. Could it be that he did not literally mean he would raise his own body, seeing as we have scriptures that state the Father raised him? And if he did not literally raise himself, then what did he mean?

Der Alter said:

God's "thoughts, His mind, and His word" cannot have memory of it's existence before the world was. Jesus said He did have such memory ergo Jesus was a sentient being before the world was.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. ​

Click to expand...

This verse explains itself down in verse 24. Also in the heart of this passage Jesus himself states the Father is the only true God.

7xlightray said:

Cleaver, but this does not say Jesus was a son before his birth.



This one, Psalm 102 is not the Father speaking to the son, read it. It's the son speaking to the Father. What the writer is arguing is who did the Father put over the works of His hands, not an angel. The next passage from Psalm 110 speaks of the son who was put over the works of His hands, by sitting at His right hand. Verse 10 is a start of a new argument.

Click to expand...

The author of Hebrews does not agree with you. I believe the author of Hebrews.

I remember you were having a hard time understanding what I was saying, and got side tracked into debating a thought. I was using the earth as an example to help you understand that it is the Word that comes out of God.

It's not the same, for one, the earth is an object, and are not a full image of God. God does not put His mind, His character, the expression of Himself, the image of Himself in the earth, but in a man He can. Two, I don't know how God does these things, all I know from scripture is basically, He speaks His word, and it comes out of His mouth. Do I fully understand the process, no, but we do know it was the living, true word that dwelt in him. He was the true life, that is to be lived, if we are to become sons of God.

Adam was formed from the earth, but in the case of Jesus the word became flesh, there is a difference in creation, with same results as being human, yet different results, in resisting his own desires. Jesus the full expression of the Father, God with us.

Click to expand...

So you're saying an all powerful God is confined to expressing all of His divine attributes only in a man?
Besides, I've already shown the Son, Jesus, to be pre-existing His birth on earth.

The Bible says (I know you don't believe Isa. 45:4,5 refer to Jesus), Jesus did not know the Father before his birth, yet he was in the Father. That sounds like every birth I know of. So he could not have been a person, in the sense that he would retain memory. So, no, not a person as we would normally think of a person. He was in God, I don't even know what Spirit is, never seen God, nor do I know how He creates a single thing. Jesus became a person when the word became flesh, but the word always was with the Father, and was the Father.

Click to expand...

Absolutely wrong. The Bible says Cyrus didn't know God. While I would agree that there are ways in which Cyrus was shown here as a type of Christ, he most certainly was not like Christ in every way. Jesus Himself says He knew the Father, and in fact that He shared glory with Him "before the world began."

Nope, not trying to say he is all of creation.
If Jesus had flesh, flesh is creation. And the Bible teaches Jesus came in the flesh, a man. The word became flesh, is what the scriptures teach.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it also teaches that He was the Word. Jesus came in the flesh. Yet He was still fully the Word. This is in agreement with scripture, and the doctrine that has been passed down from the earliest writings of the church.

What we were talking about was, the scriptures state the Father raised him from the dead. And I was asking you were does it state that Jesus raised himself from the dead, not “would raise himself.”

He says Jesus was referring to his body, because they thought he was referring to the temple. Jesus was referring to his body, but not that he would literally raise it, but by the way he lived his life, as he tells his disciples to do. The Bible explains itself, and we read Jesus did not raise himself, but the Father did, and we are given the explanation in John, what Jesus meant.

Click to expand...

If Jesus didn't raise His body, then He was lying. The Bible does not explain that Jesus didn't raise Himself, and we never read that Jesus didn't read Himself.

So, again if you have a verse that states Jesus literally raised himself from the dead, would you care to share it?



Power/authority means choice. Jesus was given this choice (exousia), to become the son of God by the resurrection, as we are given this choice (exousia), when we turn to God, to become the sons of God John 1:12. This is what it means: G1849 – exousia – authority, power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.



We are not talking about him saying he will, we are talking about were it says he did! No, I am using scripture to interpret scripture, you haven't given me the passage yet were it states he did. I have given you passages that state the Father raised him (if not, I can), we are still waiting for yours.

If they had not specified, that Jesus was not referring to the temple, but his body, would you still be arguing Jesus was referring to the temple, and not his body? So, we know Jesus did not literally mean the temple building. Could it be that he did not literally mean he would raise his own body, seeing as we have scriptures that state the Father raised him? And if he did not literally raise himself, then what did he mean?

Click to expand...

Don't have time to finish this now, but perhaps late tonight or tomorrow I can get to the rest.

Der Alter said:

Php 2:6-11
(6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(7) But made [active voice] himself of no reputation, and took upon [active voice] him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
(8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled [active voice] himself, and became [active voice]obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
​

In Greek the active voice means the subject, in this case, Jesus performed the action. It was here, between vss. 8 and 9, where everything happened that some people don't inderstand, "If Jesus was God how could He grow in wisdom? etc. etc.

(9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
(10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
(11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

Click to expand...

Your trying to make this into when Jesus was born, I beleive. When Jesus started his ministry he had no place to lay his head. It says, he took upon [active voice] him the form of a servant. Not he took upon [active voice] him the form of a man.

nomadictheist said:

The author of Hebrews does not agree with you. I believe the author of Hebrews.

Click to expand...

You simply saying it's not true, does not make it not true, but if that's the answer you want to stick to, that's fine. If your referring to Psalm 102 you can see for yourself, it sure is not the Father speaking.

nomadictheist said:

So you're saying an all powerful God is confined to expressing all of His divine attributes only in a man?
Besides, I've already shown the Son, Jesus, to be pre-existing His birth on earth.

Click to expand...

No, not saying that. What God is like is seen in His creation, but cannot express as a man can.

I was asking were it states Jesus was called a son before his birth, this you have not shown.

nomadictheist said:

Jesus Himself says He knew the Father, and in fact that He shared glory with Him "before the world began."

Click to expand...

I've already shown this passage explains itself, if we keep it in context. We are going in circles on this one.

nomadictheist said:

and the doctrine that has been passed down from the earliest writings of the church.

Click to expand...

We have to be careful of any writing other then the apostles, for there were false letters circling around even in their time.

nomadictheist said:

If Jesus didn't raise His body, then He was lying. The Bible does not explain that Jesus didn't raise Himself, and we never read that Jesus didn't read Himself.

Click to expand...

No more lying then him saying “temple.” He did not mean the temple, but his body, so was he lying? Of course not! The same thing as him saying he would raise himself, not referring to literally, but how he lived his life.

nomadictheist said:

Don't have time to finish this now, but perhaps late tonight or tomorrow I can get to the rest.

Click to expand...

That fine.

7xlightray said:

Your trying to make this into when Jesus was born, I beleive. When Jesus started his ministry he had no place to lay his head. It says, he took upon [active voice] him the form of a servant. Not he took upon [active voice] him the form of a man.

Click to expand...

I said nothing about when Jesus was born. That is a whole 'nother discussion. How many active voice statements about Jesus in Philippians 2:6-11? The verb γενομενος translated "was made" in Philippians 2:7, is a middle deponent, which, in most cases, is interpreted as active voice, definitely not passive.

7xlightray said:

I agree to a point. When Jesus was two months old, was he speaking as he did when he was 30 years of age? He is the image of God, but he did increase in wisdom. So then, if Jesus was the God, he must of forgotten many, if not all things, if he grew in wisdom.

Click to expand...

This line of reasoning was already addressed by me in previous post #363, where I said...

It seems so, only after he had emptied himself of the Godhood status that he had before the incarnation and assumed the role of the suffering servant, to fulfill the prophesy of Deuteronomy. (Philippians 2:6-8)

Jesus as a real human being, would forgo the privilege of being all knowing, that the true God is, to assume a role vastly different to the role that he had previously before the incarnation, where he had equality to the true God.

And now glorify Me, you Father, with Yourself, with the glory that I had with You before the world existed. (John 17:5)

The compound personal pronoun "with yourself" is alluding to being, that is Godbeing, since God is Spirit (John 4:24), the Son is by virtue the uncreated glory of the Father, otherwise if the Son is created, then also is the Father's glory created, which means that there was a time before the Son existed, that the Father was without glory, therefore without the Son. The Father and the Son must be exiting co-eternally as interdependent persona's within the one infinite and uncreated Godbeing, for the Father to have eternal glory. This could not be possible, if the glory of the Father would only be realised after the Son is created. Therefore the Son cannot be a created being, nor can he be a separate being to the Father, because that would go against John 17:5.

Compound Personal pronoun defined....

1. 
   
   Compound personal pronouns may be used as reflexive pronouns or as intensive pronouns. Reflexive pronouns reflect an action back onto the subject of a verb or of an infinitive—or onto a possessive noun or pronoun—in the same sentence. Matt caught sight of himself in the mirror.

To reflect an action back onto the subject who is the Father within the context of glory, requires the Son to begin with to realise that glory, in the essence if the Son didn't exist coeternally with the Father, then the reflective act of glory which is solely dependent on the Son could not have been credited to the Father, meaning the Father requires the Son to have Glory and in this regard the Son is eternal, which points to God the Father having glory co-eternally with the Son as the Nicene creed states.

Does not mean the the Pharisees understood correctly. Lets see if they did, by letting Jesus answer for himself...

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 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​

Jesus is not claiming to be the God, but the son of that God. Which would mean he was like (image, equal as to an image of) his Father, Who was God. He is saying, if the scriptures call some men gods, then why are you making a big deal, because I say I am the son of God.

Jesus also prayed we would be one “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” - John 17:21. We understand that this does not make us the God. So, this is not a good bases to turn someone into the God.

He also said, they believed that Jesus came out from God (in the Greek this refers to the Father doing the action). God the Father sent His word-logos which comes out from Him, and His word-logos became flesh.

Click to expand...

I have covered most of this in previous posts and I will endeavour to summarise it and refer you to the posted links below. Firstly Jesus quotes Psalms 82 from a completely different context. The context in Psalms 82, is a letter that was addressed to the 24 earthly judges of Israel, who became corrupt rulers, because absolute power brought absolute corruption and the Psalm is a letter of rebuke, where God condescendingly declares that even though he made them rulers, they thought of themselves as gods on earth. So God replies in the following manner to disrespect them, did I say that you were gods? HA, HA, you all will certainly die like mortal men. When reflecting about it these corrupt rulers were almost considered by most of Israel as gods on earth, because of their absolute power and in this regard God isn't calling them gods or rulers in the proper interpretation of the word gods, rather he is saying that they became wanna be gods onto themselves, rather than just rulers who would look after people, instead of pressing them to serve their alter ego.

Jesus uses the fact that Israel and the Pharisees regarded these so called corrupt rulers as little gods on earth and in this regard, Jesus is replying back to them, what is the big deal that you are making, when I made the claim that I am the Son of God. Notice Jesus never corrected them for saying that he is the true God, but would highlight their hypocrisy once again, by drawing the parallel with the corrupt 24 earthly judges of Psalms 82.

So your statement....

He is saying, if the scriptures call some men gods, then why are you making a big deal, because I say I am the son of God.

Your statement above plays at this by supporting the rebuke that Jesus would make on the Pharisees who considered those corrupt rulers as gods, where the word in proper is rulers, and yet they would not accept him as the Son of God. So your statement actually supports that Jesus is the true God of the Bible. Further Jesus would say you surely will accept a person if he came in his own name, but since I came in my Father's name you will not accept me.

You quoted...

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” - John 17:21.

However the context of the verse above was provided in the following verse...

"And now glorify Me, you Father, with Yourself, with the glory that I had with You before the world existed. "(John 17:5)

I have already answered the reasoning you have provided in the following posts....

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ctrinal-reasons.7928502/page-16#post-69233565">Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons</a>

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ctrinal-reasons.7928502/page-17#post-69233587">Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons</a>

I would agree, though I don't know what you mean by imprinted, or how, or to the whole.

Click to expand...

Fully imprinted, that is what scripture states.....

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

The Godhead includes the Father, in the fullness sense, where the Son is the literal projection of the Father's being/nature/substance (qualities that make God God) in flesh. Jesus was not a copy of the Father's qualifying being characteristics, but a direct and pure projection of his very character in the man Jesus of Nazareth. In essence, when Philip asked Jesus about seeing the Father, Jesus would point to himself. It would be wrong for Jesus to have pointed to himself, when Philip asked to see the Father, if Jesus was only a copy of the Father's being/substance, meaning that there exists two beings and that Jesus is a copy of the God-being, suggesting that Jesus is a created being. Since God is one infinite and indivisible being, having there persona's, Jesus claimed to be the.......

very nature God, whilst he did not consider equality with God to be an act of theft. (Philippians 2:6)

You see if two beings are existing and one being takes it upon himself to pretend to be the other being, then this would be identity theft. Scripture states that there is no identity theft, when Jesus himself, "thought it not robbery to be equal to the one and only infinite God-being".

Well, Jesus did not say “God” is the only true God, but the "Father" is the only true God. Huge difference this makes, that would rule out anyone else, but the Father.

Click to expand...

God is Spirit (John 4:24), therefore the Father is Holy, Holy and Holy Spirit as proclaimed many times in the Old Testament. The Holy Ghost is the same Spirit/substance that qualifies God as the true God, therefore the Holy Spirit given on Pentecost is also the true God. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost and the fullness of the God-head (God-being) dwelled in him, therefore the projection of the Father, who is one infinite and indivisible Spirit/substance with the Son (Nicene Creed), was projected into the world through the Son, the man Jesus of Nazereth, thereby making the Son the true God, otherwise Jesus would not claim to be the God-being of the Father when asked by Philip. If one being claimed to be another being and not just a mere representative of that being, by preventing people from accessing that being, then that is identity theft. Jesus would have been able to say in a direct manner the following.....

he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Not only does Jesus prevent Philip from accessing the Father or at least to provide him a reason as to why he is not able to see him, Jesus would credit himself as being that being and denies the privilege to access the being of the Father, if there were to exist two separate beings. For example, if I said what do you mean show me John, don't you know that I Berean am John, so quite asking about seeing John, in other words I am denying the very existence of another being called John. If the Father and the Son are two separate beings, then the Son being (note: not persona), is denying the existance of the Father being right there and then.

We know that God is one infinite and indivisible being who is Holy, Holy and Holy Spirit and the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are persona's of that one being. We know why this is, because scripture says so, but we may never know as to how it is so? Because to know how, we mere mortals, would know the makeup of what makes God God and in this regard since God is uncreated, there is no natural or logical process to knowing the how as to the makeup of God, to the fact as to why he is three personalities within the one infinite and indivisible God-being

To what depth and width would you wish to go into scripture, I am here as your servant to help.

Jesus Christ is the true God to the glory of God the Father.

7xlightray said:

This verse explains itself down in verse 24. Also in the heart of this passage Jesus himself states the Father is the only true God.

Click to expand...

If you think John 17:24 clarifies/explains John 17:5 you should quote it and show how it does what you think it does. Since you didn't do that I will and show you how vs. 24 supports what I said.

The problem we are dealing with is scripture being interpreted in 2015 with a 21st century mindset influenced by current doctrines. Was this written in a secret Bible code which could only be understood by certain individuals with spiritual discernment or was it written in clear Greek which would have been understood in its literal sense by the common Greek speaking Christian of the apostle's day that it was written to? Here is how one early church father understood it.

Der Alter said:

If you think John 17:24 clarifies/explains John 17:5 you should quote it and show how it does what you think it does. Since you didn't do that I will and show you how vs. 24 supports what I said.

John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
​

The problem we are dealing with is scripture being interpreted in 2015 with a 21st century mindset influenced by current doctrines. Was this written in a secret Bible code which could only be understood by certain individuals with spiritual discernment or was it written in clear Greek which would have been understood in its literal sense by the common Greek speaking Christian of the apostle's day that it was written to? Here is how one early church father understood it.

Novatian [A.D. 210-280.] A Treatise Concerning the Trinity. Chap. XI
And in the same manner as He was made as man “under the law,” (Gal_4:4) so as God He is declared to be “Lord of the Sabbath.” (Luk_6:5) And in the same manner as He suffers, as man, the condemnation, so as God He is found to have all judgment of the quick and dead. And in the same manner as He is born as man subsequent to the world, so as God He is manifested to have been before the world. And in the same way as He was begotten as man of the seed of David, so also the world is said to have been ordained by Him as God. And in the same way as He was as man after many, so as God He was before all. And in the same manner as He was as man inferior to others, so as God He was greater than all. ​

Click to expand...

Amen! In Christ and through Christ, God covered the full spectrum of his being from when he emptied himself, to being the weakling as the man Jesus of Nazareth, to eternally existing as EL-GaBOUR, meaning God is Great.

What manner of God, was he required to be the weakling and to yield himself to the authorities of his days, to humbling himself by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross! This is the epitome of who God is, that is God is LOVE.

Jesus Christ is LOVE and if Jesus Christ is LOVE, then Jesus Christ is the true God of the Bible.

Who on earth would claim that Jesus is not LOVE, would they dare say that he is only loving and not the source of LOVE itself. Life and love come hand in hand as the pillar of who God is and in him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

If Jesus Christ is the LIGHT of all human kind that he created (John 1:1-4), then Jesus Christ is LOVE.

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)

There is only one light and it is THE LIGHT, where THE is the definite article pointing to the one light of God which is the light of all life, meaning the source of all life, Jesus Christ is the source of all life and is the (definite article) LIGHT. If Jesus Christ is the LIGHT and he must also be THE LOVE from a primary source point of view, for he is not just loving, but is the definition of LOVE and the source of THE (definite article) LOVE.

Since there is one being who is the LOVE, then the Father, the Son are of one substance as the Nicene Creed declares, where substance is the qualifying qualities of what makes God God. Jesus Christ is said to be the GOD of GOD and the LIGHT of LIGHT, meaning he is the perfect one to one projection of the fullness of God bodily, within his own creation (Colossians 2:9).

In science it is said that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, as energy is light energy across the spectrum from the atomic to the Galactic, micro and macro scale, then the term LIGHT of LIGHT has no beginning because it is emanating from the source of LIGHT, who is God and Jesus Christ is that perfect projection of that LIGHT, within creation as the first begotten.

I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. (John 12:46)

Click to expand...

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil (John 3:19).

Click to expand...

As Jesus would say....

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

What light? THE light! Because there is only one light/life source and Jesus Christ is the genuine article for in him dwells all the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9).

7xlightray said:

You simply saying it's not true, does not make it not true, but if that's the answer you want to stick to, that's fine. If your referring to Psalm 102 you can see for yourself, it sure is not the Father speaking.

Click to expand...

The author of Hebrews says that these words were spoken of the Son.

No, not saying that. What God is like is seen in His creation, but cannot express as a man can.

Click to expand...

Really? Because a donkey can speak if God commands it to.

I was asking were it states Jesus was called a son before his birth, this you have not shown.

Click to expand...

Yes I did, Hebrews 1:10. The author of Hebrews is making his argument for the deity of the Son of God, and he is the one that quotes these verses in reference to the Son. I didn't write Hebrews, but whether you agree with it or not, it's there.

I've already shown this passage explains itself, if we keep it in context. We are going in circles on this one.

Click to expand...

That's a negative. You've shown how you explain this passage by trying to put it in a context which is not meant to explain it. Others have already demonstrated this, and there's no need for me to add to what they've said.

We have to be careful of any writing other then the apostles, for there were false letters circling around even in their time.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's especially true of the writings of the gnostic heretics, who preached what you are preaching here (that Jesus could not be God because God could not suffer and die) and were refuted by the early church fathers, including the martyrs (it's funny how we don't see any gnostic heretics martyred for Christ...).

No more lying then him saying “temple.” He did not mean the temple, but his body, so was he lying? Of course not! The same thing as him saying he would raise himself, not referring to literally, but how he lived his life.

Click to expand...

Again, this is not true at all. What is the temple? The temple is an earthly dwelling for God. So when Jesus said "destroy this temple" He meant exactly what He said. They didn't understand it because they didn't know that Jesus' body was the earthly dwelling for God.

As for the rest, the Bible says Jesus rose from the dead. The Bible says the Father raised Him from the dead, and the Bible says that Jesus said He would raise His body from the dead.

The text doesn't explain that Jesus was talking about His body and not the temple. The text explains that He was talking about the temple of His body. There's a significant difference there. He was very literally telling them "destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." They were just confused about which temple He was speaking of.

Berean777 said:

This line of reasoning was already addressed by me in previous post #363, where I said...

It seems so, only after he had emptied himself of the Godhood status that he had before the incarnation and assumed the role of the suffering servant, to fulfill the prophesy of Deuteronomy. (Philippians 2:6-8)

Jesus as a real human being, would forgo the privilege of being all knowing, that the true God is, to assume a role vastly different to the role that he had previously before the incarnation, where he had equality to the true God.

Click to expand...

So when on earth he did not have equality? God stopped knowing? I Did not know God could do that, that God can become unwise. That's a new one.

Berean777 said:

And now glorify Me, you Father, with Yourself, with the glory that I had with You before the world existed. (John 17:5)

The compound personal pronoun "with yourself" is alluding to being, that is Godbeing, since God is Spirit (John 4:24), the Son is by virtue the uncreated glory of the Father, otherwise if the Son is created, then also is the Father's glory created, which means that there was a time before the Son existed, that the Father was without glory, therefore without the Son. The Father and the Son must be exiting co-eternally as interdependent persona's within the one infinite and uncreated Godbeing, for the Father to have eternal glory. This could not be possible, if the glory of the Father would only be realised after the Son is created. Therefore the Son cannot be a created being, nor can he be a separate being to the Father, because that would go against John 17:5.

Compound Personal pronoun defined....

1. 
   
   Compound personal pronouns may be used as reflexive pronouns or as intensive pronouns. Reflexive pronouns reflect an action back onto the subject of a verb or of an infinitive—or onto a possessive noun or pronoun—in the same sentence. Matt caught sight of himself in the mirror.

To reflect an action back onto the subject who is the Father within the context of glory, requires the Son to begin with to realise that glory, in the essence if the Son didn't exist coeternally with the Father, then the reflective act of glory which is solely dependent on the Son could not have been credited to the Father, meaning the Father requires the Son to have Glory and in this regard the Son is eternal, which points to God the Father having glory co-eternally with the Son as the Nicene creed states.

Click to expand...

Jesus is asking to be “now” glorified with the Father, which means he does not have it now.

Berean777 said:

I have covered most of this in previous posts and I will endeavour to summarise it and refer you to the posted links below. Firstly Jesus quotes Psalms 82 from a completely different context. The context in Psalms 82, is a letter that was addressed to the 24 earthly judges of Israel, who became corrupt rulers, because absolute power brought absolute corruption and the Psalm is a letter of rebuke, where God condescendingly declares that even though he made them rulers, they thought of themselves as gods on earth. So God replies in the following manner to disrespect them, did I say that you were gods? HA, HA, you all will certainly die like mortal men. When reflecting about it these corrupt rulers were almost considered by most of Israel as gods on earth, because of their absolute power and in this regard God isn't calling them gods or rulers in the proper interpretation of the word gods, rather he is saying that they became wanna be gods onto themselves, rather than just rulers who would look after people, instead of pressing them to serve their alter ego.

Jesus uses the fact that Israel and the Pharisees regarded these so called corrupt rulers as little gods on earth and in this regard, Jesus is replying back to them, what is the big deal that you are making, when I made the claim that I am the Son of God. Notice Jesus never corrected them for saying that he is the true God, but would highlight their hypocrisy once again, by drawing the parallel with the corrupt 24 earthly judges of Psalms 82.

So your statement....

He is saying, if the scriptures call some men gods, then why are you making a big deal, because I say I am the son of God.

Click to expand...

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

He is saying even though they are gods, and have this honor, and are children of God, they will die. Not to be confident in there position, or that they are the chosen. They need to get straight with God, if they do, their position would not change, nor would their status as children of God change. God is not mocking them for being His children, nor is He mocking them for their position. God gave them their positions, as He made Moses as god.

That is what I'm saying, Jesus is saying, why are you making a big deal, if I say I am the son of God. Jesus is stating he is not God, by saying he is the son of God. He is saying, I am not making that claim, that's exactly what he is doing, otherwise he would have said, yup your right.

You were saying he was making a claim of being God, yet, he definitely down played it. What was he doing saying, “I am God,” then turn around in the next breath and say, “well I may not be really saying that.”

Berean777 said:

Your statement above plays at this by supporting the rebuke that Jesus would make on the Pharisees who considered those corrupt rulers as gods, where the word in proper is rulers, and yet they would not accept him as the Son of God. So your statement actually supports that Jesus is the true God of the Bible. Further Jesus would say you surely will accept a person if he came in his own name, but since I came in my Father's name you will not accept me.

You quoted...

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” - John 17:21.

However the context of the verse above was provided in the following verse...

"And now glorify Me, you Father, with Yourself, with the glory that I had with You before the world existed. "(John 17:5)

I have already answered the reasoning you have provided in the following posts....

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ctrinal-reasons.7928502/page-16#post-69233565">Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons</a>

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ctrinal-reasons.7928502/page-17#post-69233587">Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons</a>



Fully imprinted, that is what scripture states.....

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

Click to expand...

...but Jesus is not making any claim of being God, that's why he said, son of God, and not God.

Berean777 said:

The Godhead includes the Father, in the fullness sense, where the Son is the literal projection of the Father's being/nature/substance (qualities that make God God) in flesh. Jesus was not a copy of the Father's qualifying being characteristics, but a direct and pure projection of his very character in the man Jesus of Nazareth. In essence, when Philip asked Jesus about seeing the Father, Jesus would point to himself. It would be wrong for Jesus to have pointed to himself, when Philip asked to see the Father, if Jesus was only a copy of the Father's being/substance, meaning that there exists two beings and that Jesus is a copy of the God-being, suggesting that Jesus is a created being. Since God is one infinite and indivisible being, having there persona's, Jesus claimed to be the.......

Click to expand...

We are not talking about substance, were talking about character.

Jesus did not have God's nature on earth. It's not wrong, if Jesus is referring to God's character. God wanted to make man in His image, and Jesus was that image, and in him we move toward that image, in the sense of becoming that image.

Berean777 said:

very nature God, whilst he did not consider equality with God to be an act of theft. (Philippians 2:6)

You see if two beings are existing and one being takes it upon himself to pretend to be the other being, then this would be identity theft. Scripture states that there is no identity theft, when Jesus himself, "thought it not robbery to be equal to the one and only infinite God-being".

Click to expand...

3444. morphé does not mean nature.

What? It's not identity theft, God wanted to make us in His image.

Father you are the only true God. He is talking to the Father, not speaking to the Jews. Has “only” lost it's meaning?

Der Alter said:

If you think John 17:24 clarifies/explains John 17:5 you should quote it and show how it does what you think it does. Since you didn't do that I will and show you how vs. 24 supports what I said.

John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
​

The problem we are dealing with is scripture being interpreted in 2015 with a 21st century mindset influenced by current doctrines. Was this written in a secret Bible code which could only be understood by certain individuals with spiritual discernment or was it written in clear Greek which would have been understood in its literal sense by the common Greek speaking Christian of the apostle's day that it was written to? Here is how one early church father understood it.

Novatian [A.D. 210-280.] A Treatise Concerning the Trinity. Chap. XI
And in the same manner as He was made as man “under the law,” (Gal_4:4) so as God He is declared to be “Lord of the Sabbath.” (Luk_6:5) And in the same manner as He suffers, as man, the condemnation, so as God He is found to have all judgment of the quick and dead. And in the same manner as He is born as man subsequent to the world, so as God He is manifested to have been before the world. And in the same way as He was begotten as man of the seed of David, so also the world is said to have been ordained by Him as God. And in the same way as He was as man after many, so as God He was before all. And in the same manner as He was as man inferior to others, so as God He was greater than all. ​

Click to expand...

which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Jesus is talking about Glory which God has given him. This glory was given to him before the foundation of the world, and is written in scripture. Notice how Jesus worded it, he says, God loved him before the foundation of the world. Why is he wording it like that, going all the way back then? Did not God love him between the time from the foundation of the world, to his birth of Marry? It's because it was foreordained of him, for God planed to have a son and give him glory. All this was planed before the foundation of the world. This is the glory Jesus is talking about that he had with God, before the foundation of the world, and put him over all, and loved him all the way back then. This is how God works.

You know what lord of the Sabbath means, and what Luke 6:5 is about? It's not referring to him being God.
He is lord of the rest from all our works.

nomadictheist said:

The author of Hebrews says that these words were spoken of the Son.

Click to expand...

No he doesn't. Verse 10 “And” is the start of a new argument, verse 13 “but” is the contrast.

nomadictheist said:

Really? Because a donkey can speak if God commands it to.

Click to expand...

What does a donkey have to do with the earth, a thing?

nomadictheist said:

Yes I did, Hebrews 1:10. The author of Hebrews is making his argument for the deity of the Son of God, and he is the one that quotes these verses in reference to the Son. I didn't write Hebrews, but whether you agree with it or not, it's there.

Click to expand...

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

First verse 10 says nothing about the Son. And it's not speaking of the Son, but the Father. He is contrasting Jesus to the angels, and him becoming better then the angels. How can he show that he has become better then the angels, if he is already better then the angles.

In verses 10-12 he talks about the works of God, and the old way will pass away, then his point in verse 13 is, that Jesus sat down at the right hand of God, until the old way has passed away. Why would he be saying, Jesus is going to sit down on the right hand of himself? Jesus was set over the works of Gods hands. You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands.

nomadictheist said:

Again, this is not true at all. What is the temple? The temple is an earthly dwelling for God. So when Jesus said "destroy this temple" He meant exactly what He said. They didn't understand it because they didn't know that Jesus' body was the earthly dwelling for God.

The text doesn't explain that Jesus was talking about His body and not the temple. The text explains that He was talking about the temple of His body. There's a significant difference there. He was very literally telling them "destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." They were just confused about which temple He was speaking of.

Click to expand...

Of course that is what he meant. Yes, but Jesus speaking in this way, is speaking in dark sayings, and parables. It's like the word of God is referred to as seed, or Jesus is the bread. We are use to this kind of lingo.

nomadictheist said:

As for the rest, the Bible says Jesus rose from the dead. The Bible says the Father raised Him from the dead, and the Bible says that Jesus said He would raise His body from the dead.

Click to expand...

So, I take it you don't have a verse.