Is God Three, or Two?

[Der Alte]

the Father is the one and only real or true god.
the son is the new man, the new creation of god, begotten of god, and conceived of Mary. God created new human male seed that he used to fertilize Mary's egg with, thus resulting in God's only begotten son. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God the Father, it is what he is, just as what we humans are are soulical beings. we are not our bodies.

god is not said to have a personality or have a nature, or be an essence, or be a person of God, or be a nature.
None of the definitions of nature that you posted are what anyone means when they use the word nature to describe God. when trinitarians say God has 3 natures, they don't mean any of the def. you posted, they don't mean anything, they are meaningless words as used by trintiarains to describe God. nature, essence, person of god are all meaningless words used by trinitarians interchangeably like in a shell game to confuse people into thinking something has actually been said when it hasn't. when people use a word, as trinitarians do, that doesn't mean what the word means, as in the case of essence, person , and nature, then whatever they say using those nonmeaning words is meaningless. all trinitarian explanations are meaningless because they use words that have no meaning.

Main Entry: [sup]1[/sup]be•ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing; especially : PERSON
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Main Entry: per•son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures.
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
- per•son•hood /-"hud/ noun
- in person : in one's bodily presence.​

====================================================================

 

[ARBITER01]

Of course He is. God and Lord as The Father and Son is one Holy Spirit, therefore Holy Spirit is just as much GOD and Lord as The Father and Son. No disagreement here.
This makes sense if Jesus, the Son, and God, the Father, is also the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit, the plural person of God (Father and Son), does not speak against Himself, and the Lord Jesus, the Son, is revealed in the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is also the Lord Jesus, the Son, and God, the Father.
These verses are simply telling us that God works in us and the Lord ministers in us through the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us. The Holy Spirit in us is God in us and the Lord in us working and ministering through us by the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us.

For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. - 1 Cor 12:8-11.

The Holy Spirit is the plural God (Father and Son) in us distributing to each one of us individually His spiritual gifts according to His own will.

It seems we are in agreement, and your explanation provides greater understanding as to why Peter referred to The Holy Spirit as The Spirit of Christ,..

1Pe 1:11 searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.

We are able to see agreement between Peter and Paul on their understandings.

 

[cubinity]

It seems we are in agreement...

Sweet!. I love it when two people really get to this point where they talk through their diversity and discover common ground. This happened to me right here in this thread, too.

This is an awesome thread discussion. Thank you, Dove, for your OP and posts. And, thank you Arbiter01. I've learned a lot from your posts.

 

[2ducklow]

all the isms started durring and after the apostles time, like sabienism, trinitarianism, ariainism, etc.


the reason is that people have itching ears to turn away from the truth. most all the isms started by trying to figure out who Jesus and God are.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

2 Timothy 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.


fables like Mother of God.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


heresies that deny Christ like pentanance. It isn't christ that saves but pentanance.

 

[ARBITER01]

Sweet!. I love it when two people really get to this point where they talk through their diversity and discover common ground. This happened to me right here in this thread, too.

This is an awesome thread discussion. Thank you, Dove, for your OP and posts. And, thank you Arbiter01. I've learned a lot from your posts.

It took me a while to read through your post and sort of think on it, I'm not used to doing that too much on here, which is to your credit. Your explanations on the subject were deep, but accurate as I reviewed some scripture on them. Very insightful!

 

[cubinity]

It took me a while to read through your post and sort of think on it, I'm not used to doing that too much on here, which is to your credit. Your explanations on the subject were deep, but accurate as I reviewed some scripture on them. Very insightful!

Again, thank you. All too often, I get into the debate, and rarely remember how much a kind comment, encouragement, and positive feedback really matters.

 

[Doveaman]

the Father is the one and only real or true god.

That&#8217;s like saying that Adam, our human father, is the one and only real or true human.

the son is the new man, the new creation of god, begotten of god, and conceived of Mary.

This makes God His &#8220;biological&#8221; Father and Mary His biological mother; begotten of God and born of Mary.

My biological son is my one and only begotten son and his mother's one and only born son, and he is human because his father and mother are human. Jesus is the Father&#8217;s one and only begotten Son and He was His mother's one and only born Son at His birth, and He is God because His Father is God, and human because His mother was human.

God created new human male seed that he used to fertilize Mary's egg with, thus resulting in God's only begotten son.

If this idea was scriptural I might agree, but since it is not scriptural I do not agree. What the scriptures does say is: &#8220;After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.&#8221; - Matt 1:18-20.

No mention of God creating a human male "seed" to fertilize Mary&#8217;s egg. God the Father Himself fertilized the egg by His own Spirit essence. The Spirit essence of the Holy Spirit was the Father's own divine male "seed" that proceeded from the Father to fertilize the egg.

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God the Father,

I agree.

it is what he is,

The Holy Spirit is not simply what God is, it is also who God is; God is Holy Spirit (Father and Son).

just as what we humans are are soulical beings. we are not our bodies.

But our human nature includes a body. One Biblical definition of soul is a combined body and spirit. The human body and the human spirit combined becomes a human soul:

&#8220;The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground [human body] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [human spirit], and the man became a living soul.&#8221; - Gen 2:7.

Separate this human spirit from the human body and this human soul ceases to exist. Man as a soul is both body (flesh substance) and spirit (human will). God as Holy Spirit is both Spirit substance and divine will:

For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. - 1 Cor 2:11.

god is not said to have a personality or have a nature, or be an essence, or be a person of God, or be a nature.
None of the definitions of nature that you posted are what anyone means when they use the word nature to describe God. when trinitarians say God has 3 natures, they don't mean any of the def. you posted, they don't mean anything, they are meaningless words as used by trintiarains to describe God. nature, essence, person of god are all meaningless words used by trinitarians interchangeably like in a shell game to confuse people into thinking something has actually been said when it hasn't. when people use a word, as trinitarians do, that doesn't mean what the word means, as in the case of essence, person , and nature, then whatever they say using those nonmeaning words is meaningless. all trinitarian explanations are meaningless because they use words that have no meaning.

Well, the way I used it has meaning.

The Bible describes God as one plural person:

In the beginning...God ['elohiym] said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness - Gen 1:1,26.

The Bible also describes God as two singular persons:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh...the only begotten of the Father - John 1:1,14.

The Father and the Son are also one and the same Spirit, one and the same Holy Spirit:

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. - John 4:24.

Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 Cor 3:17.

Since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and also the Spirit of the Son then it is logical to conclude that God as two singular persons exists as Father or Son, and God as one plural person exists as Father and Son in the form of one Holy Spirit. God is one Holy Spirit who exists as Father and Son. "I and My Father are one." One Holy Spirit. One God.

 

[2ducklow]

That&#8217;s like saying that Adam, our human father, is the one and only real or true human.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Scripture states that God the Father is the one and only true or real god.
(ASV) John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ

Rotherham) John 17:3 And, this, is the age-abiding life, That they get to know thee, the only real God, and him whom thou didst send, Jesus Christ.


(Rotherham) 1 Corinthians 8:6 [[Yet]], to us, there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and, we, for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and, we, through him

.
This makes God His &#8220;biological&#8221; Father and Mary His biological mother; begotten of God and born of Mary.

No, because God created new human male seed. If Jesus was the biological offspring of God, god would have fertilized Mary's egg with his seed, which he doesn't have. God doesn't have spirit genetalia, He doesn't procreate other Gods. God is no more Jesus biological Father because God created new human male seed, than he is the biological father of Adam because he created adam.

My biological son is my one and only begotten son and his mother's one and only born son, and he is human because his father and mother are human. Jesus is the Father&#8217;s one and only begotten Son and He was His mother's one and only born Son at His birth, and He is God because His Father is God and human because His mother was human.

that is assuming that god has spirit genitalia and produces spirit sperm, He doesn't.

If this idea was scriptural I might agree, but since it is not scriptural I do not agree. What the scriptures does say is: &#8220;After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.&#8221; - Matt 1:18-20.

No mention of God creating a human male "seed" to fertilize Mary&#8217;s egg. God the Father Himself fertilized the egg by His own Spirit essence. The Spirit essence of the Holy Spirit was the Father's own divine male "seed" that proceeded from the Father to fertilize the egg.

YOu have no scripture saying god fertilized Mary's egg with his own spirit essence. Yet you believe that.


Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

interpretation.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing (new human male seed) in the earth, A woman (Mary) shall compass (go around) a man (to conceive).

I've only seen two ways this verse is interpreted .
1. women in the last days will rule over men.
2. jer. 31.22 refers to the virgin birth.
I vote #2. I find #1 ridiculous as I think most people would.

for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall
compass a man;
a mighty one, a mighty man, the man Jehovah's fellow; conceived, contained, and encompassed, in the womb of the virgin, the woman, whose seed he was to be of, and of whom he was: this was a "new", unheard of, extraordinary thing, a "creation", a work of almighty power! the human nature of Christ was formed and prepared by the power of the Holy Ghost, without the help of man; and this now is mentioned as an argument and an encouragement to the Jews to return to their own land, since the Messiah is born there of a virgin, as it was foretold he should. This seems to be the true and genuine sense of the words, and other senses weak and impertinent; as when they are made to refer to the heroic spirit in some women superior to men; to the unusual practice of women suing to men for marriage; and to the people of Israel returning to the Lord from their apostasy. So the Targum,

Jeremiah 31:22 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary

Even John Gill's commentary says it refers to the virgin birth. I disagree with his ideas about how it refers. He calls a new creation Christ's human nature. I say the new thing God created was new human male seed enabling Mary to conceive, and God to begat.

I agree.
The Holy Spirit is not simply what God is, it is also who God is; God is Holy Spirit (Father and Son).
But our human nature includes a body. One Biblical definition of soul is a combined body and spirit. The human body and the human spirit combined becomes a human soul:

&#8220;The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground [human body] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [human spirit], and the man became a living soul.&#8221; - Gen 2:7.

Separate this human spirit from the human body and this human soul ceases to exist. Man as a soul is both body (flesh substance) and spirit (human will). God as Holy Spirit is both Spirit substance and divine will:

For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. - 1 Cor 2:11.
Well, the way I used it has meaning.

The Bible describes God as one plural person:

In the beginning...God ['elohiym] said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness - Gen 1:1,26.

That cannot be for at least 2 reasons. !. no word is a plural singular or singluar plural in any language.
2. if Yahweh is singluar plural, then demons who are also called elohiym are singluar plural, and demons have to refer to themselves as us. elohiym is just a word that has the same spelling and pronunciation in the plural as it does int the singluar, just like our english word fish is both singular and plural depending on the context. Fish is not singular plural, and elohiym isn't singular plural either. thing about it, there are no singluar plural words in any language, the concept is a contradiction. something is either singular or it is plural. not both.


The real meaning of gen. 1.26 lost to almost everyone is that it is prophetic apostrophe. god speaking to Christ and the Chruch (who , along with a singular Yahweh, are the us) who are not there (apostrophe). God is prophecising that one day man will be in the image of Christ and the church who are in the image of god. That is the end of man, and this verse is where god declares the end from the beginning (genesis is the beginning ). God is speaking to Christ and the church (thats a fig. of speech called an apostrophe) who aren't there. It's before either of us were ever around.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

The Bible also describes God as two singular persons:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh...the only begotten of the Father - John 1:1,14.

The Father and the Son are also one and the same Spirit, one and the same Holy Spirit:

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. - John 4:24.

Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 Cor 3:17.

Since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and also the Spirit of the Son then it is logical to conclude that God as two singular persons exists as Father or Son, and God as one plural person exists as Father and Son in the form of one Holy Spirit. God is one Holy Spirit who exists as Father and Son. "I and My Father are one." One Holy Spirit. One God.

I believe that the word is the written or oral word of God, in other words, what god says. What god says was god is the meaning of john 1.1. and what god says became flesh is the meaning of john 1.14. inother words it's figurative, just like when the b ible says JEsus is a door , or the way, or the good shepard, or bread from heaven. Jesus is no door, and he isn't a loaf of bread and he isn't what god says, literally.

 

[Aner]

The answer is simple: Neither.

ICor8:6 clears up confusion - one God - the Father. Period.

2Duck - Very simple - all you have to do is read without tradition (as you have done it appears in at least this regard).

DerAlter - Yup - all the Nature/Person thing is a completely human amendation to scripture. Scripture knows of certain divisibilities of an entity BUT not the one proffered.

The worst of it?? The denial of the genuine man Christ Jesus (ICor15:21) - Jesus HAD to be a genuine man in order to save genuine men (most of us here, last I checked). The elimination of the human person and substition of a single divine person infusing solely a personless human nature (sort of a puppet) is a complete abrogation of any reality the reflects scriptural teaching. Thus the whole trinity thing was never necessary in the first place.

Best,
In Christ,
Aner

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]DerAlter - Yup - all the Nature/Person thing is a completely human amendation to scripture. Scripture knows of certain divisibilities of an entity BUT not the one proffered.[ . . . ]

Are you purporting to quote me or replying to something I said?

 

[Der Alte]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Scripture states that God the Father is the one and only true or real god.
(ASV) John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ

Rotherham) John 17:3 And, this, is the age-abiding life, That they get to know thee, the only real God, and him whom thou didst send, Jesus Christ.

Scripture does NOT say as you claim "that God the Father is the one and only true or real god." You added some words. How can knowing a created being grant someone everlasting life?

No, because God created new human male seed. If Jesus was the biological offspring of God, god would have fertilized Mary's egg with his seed, which he doesn't have. God doesn't have spirit genetalia, He doesn't procreate other Gods. God is no more Jesus biological Father because God created new human male seed, than he is the biological father of Adam because he created adam.

Do you have scripture which says, "God created new human male seed?"

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

interpretation.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing (new human male seed) in the earth, A woman (Mary) shall compass (go around) a man (to conceive).

I've only seen two ways this verse is interpreted .
1. women in the last days will rule over men.
2. jer. 31.22 refers to the virgin birth.
I vote #2. I find #1 ridiculous as I think most people would.

Keil & Delitszch Hebrew Commentary Many expositors, including Hengstenberg and Hitzig of moderns, have rightly perceived that the general idea has been set forth with special reference to the relation between the woman, Israel, and the man, Jahveh.

Starting with this view, which is suggested by the context, the older expositors explained the words of the conception and birth of Christ by a virgin; cf. Corn. a Lapide, Calovii Bibl. ill., Cocceius, and Pfeiffer, dubia vex. p. 758ff. Thus, for example, the Berleburger Bibel gives the following explanation: "A woman or virgin - not a married woman - will encompass, i.e., carry and contain in her body, the man who is to be a vanquisher of all and to surpass all in strength." This explanation cannot be set aside by the simple remark, "that here there would be set forth the very feature in the birth of Christ by a virgin which is not peculiar to it as compared with others;" for this "superficial remark" does not in the least touch the real point to be explained. But it may very properly be objected, that &#1505;&#1465;&#1493;&#1489;&#1461;&#1489; has not the special meaning of conceiving in a mother's womb. On this ground we can also set down as incorrect the other explanation of the words in the Berleburger Bibel, that the text rather speaks of "the woman who is the Jewish Church, and who, in the spirit of faith, is to bear Christ as the mighty God, Isa_9:6, in the likeness of a man, Rev_12:1-2." However, these explanations are nearer the truth than any that have been offered since. The general statement, "a woman shall encompass (the) man," i.e., lovingly embrace him - this new relation which Jahveh will bring about in place of the old, that the man encompasses the wife, loving, providing for, protecting her - can only be referred, agreeably to the context, to change of relation between Israel and the Lord. &#1505;&#1465;&#1493;&#1489;&#1461;&#1489;, "to encompass," is used tropically, not merely of the mode of dealing on the part of the Lord to His people, the faithful, - of the protection, the grace, and the aid which He grants to the pious ones, as in Psa_32:7, Psa_32:10; Deu_32:10, - but also of the dealings of men with divine things. &#1488;&#1458;&#1505;&#1465;&#1493;&#1489;&#1456;&#1489;&#1464;&#1492; &#1502;&#1460;&#1494;&#1456;&#1489;&#1463;&#1468;&#1495;&#1458;&#1498;&#1464;, Psa_26:6, does not mean, "I will go round Thine altar," in a circle or semicircle as it were, but, "I will keep to Thine altar," instead of keeping company with the wicked; or more correctly, "I will surround Thine altar," making it the object of my care, of all my dealings, - I will make mine own the favours shown to the faithful at Thine altar. In the verse now before us, &#1505;&#1465;&#1493;&#1489;&#1461;&#1489; signifies to encompass with love and care, to surround lovingly and carefully, - the natural and fitting dealing on the part of the stronger to the weak and those who need assistance. And the new thing that God creates consists in this, that the woman, the weaker nature that needs help, will lovingly and solicitously surround the man, the stronger. Herein is expressed a new relation of Israel to the Lord, a reference to a new covenant which the Lord, Jer_31:31., will conclude with His people, and in which He deals so condescendingly towards them that they can lovingly embrace Him. This is the substance of the Messianic meaning in the words. The conception of the Son of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary is not expressed in them either directly or indirectly, even though we were allowed to take &#1505;&#1465;&#1493;&#1489;&#1461;&#1489; in the meaning of "embrace." This new creation of the Lord is intended to be, and can be, for Israel, a powerful motive to their immediate return to their God.​

Jeremiah 31:22 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary

Even John Gill's commentary says it refers to the virgin birth. I disagree with his ideas about how it refers. He calls a new creation Christ's human nature. I say the new thing God created was new human male seed enabling Mary to conceive, and God to begat.

Cherry picking sources. When a scholar supports your argument he is right, when they contradict you they are wrong. How convenient. You make your own assumptions/presuppositions the final authority.

That cannot be for at least 2 reasons. !. no word is a plural singular or singluar plural in any language.
2. if Yahweh is singluar plural, then demons who are also called elohiym are singluar plural, and demons have to refer to themselves as us. elohiym is just a word that has the same spelling and pronunciation in the plural as it does int the singluar, just like our english word fish is both singular and plural depending on the context. Fish is not singular plural, and elohiym isn't singular plural either. thing about it, there are no singluar plural words in any language, the concept is a contradiction. something is either singular or it is plural. not both.

Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon H430 &#1488;&#1500;&#1492;&#1497;&#1501; 'e&#774;lo&#770;hi&#770;ym
BDB Definition:
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God
Part of Speech: noun masculine plural
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: plural of H433
Same Word by TWOT Number: 93c​

The real meaning of gen. 1.26 lost to almost everyone is that it is prophetic apostrophe. god speaking to Christ and the Chruch (who , along with a singular Yahweh, are the us) who are not there (apostrophe). God is prophecising that one day man will be in the image of Christ and the church who are in the image of god. That is the end of man, and this verse is where god declares the end from the beginning (genesis is the beginning ). God is speaking to Christ and the church (thats a fig. of speech called an apostrophe) who aren't there. It's before either of us were ever around.

You must have a special connection with God, and he speaks to you directly. When did God give you this special revelation?

I believe that the word is the written or oral word of God, in other words, what god says. What god says was god is the meaning of john 1.1. and what god says became flesh is the meaning of john 1.14. inother words it's figurative, just like when the b ible says JEsus is a door , or the way, or the good shepard, or bread from heaven. Jesus is no door, and he isn't a loaf of bread and he isn't what god says, literally.

Long before John wrote his gospel the Jews referred to God as "The Word." From the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra.” &#1502;&#1488;&#1502;&#1512;/memra which in Aramaic means “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.

In this citation, which is only representative not comprehensive, there are at least 80 examples where the name &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;/YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with” &#1502;&#1488;&#1502;&#1512;/memra.” When John, the Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God.,” he was not saying anything strange or new.

This is not a Trinitarian source, it is the Jewish Encyclopedia prepared by Jewish scholars showing the faith, beliefs, and practices of the ancient Jews. Some relevant Targum quotes from the article, note the NT parallels.

“The Word brings Israel nigh unto God and [The Word] sits on [God’s] throne receiving the prayers of Israel.” cf. Re 3:21 Re 22:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“His Word has laid the foundation of the earth.” cf. John 1:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“So, in the future, shall The Word be the comforter.” cf. John 14:26, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“In The Word redemption will be found.” cf. Luke 21:28, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“My Word shall be unto you for a redeeming deity.” cf. Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:15, N.T. ca. 70 AD.​

More complete citation.

Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," [The Word] instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra [The Word]," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). " I will cover thee with My Memra, [My Word] " instead of "My hand " (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra [My Word] shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra, [The Word] " instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes "a sign between My Memra [My Word] and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra [His Word] has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, [The Word] not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra [The Word] brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" " (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). . . So, in the future, shall the Memra [The Word] be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra [My Word] shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).

The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra [The Word] the redemption will be found " (Targ. Zech. xii. 5).

JewishEncyclopedia.com - MEMRA​

 

[Doveaman]

Even John Gill's commentary says it refers to the virgin birth. I disagree with his ideas about how it refers. He calls a new creation Christ's human nature.

Quoting someone who disagrees with you but agrees with me doesn&#8217;t help your argument, it helps mine.

there are no singluar plural words in any language, the concept is a contradiction.

I did not present Elohiym as a singular plural word, I presented it as a word describing a singular God who is plural, and that is the way God describes Himself: In the beginning...God [Elohiym]said, &#8220;Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness&#8221; - Gen 1:1,26.

The one singular God is here referring to Himself as the plural &#8220;Us&#8221; or &#8220;Our&#8221;.

something is either singular or it is plural. not both.

Tell that to Abby and Brittany:

These twins are two persons (Abby and Brittany) existing as one flesh.

God is two persons (Father and Son) existing as one Spirit.

I believe that the word is the written or oral word of God, in other words, what god says. What god says was god is the meaning of john 1.1. and what god says became flesh is the meaning of john 1.14.

I believe that the Word is the complete expression of God in every way, not just what God says, and this complete expression of God was given a physical human body in the form of Christ, the Son:

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being - Heb 1:3.

The Son radiates from God as an exact representation of who God is in every way. And this is why Christ could say of Himself: &#8220;Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.&#8221; - John 14:9.

Christ the Son isn&#8217;t just what God says, He is who God is:

Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. - Phil 2:5-7.

Jesus was and is equal with God because He is God in nature. He was the fullness of God in bodily human form because He also became equal with man having a human nature; fully God, fully human:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form - Col 2:9.

Christ is the fullness of God, the same God who created the heavens and the earth:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together...For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him. - Col 1:16-19.

And Christ is the same fullness of God who led Israel out of Egypt:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea...and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. - 1 Cor 10:1-4.

 

[2ducklow]

Quoting someone who disagrees with you but agrees with me doesn&#8217;t help your argument, it helps mine.

I quoted a trinitarian who agrees with you who is saying nature is a thing.. A nature is not a thing, thus I have shown with that quote that trinitarians don't use nature to mean nature. they use nature to mean nothing as you have. Nature has no meaning as trinitarians use it.

God created a new thing, a nature isn't a thing, new human male seed is a thing. So Gill is wrong and I am right. .

gill says jer. 31.22 refers to the virgin birth and I agree. so it precludes anyone saying that jer. 31.22 cannot possibly refer to the virgin birth as many would do.


scripture supports my view that christ was a man and not a nature.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

you have no scripture saying christ was a nature. Jesus is the new creation of god, and the begionning of the new creation of God. See personalities, ideas, and natures are not things. things are like seeds, cars , the world, something tangeable. So gill is half right. Nature is a thing, God is a man means god is not a man, anytime i expose these trinitarian concepts it helps my case. It shows that the trinitarian arguments are gobbledy goop.

I did not present Elohiym as a singular plural word, I presented it as a word describing a singular God who is plural, and that is the way God describes Himself: In the beginning...God [Elohiym]said, &#8220;Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness&#8221; - Gen 1:1,26.

The one singular God is here referring to Himself as the plural &#8220;Us&#8221; or &#8220;Our&#8221;.

Then it appears that you are assuming that elohiym who is singluar is plural because he used the pronoun us, and not because he used the word elohiym.
how do you know from that verse that God or Elohiym is refering to himself as us, and not to himself and someone or someones else?

These twins are two persons (Abby and Brittany) existing as one flesh.

God is two persons (Father and Son) existing as one Spirit.

. Your conjoined twin analogy isn't 2 persons that are one being. The twins are 2 pesons sharing one body. they are not their body, they just occupy it. Humans are souls, the conjoined twins are 2 souls occuping one physical body.

Are you saying the spirit that God the Father and Jesus are is just a spirit body they occupy, or are you saying the 2 persons, God the Father and Jesus are 2 persons that are one spirit being? Is the spirit a being or is it just a body they occupy?

What kind of being is God the father? a spirit being? Not a being? a personality? what? If God the Father and Jesus are both spirit beings that exist as one spirit, then you are saying 2 is one. Logically , if you say God the Father and Jesus exist as one spirit, then you are really just saying god the Father and Jesus are the same spirit being. no difference, just 2 names for the same spirit being. which would mean Jesus was talking to himself though out his ministry. So I know you don't mean that Jesus and God the father are just diferent namees for the same spirit being, even though that's what you said means. Probably you mean Jesus and god the father are some kind of undefined person that nobody knows what they are that exist as one spirit being. That's the typical trinitarian view.

I believe that the Word is the complete expression of God in every way, not just what God says, and this complete expression of God was given a physical human body in the form of Christ, the Son:

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being - Heb 1:3.

The Son radiates from God as an exact representation of who God is in every way. And this is why Christ could say of Himself: &#8220;Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.&#8221; - John 14:9.

Christ the Son isn&#8217;t just what God says, He is who God is:

Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. - Phil 2:5-7.

Jesus was and is equal with God because He is God in nature. He was the fullness of God in bodily human form because He also became equal with man having a human nature; fully God, fully human:

what do you mean by nature? And the Greek word in phil. 2.6 is morphe and it means form not nature. here are the only possible def. of nature that could apply to your assertion that Jesus is god in his nature.

8.
the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.

10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature.

11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature

So Jesus is god in his character, instincts, combination of qualities? god is a spirit so jesus is a spirit in his character? it makes no sense to say Jesus is god in his nature.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form - Col 2:9.

Christ is the fullness of God, the same God who created the heavens and the earth:

the bible says all the fullness of the diety lives in Christ , according to your bible translation, How do you get Christ is the fullness of God out of the fullnesss of the deity dwells in him? how do you get "Is" out of "in him"?

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together...For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him. - Col 1:16-19.

And Christ is the same fullness of God who led Israel out of Egypt:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea...and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. - 1 Cor 10:1-4.

figuratively yes, Christ is the bread of heaven, that came down from heaven (not literally but figuratively). the word or what god says became flesh (figuratively not literally). they drank from the spiritual rock that was christ ( figuratively in that they drank of the word of god that would one day become (in a figurative sense)
Christ. Do you thnk Christ was literally a rock back then? or do you think that Rock represented Christ? What's it mean "that spiritual rock was christ"? What is the spiritual rock that they drank from ? I say it was the word of god, what God says, I suppose you would say they drank jesus in some kind of figurative sense.

 

[truncated]

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.

 

[truncated]

=Der Alter;55529549]Scripture does NOT say as you claim "that God the Father is the one and only true or real god." You added some words. How can knowing a created being grant someone everlasting life?

this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.....

neener

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee

 

[Der Alte]

Scripture does NOT say as you claim "that God the Father is the one and only true or real god." You added some words. How can knowing a created being grant someone everlasting life?

this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.....

neener

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee

Neener, indeed! Show me the words "one and" in John 17:5 as stated in the post I quoted? I have found it to be very helpful to actually read a post before trying to reply to it.

 

[truncated]

Neener, indeed! Show me the words "one and" in John 17:5 as stated in the post I quoted? I have found it to be very helpful to actually read a post before trying to reply to it.

dont need the words ""one and""

If YOUR God and Father is not the same God and Father as the LORD Jesus Christ, then who is your God??

Who is subjecting you to the SON???

see if you actually can answer without a bunch of cut and paste's.

two questions:

who is your God and Father?
who is subjecting you to the Son?


thanks OS.

 

[Der Alte]

dont need the words ""one and""

Then why did the person I was responding to add those words?

If YOUR God and Father is not the same God and Father as the LORD Jesus Christ, then who is your God??

The question is a logical fallacy. Just like, "Have you stopped beating your wife and wearing women's underwear, yes or no?"

Who is subjecting you to the SON???

Explain the question, I don't understand it.

see if you actually can answer without a bunch of cut and paste's.

two questions:

who is your God and Father?
who is subjecting you to the Son?

I have the same God that Peter, Paul, and Thomas had.

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; ​

 

[truncated]

Then why did the person I was responding to add those words?


The question is a logical fallacy. Just like, "Have you stopped beating your wife and wearing women's underwear, yes or no?"



Explain the question, I don't understand it.



I have the same God that Peter, Paul, and Thomas had.

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
​

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
​

Hi again, nice prooftexts, here i got some too....woooopeeeee


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, and your God.

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name.

out of those three you posted, only the words of thomas can you possibly use to hold up, but thats been beat to death.

Blessed [be] God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.


According to you and the use of the word ""AND"" in tWO of your prooftexts, then i guess we can assume:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Jesus is God the Father


please answer:

WHO IS SUBJECTING YOU TO THE SON??


end

 

[Der Alte]

Then why did the person I was responding to add those words?

The question is a logical fallacy. Just like, "Have you stopped beating your wife and wearing women's underwear, yes or no?"

Explain the question, I don't understand it.

I have the same God that Peter, Paul, and Thomas had.

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; ​

Hi again, nice prooftexts, here i got some too....woooopeeeee

You did not cite any scripture in the post I responded to and you have not addressed the vss. I posted in any meaningful way here. All you are doing is playing the false religious group game, "My scripture trumps your scripture." Let me know if you ever do, then we can have a discussion. Otherwise all we have is you demanding that I address what you post while you ignore me. No thanks!

out of those three you posted, only the words of thomas can you possibly use to hold up, but thats been beat to death.

Does not address the scripture I posted in any meaningful way. If you think there is a relevant discussion of these vss, and fifty nine (59) other verses which address or refer to Jesus as God quote and link to them here and we can proceed.

According to you and the use of the word ""AND"" in tWO of your prooftexts, then i guess we can assume:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Jesus is God the Father

I'm sure you are confused. What are you referring to "the use of the word "and?" You might want to brush up on the Granville Sharp rule and TSKS constructions in the NT. FYI 2 Pet 1:1 and Tit 2:13 are TSKS constructions.

please answer:

WHO IS SUBJECTING YOU TO THE SON??

end

I believe I asked you to explain this in my previous post and I don't see any clarification. Don't demand replies if you are unwilling or unable to answer me. And OBTW I am not a "thing!"