Jesus and the Trinity

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

Your post is the one that needs work. Tertullian was orthodox earlier in his life, he turned to Montanism much later. The link is irrelevant.

Simply saying "irrelevant" is not an argument, it only betrays a lack of learning. Tertullian's Montanism is seen in virtually all his works.

Could you point out to me which of his works are "heretical"(Montanist) and which "orthodox"? I'm calling your bluff.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

The word "Theos" is NEVER used of Judges or angels in the N.T. Every competent, Greek scholar will tell you John was literally saying that that Logos was God, almighty. And John was not saying anything new.

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're in very deep denial. Read John 10:34, and 2 Cor. 4:4 ,for starters, to see that Theos is used of human judges and of Satan.

Even in the Lxx, Theos is also applied to the angel in Judges 13:22 .

For more than 700 years, before Jesus, when Aramaic speaking Jews read their scriptures "The Word" was literally God, and God was literally "The Word."

Again you're wrong as shown below.

Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3),

This proves your theory wrong right away.

). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I

And this is the nail in the coffin of your cut and paste. And the rest of the cut and paste speaks for itself.

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"]).

Another nail in the coffin.


best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

Who was Harnack, what was his Theology, does he represent any significant segment of Christian thought? And why should I care? You got a bad habit of saying this ECF said this and that ECF said something else, without citing the source.

If you have a relevant citation, quote it and ID it. And more than likely I will show you how you are deliberately quoting out-of-context, as I have done several times already.

Is this supposed to be an argument?

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

So it's not unique to Christ. So what? You're telling me that theos is not make Christ God Almighty......so what does it make? What's the context make it to be???

SHow me. Make it fit into your system. Render the word theos for what you see it to be. Just don't tell me what it can't be!

Actually you're grasping it: "It's not unique to Christ". Exactly.

Therefore just because Christ is called Theos in John 1:1 does not make him God Almighty.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Sorry, duplicate post. See below:

 

[2ducklow]

Hello Balthasar:
I have never heard the argument that theos without the article refers to Jesus and with the article refers to God. I kinda think that if we look in greek literature biblical and non biblical we will find that theos sometimes has the definite article and sometimes doesn't, as is the case with many other nouns in greek. Agreed? I also feel quite certain that in many cases theos without the article has to refer to god almighty both in secular and religous greek writings.
Have you never heard that the absence of the article indicates that the noun is qualitative when two nouns are joined by the verb to be in the nominative case? Also, why do you believe that john 1:14 has to be literal? 'the word was made flesh." If I say something similar to you such as "my word was made into a building" would you not take that immediately as being figurative becaue the literal meaning would be absurd? WEll I believe the same applies to john 1:14. it is absurd to think that the words god speaks was transformed into a 2 cell fetus that grew up to be Jesus. It is more logical and much less absurd to say that it is figurative and that god's word or plan for man took on a fleshly form with the birth of God's own son. well lots here wont go on unless you're interested in any points here. Sure is nice to discuss the bible in a civilized manner, don't you think?

 

[gort]

Hi daneel,



Actually you're grasping it: "It's not unique to Christ". Exactly.

Therefore just because Christ is called Theos in John 1:1 does not make him God Almighty.

best wishes,

Then what exactly does theos mean in this context to you? It's one thing to say what you say above, but you're NOT saying what it does mean to you.


<><

 

[Balthasar]

Greetings 2ducklaw,

I have never heard the argument that theos without the article refers to Jesus and with the article refers to God.

I don't make such an argument, otherwise Satan would be God since he's referred to as Ho Theos with the article 2 Cor. 4:4. My argument is that either way, with or without the article, Jesus cannot be God just because the bible calls him Theos(God) in John 1:1 or a few other places in the NT.[To add salt to the trinitarian wound, there is no instance in the NT where Jesus is referred to as Ho Theos, except perhaps one place i the NT, a dubious trinitarian interpretation of the NT, Thomas's words "My Lord and my God" which is subjective, so it doesn't count.] John 1:1 is one of the favourite trinitarian arguments to "prove" Jesus is God, but as you can see from elementary Greek, it's based upon a hollow argument.

I kinda think that if we look in greek literature biblical and non biblical we will find that theos sometimes has the definite article and sometimes doesn't, as is the case with many other nouns in greek. Agreed?

Agreed.

I also feel quite certain that in many cases theos without the article has to refer to god almighty both in secular and religous greek writings.

Yes.

Have you never heard that the absence of the article indicates that the noun is qualitative when two nouns are joined by the verb to be in the nominative case?

Again you're correct.

Also, why do you believe that john 1:14 has to be literal? 'the word was made flesh." If I say something similar to you such as "my word was made into a building" would you not take that immediately as being figurative becaue the literal meaning would be absurd?

I'm not averse to this point of view.

WEll I believe the same applies to john 1:14. it is absurd to think that the words god speaks was transformed into a 2 cell fetus that grew up to be Jesus. It is more logical and much less absurd to say that it is figurative and that god's word or plan for man took on a fleshly form with the birth of God's own son. well lots here wont go on unless you're interested in any points here. Sure is nice to discuss the bible in a civilized manner, don't you think?

There is nothing wrong with such a conception,and I'm favourably inclined towards it.


best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Then what exactly does theos mean in this context to you? It's one thing to say what you say above, but you're NOT saying what it does mean to you.

<><

I've already said what it does mean to me, Jesus as the image of God, Messiah. Again, to me in John 1:1 Theos does not mean God but the perfect image and expression of God the Father, Messiah. The image cannot himself be the Father, any more than a son can be the same being as his own daddy. Did you know the Jews expected a pre-existent Messiah, in the order of Melchizedeck Prince of Salem, who would make known the Word of God to men? Did not Jesus say his words were life?

One thing is for sure, just because Jesus is called Theos in John 1:1 does not make him God, unless you want to be consistent and also want to make Satan God ,since he's referred to as Ho Theos in 2 Cor 4:4! lol.

best wishes,

 

[hybrid]

"The creator of heaven and earth so as not to inconvenient himself from his heavenly bliss, created a CREATURE instead to die for his wayward creatures to bring them back to his fold."

Unitarians understanding of john 3:16

For god so loved the world that he CREATED a son that who so ever believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

folks, where is the love there? It baffles the mind ....

Just wondering…


To whom do you guys show your affection of eternal gratitude and adoration?


To your father in heavenly bliss
or to your created son who died for you?



hybrid

 

[gort]

Hi daneel,







I've already said what it does mean to me, Jesus as the image of God, Messiah. Again, to me in John 1:1 Theos does not mean God but the perfect image and expression of God the Father, Messiah. The image cannot himself be the Father, any more than a son can be the same being as his own daddy. Did you know the Jews expected a pre-existent Messiah, in the order of Melchizedeck Prince of Salem, who would make known the Word of God to men? Did not Jesus say his words were life?

One thing is for sure, just because Jesus is called Theos in John 1:1 does not make him God, unless you want to be consistent and also want to make Satan God ,since he's referred to as Ho Theos in 2 Cor 4:4! lol.

best wishes,

Ok, Jesus is the perfect image and expression of God, the Father. But we trinitarians understand that Jesus is not God the Father, but God the Son.

I've already shown that Jesus:

1. shared glory with the Father before the world was
2. is known as the Savior, just as God said in the OT
3. is known as the Redeemer, just as God said in the OT.
4. Jesus said one must love Him more than mom or pops to be His disciple. He emphasised Himself, rather than the Father.
5. Jesus is known as the 'first and the last', just as God said in the OT.
6. Jesus is also known as the creator, all things by, through, and for Him.
7. He is also the Judge of the world.
8. He is the Light of the world.

I've also made mention that Jesus is the very essence of God, the very Heart of God. i recall you asked for Scripture, so here it is:

John 3:16.....For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son....

The heart of God put on display upon the Cross for all to see.

You also say that the words of Jesus are Life. Is not Jesus Life?


Question 1:

What part of Jesus is God the Son do you not understand?

Question 2: You are unitarian?



<><

 

[Balthasar]

Hi hybrid,

The creator of heaven and earth so as not to inconvenient himself from his heavenly bliss, created a CREATURE instead to die for his wayward creatures to bring them back to his fold."

Yes! Because the Scriptures say God cannot die , the scriptures also say God is not a man, nor is he the son of man. Jesus died, Jesus was a man, and the son of a man.

Unitarians understanding of john 3:16

For god so loved the world that he CREATED a son that who so ever believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

And that's about right. God sent his own begotten son to die for our sins, since it is senseless to say God sent Himself to atone for the sins of man to satisfy his own justice, especially so since scripture clearly says God cannot die. Infact if Jesus is God, then he really didn't die for our sins, because God cannot die.

folks, where is the love there? It baffles the mind ....

Where is the love in the lie that kills God?

Just wondering…


To whom do you guys show your affection of eternal gratitude and adoration?


To your father in heavenly bliss
or to your created son who died for you?

The Son is due honour, glory and adoration by the Saints same way a bride honours and adores her husband, but only God is due our worship. As Jesus told the Devil, "Begon Satan, you shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you worship."

End of Story.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Ok, Jesus is the perfect image and expression of God, the Father. But we trinitarians understand that Jesus is not God the Father, but God the Son.

Trinitarians believe Jesus is one of the three persons of the triune God, i.e. "God the Son" . Unfortunately this is a strange god and not the absolute One God of the OT. By the way, the phrase "God the Son" is no where found in scripture, it's topsy turvy of the scriptural phrase "Son of God".

1. shared glory with the Father before the world was

How does that make him God? Please also tell me which scripture you're using as support.

2. is known as the Savior, just as God said in the OT

Even men are called Saviours in the OT. Do you know where?

3. is known as the Redeemer, just as God said in the OT.

Moses is called deliever, is he God?

4. Jesus said one must love Him more than mom or pops to be His disciple. He emphasised Himself, rather than the Father.

We have already gone through this argument. Also Jesus did not emphasise himself rather than the Father. Infact he said, "On my own I can do nothing", and told us to Love God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strengths.

5. Jesus is known as the 'first and the last', just as God said in the OT

Nebuchadnezzar is known as King of Kings just like God. Is he God?

6. Jesus is also known as the creator, all things by, through, and for Him.

Jesus is also known as a creature, Col. 1:15.

7. He is also the Judge of the world.

There were many Judges in the OT. Are they God?

8. He is the Light of the world.

So are the Saints. So are the Jews.

I've also made mention that Jesus is the very essence of God, the very Heart of God. i recall you asked for Scripture, so here it is:

John 3:16.....For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son....
The heart of God put on display upon the Cross for all to see.

Lol! Where does it say in john 3:16 that Jesus is the "very essence of God", "the very heart of God"?

You also say that the words of Jesus are Life. Is not Jesus Life?

Yes. How does that make him God?

Question 1:

What part of Jesus is God the Son do you not understand?

The expression "God the Son" is non-existent in the scripture. the expression "Son of God" which means the exact opposite, is found in Scripture! "God the Son" is a twist of scripture, I'm afraid, and strange.

Question 2: You are unitarian?

Yes.

best wishes,

 

[2ducklow]

Greetings 2ducklaw,













There is nothing wrong with such a conception,and I'm favourably inclined towards it.


best wishes,

greetings likewise im sure;
ONe more point on the issue of taking john 1:14 literally as most do. No one takes john 1:14 literally for to do so would have the word being made into flesh and not Jesus. Jesus is more than just flesh. Flesh is the meaty part of a body not the bones. So if John 1;14 is taken literally it would mean that the bone part, the soul and the human spirit part of Jesus was not god but only the meaty part of his body was God. You see flesh is a figure of speech in john 1:14 called a synecdoche. whereby the lesser stands in for the greater. in this case flesh is standing in for the greater which is Jesus. So no one takes john 1:14 literally eveyone takes it figuratively. Getting people to admidt that is another story though.
gruss Gott.

 

[Odsolo]

Yes! Because the Scriptures say God cannot die , the scriptures also say God is not a man, nor is he the son of man. Jesus died, Jesus was a man, and the son of a man.

The same scriptures also say that God is a man. If the son of man is a man, what is the son of God?

And that's about right. God sent his own begotten son to die for our sins, since it is senseless to say God sent Himself to atone for the sins of man to satisfy his own justice, especially so since scripture clearly says God cannot die. Infact if Jesus is God, then he really didn't die for our sins, because God cannot die.

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, [size=+1]God will provide himself[/size] a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.​

End of Story.

 

[Odsolo]

greetings likewise im sure;
ONe more point on the issue of taking john 1:14 literally as most do. No one takes john 1:14 literally for to do so would have the word being made into flesh and not Jesus. Jesus is more than just flesh. Flesh is the meaty part of a body not the bones. So if John 1;14 is taken literally it would mean that the bone part, the soul and the human spirit part of Jesus was not god but only the meaty part of his body was God. You see flesh is a figure of speech in john 1:14 called a synecdoche. whereby the lesser stands in for the greater. in this case flesh is standing in for the greater which is Jesus. So no one takes john 1:14 literally eveyone takes it figuratively. Getting people to admidt that is another story though.
gruss Gott.

More false teaching. Throughout the N.T. flesh is a euphemism for "mankind." When God poured out his spirit upon all flesh in Acts 2 was he pouring it out on Jesus?

John 1:14 is literal in the sense that the Logos acting upon himself, became a human being without relinquishing anything of his previous character or nature. The word translated "was made," KJV, and "became," NIV is in the middle deponent voice, the subject performs the action upon himself.

Then in John 1:18 the oldest most reliable manuscripts read "the only begotten God."

 

[Odsolo]

Trinitarians believe Jesus is one of the three persons of the triune God, i.e. "God the Son" . Unfortunately this is a strange god and not the absolute One God of the OT. By the way, the phrase "God the Son" is no where found in scripture, it's topsy turvy of the scriptural phrase "Son of God".

Same old, same old, tired, irrelevant rubbish. So what? The word "Bible" is not in the Bible and I can show you many other valid words we use that are not in the Bible, "theology, hermeneutics," etc.

Even men are called Saviours in the OT. Do you know where?

Irrelevant! How many were called the "savior of the world?"

Moses is called deliever, is he God?

See previous reply.

We have already gone through this argument. Also Jesus did not emphasise himself rather than the Father. Infact he said, "On my own I can do nothing", and told us to Love God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strengths.

Irrelevant, all this was after Philippians 2:6-11, where Jesus was literally equal with God but did not grasp that, instead he humbled himself and took upon himself the form of a man, a servant.

Nebuchadnezzar is known as King of Kings just like God. Is he God?

Deliberate blasphemous corruption of God's word to support false, unBiblical, doctrine. Anyone seeking the truth, can clearly see the term "king of kings" is qualified in this verse. Nebuchadnezzar is only called the king of kings of a certain specific group of kings, those from the north.

Eze 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.​

Jesus is also known as a creature, Col. 1:15.

The verse does NOT call Jesus a creature. Deliberate corruption of God's word to support false unbiblical doctrine.

There were many Judges in the OT. Are they God?

Irrelevant. Context!

So are the Saints. So are the Jews.

Scripture?

 

[gort]

Balthasar quotes:

How does that make him God? Please also tell me which scripture you're using as support.

Has already been shown previously in this thread. Why rehash the obvious?

Even men are called Saviours in the OT. Do you know where?

Yet still is'nt in the same context as Jesus is, now are they....

Moses is called deliever, is he God?

Yet Moses is'nt the Redeemer of mankind, is he.....

We have already gone through this argument. Also Jesus did not emphasise himself rather than the Father. Infact he said, "On my own I can do nothing", and told us to Love God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strengths.

Why do bring up some out of context verse to show something that is supposed to negate what Jesus said?

Nebuchadnezzar is known as King of Kings just like God. Is he God?

Jesus is also known as a creature, Col. 1:15.

The topic of the question was creator.

Lol! Where does it say in john 3:16 that Jesus is the "very essence of God", "the very heart of God"?

I'm sorry you can't see it....

<><

 

[Odsolo]

Hi Odsolo,
Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're in very deep denial. Read John 10:34, and 2 Cor. 4:4 ,for starters, to see that Theos is used of human judges and of Satan.

First you don't know what you are talking about. You did NOT say "satan" you said judges and angels. And "Satan" is never specifically called "theos." in the N.T.. There is a reference to the "god of this world" who is never identified, but there is also a reference to some men's stomach being their god, is that also "satan?"

John 10:34 is a quote from the O.T. it is NOT an indepedent statement calling judges "theos" in the N.T. Where is your proof text that angels are called "theos." in the N.T.?

Even in the Lxx, Theos is also applied to the angel in Judges 13:22 .

Irrelevant I was NOT discussing the LXX. Tell us mr. expert when translating Hebrew into Greek what Greek word other than "Theos" can be used to translate, "elohim?" Take your time. Translation Greek is not probative.

Again you're wrong as shown below.

This proves your theory wrong right away.

And this is the nail in the coffin of your cut and paste. And the rest of the cut and paste speaks for itself.

Another nail in the coffin.

Garbage, garbage, and more garbage. The same way you read the Bible a piece of this and a piece of that and ignore anything that proves you are totally clueless.

All it takes is one example to prove you wrong. In the complete article there are over 100 examples where "Memra" was substitured for YHWH, and that is only representative, not exhaustive. I even highlighted several examples. But you blindly ignored the article trying to find one or two examples which seem to support you.

The only nails are in your coffin due to your deliberate dishonest misprepresentation. Deliberately misquoting, quoting out-of-conext, and misrepresentation only makes the person doing it look like a fool and a liar.

 

[2ducklow]

And that's about right. God sent his own begotten son to die for our sins, since it is senseless to say God sent Himself to atone for the sins of man to satisfy his own justice, especially so since scripture clearly says God cannot die. Infact if Jesus is God, then he really didn't die for our sins, because God cannot die.

Jesus is the new creation of God that is meant to replace the old creation of man or the adamic race.

It was foretold in the book of Jerimiah that God would create an new thing which is the new creation of god or Jesus Crhist.



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.



The new thing god created was male seed that he fertilized Mary’s egg with. That I how a woman went around a man or compassed a man. She by passed a man to get the seed she needed to conceive. She got her seed from god who created it. Notice it says “created a new thing” A polite way of saying god created a new seed.



Also Jesus is the first born of all creation that is all new creation. Obviously Jesus is not the firstborn of animal creation. Jesus is human so he is the firstborn of human creation . Likewise obviously Jesus is not the first born of the adamic race. Adam would be that one. Jesus is the first born, our elder brother, of a new race of man the new creation of god.



2co 5:17

So if any one [be] in Christ, [there is] a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new



Darby