John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

2ducklow · Sep 4, 2009

Kittenshere said:
God is the father, Jesus is the son of God. anything OF or FROM something cannot be that something that it is of or from. The holy spirit is the power that responds to what Jesus commands kinda like electricity powers machines.

I believe the holy spirit is just god's spirit. it is the spirit of god the father who is the one and only true god. the holy spirit is personified quite frequently which has led to much confusion , imo, about this matter.

kitten said:
in john 14:28 Jesus said my father is greater than I. Now ask yourself If God is greater than Jesus how on earth can Jesus be God? One would not be greater than the other. they would be the same.

yep

Der Alte · Sep 4, 2009

Kittenshere said:
[SIZE="-1"]God is the father, Jesus is the son of God. anything OF or FROM something cannot be that something that it is of or from. The holy spirit is the power that responds to what Jesus commands kinda like electricity powers machines.

in john 14:28 Jesus said my father is greater than I. Now ask yourself If God is greater than Jesus how on earth can Jesus be God? One would not be greater than the other. they would be the same.[/SIZE]

Jesus existed in one form, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

His form afterward was the form of a man. What was his form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [[size=+2]μορφη

] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 [size=+2]ος[/size] {WHO,} [size=+2]εν[/size] {IN [THE]} [size=+2]μορφη[/size] {FORM} [size=+2]θεου[/size] {OF GOD} [size=+2]υπαρχων[/size] {SUBSISTING,} [size=+2]ουχ[/size] {NOT} [size=+2] αρπαγμον [/size] {RAPINE} [size=+2]ηγησατο το[/size] {ESTEEMED IT} [size=+2]ειναι[/size] {TO BE} [size=+2]ισα[/size] {EQUAL} [size=+2]θεω[/size] {WITH GOD;}

The verb [size=+2]ειναι[/size], translated to be, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present active infinitive, not a future tense. Being equal with god, was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Jesus earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men. After which God, not merely exalted him, but highly exalted him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things Anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. If Jesus was God, why didnt he know the hour of his return? etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

How does a mere human being, become obedient unto death? All mankind is appointed to death, no humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Did the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

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, [ cf. [size=+2]יהוה[/size]/YHWH, Isa 45:23] 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, [ cf. [size=+2]יהוה[/size]/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.

I can provide evidence showing how the early church, understood this passage. But, if anti-Trinitarians were interested, in truth, they would already have done the homework themselves.

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.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The original meaning of [size=+2]μορφη[/size]/morphe in classical Greek.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

[size=+2]μορφη[/size] morph-ê , hê, form, shape, twice in Hom. (not in Hes.), soi d' epi men morphê epeôn thou hast comeliness of words, Od.11.367 (cf. Eust. ad loc.); so prob. allos men . . eidos akidnoteros pelei anêr, alla theos morphên epesi stephei God adds a crown of shapeliness to his words, Od.8.170: freq. later, morphas duo onomazein Parm.8.53 ; morphên allaxanta Emp.137.1 ; morphan brachus Pi.I.4(3).53 ; morphês metra shape and size, E.Alc.1063: periphr., morphês phusis A.Supp.496 ; morphês schêma, tupôma, E.Ion992, Ph.162; tên autên tou schêmatos morphên Arist.PA640b34 ; kai Gaia, pollôn onomatôn m. mia A.Pr.212 ; oneiratôn alinkioi morphaisin ib.449; nukterôn phantasmatôn echousi morphas Id.Fr.312 ; proupempsen anti philtatês m. spodon S.El.1159 ; of plants, Thphr.HP1.1.12 (pl.); esp. with ref. to beauty of form, huperphaton morphai Pi.O.9.65 ; hois potistaxêi charis euklea m. ib.6.76, cf. IG42 (1).121.119 (Epid., iv B. C.), LXX To.1.13, Vett.Val.1.6, etc.; sôma morphês emês OGI383.41 (Commagene, i B. C.); morphês eikonas ib.27; charaktêra morphês emês ib.60.

2. generally, form, fashion, appearance, A.Pr.78, S.Tr.699, El.199 (lyr.); outward form, opp. eidos, hekaterô tô eideos pollai m. Philol.5 ; allattonta to hautou eidos eis pollas morphas Pl.R.380d ; m. theôn X.Mem.4.3.13 , cf. Ep.Phil.2.6, Dam.Pr.304; hêrôôn eidea kai morphas A.R.4.1193 ; kata te morphas kai phônas gesticulations and cries, D.H.14.9; tên m. melanchrous, têi m. melichroas, in complexion, Ptol.Tetr.143, 144.

3. kind, sort, E. Ion 382, 1068 (lyr.), Pl.R.397c, etc. (Possibly cogn. with Lat. forma for morg[uglide]hmā, with f by dissimilation, cf. murmêx.)

Search for dictionary headwords

[/SIZE]

Kittenshere · Sep 4, 2009

Here is more proof as to why I say no such thing as trinity.

mark 10:18 Jesus asked why calleth thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God.

JOHN 5:19 The son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the father do. Now if the son can do nothing but what he sees the father do then wehre is the trinity in that?

john 6:38 for I come down from heaven, not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me. well, if he was God he would be here doing his own will but he clealy is not. so no trinity here.

john 4:34 Jesus said, my meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work. well did he send himself? no God sent him. clearly no trinity.

john 8:28 Jesus said, I do nothing of myself;but as my father has taught me, I speak these things. John 8:28 again he does nothing himself but what the father has taught him.....no trinity there.

john 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the father which has sent me , he gave me commandment what I should say and what I should speak. Jesus was told what to speak by God therefore, no trinity there.

john 14:10 Believe you not that I am in the father, and the father in me? the words that I speak unto you, I speak NOT OF MYSELF, but the father that dwells in me, he does the works. If Jesus were God he would be speaking words of himself so no trinity there.

Kittenshere · Sep 4, 2009

there are lots of verses telling you he is NOT God. The above verses are only some of them.

2ducklow · Sep 4, 2009

Der Alter said:
Jesus existed in one form, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

His form afterward was the form of a man. What was his form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [[SIZE=+2]μορφη
] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 [SIZE=+2]ος[/SIZE] {WHO,} [SIZE=+2]εν[/SIZE] {IN [THE]} [SIZE=+2]μορφη[/SIZE] {FORM} [SIZE=+2]θεου[/SIZE] {OF GOD} [SIZE=+2]υπαρχων[/SIZE] {SUBSISTING,} [SIZE=+2]ουχ[/SIZE] {NOT} [SIZE=+2]αρπαγμον [/SIZE]{RAPINE} [SIZE=+2]ηγησατο το[/SIZE] {ESTEEMED IT} [SIZE=+2]ειναι[/SIZE] {TO BE} [SIZE=+2]ισα[/SIZE] {EQUAL} [SIZE=+2]θεω[/SIZE] {WITH GOD;}

The verb [SIZE=+2]ειναι[/SIZE], translated ”to be,” which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present active infinitive, not a future tense. “Being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, [/SIZE]

the word didn't act upon itself. the verb in john 1.14 is became it is a linking verb not an action verb. the word is identified or linked to Jesus in "the word BECAME flesh." No action involved.

Know a linking verb when you see one.

Linking verbs, on the other hand, do not express action. Instead, they connect the subject of a verb to additional information about the subject. Look at the examples below:

The following verbs are true linking verbs: any form of the verb be [am, were, has been, are being, might have been, etc.], become, and seem. These true linking verbs are always linking verbs.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/verb.htm

Der Alte · Sep 4, 2009

Kittenshere said:
[SIZE="-1"]there are lots of verses telling you he is NOT God. The above verses are only some of them.[/SIZE]

There is NO verse which says that Jesus is NOT God.

Anti-Trinitarians endlessly squabble and bicker about words, used by Trinitarians, trying to express the nature of God, as revealed in scripture. All words are inherently finite and imperfect, therefore the words, "Trinity, triune, person," "being," "entity," "substance," "essence, nature, who, Hypostatic union,," and/or any other words, are totally inadequate to describe God, the infinite, perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. But the fact that human words are finite, limited and imperfect does not prove or disprove anything about the doctrine of the Trinity.

Here are scriptural truths I have posted before, without any so-called unscriptural words or man made doctrines.

1. There is one God! The Father is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Father is not the Son or the Spirit. Numerous vss. e.g., John 6:27, Gal 1:1, Gal 1:3, Eph 6:23, Philippians 2:11, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Tim 1:2, Titus 1:4, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:17, et. al.

2. There is one God! The Son is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Son is not the Father or the Spirit.

[1] Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

[2] Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[3] Luk 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

[4] Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[5] Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

[6] Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

[7] Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[8] Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

[9] John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

[10] Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

[11] Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

[12] Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

[13] John 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

[14] Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

[15] Joh 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.

[16] Joh 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

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

[18] Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he [God] hath purchased with his own blood.

[19] Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

[20] 2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[21] Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[22] Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[23] Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

[24] Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

[25] Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

[26] Heb 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

[27] Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

[28] 1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[29] 1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

[30] 1 Tim 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

[31] Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

[32] 2 Pet 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:

[33] 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

[34] Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

[35] Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

[36] Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Der Alte · Sep 4, 2009

2ducklow said:
Der Alter said:

[SIZE="+1"]Jesus existed in one form, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

His form afterward was the form of a man. What was his form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [[size=+2]μορφη[/size]] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 [size=+2]ος[/size] {WHO,} [size=+2]εν[/size] {IN [THE]} [size=+2]μορφη[/size] {FORM} [size=+2]θεου[/size] {OF GOD} [size=+2]υπαρχων[/size] {SUBSISTING,} [size=+2]ουχ[/size] {NOT} [size=+2] αρπαγμον [/size] {RAPINE} [size=+2]ηγησατο το[/size] {ESTEEMED IT} [size=+2]ειναι[/size] {TO BE} [size=+2]ισα[/size] {EQUAL} [size=+2]θεω[/size] {WITH GOD;}

The verb [size=+2]ειναι[/size], translated to be, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present active infinitive, not a future tense. Being equal with god, was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Jesus earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men. After which God, not merely exalted him, but highly exalted him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things Anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. If Jesus was God, why didnt he know the hour of his return? etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

How does a mere human being, become obedient unto death? All mankind is appointed to death, no humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Did the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also humble themselves unto death on the cross?
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, [ cf. [size=+2]יהוה[/size]/YHWH, Isa 45:23] 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, [ cf. [size=+2]יהוה[/size]/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.
I can provide evidence showing how the early church, understood this passage. But, if anti-Trinitarians were interested, in truth, they would already have done the homework themselves.

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.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The original meaning of [size=+2]μορφη[/size]/morphe in classical Greek.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

[size=+2]μορφη[/size] morph-ê , hê, form, shape, twice in Hom. (not in Hes.), soi d' epi men morphê epeôn thou hast comeliness of words, Od.11.367 (cf. Eust. ad loc.); so prob. allos men . . eidos akidnoteros pelei anêr, alla theos morphên epesi stephei God adds a crown of shapeliness to his words, Od.8.170: freq. later, morphas duo onomazein Parm.8.53 ; morphên allaxanta Emp.137.1 ; morphan brachus Pi.I.4(3).53 ; morphês metra shape and size, E.Alc.1063: periphr., morphês phusis A.Supp.496 ; morphês schêma, tupôma, E.Ion992, Ph.162; tên autên tou schêmatos morphên Arist.PA640b34 ; kai Gaia, pollôn onomatôn m. mia A.Pr.212 ; oneiratôn alinkioi morphaisin ib.449; nukterôn phantasmatôn echousi morphas Id.Fr.312 ; proupempsen anti philtatês m. spodon S.El.1159 ; of plants, Thphr.HP1.1.12 (pl.); esp. with ref. to beauty of form, huperphaton morphai Pi.O.9.65 ; hois potistaxêi charis euklea m. ib.6.76, cf. IG42 (1).121.119 (Epid., iv B. C.), LXX To.1.13, Vett.Val.1.6, etc.; sôma morphês emês OGI383.41 (Commagene, i B. C.); morphês eikonas ib.27; charaktêra morphês emês ib.60.

2. generally, form, fashion, appearance, A.Pr.78, S.Tr.699, El.199 (lyr.); outward form, opp. eidos, hekaterô tô eideos pollai m. Philol.5 ; allattonta to hautou eidos eis pollas morphas Pl.R.380d ; m. theôn X.Mem.4.3.13 , cf. Ep.Phil.2.6, Dam.Pr.304; hêrôôn eidea kai morphas A.R.4.1193 ; kata te morphas kai phônas gesticulations and cries, D.H.14.9; tên m. melanchrous, têi m. melichroas, in complexion, Ptol.Tetr.143, 144.

3. kind, sort, E. Ion 382, 1068 (lyr.), Pl.R.397c, etc. (Possibly cogn. with Lat. forma for morg[uglide]hmā, with f by dissimilation, cf. murmêx.)

Search for dictionary headwords
[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

[SIZE=-1]the word didn't act upon itself. the verb in john 1.14 is became it is a linking verb not an action verb. the word is identified or linked to Jesus in "the word BECAME flesh." No action involved.[/SIZE]

You seem to be confused I was discussing Philippians 2:6-11, NOT John 1:14. And your copy/paste is not relevant. It is from an English, NOT a Greek, grammar.

2ducklow · Sep 4, 2009

Der Alter said:
There is NO verse which says that Jesus is NOT God.

Anti-Trinitarians endlessly squabble and bicker about words, used by Trinitarians, trying to express the nature of God, as revealed in scripture. All words are inherently finite and imperfect, therefore the words, "Trinity,” ”triune,” ”person," "being," "entity," "substance," "essence,” ”nature,” ”who,” Hypostatic union,," and/or any other words, are totally inadequate to describe God, the infinite, perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. But the fact that human words are finite, limited and imperfect does not prove or disprove anything about the doctrine of the Trinity.

Here are scriptural truths I have posted before, without any so-called unscriptural words or man made doctrines.

1. There is one God! The Father is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Father is not the Son or the Spirit. Numerous vss. e.g., John 6:27, Gal 1:1, Gal 1:3, Eph 6:23, Philippians 2:11, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Tim 1:2, Titus 1:4, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:17, et. al.

2. There is one God! The Son is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Son is not the Father or the Spirit.

[1] Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

so if someone has the name emmanuel, it means that person is god right?

deralter said:
[2] Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

So Jesus is the everlasting Father, that's oneness.

deralter said:
[3] Luk 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

god was in christ remember? so everywhere the lamb went god was sure to go.

deralter said:
[4] Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

your words are you deralter.

deralter said:
[5] Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

en means in in english not by. bad translation trinitarian influenced. What god actually said was all things were made in christ, not by christ.

deratler said:
[6] Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

the greek word is di which means through not by. bad triniatarian influenced translation. god said the world was made through him not by him.

deralter said:
[7] Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

see my previous post about the deponent verb egeneto.

deralter said:
[8] Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

controversial. There is persuassive evidence for both readings, only begotten god and only begotten son.

deralter said:
[9] John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

yea and jesus prayed that the church would be one like the father and the son, but i sure am not you.

deralter said:
[10] Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

they also accused him of being a wine bibber, and born of fornication. accusations by unbeleivers are no proof.

deralter said:
[11] Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

being equal to something is different than being something. this verse only proves that jesus is not god. If i am equal to you der alteer, it doesn't mean i am you. besides john 5.18 is really saying the same thing as 10.33, it's the same accusation they were throwing at him, just stated slightly different here.

deralter said:
[12] Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

i am he is the correct translation. God never says anywhere in his word something nonsenscial like "I am before he was." come on give god more credit for having good sense than that. god doesn't go around saying stuff like that ever. I am before he was, you are before we was. Come on no one, and especially god ever talks like that. the only place you find people talking like that is well you know locked up somewhere.

deralter said:
[13] John 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

seen by foresight before it happened. Just as abraham saw Jesus day by foresight not by actual physical sight.

deralter said:
[14] Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

the father that dwells in christ. they saw him with spiritual eyes, not physical eyes.

well you get the idea, i could do the same with the rest of the scripture you posted. you have no proof posted that Jesus is god, only your inteprretations of those scriptures, which heavily rely on chainging the word and garagantuan illogic (such as equal to means is).

2ducklow · Sep 4, 2009

Der Alter said:
You seem to be confused I was discussing Philippians 2:6-11, NOT John 1:14. And your copy/paste is not relevant. It is from an English, NOT a Greek, grammar.

you mentioned john 1.14, i responded to you 'word acted upon himself" . i was setting a trap for you if you responded but alas you didn't.

Kittenshere · Sep 4, 2009

There is NO verse which says that Jesus is NOT God.

sure there is, read post 103.

Der Alte · Sep 4, 2009

Kittenshere said:
There is NO verse which says that Jesus is NOT God.

[SIZE=-1] sure there is, read post 103.
[/SIZE]

I read it the first time! Once again there NO, ZERO, NONE scripture which says, "Jesus is NOT God!"

2ducklow · Sep 4, 2009

Der Alter said:
I read it the first time! Once again there NO, ZERO, NONE scripture which says, "Jesus is NOT God!"

the famous 'Is. Is not. Is. Is not." debate.

jpr7 · Sep 4, 2009

2ducklow said:
you get the interpretation of john 8.58 that Jesus is the I am from ex. 3.14,

No one doesn't. While it is possible to get it from Exodus 3:14, one doesn't have to get it from Exodus 3:14. Rather, one can get it from the grammar and the semantics of the words in the verse itself.

2ducklow said:
otherwise you have only your opinon that i am means jesus is god.

Grammar and semantics isn't opinion.

2ducklow said:
i neve said you have the same interpretation for both of them. you are very slippery.

You said this:

2ducklow said:
but even if I am is god's name and Jesus is uttering it, he still isn't claiming to be the i am. If I am is god, then all jesus is saying is "before abraham was , god." you assume jesus is saying 'before abraham was , I am the I am, or I was the I am." that is not in the text. so your interpretation doesn't fit what is actually said, it fits what isn't said.

That was in response to a probable interpretation I put forth. Then when I give my own observations to the verse itself you say this:

2ducklow said:
most bibles translate it as I am. if it means i exist then it can in no way be the same as ex. 3.14. Also Godnever said in ex. 3.14 something like 'I am before you was.'

And here was where I'm seeing you see me make connections between my own and Exodus 3:14.

2ducklow said:
I believe it says "before abraham was, I am he (meaning the christ).

What you believe about what it says doesn't mean that's what it says.

2ducklow said:
I will admit that one can grammaticaly say that it can mean "before abraham was ,I exist."
i believe both cases are grammatically possible, I'm not sure if you do. in my case "I am he" lines up with the rest of the previous scriptures where JEsus is trying to show them that he is the christ.

You don't find "he" there. If you think it should be implied, then show us from the verse itself.

2ducklow said:
In your case it results in a nonsensical, although grammatically possible, "I am before he was." You are claiming that it makes sense because jesus is god and he always existed therefore jesus can say he exists before someone was'. my counter point to that would be that we have no other examples of someone saying something nonsensical like that in the entire bible, neither god nor any man.

Here you go again about grammar and talking about it from the English. I don't begin with the presupposition that Jesus is God. I get it from semantics and grammar in the Greek:

jpr7 said:
Incidentally, the very construction conveys this:
ego
1st person/singular/nominative/pronoun
1) The nomatives ego and hemeis, when joined to a verb, generally have force and emphasis (Thayer's lexicon)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon G1473&t=KJV

eimi
1st person/singular/present/indicative/verb
G1510 the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I,
Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results dex=1510

Notice that ego is used for emphasis when connected to a verb. The verb is eimi and when emphatic--that is, when used with the corresponding personal pronoun--it means "I exist."

Additionally, ego eimi carries a timeless sense here. Jesus has always existed.

2ducklow said:
would you not agree that if I or you or anyone said ," i am before George washington was." that that would be nonsensical? If so , then you see why i say your interpetation is nonsensical.

In English, it doesn't make sense. But I haven't been doing my exegesis based on English.

2ducklow said:
I exist before you was' is illogical and nonsensical. it is saying God exists in the present in the past. that is why it is nonsensical.
. if you can't see this then I don't think i can explain it any more clearly.

I've seen what you're saying but you're basing it off of English and therefore misrepresenting it.

2ducklow said:
also, do you have any scripture for your doctrine that god exists in the present in the past?

John 8:58 is one.

2ducklow said:
I know of none.Therefore your doctrine has no scriptural basis. you need scipture stating that god exists in the present in the past to interpret john 8.58 to mean that Jesus or God exists( pressent tense) before abraham was (past tense). especially for a nonsensical one like that.

No one doesn't. One gets it from the verse itself.

2ducklow said:
I offered proof why i believe john 8.58 means that Jesus is claiming to be the christ, it's very convincing to me, you just dismissed it without showing how you believe i was wrong, just sayin "you're wrong" doesn't convince me.

Your so-called "proof" doesn't tell us what the grammar and semantics of John 8:58 says. It was rightfully dismissed. Look at the name of the topic: "John 8:58 and Trinitarians." Therefore, you begin first with John 8:58, deal with the words it says and how they all relate to each other. Then you derive the rest of your interpretation from other verses, not the other way around. To do it the way you have results is poor exegesis. Technical commentaries talk about the words and grammar before they offer comments. Now, have you dealt with the actual verse itself? No.

2ducklow said:
i'll give you my argument in a nutshell. jesus said he already told them that he was the christ in john 10.25, john 8.58 is where JEsus told them he is the christ and they didn't believe him. i gave numerous reasons and scriptures why this has to be. your response? irrelevant, no explanation as to how anything i said was irrelevant, just irrelevant, obviously you would rather believe nosnense than sense.

I've posted it plenty of times now:

jpr7 said:
Incidentally, the very construction conveys this:
ego
1st person/singular/nominative/pronoun
1) The nomatives ego and hemeis, when joined to a verb, generally have force and emphasis (Thayer's lexicon)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon G1473&t=KJV

eimi
1st person/singular/present/indicative/verb
G1510 the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I,
Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results dex=1510

Notice that ego is used for emphasis when connected to a verb. The verb is eimi and when emphatic--that is, when used with the corresponding personal pronoun--it means "I exist."

Additionally, ego eimi carries a timeless sense here. Jesus has always existed.

Now don't talk about how it doesn't make sense according to English grammar. Talk what it meant in the language and to the hearers of that language.

jpr7 · Sep 4, 2009

2ducklow said:
Persons are beings.. So you have said one being, three beings.

Sorry, 2ducklow. I haven't said that. Notice what I said: one being, three persons. No equivocation here.

Taking White's explanation:

So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. . . . That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

In other words, one "what," three "who's." No equivocation, no contradiction.

2ducklow said:
one being, three beings is not truth, it is a contradiction.

Yes, it is a contradiction but no one has asserted "one being, three beings."

2ducklow said:
James white, the brilliant trinitarian theologian says it is one person 3 persons. he also says it is one non personal being 3 persons.

No he doesn't. You've just got reading comprehension problems.

We must first remember that very few have a good idea of what the Trinity is in the first place - hence, accuracy in definition will be very important. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Nothing about "one person 3 persons" or "one nonpersonal being 3 persons." If you're going to say someone says something, you need to show where they say it. Otherwise, you're just intellectually dishonest.

2ducklow said:
but what is a trinity explanation without lots of contradictions?one time James white says god is stupid like a cat then he says god is a personal being (person).

No White doesn't say "god is stupid like a cat." That is blatant misrepresentation on your part.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind."

What White is saying is that personality is the ability to have emotion, will, and expression of oneself. He uses rocks and cats as examples of beings that are not personal. Personal beings, in contradistinction to rocks and cats, can speak and assert themselves over and against others and work for the common good of, for instance, "human kind." White in no way makes any close connection between God (a personal being) and a cat (a non-personal being).

2ducklow said:
next he says a person of god is a personal being, then he says it is a personality.

No, he doesn't.

The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. . . . Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit.

Nothing there about God being "a personality." He uses the term "personality" to describe how God is a personal being--that is, God has "the ability to have emotion, will, and to express [him]self." God has personality, God is not a personality. Big difference.

2ducklow said:
then he says god is a stupid cat like god and 3 personalities. {one what( a what is a stupid cat) and 3 whos (who's are personalities).} Uusally trinitarians ooooh and awwww over his explanation. go figure.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you're continually dishonest. In the context of talking of God, the "what" refers to "the eternal, infinite being of God" and the "who's" refer to the "persons, Father, Son and Spirit."

2ducklow said:

http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

Click to expand...

2ducklow said:
if a brilliant mind like James white has to come up with this nonsense to explain trinity, what hope is there for the average Joe in explaining trinity? none.

He didn't come up with nonsense. You just have a personal vendetta against the doctrine of the Trinity that you go at any lengths, including dishonest commentary, to try make someone seem like they're talking nonsense to disprove the Trinity.

Der Alte · Sep 4, 2009

jpr7 said:
Sorry, 2ducklow. I haven't said that. Notice what I said: one being, three persons. No equivocation here.

Taking White's explanation:In other words, one "what," three "who's." No equivocation, no contradiction.

Yes, it is a contradiction but no one has asserted "one being, three beings."

No he doesn't. You've just got reading comprehension problems.
Nothing about "one person 3 persons" or "one nonpersonal being 3 persons." If you're going to say someone says something, you need to show where they say it. Otherwise, you're just intellectually dishonest.

No White doesn't say "god is stupid like a cat." That is blatant misrepresentation on your part.What White is saying is that personality is the ability to have emotion, will, and expression of oneself. He uses rocks and cats as examples of beings that are not personal. Personal beings, in contradistinction to rocks and cats, can speak and assert themselves over and against others and work for the common good of, for instance, "human kind." White in no way makes any close connection between God (a personal being) and a cat (a non-personal being).

No, he doesn't.Nothing there about God being "a personality." He uses the term "personality" to describe how God is a personal being--that is, God has "the ability to have emotion, will, and to express [him]self." God has personality, God is not a personality. Big difference.It's really hard to take you seriously when you're continually dishonest. In the context of talking of God, the "what" refers to "the eternal, infinite being of God" and the "who's" refer to the "persons, Father, Son and Spirit."

http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.htmlHe didn't come up with nonsense. You just have a personal vendetta against the doctrine of the Trinity that you go at any lengths, including dishonest commentary, to try make someone seem like they're talking nonsense to disprove the Trinity.

You are wasting your time. I had this same discussion with him 3-4 years ago right here. I quoted a substantial part of White's explanation, posted the definitions of "person," and "being" and went through White, line by line. He endlessly repeated the same misrepresentations you are dealing with here. Your time might be better spent watching paint dry.

NatalieJan777 · Sep 4, 2009

scriptures said:
Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the "I am" (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God.

This is just not the case. Saying "I am" does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said "I am the man," and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus statement, i.e., "I am."

Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as "I am" (Acts 26:29).

Thus, Christians conclude that saying "I am" did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God.

John 14:6-7

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me, If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

NatalieJan777 · Sep 4, 2009

John 1:14 The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1 John 5:7-9 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

heavensprings · Sep 4, 2009

NatalieJan777 said:
John 1:14 The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1 John 5:7-9 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

This is taken from the Concordant Literal Version...

1Jn 5:7 seeing that three there are that are testifying,
1Jn 5:8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are for the one thing."
1Jn 5:9 If we are obtaining the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God, that He has testified concerning His Son."

Which reads a bit different to the KJV.

This following is from the NASB and seems to show that Christ is the water and the blood. It is not speaking of the three being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but of Christ being two.. the water and the blood, and then the Holy Spirit.

1Jn 5:6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jn 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.

I do not believe in a Trinity of three separate persons, but in a unity of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of the Father and Christ who proceeds from the Father... and the seven spirits of God... and whatever else He is that He has not deemed it necessary to share with us. But as to three 'separate persons'.. no.

NatalieJan777 · Sep 5, 2009

The concordant literal version, I have never heard of that one. Now that I know I will have to do more research on that version. It isn't even inclusive online where my multi version study is done. Multi-Source Bible Dictionary

I did check into this version I read how it came about in 1909, and is run by a non denominational non profit organization, who claimes not to be a church. I read much in the way of negative reviews during this search as well, which doesn't lead me to want to trust it.

Most of the truths I know have been revealed to me by God's Holy Spirit, I wasn't aware that there were seven of them either except for the seven written of in Revelation, each one representing one of the seven churches also spoken of in Revelation only.

I do believe in the trinity, for it has been revealed to me by GOD. Thus, I will continue to believe what HE tells me, until/unless HE tells me otherwise.

2ducklow · Sep 5, 2009

Originally Posted by 2ducklow
Persons are beings.. So you have said one being, three beings.

jpr said:
Sorry, 2ducklow. I haven't said that. Notice what I said: one being, three persons. No equivocation here.

a person is a being. So when you say one being, 3 persons you are saying one being, 3 beings because a person is a being.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We must first remember that very few have a good idea of what the Trinity is in the first place - hence, accuracy in definition will be very important. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, (three persons)Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.[/FONT]

red is not a contraddiction, just more illogic from jameswhite. he says a contradiction is saying 3 beings within one being. that is not a contradiction. 3 rocks in a sack is not a contradiction, and 3 rocks in one sack is 3 beings in one being. he can't even define what a contradicton is, then he tries and explain how trinity isn't 3 beings in one being by saying theres a difference between a being and a person. how much more ridiculuous can he get, read on it gets worse. a person isn't even in the equation that he says is a cointradiciton, namely 3 beings in one being.

look at the color code. he says god the father , the son, and the holy spirit are persons, and personalities. he can't keep his story straight cause his paper is so confusing he doesn't even know what he is saying. one time he says god is a personal being (person) then he changes his story and says god is a what, which is what a cat and a rock are.

not 3 persons at the end, he contradicts himself and says 3 persons are personal beings and personalities (a person is a personal being, so if a person of god isn't a person then don't call it what it isn't.)

remember a what is a being, a who is a personality, and a what and a who is a person. knowing this key that james white tried to hide unravels his hidden contradictroy explanation. without the key, his explanation is just a jumbled mass of words makeing absolutely no sense little more than garble.
with the key, one can see that what james white is saying (without his several contradictions that are probably the result of hmi getting so lost in his explantion he didn't know what he was saying) that god is a personal being (a person) and he is a what and a who. A what is just a being. a what and a who is a personal being. a what is a rock , cat or god, and a who is a personality.; therfore, god(a person) is one what (god or cat or rock) and 3 who's (personalities however he calls these personalities 3 persons, but previoulsy he said a person is a what and a who, obviously to confuse everyone.)

I'll just deal with one of your misrepresentations and show how it is just that.

2dl said:
James white, the brilliant trinitarian theologian says it is one person 3 persons.
he also says it is one non personal being 3 persons.

jpr said:
No he doesn't. You've just got reading comprehension problems.

he says god is a person (blue) he calls 3 persons of god, 3 persons. that is sayin one person / 3 persons

jw said:
We must first remember that very few have a good idea of what the Trinity is in the first place - hence, accuracy in definition will be very important. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

nothing in jw's what who explanation of the trinity about god being shared by 3 persons. that would be 4 gods, 3 gods sharing another god. you guys seem to think you can say any ole ridiculous thing like this and it explains something. man. god is shared by 3 person. anything to get around the real meaning of trinity which is 3 is/are one. ohhh can't say that that is a contradiction so we'll say, let's see, oh yea god is shard by 3 persoon,

jpr said:
Nothing about "one person 3 persons" or "one nonpersonal being 3 persons." If you're going to say someone says something, you need to show where they say it. Otherwise, you're just intellectually dishonest.

there is nothing in there because you didn't quote his what/who explanation. you quoted what he was trying to prove with his what who explanation, in his what who explanation of the trinity, he explains the trinity by calling god a person, and the 3 persons of god persons, that equates to one person 3 persons. the rest of your critique of my analysis is similarly flawed.

John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Newbie

Newbie

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

angel duck

Newbie

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

angel duck

Junior Member

Junior Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Humbled before GOD

Humbled before GOD

Jesus loves me this I know...

Humbled before GOD

angel duck

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency