Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[Albion]

But in truth it 'is' a concept based on what 'some men' thought up.

You may say that.

You apparently enjoy saying that.

I, however, stand by my comment that, since it's all straight from the Bible, your "men thought it up" contention doesn't hold up as an explanation.

 

[rjs330]

MEC, just one question. Who is the word in John 1:1 if it is not Jesus?

 

[Albion]

If I may...that is usually answered by claiming that it's the voice of God, the wisdom of God, the intentions of God, or something else in that vein. However, as Wgw has pointed out (in post #7 of the "Unreasonable Arguments Against the Trinity" thread), this does not hold up as an explanation if the reader doesn't stop at the first several verses. If we continue reading through the whole passage, it's unmistakable that the "Word" is explained as being a reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[rjs330]

If I may...that is usually answered by claiming that it's the voice of God, the wisdom of God, the intentions of God, or something else in that vein. However, as Wgw has pointed out (in post #7 of the "Unreasonable Arguments Against the Trinity" thread), this does not hold up as an explanation if the reader doesn't stop at the first several verses. If we continue reading through the whole passage, it's unmistakable that the "Word" is explained as being a reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes that is what it appears. That's why I asked

If I may...that is usually answered by claiming that it's the voice of God, the wisdom of God, the intentions of God, or something else in that vein. However, as Wgw has pointed out (in post #7 of the "Unreasonable Arguments Against the Trinity" thread), this does not hold up as an explanation if the reader doesn't stop at the first several verses. If we continue reading through the whole passage, it's unmistakable that the "Word" is explained as being a reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes that is what it appears. That's why I asked who the word was if not Jesus. As John 1 describes the word (God) became flesh and dwelt among us. God became flesh and dwelt among us. If that wasn't Jesus who was it?

Also if God created everything as proclaimed in the Old Testament how did Jesus create everything if he was not God?

This whole thread is amazing to me. Either the Bible contradicts itself or it doesn't. Either Jesus is God or he is not. If God created the world then Jesus could not have if he was not God. If God is the Alpha and Omega then Jesus could not be the Alpha and Omega.

And I have yet to hear an explanation of Hebrews 1:8 where God calls Jesus God.

Furthermore MEC has failed to explain how Jesus accepts Thomas calling him God and furthermore thinks it not robbery to be equal with God and being in the form of God and how that is not blasphemy. MEC has failed to explain how God would allow Jesus do that if He is not God. It is blasphemy for Jesus to accept being called God and blasphemy for Jesus to think it not robbery to be equal with God if he is not God.

I truly understand how the begotteness of Jesus is difficult to understand. How does this all work? How can Jesus be the first begotten son and the first born if he is God? It really is difficult to grasp with the natural mind. But if God calls Jesus God who am I to argue with that? I may not grasp it all, but I certainly am not going to tell God he was wrong. I'm going to shrug my shoulders and simply say I don't get it, but I believe it. Sure I can read scriptures and they tell me a lot, but this thread is a great example on how we don't fully understand it all.

 

[Imagican]

MEC, just one question. Who is the word in John 1:1 if it is not Jesus?

I would offer that the men that translated the Bible were predominantly 'trinitarians'. That would explain the capitalization of the 'w' in 'Word'. I have no reason to believe that it was meant to be capitalized.

If you take away the capital letter, you simply have 'word' instead of 'Word'. It is no longer a proper noun and then merely becomes the means that God expresses Himself to His 'creation'.

No different than your 'word' being the manner in which you express yourself. The only difference being 'power'.

Genesis 15:1
After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Was the 'word of the Lord' God or Jesus Christ? Did Christ 'talk' to Abrahan? Or was it God speaking to Him?

Regardless of the intricate meaning of the beginning of the first chapter of John, it is obviously misinterpreted by those that profess 'trinity' for in the same 'book of John', John records Jesus as stating that the words He offered were 'not His own'. If He were the 'Word' from the first verses of the book, then the words He used would have 'been His own'. Not only would the word have 'been His own', He would 'be that very word'.

So stating that the words He offered were 'not his own' is a clear statement that He is 'not the Word' as offered by those that profess 'trinity'. Jesus is 'not' God. And God's Word is 'God's Word'. When God speaks, "that" is: His Word.

God 'spoke' creation into being. God 'said': "Let there be...........................". That was 'God's Word'.

And what is the 'first thing' that He spoke into existence that we know of? "Let there be light". Since it wasn't until days later that the Sun and the Moon and the stars were created, what is that 'light' that God spoke into existence as the first act of 'creation'?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

rjs330,

Let me offer how easy it is to 'see' what we are looking for when we read scripture.

You say that Thomas called Jesus God. I beg to differ.

When Thomas doubted that the man standing before him was Christ, he was not only doubting the Son of God, but God Himself. The God that sent the Son.

Considering that Thomas had only known Christ for a very short period of time, it stands to reason that it would be easier to look for reasons to doubt Him than to doubt God who he was raised to believe in.

The moment that he realized that the man standing before him was indeed the 'risen Christ', he dropped to his knees and basically acknowledged 'both': God and His Son. It was in a manner, an apology to both: My God and my Lord. Thomas didn't say: 'My God, my Lord'. He said, "My God and my Lord". Two 'different' entities. He did not say, "My God that 'is' my Lord". He stated exactly what he meant: "My God 'and' my Lord". Thomas was acknowledging that He had not only doubted the Christ, but the Father of Christ as well: God.

So you see, perspective can make a big difference in what one understands. If you are looking to make 'Jesus God', then it's very easy to find scripture that can be used to try and make Jesus God.

But if you simply accept scripture as offered without preconceived notions, it can often take on a completely different meaning.

I ask you: If Jesus was God, why didn't He just tell His disciples: "I am God"?

Instead He plainly offered that He was 'sent by God'. He calls His Father God. His apostles tell us that God is our God and 'the' God 'of' Jesus Christ. Upon the cross, Christ's last words uttered were, "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me". And you say that Jesus is God????

Jesus 'died' on the cross. God cannot die or He isn't God. God is the Father. Christ is 'not' the Father. Christ is the Son of God. The "Son of God". Get it? Not the "Son that 'is' God". But the Son 'of' God.

So, do you choose to place your faith in the words of men? Or the words of Christ Himself? For Christ never once stated that He is God. He did not 'send Himself'. He was 'sent by God'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[nomadictheist]

I would offer that the men that translated the Bible were predominantly 'trinitarians'. That would explain the capitalization of the 'w' in 'Word'. I have no reason to believe that it was meant to be capitalized.

If you take away the capital letter, you simply have 'word' instead of 'Word'. It is no longer a proper noun and then merely becomes the means that God expresses Himself to His 'creation'.

No different than your 'word' being the manner in which you express yourself. The only difference being 'power'.

Genesis 15:1
After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Was the 'word of the Lord' God or Jesus Christ? Did Christ 'talk' to Abrahan? Or was it God speaking to Him?

Regardless of the intricate meaning of the beginning of the first chapter of John, it is obviously misinterpreted by those that profess 'trinity' for in the same 'book of John', John records Jesus as stating that the words He offered were 'not His own'. If He were the 'Word' from the first verses of the book, then the words He used would have 'been His own'. Not only would the word have 'been His own', He would 'be that very word'.

So stating that the words He offered were 'not his own' is a clear statement that He is 'not the Word' as offered by those that profess 'trinity'. Jesus is 'not' God. And God's Word is 'God's Word'. When God speaks, "that" is: His Word.

God 'spoke' creation into being. God 'said': "Let there be...........................". That was 'God's Word'.

And what is the 'first thing' that He spoke into existence that we know of? "Let there be light". Since it wasn't until days later that the Sun and the Moon and the stars were created, what is that 'light' that God spoke into existence as the first act of 'creation'?

Blessings,

MEC

It has been irrefutably demonstrated from John 1 that "the word" is Jesus:

No, it's not. Your'e the only one talking about capitalization here. I'm talking about what the text - what the Bible - says.

And the Bible says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Bible says "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.

15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”

This is what the Bible says. Can you please stop trying to quibble over capitalization and address what the text says? That is, to recap:

1. The Word was God
2. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (i.e. He became a person)
3. John the Baptist bore witness of the Word, saying "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.'" (John the Baptist only said that about Jesus)
4. The Word is a He, not an it

Capitalized or uncapitalized, John makes it clear Who he is talking about when he says the Word. He leaves no room for doubt.

In fact, to re-emphasize, only a few verses later John reiterates the story of John the Baptist bearing witness, only this time he uses Jesus' name instead of saying "the Word." Every other element is the same.

 

[Albion]

I would offer that the men that translated the Bible were predominantly 'trinitarians'. That would explain the capitalization of the 'w' in 'Word'. I have no reason to believe that it was meant to be capitalized.

If you take away the capital letter, you simply have 'word' instead of 'Word'. It is no longer a proper noun and then merely becomes the means that God expresses Himself to His 'creation'.

But, in the verses that follow, the "word" (or "Word") is described as human, not as an impersonal force.

 

[7xlightray]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the Beginning...

It's right there in the Bible for anyone who has an ear to hear.


There is evidence that John understood Jesus to be God, and Jesus said "anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father." Without your compulsion to retranslate everything Jesus says about Himself being God, this is a clear statement that anyone who is seeing Him is seeing God.

Sorry, my fault, actually I forgot to add Jesus to my sentence, as I put it in my post # 250. I meant to say Jesus was not a person before he became flesh. Where Adam was made from the earth, Jesus was the word made flesh, come down from heaven. Jesus is of the Holy Spirit, Spirit is described as the Word, breath, wind, power. The Holy Spirit is not another person, nor a person in of itself, but is God, who is a person.

Job 34:14 ...if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath.​

How could God gather His Spirit unto Himself, if God Himself was everywhere. God is everywhere by His Spirit, which is also described as wind. God is Light, light reaches out to everywhere, but there is a source light where light originates from, for example, the sun. His Spirit is Him, but is not a person, yet His Spirit is life. Every bit of God is living, and powerful, even His word. Here is something that may help, my hand in of itself is not a person, but all of me is a person. My hands are an extension of me, and tools to work with, yet I dwell inside, from where I control my hands.

1 John 1 gives us the understanding of John 1, Word of Life, the eternal life. And what does John declare to us, not the Son, but the Father, and to be more specific God (the Father) is truth (light). God sent His word into the world Isaiah 55:10, His word became flesh ; this is why John says the word became flesh, because the word became flesh. I would suggest reading all of Isaiah 55 to understand what he is referring to.

Instead of the dust became man, Gods word became man. Jesus is the Word (true light) that came forth from God, as it is spoken in Isaiah 55:10, made flesh, in the image of God, and was sent into the world, returned accomplishing what it was sent for. Can't be God, if your the image of God.

 

[Albion]

I suppose we could take the approach of saying the Word didn't become a 'person' until the Incarnation, but the idea that the Holy Ghost is at all times merely an impersonal force runs smack up against the fact that he, too, is referred to in Scripture by personal pronouns. So, while you sidestep the implication in the case of Jesus, you can't do it with the Holy Ghost.

 

[nomadictheist]

Sorry, my fault, actually I forgot to add Jesus to my sentence, as I put it in my post # 250. I meant to say Jesus was not a person before he became flesh. Where Adam was made from the earth, Jesus was the word made flesh, come down from heaven. Jesus is of the Holy Spirit, Spirit is described as the Word, breath, wind, power. The Holy Spirit is not another person, nor a person in of itself, but is God, who is a person.

Job 34:14 ...if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath.​

How could God gather His Spirit unto Himself, if God Himself was everywhere. God is everywhere by His Spirit, which is also described as wind. God is Light, light reaches out to everywhere, but there is a source light where light originates from, for example, the sun. His Spirit is Him, but is not a person, yet His Spirit is life. Every bit of God is living, and powerful, even His word. Here is something that may help, my hand in of itself is not a person, but all of me is a person. My hands are an extension of me, and tools to work with, yet I dwell inside, from where I control my hands.

1 John 1 gives us the understanding of John 1, Word of Life, the eternal life. And what does John declare to us, not the Son, but the Father, and to be more specific God (the Father) is truth (light). God sent His word into the world Isaiah 55:10, His word became flesh ; this is why John says the word became flesh, because the word became flesh. I would suggest reading all of Isaiah 55 to understand what he is referring to.

Instead of the dust became man, Gods word became man. Jesus is the Word (true light) that came forth from God, as it is spoken in Isaiah 55:10, made flesh, in the image of God, and was sent into the world, returned accomplishing what it was sent for. Can't be God, if your the image of God.

You rely heavily on human understanding and discard the text.

The first verse of John 1 says that the Word is God. 1 John 1 is written by the same author, so if you understand John 1, you will understand 1 John 1.

John says more than just "the Word became flesh." He says:
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.

15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”

16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

And later we see this:

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”

The Word was God. The Word is Jesus.

 

[Job8]

The moment that he realized that the man standing before him was indeed the 'risen Christ', he dropped to his knees and basically acknowledged 'both': God and His Son. It was in a manner, an apology to both: My God and my Lord. Thomas didn't say: 'My God, my Lord'. He said, "My God and my Lord". Two 'different' entities. He did not say, "My God that 'is' my Lord". He stated exactly what he meant: "My God 'and' my Lord". Thomas was acknowledging that He had not only doubted the Christ, but the Father of Christ as well: God.

Not only are you falsifying Scripture, you are also falsifying the truth. That is a very serious matter.

What are the recorded words of Thomas?
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ὁ Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
King James Bible
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
New American Standard Bible
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
New International Version
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

So now we have agreement among different Bible versions that Thomas is addressing Christ ("him") and calling Christ "My Lord (Kurios) and my God (Theos)". But you have changed the word order (which is not permissible) and then you have gone off on a flight of fancy (which is also not permissible).

The plain meaning of this statement is an acknowledgement by Thomas that the Risen Christ is both His Lord and His God. Anything less than that is an attempt to falsify truth. The Father does not enter into this at all. It is God the Son who is being addressed and honestly acknowledged (which we all should do).

 

[Imagican]

Not only are you falsifying Scripture, you are also falsifying the truth. That is a very serious matter.

What are the recorded words of Thomas?
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ὁ Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
King James Bible
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
New American Standard Bible
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
New International Version
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

So now we have agreement among different Bible versions that Thomas is addressing Christ ("him") and calling Christ "My Lord (Kurios) and my God (Theos)". But you have changed the word order (which is not permissible) and then you have gone off on a flight of fancy (which is also not permissible).

The plain meaning of this statement is an acknowledgement by Thomas that the Risen Christ is both His Lord and His God. Anything less than that is an attempt to falsify truth. The Father does not enter into this at all. It is God the Son who is being addressed and honestly acknowledged (which we all should do).

My mistake. But the order doesn't alter anything. Actually, what the proper order shows leans even more towards what I have offered: "Addressing Christ 'first' and then God".

Christ was sent by God. That means that regardless of 'trinity' or any other interpretation of the entity or identity of Christ, we 'know' that He was 'the representative' of God: The Father. He stated that those that had seen Him had seen the 'Father'. But even 'trinity' doesn't teach that the Son was the Father.

So we 'know' that what He meant was that: being the representative of the Father, those that had witnessed the power of the Son, given Him by the Father, had in a sense, witnessed the Father himself.

With these 'facts' established, it is not altering anything to offer that Thomas' words were directed at both Father and Son. While Thomas' speech may well have been directed at the man standing before him, even 'trinity' teaches 'fully God/fully man'. The Son is 'not' the Father. The man standing before Thomas 'was indeed', the Son of God. Representing the Father.

While I'm not surprised that you would make 'false accusations' against me for speaking out against the 'trinity', (good thing you aren't a member of the inquisition a few hundred years ago eh?). But I'll simply offer this in response: You didn't write the Bible. Your indicated interpretation is obviously based upon what you have been 'taught' to believe. I have no such preconceived notions. I follow what I am led to believe scripture offers and don't believe I 'need' anyone to explain most of it to me.

While I don't understand every bit or piece of scripture. I find that my understanding continues to grow the more I read and study the Bible. I have come to a number of conclusions in understanding. And a number of those are utterly contrary to the teachings of 'men' or 'their churches'.

Unless you are claiming to be God or His representative, your opinions are nothing other than that. And so far, you've offered nothing to indicate yours are any more valid than my own.

What i have offered makes much more 'sense' than the idea that Thomas was addressing Christ 'as God'. No other place in the entire NT does 'anyone' address Christ 'as God'. When called 'good master', Christ rebukes the man by offering that there is only 'one' that is good and that is God Himself. So if He wouldn't even allow someone to address Him as 'good', He obviously wouldn't allow someone to 'call Him God'.

So the obvious answer that 'trinitarians' find very disturbing is: Thomas was not 'calling' Christ God, He was addressing both Father and Son. Get it? My Lord 'and' my God. He did not say: "My Lord that 'is' my God".

You may not agree with or accept what I have offered. That's certainly your prerogative. But it is my opinion, (no less valuable than your own from my perspective), that no where in the statement is Christ being 'called God'. Thomas is directing his comment to the man standing before him. No doubt about that. But we also 'know' that Christ claim to the apostles was 'not': I am God. But when asking each that are mentioned, they gave the same response: "Thou art the Son of the Living God".

Matthew 16:

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

John 6:

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Now, how do you suppose that the apostles believed He was God when they made these statements.

Now, consider these statements and then compare them to the words of Thomas. Your attempt to say Thomas was calling Christ God doesn't agree with the statements of the apostles offered in the scriptures offered above.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[nomadictheist]

My mistake. But the order doesn't alter anything. Actually, what the proper order shows leans even more towards what I have offered: "Addressing Christ 'first' and then God".

Christ was sent by God. That means that regardless of 'trinity' or any other interpretation of the entity or identity of Christ, we 'know' that He was 'the representative' of God: The Father. He stated that those that had seen Him had seen the 'Father'. But even 'trinity' doesn't teach that the Son was the Father.

So we 'know' that what He meant was that: being the representative of the Father, those that had witnessed the power of the Son, given Him by the Father, had in a sense, witnessed the Father himself.

With these 'facts' established, it is not altering anything to offer that Thomas' words were directed at both Father and Son. While Thomas' speech may well have been directed at the man standing before him, even 'trinity' teaches 'fully God/fully man'. The Son is 'not' the Father. The man standing before Thomas 'was indeed', the Son of God. Representing the Father.

While I'm not surprised that you would make 'false accusations' against me for speaking out against the 'trinity', (good thing you aren't a member of the inquisition a few hundred years ago eh?). But I'll simply offer this in response: You didn't write the Bible. Your indicated interpretation is obviously based upon what you have been 'taught' to believe. I have no such preconceived notions. I follow what I am led to believe scripture offers and don't believe I 'need' anyone to explain most of it to me.

While I don't understand every bit or piece of scripture. I find that my understanding continues to grow the more I read and study the Bible. I have come to a number of conclusions in understanding. And a number of those are utterly contrary to the teachings of 'men' or 'their churches'.

Unless you are claiming to be God or His representative, your opinions are nothing other than that. And so far, you've offered nothing to indicate yours are any more valid than my own.

What i have offered makes much more 'sense' than the idea that Thomas was addressing Christ 'as God'. No other place in the entire NT does 'anyone' address Christ 'as God'. When called 'good master', Christ rebukes the man by offering that there is only 'one' that is good and that is God Himself. So if He wouldn't even allow someone to address Him as 'good', He obviously wouldn't allow someone to 'call Him God'.

So the obvious answer that 'trinitarians' find very disturbing is: Thomas was not 'calling' Christ God, He was addressing both Father and Son. Get it? My Lord 'and' my God. He did not say: "My Lord that 'is' my God".

You may not agree with or accept what I have offered. That's certainly your prerogative. But it is my opinion, (no less valuable than your own from my perspective), that no where in the statement is Christ being 'called God'. Thomas is directing his comment to the man standing before him. No doubt about that. But we also 'know' that Christ claim to the apostles was 'not': I am God. But when asking each that are mentioned, they gave the same response: "Thou art the Son of the Living God".

Matthew 16:

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

John 6:

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Now, how do you suppose that the apostles believed He was God when they made these statements.

Now, consider these statements and then compare them to the words of Thomas. Your attempt to say Thomas was calling Christ God doesn't agree with the statements of the apostles offered in the scriptures offered above.

Blessings,

MEC

Once again, this is only true if you approach these passages with your idea that Jesus cannot be both the Son of God and God. Without this preconception clouding the text, none of the scriptures have to be reinterpreted to better appeal to our finite comprehension of God.

 

[7xlightray]

You rely heavily on human understanding and discard the text.

The first verse of John 1 says that the Word is God. 1 John 1 is written by the same author, so if you understand John 1, you will understand 1 John 1.

John says more than just "the Word became flesh." He says:
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.

15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”

16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

And later we see this:

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”

The Word was God. The Word is Jesus.

Where does it say the word is God in John 1:1?

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

All three verbs “was” are imperfect tense. Imperfect tense is an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time, but since the verb “to be” is in the imperfect, it is not a continual action, but a simple past action. So, it is not even a continuous action, but was in the past.

 

[nomadictheist]

Where does it say the word is God in John 1:1?

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

All three verbs “was” are imperfect tense. Imperfect tense is an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time, but since the verb “to be” is in the imperfect, it is not a continual action, but a simple past action. So, it is not even a continuous action, but was in the past.

Are you implying that something that was God can become not God? It is past tense for the same reason that the rest of the passage is in past tense: because it's giving a historical chronology.

God cannot cease to be God. If the word was God, the word is God still.

 

[Harfelugan]

In the late 90's at Megiddo the remains of possibly the oldest church found in the Holy Land, (there is another that may be plus or minus 20 years), were uncovered. Dating to 230 A.D. Within is the floor mosaic with the oldest extant mention of Jesus as God found in a structural building. As a dedication about the giving of a Eucharist table, "the God-loving Akeptous," who "offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial." The name for Jesus Christ is abbreviated using only the first and last letters and is delineated as a sacred name by a line placed above it, a practice of a later period; this is the earliest known example of it.

As the word, "triad" is first attested to within 84 years of the writing date of the last canonical book of the N.T. This find is within 143 years from that last book. This is what the early Church, 2nd. and 3rd. generation from John were proclaiming and teaching about Jesus. Jesus is God! The Arian view has no early attestation comparable.

 

[7xlightray]

And, as has been stated previously, God will share His glory with no one else. Yet the son shares that same glory. God is the Alpha and Omega. The Beginning and the End. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. The Beginning and the End. The Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God.

I don't think you fully grasped the importance of Zechariah 14:7 and Mark 13:32. Maybe you will see the importance of this next passage...

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.​

God tells them that they are not to know any other God then the God they then knew. God sealed it right here with them, if any one comes teaching any other God, then the God of Israel, which they only knew as one person, they are not to hear that person, no matter what sign or wonder they may do, because God is testing them (and Us).

Now did the Jew's know anything about a trinity? No! They knew nothing about God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit third person, other then God Almighty the Father.

So, there is no way, they would except another God as the God of Israel, that they knew. If Jesus preached another God, that they did not know, God would have sealed their (every single Jew) fate, and God would have been a deceiver, which is not possible. So, their mistake would have been misunderstanding Jesus, thinking Jesus was preaching another God, or that he himself was God.

Jesus confirmed they knew the right God in Mark 12:29, 32, 34.

Jesus did not try to correct the scribe (recall, the Jews did not believe in a trinity), but Jesus saw that he answered wisely; Jesus knew what this scribe believed.

 

[7xlightray]

Are you implying that something that was God can become not God? It is past tense for the same reason that the rest of the passage is in past tense: because it's giving a historical chronology.

God cannot cease to be God. If the word was God, the word is God still.

I will try to make this as simple as I can. The word became the sun and the moon.
Are the sun and moon God?
Did the word, sun, and moon continue to be God?
Did the word stop being God, when the word became the sun and moon?
When God made the angel spirits, did Gods spirit that became the angel spirits stop being God.
Are the angel spirits God?


I showed the O/T teaching of “Word” of John 1 from Isaiah 55:11. Can you show me your teaching of “Word” of John 1 from the O/T?

 

[nomadictheist]

I don't think you fully grasped the importance of Zechariah 14:7 and Mark 13:32. Maybe you will see the importance of this next passage...

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.​

God tells them that they are not to know any other God then the God they then knew. God sealed it right here with them, if any one comes teaching any other God, then the God of Israel, which they only knew as one person, they are not to hear that person, no matter what sign or wonder they may do, because God is testing them (and Us).

Now did the Jew's know anything about a trinity? No! They knew nothing about God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit third person, other then God Almighty the Father.

So, there is no way, they would except another God as the God of Israel, that they knew. If Jesus preached another God, that they did not know, God would have sealed their (every single Jew) fate, and God would have been a deceiver, which is not possible. So, their mistake would have been misunderstanding Jesus, thinking Jesus was preaching another God, or that he himself was God.

Jesus confirmed they knew the right God in Mark 12:29, 32, 34.

Jesus did not try to correct the scribe (recall, the Jews did not believe in a trinity), but Jesus saw that he answered wisely; Jesus knew what this scribe believed.

Who said Jesus was another God? Jesus is the same God. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Son of God. Why do you keep talking about "another God"?