1 Jn 5:2. Jesus=God

The commandment was not that he would raise himself at all however but rather that if he would of his own will, lay down his life in death, then he would receive it back again from God because of his obedience to lay it down first.
Why then does Jesus say he has power to take it up again? You are denying that Jesus said he has power to take up his life again.

John 10:18
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
This is much the same as what God commands us also, that if we lose our life for Jesus and the gospel, we will save it by doing so and our authority on it is the same as was his, it is God's word on it, for if God said it, that settles it.
This has nothing to do with Jesus taking up his own life again which he said he would do. Are you saying that Jesus' words are of no value? Jesus specifically said he would take it up again.
This is all that Jesus was telling us in John 10:17-18 and not at all that he would raise himself from the dead like many falsely teach and believe.
John 2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
You seem to be calling Jesus a liar...
 
Ignorance or dishonesty or a combination of both. Let's dumb it down again.
That only benefits you.
But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” (Heb 1:8–9).

Here we have the Father who identifies Himself as YHWH [HO THEOS] calls the Son YHWH [HO THEOS]
Sir your rubbish does not cut it with me. The Psalm would have been written in Hebrew. there is no ho theos in Hebrew. It would be Elohim. God calls the son Elohim the same word used for Moses in Exodus.
“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Ac 5:3–4).

The HS is identified as YHWH [HO THEOS}
Ho theos cannot help you. How many Ho theos do you have? it is very disgusting how someone would try to falsify the scripture... there is no Ho Theos in vs 3
Acts 5:3
NASB Lexicon
NASB ©GreekStrong'sOrigin
But PeterΠέτρος
(petros)
4074: "a stone" or "a boulder," Peter, one of the twelve apostlesa noun akin to petra, used as a proper name
said,
3004: to saya prim. verb
"Ananias,Ἁνανία
(anania)
367: Ananias, the name of three Isr.of Hebrew origin Chananyah
whyδιὰ
(dia)
1223: through, on account of, because ofa prim. preposition
has Satanσατανᾶς
(satanas)
4567: the adversary, Satan, i.e. the devilof Hebrew origin satan
filledἐπλήρωσεν
(eplērōsen)
4137: to make full, to completefrom plérés
your heartκαρδίαν
(kardian)
2588: hearta prim. word
to lieψεύσασθαι
(pseusasthai)
5574: to liefrom a root pseud-
to the Holy
40: sacred, holyfrom a prim. root
Spiritπνεῦμα
(pneuma)
4151: wind, spiritfrom pneó
and to keep backνοσφίσασθαι
(nosphisasthai)
3557: to abandon, to set apartfrom nosphi (apart)
[some] of the priceτιμῆς
(timēs)
5092: a valuing, a priceakin to tió (to value, honor)
of the land?χωρίου
(chōriou)
5564: a place, property
2+1=3
BTW A verse mentioning three as God is irrelevant when the Bible identifies three as God =YHWH [HO THEOS]>
Your understanding is flawed. According to your understanding, the apostles must be God because Ananias was speaking to them. Peter said you have not lied to men but to God. Was he not speaking to Peter and the other apostles? There seems to be no end to your nonsense. You are arguing three Gods. You are saying that Jesus is God , the HS is God and The father is God and they are not each other. They are individuals that are co-equal in power. Then by a long stretch of the imagination you claim, they are one and the same God.
Really. Does a general have authority over a private but bother are equally human?
Why are you babbling?
Really, where in scripture did Jesus ever say 'our Father'? He always said 'My Father' We have Jesus stating 'My Father" approx 50 times, vs our father 0 when speaking of the Father.
BTW the Lord's Prayer, Jesus told His disciples to pray 'our Father'. But note, not with Him.
That is the English language, I am certain that Jesus was not speaking English.
Ignoring the question is not the same as answering it.
Again. Ok let's go to Jn 17. If this is etched in stone, what does this make Jesus in John 1:1? If the Father is the only true God, and Jesus is not God in Jn 17, that would make Jesus a false god in John 1:1. Reconcile,.
Yes anytime you address Jesus as God you are addressing him as a false God...here is why...This is Jesus speaking to his father
John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
You have a problem, with this I don't.
The problem is yours alone. Jesus recognizes his father as the only true God.
There is a difference between an appearance, vs a vision. Notice only Stephen saw it, If it was an appearance everyone there would have seen it.
It does not matter. Stephen either saw it or you are calling him a liar.
But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” (Heb 1:8–9).

Here we have the Father who identifies Himself as YHWH [HO THEOS] calls the Son YHWH [HO THEOS]

Seems the HS disagrees with you.
The Hebrew says Elohim. This can only stand if you have multiple Gods. Do you have multiple Gods? Like a God the father a God the son and a God the HS? That is the only way God the father would address his son as God.
 
False doctrine to the point of shameful manipulation of Hebrew. This is nonsense on the same level as JW watchtower.
The best you can do, is to insult?

What you have posted is simple an ad hominem attack.

It simply attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. This is usually the last position of ignorance knowing that it cannot compete with the intelligence and character of X, it is usually a sign of desperation on the part of the one insulting. [Logically Fallacious]
The bottom line is that the verse doesn't mention the Trinity or plurality. Again, it is shameful to force your doctrine where the text isn't plainly teaching it.
Now a red herring. I did not mention the Trinity in this. We are discussing plurality. And yes when YHWH says 'us' or 'we' He is using plurality as it pertains to Him.
First comes mention of a child born
in the actual text, then Son. Please read context, not your narrative.
Changing the subject again. You claimed that the Son is not an eternal tittle. Notice Jesus is identified as the Son before He took on flesh.
3 Individuals? Wow. Many Trinitarians don't say "individuals" because that strongly implies three gods.
No it does no imply three gods. If you bothered to read what you argued against originally the explanation is there
But let me help you out.
  • There are three divine persons called “God” in the Bible.
  • Within the one being that is God there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    • “Person” refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will and desire.
    • Just as I am a being with one center of self-consciousness, who I call “I”, God is a being with three centers of self-consciousness each of which can say “I”.
      • I am the Father.
      • I am the Son.
      • I am the Holy Spirit.
        • Each has a first-person perspective.
    • They are three distinct persons.
      • The Father is not identical to the Son or the Holy Spirit.
      • The Son is not identical to the Father or the Holy Spirit
      • The Holy Spirit is not identical to the Son or to the Father.
        • They are not independent of each other they still belong to the same being.
    • Since each is divine they share the attributes of deity.
      • God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
      • The Father is God and not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
      • The Son is God but not the Father or Holy Spirit.
      • The Holy Spirit is God but not the Father or Son.
The Apostles always baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS? Do you need all those scripture examples, or do you have them?
Hint, when you write something such as the above, you are claiming omniscience. We have several passages where the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus and other where it just states baptized. To state that they always did X when that is not recorded is claiming supernatural ability to know such facts. So you can use 'We have several passages where it is recorded that the Apostle's did X. "
Back to nonsense
Irrelevant. What trumps here? What Jesus said, or what the Apostles did?
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father [that Me] and of the Son [Also Me and of the Holy Spirit [The spiritual me], (Mt 28:19).

Your post; Jesus is the one God manifested in the flesh then it is clear he is the Holy Spirit in regards to his essence or divine nature.
This is modalism.
Let's apply your theory of modalism to the text..

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father [that Me] and of the Son [Also Me and of the Holy Spirit [The spiritual me], (Mt 28:19).
And I will pray the Father [pray to myself], and He [ that's me]will give you another Helper [which is me]...(Jn 14:16).
1When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God [saw Himself] descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son [Jesus speaking], in whom I am well pleased.” (Mt 3:16–17).

All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily (Colossians 2:9)
I agree.
Jesus was with them in the flesh was he not? The coming of the Holy Spirit is Jesus coming in Spirit. See JOHN 14:18.... I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU AS ORPHANS, I WILL COME TO YOU.
Please pay attention to the text.
And I will pray the Father , and He will give you another Helper...(Jn 14:16).
If the Father will give another Helper, it would mean that the 'other Helper' is not the present Helper.

You've got the Trinitarian talking points down, I'll give you that. Think man. What difference does it make where you insert "everlasting". He is still the Father, and you categorically said that the Bible doesn't call him Father. Well, Isaiah 9:6 does regardless of how you translate the adjective "everlasting" or "eternal".
These are not talking points, but the truth, and note in answer to you. If I was using talking points I would try to steer the conversation to those points.
Now to the above.
There is a difference between God the Father, and Father of everlasting. They are not the same, and following Hebrew Isa is not identifying Jesus as God the Father but X.
So, what's your point? To be Jesus' son means He is their Father. Do you have two Fathers in heaven?
What is my point? My point is to illuminate your nonsense. Did you bother to read what I was responding to?
Your Modalist post. Revelation 21:7 teaches that Jesus is our Father.
Is that what it teaches?
He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. (Re 21:7).
Overcoming is a necessary condition to the Jesus' son.
Here you shot yourself in the foot.
Notice, if we are to take this verse literal which we should, pay close attention to 'I will be his God'.
God translates from 'theos' = YHWH
 
Ignorance or dishonesty or a combination of both. Let's dumb it down again.

But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” (Heb 1:8–9).

Here we have the Father who identifies Himself as YHWH [HO THEOS] calls the Son YHWH [HO THEOS]

“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Ac 5:3–4).

The HS is identified as YHWH [HO THEOS}

2+1=3

Except the Son is the Spirit.

*Chuckle*
 
Nope, you are posting an OT passage. The NT reveals that God made all things by his son...
Hebrews 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;
So The Son created all things which means He is God.
 
The commandment was not that he would raise himself at all however but rather that if he would of his own will, lay down his life in death, then he would receive it back again from God because of his obedience to lay it down first.

This is much the same as what God commands us also, that if we lose our life for Jesus and the gospel, we will save it by doing so and our authority on it is the same as was his, it is God's word on it, for if God said it, that settles it.

This is all that Jesus was telling us in John 10:17-18 and not at all that he would raise himself from the dead like many falsely teach and believe.
Lay down His life and TAKE it BACK by His OWN power.
 
No it does no imply three gods. If you bothered to read what you argued against originally the explanation is there
But let me help you out.
  • There are three divine persons called “God” in the Bible.
No there is not. The father is the only true God.
John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Any other God to the believer is a false God.
  • Within the one being that is God there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    • “Person” refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will and desire.
    • Just as I am a being with one center of self-consciousness, who I call “I”, God is a being with three centers of self-consciousness each of which can say “I”.
You just explained four entities. God is one entity, and in God there exist three other entities.(1) God the father (2)God the son and (3)God the HS. That is four Gods, my friend. It is clear that you did not think before you started to write.
      • I am the Father.
      • I am the Son.
      • I am the Holy Spirit.
        • Each has a first-person perspective.
You conveniently forgot to mention God the being that they are in.
  • They are three distinct persons.
    • The Father is not identical to the Son or the Holy Spirit.
    • The Son is not identical to the Father or the Holy Spirit
    • The Holy Spirit is not identical to the Son or to the Father.
Therefore three distinct Gods. The basis of your argument is Jesus is God. So you are saying that The God Jesus is not Identical to God the father . So you have three, not identical Gods.
    • They are not independent of each other they still belong to the same being.
So you are saying that three non-identical persons Gods belong to the being God.
  • Since each is divine they share the attributes of deity.
    • God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    • The Father is God and not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
    • The Son is God but not the Father or Holy Spirit.
    • The Holy Spirit is God but not the Father or Son.
So where is the being God that the three are in? You cannot be saying that the being God is the father the being God is the Son and the being God is the HS are you? That would be saying that the being God is three separate divine persons being Gods therefore three separate Gods. It begs the question of how many Gods you really have.
 
  • Within the one being that is God there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    • “Person” refers to the center of consciousness and includes the idea of mind, will and desire.
    • Just as I am a being with one center of self-consciousness, who I call “I”, God is a being with three centers of self-consciousness each of which can say “I”.
      • I am the Father.
      • I am the Son.
      • I am the Holy Spirit.
        • Each has a first-person perspective.
On the spectrum of various Trinitarian views from modalistic to polytheistic, you are on the extreme end of polytheistic in your view. Philosopher and Trinitarian William Craig would see your view as solid "social-Trinitarianism". Many people, even Trinitarians, would disagree with your definition of "person".​


Perhaps we can help bring you off the ledge and back into the Bible.
 
Now you are arguing that the scripture does not mean what is written. You are also arguing that Jesus does not mean what he says.

I am not saying anything different from the scripture. The scripture says Jesus is the son of God and I am simply repeating what the scripture says. You are the one who is making a claim that is not written in the scripture.

But, does "son" really mean "son"? Can you know for sure? You have a nutty way of reading the Bible where words don't really mean what they say, so in this case, how do you know "son" should really be understood as "son"?
 
Why then does Jesus say he has power to take it up again? You are denying that Jesus said he has power to take up his life again.

John 10:18
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
First off, if Jesus was truly dead, then how could he take his life back being dead?

What you are not seeing here is that Greek word "hina" in that 17th verses and which should read like this below.

Therefor the Father loves me because I lay down my life, "hina" = in order that I might receive "labo" it back again.

Very clearly Jesus receiving his life back from death was contingent upon his laying it down by the order = commandment that God gave him and that he speaks of in the passage and which was also the authority that he had from God that if he did so God would raise him from the dead like he promised.


Also, the actual word should be translated as authority and not power and what he meant, is that he had the authority of God's word on it, that if he laid down his life of his own will according to the order of God, he would receive "lambano" it back again because he laid it down in death first.

Just go to an online interlinear like the Bible Hub and look up the words used in that passage and you will see this.

It only means power in relationship to God and the authority of his word and which is powered by him through his Holy Spirit.
This has nothing to do with Jesus taking up his own life again which he said he would do. Are you saying that Jesus' words are of no value? Jesus specifically said he would take it up again.

The word is not "take" but "receive" and once again, if Jesus was truly dead, then how would he be able to take his life back again after he died and was already dead?


John 2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
You seem to be calling Jesus a liar...

Nope, but there is a big difference between Jesus raising his body up from where it was placed in the tomb after God restored his life back into the body and his doing it himself when he is actually dead and which would be quite impossible also.

All that he said, is if they destroyed the temple of his body, that he would raise it up again three days later and he never said that he would restore his dead life back from the dead and which would be impossible anyhow.

Once again, John reveals what he and the other disciples understood from what Jesus said when he used the Greek Passive voice verb "egerthe" to speak of it only 3 verses later in the context.

You do realize that Jesus could not be both active and passive in his resurrection the way that you are thinking he was meaning in verse 19 don't you?

Also, if the other disciples understood Jesus to be saying that he would restore his own life back from death, then why didn't any of them ever write this in their narratives of his resurrection.

For they were there with John when he said what he did in John 2:19 but none of them ever wrote that Jesus actually resurrected himself from the dead like you believe he was saying in verse 19 but why not, for that would have been a big issue for certain?
 
I do not have a contradiction. But you do. So if you believe I have one post it with your explanation as to why?
Sure you do, you just don't want to acknowledge that you do because if you ever did, you would also have to admit that your Bible education was worthless and based on false doctrine.

You would also have to give up any aspirations you have of being a paid Trin minister or if you already are one, you would have to give that up also and that would be a hard thing to do but very necessary if you were to truly repent and believe the truth.
 
Back
Top