Does God have eyes?

[Newbirth]

The Logos of John 1:1c is the word proclaimed by Jesus during his ministry. Jesus made God the Father known to the world and for that reason it says, "and the word was God." The Father spoke HIS words and did HIS works through this man of flesh and that is how Jesus made the Father known to the world. John sums up the same idea at verse 1:18. The word of God is the bread of God such that Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and finish His work." When we consume bread it becomes our flesh and so it was with Christ. The bread of God is the word of God and it became flesh because he consumed this bread by doing it, and as such, he became the embodiment of the word.

Of course, he himself explained all that in John 6.

Exactly what Paul was explaining ...
2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

[Newbirth]

This does not make the Word of God, "God". There is nothing that can account for the idea excepting the Word united with the Father in heaven, per 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16, Rev 3:14.

First of all, he did not say the Word of God is God
You need to make your position clear because you are arguing with me that "the word was God" is a proper translation. And you accept " the Word is God also. Except when you think another person is saying it.

 

[cjab]

First of all, he did not say the Word of God is God
You need to make your position clear because you are arguing with me that "the word was God" is a proper translation.

Up till now, you have said the Word was not God, on the basis that "theos" has many applications, including anything that acts as a God/god. That much I find absurd because the only God contextual to Jn 1:1 is YHWH. You seem to have now changed your mind as to "The Word was God." But recall, this "Logos" is the very same Logos in Jn 1:1a and Jn 1:1b and which continues on through till Jn 1:5 and beyond. It is not any old Logos, but the same Logos as was in the beginning. Reputable scholars have decided that there is only one unqualified "beginning:" the beginning of the creation of God (cf. Gen 1:1).

The main question for you is, is this "Logos" an abstraction or a personification. I maintain that to be "God" it must be a personification, as nothing else will do. YHWH the Father works through a hierarchy. The Logos-->Son is directly below God (see 1 Cor 11:3). God also works through angels. Consider also Heb 1 "You made him a little lower than the angels" - this is not an ordinary man. “Let all God's angels worship him" Heb 1:6 could be said about no ordinary man.

And you accept " the Word is God also. Except when you think another person is saying it.

You chop and change all the time. Who are you to criticize?

 

[Our Lord's God]

Up till now, you have said the Word was not God, on the basis that "theos" has many applications, including anything that acts as a God/god. That much I find absurd because the only God contextual to Jn 1:1 is YHWH. You seem to have now changed your mind as to "The Word was God." But recall, this "Logos" is the very same Logos in Jn 1:1a and Jn 1:1b and which continues on through till Jn 1:5 and beyond. It is not any old Logos, but the same Logos as was in the beginning. Reputable scholars have decided that there is only one unqualified "beginning:" the beginning of the creation of God (cf. Gen 1:1).

Without any basis whatsoever but their own imaginations.

The main question for you is, is this "Logos" an abstraction or a personification. I maintain that to be "God" it must be a personification, as nothing else will do. YHWH the Father works through a hierarchy.

The Father created the heavens and the earth by speaking his word.

His word is how He gets 'er done.

The Logos-->Son is directly below God (see 1 Cor 11:3).

1 Corinthians 11:3 is referring to the risen Christ.

God also works through angels. Consider also Heb 1 "You made him a little lower than the angels" - this is not an ordinary man. “Let all God's angels worship him" Heb 1:6 could be said about no ordinary man.

That would be Hebrews 2:7 where the Hebrews writer is quoting Psalm 8 which is about the creation of man.

You chop and change all the time. Who are you to criticize?

 

[Newbirth]

Up till now, you have said the Word was not God, on the basis that "theos" has many applications, including anything that acts as a God/god.

Also based on the Word being made flesh and we know him as the son of God. The son of God is not God

That much I find absurd because the only God contextual to Jn 1:1 is YHWH.

To which I would ask how many YHWHs do you have? because it says the Word was with God also. According to your understanding that would mean YHWH was with YHWH.

You seem to have now changed your mind as to "The Word was God.

No, I have not. That would mean Jn1:1 would be understood as... In the beginning was the YHWH, and the YHWH was with YHWH, and the YHWH was YHWH.

" But recall, this "Logos" is the very same Logos in Jn 1:1a and Jn 1:1b and which continues on through till Jn 1:5 and beyond. It is not any old Logos, but the same Logos as was in the beginning. Reputable scholars have decided that there is only one unqualified "beginning:" the beginning of the creation of God (cf. Gen 1:1).

That same Logos was made flesh, and we know him as the son of God. Jn1:14 And the Word was made 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.

The main question for you is, is this "Logos" an abstraction or a personification.

The Logos is the son of God. Did God speak things into existence? Was it by his Logos?

I maintain that to be "God" it must be a personification, as nothing else will do.

You can maintain whatever you want. It does not change the fact that God is the father of the Logos

YHWH the Father works through a hierarchy. The Logos-->Son is directly below God (see 1 Cor 11:3).

Therefore Logos = Jesus is not God

God also works through angels. Consider also Heb 1 "You made him a little lower than the angels" - this is not an ordinary man. “Let all God's angels worship him" Heb 1:6 could be said about no ordinary man.

You are proving my point, Jesus/ the Logos is not God. Who said he was an ordinary man...Did I not say he is the son of God?

You chop and change all the time.

You misunderstand all the time

Who are you to criticize?

I am not criticizing. I simply point out facts.

 

[cjab]

Without any basis whatsoever but their own imaginations.

That is a perversion of truth. Start naming those scholars who support your position. As for me: I have thousands, even if I limit myself to those of the 19th century onwards.

The Father created the heavens and the earth by speaking his word.

His word is how He gets 'er done.

Do you think the Father is a man, that he should "speak his word?"

Are you not engaging in silly anthropomorhism? The only people to "speak" God's words were the prophets. The true analysis is a command from the Father to the Word (the Logos) to create.

1 Corinthians 11:3 is referring to the risen Christ.

And John 17:5 is referring to the antecedent (unborn) Christ.

That would be Hebrews 2:7 where the Hebrews writer is quoting Psalm 8 which is about the creation of man.

Heb 2:8 shows that Heb 2:7.8 are prophetic of the Son i.e. "But now we see not yet all things put under him."

 

[cjab]

Also based on the Word being made flesh and we know him as the son of God. The son of God is not God

To which I would ask how many YHWHs do you have? because it says the Word was with God also. According to your understanding that would mean YHWH was with YHWH.

I have demanded that you learn some Greek. I have stressed the different grammatical context of theos in Jn 1:1c to Jn 1:1b. The fact that you ignore everything I say is the reason why there is no point in debating with you.

I may as well speak to a brick wall as speak to you. I recognize that I'm wasting my time as your mind is full of venom against all who oppose your position, which is Jesus=Logos, which position is absurd, because the Son, the human being, is never referred to in the titular sense as "the Logos" except in statements of identity (i.e. the human Son does not bear the title "Logos" which is contrivance on your part).

Let me repeat: an anarthrous-predicate-noun usage of theos is NOT the same as a titular usage of theos denoted by theos + definite article.

Given that the referent of anarthrous theos in Jn 1:1c can only be definite titular theos in Jn 1:1b, then the meaning of theos in Jn 1:1c naturally follows. But you have already denigrated theos to be a relative term that admits of no certain identification with YHWH.

You appeal to pagan literature, like JM. You fail to grasp the usage of theos in the NT. So your conception of theos becomes as manipulatable as a pagan idol, which is your heresy: that you allow yourself to create a man-made theos contrary to what the NT teaches.

No, I have not. That would mean Jn1:1 would be understood as... In the beginning was the YHWH, and the YHWH was with YHWH, and the YHWH was YHWH.

That same Logos was made flesh, and we know him as the son of God. Jn1:14 And the Word was made 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.

The Logos is the son of God. Did God speak things into existence? Was it by his Logos?

The Logos is not strictly the "Son of God" because that would be to admit the validity of the arguments of the Sabellians/polytheists who conceive of three Gods in heaven, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Rather the Logos "became the Son of God" Jn 1:14. The term Father is contextual to usage of "Son." There is no Father without the Son, and both are contextual to the jurisdiction of earth. That is why "Father" does not apply to "the Logos" and why "Father" is not mentioned in Jn 1:1c, and not until Jn 1:14.

You can maintain whatever you want. It does not change the fact that God is the father of the Logos

God is the Father of Jesus, not the Logos. There is no scripture which says "God is the Father of the Logos."

Therefore Logos = Jesus is not God

Depends on whether you are talking about Jesus the man or the ascended Jesus, which latter is now in the same position as the Logos in Jn 1:1c, i.e. anarthrous-predicate-noun usage of theos - see also Rev Ch 1 etc.

You are proving my point, Jesus/ the Logos is not God. Who said he was an ordinary man...Did I not say he is the son of God?

See my comment above.

You misunderstand all the time

I am not criticizing. I simply point out facts.

Please be mindful of the fact that you know no Greek, and perhaps more importantly, are not in the least concerned to learn Greek, and so are not in a position to lecture anyone on this forum (biblical languages) about what passages like Jn 1:1 mean.

Go and read some articles written by scholars instead of spouting human-contrived nonsense.

 

[Newbirth]

That is a perversion of truth. Start naming those scholars who support your position. As for me: I have thousands, even if I limit myself to those of the 19th century onwards.

You are dependent on scholars' wisdom.
1 Cor 19
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Do you think the Father is a man, that he should "speak his word?"

Genesis 1:3
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
I suppose you think Moses was hearing voices in his imagination.

Are you not engaging in silly anthropomorhism? The only people to "speak" God's words were the prophets. The true analysis is a command from the Father to the Word (the Logos) to create.

So analize this...
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And John 17:5 is referring to the antecedent (unborn) Christ.

Jesus is referring to himself, he was with the father.

Heb 2:8 shows that Heb 2:7.8 are prophetic of the Son i.e. "But now we see not yet all things put under him."

The point of Heb 2:7-13 is God put all things under Jesus/the Logos...Which of course you ignore...
Heb 2
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

 

[cjab]

It isn't an abstraction.

What is "the Word" to you, if not an abtraction? It is "words", "spirit", "person" or what?

 

[Our Lord's God]

That is a perversion of truth. Start naming those scholars who support your position. As for me: I have thousands, even if I limit myself to those of the 19th century onwards.

Approval of men eh?

Catholics have thousands of scholars and millions of men who agree with them. So what should we do now?

Do you think the Father is a man, that he should "speak his word?"

Are you not engaging in silly anthropomorhism? The only people to "speak" God's words were the prophets.

Jesus was God's prophet.

The true analysis is a command from the Father to the Word (the Logos) to create.

Fabrication.

And John 17:5 is referring to the antecedent (unborn) Christ.

John 17:5 is referring to John 17:4.

Heb 2:8 shows that Heb 2:7.8 are prophetic of the Son i.e. "But now we see not yet all things put under him."

Hebrews 2 says that God subjected all things to a created man.

 

[cjab]

Approval of men eh?

Catholics have thousands of scholars and millions of men who agree with them. So what should we do now?

"We" - I don't even know who you are. You've yet to adduce a single scholar. Just one is all I ask for.

Jesus was God's prophet.

Self-evidently, as he conceded it. I include Jesus amongst the Hebrew prophets.

Fabrication.

How else would creation be "through" the Logos?

John 17:5 is referring to John 17:4.

"...before the world existed" is not contemplated in John 17:4. so how can it be as you say?

Hebrews 2 says that God subjected all things to a created man.

It is clear that Christ existed before he became a man from Heb 2:14 "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too partook of their humanity...."

 

[Our Lord's God]

"We" - I don't even know who you are. You've yet to adduce a single scholar. Just one is all I ask for.

Why?

Should I cherry pick one that you agree with?

Or should I cherry pick one that you disagree with?

Self-evidently, as he conceded it. I include Jesus amongst the Hebrew prophets.


How else would creation be "through" the Logos?

John isn't talking about the Genesis act of creation.

But you aren't listening either.

"...before the world existed" is not contemplated in John 17:4. so how can it be as you say?

That's not what the Greek text says.

It says, "the glory I was having before of the the world to be alongside you" τη δοξη η ειχον προ του τον κοσμον ειναι παρα σοι

The glory in question is the same glory he was having with the Father in verse 4.

It is clear that Christ existed before he became a man from Heb 2:14 "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too partook of their humanity...."

Sorry but your imagination did that not the text.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood

I share in humanity too. I didn't exist before I became a man.

 

[cjab]

Why?

Should I cherry pick one that you agree with?

Or should I cherry pick one that you disagree with?

Why don't you just answer the question. Or is that too hard for you?

John isn't talking about the Genesis act of creation.

I need scholarly authority for that.

But you aren't listening either.

Why should I listen to you when you can't adduce one scholar who agrees with you?

How rich to condemn the entirely scholarly world as wrong. I perceive that you are an extremist.

That's not what the Greek text says.

It says, "WITH the glory I was having before of the the world was , alongside you" τη δοξη η ειχον προ του τον κοσμον ειναι παρα σοι

The translation of the Greek text of John 17:5 is not in any dispute.

The glory in question is the same glory he was having with the Father in verse 4.

Clearly not, as "before the world was" is not in John 17:4.

Sorry but your imagination did that not the text.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood

I share in humanity too. I didn't exist before I became a man.

For as much as the children have a share in flesh and blood, he too partook of flesh and blood. (Different Greek verbs.)

 

[Our Lord's God]

Why don't you just answer the question. Or is that too hard for you?

No, I find it extremely easy actually.

I need scholarly authority for that.

Yeah, I don't. My authority is the Lord. He always agrees with himself. Scholars don't.

Why should I listen to you when you can't adduce one scholar who agrees with you?

You can listen to whoever you like.

How rich to condemn the entirely scholarly world as wrong. I perceive that you are an extremist.

So then you agree with all the Catholic scholars and the Baptist scholars? Tell us how you manage that.

The translation of the Greek text of John 17:5 is not in any dispute.

Really? Then where did you get the word "existed"?

Clearly not, as "before the world was" is not in John 17:4.



For as much as the children have a share in flesh and blood, he too partook of flesh and blood. (Different Greek verbs.)

You need to check your facts.

Truth isn't like shopping for what you want.

 

[cjab]

No, I find it extremely easy actually.

Yeah, I don't. My authority is the Lord. He always agrees with himself. Scholars don't.

You're becoming creepy now. Why not just tell the truth, i.e. "There are no recognized Greek scholars that agree with our extremist unitarian position?"

You can listen to whoever you like.

So then you agree with all the Catholic scholars and the Baptist scholars? Tell us how you manage that.

You're too hung up on labels. I read any scholar who has something valuable to say, although not all do. 1 certainly don't look to baptists or Catholics, but there are some reasonable Catholic scholars (they have the freedom to say what they want now).

Really? Then where did you get the word "existed"?

"existed" is another English word for "was" in the context.

You need to check your facts.

Truth isn't like shopping for what you want.

Fact is that you dispute every published bible translation in existence. You refuse to say what sect you belong to, you refuse to cite any scholars. I'm losing confidence in your abilities fast.

 

[preacher4truth]

Keep on keeping on @cjab !

 

[Our Lord's God]

You're becoming creepy now. Why not just tell the truth, i.e. "There are no recognized Greek scholars that agree with our extremist unitarian position?"

I wouldn't know. I don't go running around looking for people to agree with me. I don't seek to be justified by men. Why do you?

You're too hung up on labels. I read any scholar who has something valuable to say, although not all do. 1 certainly don't look to baptists or Catholics, but there are some reasonable Catholic scholars (they have the freedom to say what they want now).

So then the real authority is not any of these scholars but you who decides which of them are right and which of them are wrong.

Shall we always check with you then?

"existed" is another English word for "was" in the context.

Now you are just showing me that you don't know what you are talking about.

Fact is that you dispute every published bible translation in existence. You refuse to say what sect you belong to, you refuse to cite any scholars. I'm losing confidence in your abilities fast.

I don't care about English translations. John never wrote anything in English.

 

[Newbirth]

I have demanded that you learn some Greek.

And I have demanded that you pray to God for understanding. Which do you suppose is more important?

I have stressed the different grammatical context of theos in Jn 1:1c to Jn 1:1b.

And I have shown you that Theos can refer to anyone as God

The fact that you ignore everything I say is the reason why there is no point in debating with you.

That is not a reason to not debate since you ignore everything I say. You want others to accept everything you say while you reject everything they say.

I may as well speak to a brick wall as speak to you.

Then go speak to a brick wall, a brick wall should understand another brick wall?

I recognize that I'm wasting my time as your mind is full of venom against all who oppose your position,

I did not write this, did I?

(We don't take BS here.)

which is Jesus=Logos, which position is absurd, because the Son, the human being,
is never referred to in the titular sense as "the Logos" except in statements of identity (i.e. the human Son does not bear the title "Logos" which is contrivance on your part).

Who do you suppose this in red is referring to?
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

Let me repeat: an anarthrous-predicate-noun usage of theos is NOT the same as a titular usage of theos denoted by theos + definite article.

What you are saying is that the noun Theos is not the same as the noun Theos. Here is your problem. For some reason, you seem to think that people spit out written words when they speak...How do you know the difference between "god" and "God" when a person is speaking? Both are title nouns. God/god is not a type of entity or a race of beings, God/ god is a title given to those who are esteemed supernatural or have great power... It is the same with the word Elohim. Greek Gods/ gods have human features as depicted in the drawings and statues. The Hebrew God has no shape or form since no one has seen him to draw him or make a statue of him. Greeks have many Gods while the Hebrews have only one.

Given that the referent of anarthrous theos in Jn 1:1c can only be definite titular theos in Jn 1:1b, then the meaning of theos in Jn 1:1c naturally follows.

Given that the Hebrews have only one god it follows that YHWH God cannot have another God with him.

But you have already denigrated theos to be a relative term that admits of no certain identification with YHWH.

the identification is his son. Jesus is praying and says that he was with the father, in the beginning, he is not saying that someone else was there... You seem to be saying that the Logos was someone else in the beginning with God.

You appeal to pagan literature, like JM.

Greek is a pagan language, you seem holden to it.

You fail to grasp the usage of theos in the NT.

How so? I grasp when it refers to the Hebrew God it is referring to one entity YHWH.

So your conception of theos becomes as manipulatable as a pagan idol, which is your heresy: that you allow yourself to create a man-made theos contrary to what the NT teaches.

The Greek conception of Theos is rooted in idolatry and paganism. You hold to the Greek understanding. What could be more heretical than that?

The Logos is not strictly the "Son of God" because that would be to admit the validity of the arguments of the Sabellians/polytheists who conceive of three Gods in heaven, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

a conclusion like that would make God a liar...
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Jesus said God is his father so based on what Jesus said it follows that the voice must be the voice of God. You admitted that the Logos is Jesus. Jn1 says the Logos was made flesh. Based on what scripture are you saying that the Logos was not made flesh/ Jesus therefore not strictly the son of God?
The nonsense about three Gods fall at your feet...since you believe the word was God, and the Word was with God

Rather the Logos "became the Son of God" Jn 1:14.

Semantics. Made / Became it changes nothing. In fact, it proves that the translation of "the word was God ' is not the best.

The term Father is contextual to usage of "Son." There is no Father without the Son, and both are contextual to the jurisdiction of earth.

You are straying from the argument...If you are saying the Logos is not Jesus and God is not a father without Jesus then God saying that Israel is his son makes him a liar. It also begs the question who is Adam's father if not God?

That is why "Father" does not apply to "the Logos" and why "Father" is not mentioned in Jn 1:1c, and not until Jn 1:14.

The word father not being mentioned does not make God not a father...

God is the Father of Jesus, not the Logos. There is no scripture which says "God is the Father of the Logos."

God knew Jeremiah before he was born...The Logos is Jesus before he was born. Your argument is silly. God is the father of the Logos
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
God is the father of the Logos...
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.

Depends on whether you are talking about Jesus the man or the ascended Jesus, which latter is now in the same position as the Logos in Jn 1:1c, i.e. anarthrous-predicate-noun usage of theos - see also Rev Ch 1 etc.

It is the same, Jesus. You seem to be saying that Jesus the man died and a different Jesus was resurrected, and a different Jesus ascended.The same Jesus came out from God...
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

See my comment above.

Your comments above suggest you believe there are different Jesus. You spoke of a Jesus the man and an ascended Jesus... There is only one Jesus...
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Please be mindful of the fact that you know no Greek, and perhaps more importantly, are not in the least concerned to learn Greek, and so are not in a position to lecture anyone on this forum (biblical languages) about what passages like Jn 1:1 mean.

Please be mindful that all the Greek that you know is useless without the understanding that God gives.

Go and read some articles written by scholars instead of spouting human-contrived nonsense.

Go and pray to God for understanding.

(We don't take BS here.)

So why do you keep posting it?

 

[John Milton]

It's more than that.
God is one person described in the OT as an invisible Spirit that is everywhere. In the OT God describes himself with singular personal pronouns. God used the nation of Israel to be his witnesses to the nations. Isaiah 43: 1-14 (especially vs 10, 12). Wouldn't you think that if God was going to use Israel as witnesses to the nations of who he is, that he would have explained that he was a unity of persons? It seems deceptive to misrepresent himself to his chosen people.

I think we would do well to pause here and acknowledge the fact that Spirits, as we generally conceive of them, do not have gender, yet we don’t consider this language deceptive. Also, there are some reasons to think that God’s nature may been partially revealed or, perhaps, unclear from the start. Gen 1:26; 3:22, etc. You might enjoy this link along those lines.
https://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2021/11/25/why-is-the-name-elohim-אֱל%D6%B9ה%D6%B4ים-plural/

That's the explanation that trinitarians give...progressive revelation. I agree that God revealed things about his plans progressively and that Jesus is the full revelation of God revealed in the last days. Heb 1:3, John 14:9, Gal 4:4 But He doesn't have to be a trinity of persons to explain it what we read about in the NT.

I especially agree with your last sentence. That’s the reason I remain on the fence. However, I can’t rule out the possibility of a trinity either.

Do you think it was possible for Jesus to sin?
His unique conception doesn't cause a problem if a kenotic Christology is employed to understand how Jesus is God and human like us. It explains how Jesus doesn't know everything. How Jesus grows in wisdom. Why he relies on his Father to teach him and why the Father does the "works" through him, as well as why Jesus asks for the glory he once had in the beginning, etc.

I do think that Jesus could’ve sinned. I believe the evidence suggests that he was 100% man exactly as we are during his incarnation and that he resumed his divinity after his resurrection. However, it would still be just to refer to him as “God” during his incarnation because his identity is independent of his form and the creative acts that he accomplished before still warranted the veneration. This fact didn’t become apparent, however, until after his resurrection and may have been consciously suppressed in a manner similar to his silencing of the demons who would’ve revealed his identity.

Again, I think the difference between God and human made in his image is much more than that.
For starters, we can't listen and answer all the prayers that are prayed at the same time. We can't fill others with our spirit and dwell within them. We can't create matter. We use existing things to create. We don't know the thoughts of everyone who is currently alive and those who have died and gone on to the intermediate state and the other spirit being. Have I misunderstood your point?

My point was simply that what the things that we think are the attributes of God, such as the things you’ve listed, might not be what makes one God.

I could point out some examples of posters being obnoxious and offensive on this thread. You are not one of them.
I don't mind a challenge to my opinions at all. I'm here to discuss these things. You might change my mind.

I’m glad to hear it. I can be a bit prickly, but that mostly comes out when I deal with posters who repeatedly make false and misleading statements. Unfortunately, as you have alluded to, there are many of those in this forum.

 

[John Milton]

Did you mean to say the gospels were written to address more specific concerns than the epistle? If so, I find that a wise way to interpret the gospels vs the epistles but since John wrote both, at least that is my current perception, then I think the concern would be lessened. Unless you think that John may have changed his understanding of what he meant by "Word" from the time between he wrote his gospel to the time he wrote his epistle.

Sorry. I didn’t catch this typo. I meant that the gospel of John is for a general audience, and his epistles are for specific concerns. To give an example, I think that the difference in the framing and language used in I John 1:1ff is in an effort to address specific issues in his church audience that were not expressly refuted by John 1:1ff in the gospel, if that makes sense.

I'm sitting on the fence on this one. I'm not sure if God is indwelling Christ or IS Christ or both. I believe both, that Christ is God and that God (the Father) indwells in Christ, but not sure which one these verse in Colossians are describing.

I understand your concerns, and this difficulty is compounded by the fact that the situation need not be the same at all points described in John’s gospel (prologue, middle, conclusion).

I'm not sure what the limit it to what our human minds can grasp of God. Romans 11:33
Maybe He will surprise you if you search and seek him with fervency. He answered my fervent request about the doctrine of the trinity.

I must admit that I don’t harbor the expectation that God will reveal anything beyond what he has already given in his word, though I believe him certainly capable. While this makes me inherently skeptical of your claim, I’m not denying the possibility that I might be wrong, and I hope that you don’t think this is my polite way of implying that you are mistaken.

Also, I apologize for the delayed response. I have been ill and/or convalescing this entire week.