1 Jn 5:2. Jesus=God

false
Elohym: There are several ways to make a word plural in Hebrew. One way is to add hiym to the ending. Note Abram = father of people, changed to Abahym = father of peoples. Cherub one angel, cherubim many angels. “Elowahh” translates to God 52 times and its plural form “elohiym” is used 2347 times referring to YHWH God. In Genesis 1:1-26 we read that God was in the beginning and that He created this, He created that, and that He called them good. In all 26 verses God translates from elohiym. In vs. 26God said “Let us make…” The Triune Council created man. When God said “Let us make…”, “us” could not have been any others, such as angels, for all others were created by God and only God creates. In Genesis the Triune Council is in the beginning, and in John “Logos” is alongside God. [Plurality]

Is 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?”
Gen 11:7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
Gen 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.


false
Jn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together [b]with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Scripture indicates that Christ's Sonship is an eternal Sonship. It is one thing to say that Jesus became the Son of God; it is another thing altogether to say that He was always the Son of God. We must recognize that if there was a time when the Son was not the Son, then, to be consistent, there was also a time when the Father was not the Father. If the first person's designation as "Father" is an eternal title, then the second person's designation as "Son" must be so regarded.


False
And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’ (Lk 23:46).

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Mt 28:19).
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper...(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 descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mt 3:16–17).

I'll summarize here:

ELOHIM

No, it is shameful mythology for Trinitarians to torture the Hebrew Elohim and Echad. Since you mention Elohim, I recommend that you do a more thorough word study. Since you are a non-Hebrew speaking person pay special attention to how the word is used in other places such as its reference to the singular false god Dagon. Dagon was not a trinity. I'm not exaggerating when I say that your misuse of the term is shameful.

---
US

No, you ignore over 7,000 singular pronoun references to God in the OT and you bring 4 "us" verses. In Genesis 3 God is speaking to the angels because he posts an angel to keep the Tree of Life. In Isaiah 6, he is speaking to the host of heaven because Isaiah volunteers. In Genesis 11 it is unclear who God is talking to, but using angels to bring judgment is commonplace in the OT. In Genesis 1, which is a favorite Trinitarian verse, actually says absolutely nothing about who God is talking to and does not mention persons or a Trinity or anything such thing. This is your OT evidence for a Trinity? That's nonsense.

---

BEFORE THE WORLD WAS

John 1:1 answers to the identity of Jesus from eternity. John 14 says nothing of an eternal Son. You are reading into it what is not there. Please read the biblical definition of why the Son of God is called the Son in Luke 1:35.

---

Holy Spirit

Of course, there is an obvious distinction between the flesh and spirit, and between humanity and deity, but since 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. The Messiah was the perfect man, the fullness of deity tabernacled among us. What you are doing is drawing way too Roman much distinction and difference between Father, Son and Holy Ghost and mischaracterizing the relationships. Romans 8:4-10 makes it clear that the Spirit of Christ or the abiding Christ Himself is the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus the Father. Revelation 21:7 teaches that Jesus is our Father. The Apostles understood the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to mean the name of Jesus because this is this is how they baptized throughout the book of Acts. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily (Colossians 2:9).

You were robbed of sound theology according to Paul's prophetic words in Colossians 2:8, so you are used to thinking of God as three. Rather than grasp for elohim plurality straws, I would highly recommend taking a fresh look at the simplicity and beauty of Christ as the one true God. We are complete in him (Colossians 2:9).
 
You were robbed of sound theology according to Paul's prophetic words in Colossians 2:8, so you are used to thinking of God as three. Rather than grasp for elohim plurality straws, I would highly recommend taking a fresh look at the simplicity and beauty of Christ as the one true God. We are complete in him (Colossians 2:9).

And you call Christ a man.
 
Sorry but you can't have contradictions if you are in the truth and you have a big one here in John 2:22 and especially when John wrote that in regards to what he and the other disciples heard Jesus say in verse 19.

Like I said, Jesus can't have been both active and passive in his resurrection except in regard to him getting up from where he was laying in the tomb after God restored his life back into his body.


The point of what Jesus said was not to reveal that he would restore his own life back from death but rather that he would arise after they killed him, that was the point and the only point also. His rising from the dead was a sign just like the Jonah riddle was also.
" I will RAISE it".........Jesus Christ,
Case closed.
 
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
With God but no one knew him, only the father was known.

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
your misunderstanding, God is the father and Jesus is our saviour he sent. Didn't Jesus say God sent him?

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:
Same misunderstanding. God is our father and Jesus is our brother, how can you now this?

No, you have a contradiction, God sent Jesus to be the saviour of the world, didn't he? In your understanding, Jesus is his own father.
Our God and Savior, JESUS CHRIST.
 
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
With God but no one knew him, only the father was known.

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
your misunderstanding, God is the father and Jesus is our saviour he sent. Didn't Jesus say God sent him?

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:
Same misunderstanding. God is our father and Jesus is our brother, how can you now this?

No, you have a contradiction, God sent Jesus to be the saviour of the world, didn't he? In your understanding, Jesus is his own father.
Jesus Christ, our God, Lord, and Savior.
 
" I will RAISE it".........Jesus Christ,
Case closed.
And indeed he did but only after God first restored his life back into his body and what proves this to be the correct interpretation, is the fact that right after this in the context, John uses the passive voice verb "egerthe" = "he was raised up" to explain what he and the other disciples really understood Jesus to be meaning by what he said.

Do you even know what it means for a verb to be in the passive voice Johnny?

It means that the subject of the action is passive in the action and has nothing to do with it and the subject of the verb "raised" was Jesus.
 
And indeed he did but only after God first restored his life back into his body and what proves this to be the correct interpretation, is the fact that right after this in the context, John uses the passive voice verb "egerthe" = "he was raised up" to explain what he and the other disciples really understood Jesus to be meaning by what he said.

Do you even know what it means for a verb to be in the passive voice Johnny?

It means that the subject of the action is passive in the action and has nothing to do with it and the subject of the verb "raised" was Jesus.
You failed to provide any Scripture for your false Theology.
 
Therefore Jesus is not God. Scripture does not indicate god having a father
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).

Recap. The Father called the Son God and then said 'your God' has done X.
Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; (Is 9:6).
Child = humanity born of Mary
Son= divine given by the Father.
Notice before the incarnation Jesus is identified as the Son.

When was he not the son?
Are you stating that Son is an eternal title?

That is rubbish. Jesus was made a son according to the flesh for the suffering of death. Since God is the father of spirits it is evident Jesus existed as a spirit before becoming flesh.
Hebrews 12:9
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
You are grasping at straws.
Your explanation "Father of Spirits" equates to anything after 'the beginning' in John 1:1. That makes your version of the title "Father" not eternal, because He began being the Father after He started creating. If He decided to erase everything He created would He cease being the Father? No. He is the Eternal Father, which requires an Eternal Son to have such a title.
All believers will obtain eternal life with the designation as "sons" so what? Is that not also an eternal title also?

How do we as believers obtain eternal life? Wouldn't we also become eternal beings? Do you actually think before you write?
Spitting hairs. How does an immortal being bring into existence an immoral being?
(1)There is no mention of a trinity in the scripture.(
Absence of evidence proves nothing, it proves nothing in a court of law and it proves nothing here.

Your reasoning is flawed. You should test your theory against itself, and if it does not past the test then it is not true. You are using the same argument that the Atheist use to disprove God, that somehow absence of certain evidence proves absence of existence. Example: If God did exist He would have done A, or He would have done B, and since He did neither He does not exist. See the flaw. "If there is a Trinity it should be in the Bible." Omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent and immutable are not found in the Bible but we conclude from the scriptures that these rightly describe God. In a court of law you prove your case based on evidence, not by proving the absence of evidence.


2) Jesus said ...My God My God...Who was he referring to?
Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
You have been here long enough to know this is holding verses in isolation.
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).

“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).

Three identified as God.
That is foolishness. You are saying each God within the godhead each one God has two Gods which begs the question how many Gods do you have?
This is proof that you do not think before you write.
Only within the Godhead can one being refer to the other as “His God” and still maintain equality, regardless of who has authority. This is due to relationship.

John 20:17 "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Jesus returned to his God and to our God, he returned to his Father and our Father. But who did he return to? Who is Jesus' Father? Who is Jesus' God?

This is because of the relationship between Jesus and God vs. humanity and God. If Jesus is a created being should have addressed it as our God and our Father. Jesus said this because He is God’s Son by nature vs. humanity being God’s children by creation.

Only within the Godhead can one being refer to the other as “God” and still maintain equality, regardless of who has authority. This is due to relationship.

You have been here long enough to know this is holding verses in isolation.
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).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
With God but no one knew him, only the father was known.
And? How does this answer the question? 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,.
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
your misunderstanding, God is the father and Jesus is our saviour he sent. Didn't Jesus say God sent him?
So much wrong with this, but for starters, where in Scripture does it state that the Father would appear. Hint, only the Son appears.
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:
Same misunderstanding. God is our father and Jesus is our brother, how can you now this?
Wrong that is not what the verse reads.
...To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: (2 Pe 1:1).
In the original text 'our' is before God and Savior.
 
Yes you do and your "scripture as a whole" bit does not allow for you to disregard even one passage because you think that you have 7 others that say something else and as if truth was determined by putting verses on a balance scale to see which verses outweigh other verses and that is what you trins do also.


I used to do this myself when I was a trin and for better than 30 years also but it is corrupt and it will never lead you to the truth.

By the way, that passive voice verb "risen" in John 2:22 is not as you called it "my little idea" but it is what John as inspired by the Holy Spirit of God wrote and therefore it is God's idea and not mine and it is also not little either but very important to the context in order for us to understand what Jesus was truly meaning by what he said.

For whatever the disciples understood from what he said, must be what we understand also and that is why it is included in the context.
You are still missing he point. Scripture as a whole states that the Father, Son, and HS as God raised Jesus from the dead. So passive or active does not matter. Your verse is included in 'Scripture as a whole.' But the whole of Scripture does not fit into your idea.
 
I'll summarize here:

ELOHIM

No, it is shameful mythology for Trinitarians to torture the Hebrew Elohim and Echad. Since you mention Elohim, I recommend that you do a more thorough word study. Since you are a non-Hebrew speaking person pay special attention to how the word is used in other places such as its reference to the singular false god Dagon. Dagon was not a trinity. I'm not exaggerating when I say that your misuse of the term is shameful.
Plural intensive—singular meaning = Elohym governs a singular verb or adjective when referring to the God of Israel, but grammatically plural elohim, takes a plural or singular verb or adjective when used of pagan divinities. The name Elohym is unique to Hebraic thinking, and occurs only in Hebrew and in no other ancient Semitic language. I don't believe it could be translated into Greek and maintain a plural intensive syntax and remain singular in meaning.

I agree we have to see how the word is used.
  • SHEMA
  • Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord [YHWH} our God [Elohim], the Lord is one [Ehad]!”
  • This is part of the Shema, which was recited by the Jews twice a day, one in the morning and once in the evening. This confession of monotheism does not preclude the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. God is in plural form “Elohim” and implies the Trinity and “one” “ehad” implies unity.
  • “Ehad” means a united one; Adam and Eve were one “ehad” flesh. Our church is one “ehad” church.
  • If Moses wanted to state that God is a singular God he would of used “yahid” which means singular one as in one chair, or one table.
  • The Jews of the Old Testament were reciting their creed which spoke volumes of the Trinity.
  • [Plurality and unity of one]
  • Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord [YHWH} our God [Elohim] [plurality], the Lord is one [Ehad] [unity of one]!”


---
US

No, you ignore over 7,000 singular pronoun references to God in the OT and you bring 4 "us" verses. In Genesis 3 God is speaking to the angels because he posts an angel to keep the Tree of Life. In Isaiah 6, he is speaking to the host of heaven because Isaiah volunteers. In Genesis 11 it is unclear who God is talking to, but using angels to bring judgment is commonplace in the OT. In Genesis 1, which is a favorite Trinitarian verse, actually says absolutely nothing about who God is talking to and does not mention persons or a Trinity or anything such thing. This is your OT evidence for a Trinity? That's nonsense.
7K or 70K has no bearing if we find verses where God refers to Himself as a plurality. Nothing in the verses indicates that God is speaking to anyone else. You are reading into the verse what is not there.
---

BEFORE THE WORLD WAS

John 1:1 answers to the identity of Jesus from eternity. John 14 says nothing of an eternal Son. You are reading into it what is not there. Please read the biblical definition of why the Son of God is called the Son in Luke 1:35.
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; (Is 9:6).
Child = humanity born of Mary
Son= divine given by the Father.
Notice before the incarnation Jesus is identified as the Son.
---

Holy Spirit

Of course, there is an obvious distinction between the flesh and spirit, and between humanity and deity, but since 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. The Messiah was the perfect man, the fullness of deity tabernacled among us. What you are doing is drawing way too Roman much distinction and difference between Father, Son and Holy Ghost and mischaracterizing the relationships. Romans 8:4-10 makes it clear that the Spirit of Christ or the abiding Christ Himself is the Holy Spirit.
According to you this is erroneous? Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Mt 28:19).
It's very clear Jesus stated that there exist 3 individual.

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).
Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus the Father.
Actually, in Hebrew, the term ABI 'AD means "father of the age". The Greek LXX, therefore, translates the phrase as 'father of the coming age' (PATHR TOU MELLONTOS AIWNOS), and the Latin Vulgate follows with "pater futuri saeculi", ie, 'father of the world to come'.
Rather Jesus is being called "Father of Everlasting' vs Everlasting Father.
Revelation 21:7 teaches that Jesus is our Father.
No it does not. Read it again. Who will be called Jesus's son. = "He who overcomes"
Overcoming is a necessary condition to the Jesus' son.
The Apostles understood the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to mean the name of Jesus because this is this is how they baptized throughout the book of Acts.
Now you are omniscient, you understand what the Apostles understood, and this information is not recorded anywhere. And so what, how does this prove that the Father, Son and HS are not three separate individuals?

All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily (Colossians 2:9).
Agree
 
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).
The word in the Hebrew text is Elohim the same word used to make Moses a God. I have explained this many times. If Jesus is God then Moses is also God
Recap. The Father called the Son God and then said 'your God' has done X.
The word is Elohim. same as he made Moses.
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; (Is 9:6).
God was never born a child
Child = humanity born of Mary
Jesus was a man yes.
Son= divine given by the Father.
What do you mean by divine?
Notice before the incarnation Jesus is identified as the Son.
What incarnation? there is no mention of incarnation in the scripture. Incarnation is about Rama and Vishnu. Are you a Hindu?
Are you stating that Son is an eternal title?
You are stating eternal titles, not me.
You are grasping at straws.
at your strawmen
Your explanation "Father of Spirits" equates to anything after 'the beginning' in John 1:1.
Where does the scripture say that? As far as the scripture goes the beginning is referring to this world.
That makes your version of the title "Father" not eternal, because He began being the Father after He started creating.
What rubbish are you speaking? If believers can become eternal how can you imagine in your minute brain that the father cannot be eternal?
If He decided to erase everything He created would He cease being the Father? No. He is the Eternal Father, which requires an Eternal Son to have such a title.
Since sons come from their fathers if he erased everything he created then the son would be erased also. You are not making any sense. Where do you suppose sons come from? Are they not offsprings of their father?
Spitting hairs. How does an immortal being bring into existence an immoral being?
By giving them eternal life. Do you actually think before you type? 1 Cor 15
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Absence of evidence proves nothing, it proves nothing in a court of law and it proves nothing here.
That is the absence of facts, sir. The fact is there is no mention of a trinity in the scripture. You cannot deny that fact.
Your reasoning is flawed. You should test your theory against itself, and if it does not past the test then it is not true. You are using the same argument that the Atheist use to disprove God, that somehow absence of certain evidence proves absence of existence.
Nope, those are two different arguments. No one has seen God, have they? They have seen the bible and they have seen what is in the bible.
Example: If God did exist He would have done A, or He would have done B, and since He did neither He does not exist. See the flaw.
I never made that argument neither is my argument close to that.
"If there is a Trinity it should be in the Bible."
But it is not, is it? Your claim is that the God of the Bible is a trinity. If that is the case then the bible must say that.
Omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent and immutable are not found in the Bible but we conclude from the scriptures that these rightly describe God. In a court of law you prove your case based on evidence, not by proving the absence of evidence.
Oh yes, they are but in different words. God is almighty is he not? Omniscience=
Acts 15:18
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
omnipotent= God gave Jesus all power
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

omnipresent=Ps 1398 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
immutable=
Hebrews 6:18
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
I proved my case with evidence that shows you have no evidence to prove your case.
Please show us where it says God is three
You have been here long enough to know this is holding verses in isolation.
I gave you two separate verses from different writers matt and Jn
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).
Isn't this a verse out of context and in isolation...The word God is written Elohim in the Psalm, the same word god used for Moses when he made him a god/Elohim
 
Back
Top