All the Fulness of Deity dwells in Him Bodily !

[Stephen]

You have read two different points in time into the scriptural quote. When in the passage it says dwells it is only referring to a present ongoing action rather than indicating a change. I didn't see anything in the commentator's words or those of the poster which stated or implied a change in this regard.

Let's read the quote and parse the changes:

"Paul is talking in Col chapters 2-3 about the glorified resurrected Christ now seated at the right hand of God not the earthly Christ pre resurrection. ​

The OP says Colossians 2-3 is referring to A and not B, which means there is a difference between the two. That is the function of the word "not" in the sentence.

Let's identify the differences he highlights:

From: Earthly Christ​

To: Glorified Resurrected Christ​

From: pre resurrection​

To: now seated at the right hand of God​

If you can't spot the fact that the OP was identifying two differing time periods, and how Christ had changed between the time periods, I don't know what clearer way the OP could have noted such things.

The Word that was in the beginning with God, and was God, became flesh and dwelt among us is the answer to the question of who is Jesus? Peter's representative answer to the question, "who do you guys say I am?" (Matt 16:15-17) did not and does not exclude John 1. Therefore, since you currently deny the Scriptural witness as to who Jesus is, the Jesus who you refer to is two different persons.

Let's go to the scriptures:

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”​

​

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”​

​

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.​

Here's what the scriptures confirm:

1. Peter doesn't say that Jesus is "the Word".
2. Peter does say that Jesus is the son of God.
3. Jesus confirms that God is his father.

The interaction between Peter and Jesus doesn't assert that Jesus is the word as you are trying to claim. What it does do is blow trinitarian doctrine out of the water in multiple ways, 1) It affirms that Jesus is God's son rather than God, and 2) the God of Jesus and Peter is one person rather than the collection of persons in the trinity.

When you cite, "today I have begotten you, etc.," you are affirming the Scriptural witness and the right reflection of it in the Trinitarian creed if you adhere to the immediate context of Hebrews 1. (For example, it once again says all things were created through the Son. “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;” (Heb 1:2, KJVA)

The context of Hebrews 1 is clearly identified by the author:

2:5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.​

I have no idea what you are trying to impose by the difference between "begotten" (brought into existence) rather than "made" (cause to exist) as this seems to be some sort of red herring. Who cares about whatever difference you think is there?

Jesus was begotten on a day. Pick whatever day you like. It means he wasn't always with the father.

Also, begotten not made, refers to the resurrection. Who raised Jesus? The one God raised Jesus. That necessarily is inclusive of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For example, Jesus said, "Destroy this temple (referring to His body) and I will raise it up." See John 2:19.

God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus does not use the words "from the dead" in John 2:19. When Jesus was dead, he was dead. He wasn't doing anything. That is what being dead is.

Let's read a few versus down to see how the apostles understood the event:

22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.​

As the apostles witnessed it, Jesus was acted upon in being raised from the dead rather than being the actor. If the apostles understood the resurrection from the dead the way you insist upon, it would say "After Jesus raised himself from the dead".

 

[BJ Bear]

Let's read the quote and parse the changes:

"Paul is talking in Col chapters 2-3 about the glorified resurrected Christ now seated at the right hand of God not the earthly Christ pre resurrection. ​

The OP says Colossians 2-3 is referring to A and not B, which means there is a difference between the two. That is the function of the word "not" in the sentence.

Stating what is true of something at a point in time is not the same as saying something changed. For example, saying that Joe, who just entered the academy at age nineteen, and who has brown eyes and brown hair, is not the same as saying something like, "In earlier years Joe had no eyes and green hair.

Let's identify the differences he highlights:

From: Earthly Christ​

To: Glorified Resurrected Christ​

From: pre resurrection​

To: now seated at the right hand of God​

If you can't spot the fact that the OP was identifying two differing time periods, and how Christ had changed between the time periods, I don't know what clearer way the OP could have noted such things.

This was covered in a previous post. Peter's words don't exclude John 1, remember? Nor are his words contrary to John 1. The unbelievers in John 5 sought the more to kill Jesus because Jesus said ______?

For convenience, here is the relevant portion of John 5. “17. Jesus replied to them, "My Father is working right now, and so am I." 18. His reply made the Jews more intent on killing him. Not only did he break the laws about the day of worship, but also he made himself equal to God when he said repeatedly that God was his Father.” (Joh 5:17-18, GodsWord)

A person who doesn't recognize what he is reading into a text will not reach a right or lasting conclusion.

The context of Hebrews 1 is clearly identified by the author:

2:5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.​

I have no idea what you are trying to impose by the difference between "begotten" (brought into existence) rather than "made" (cause to exist) as this seems to be some sort of red herring. Who cares about whatever difference you think is there?

Jesus was begotten on a day. Pick whatever day you like. It means he wasn't always with the father.

Hebrews 2:5 comes after a preceding chapter and preceding verses, including the one in which it is clearly stated that the creation is through the Son, Jesus.

God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus does not use the words "from the dead" in John 2:19. When Jesus was dead, he was dead. He wasn't doing anything. That is what being dead is.

Let's read a few versus down to see how the apostles understood the event:

22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.​

As the apostles witnessed it, Jesus was acted upon in being raised from the dead rather than being the actor. If the apostles understood the resurrection from the dead the way you insist upon, it would say "After Jesus raised himself from the dead".

The citation omits the context, the intervening verses. Here they are, “20. The Jews said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple. Do you really think you're going to rebuild it in three days?" 21. But the temple Jesus spoke about was his own body.” (Joh 2:20-21, GodsWord)

Looking at what you cited again, it is clear that the fact of Jesus being raised from the dead brought to the mind of the disciples what Jesus said. Although it is now highlighted above in red bold here is the pertinent section for emphasis.

“After he came back to life, his disciples remembered that he had said this. So they believed the Scripture and this statement that Jesus had made.” (Joh 2:22, GodsWord)

Btw, from the content of your reply it is apparent that you continue to avoid the fact that the Word that was with God, and was God, and dwelt among us is Jesus.

 

[Stephen]

Stating what is true of something at a point in time is not the same as saying something changed. For example, saying that Joe, who just entered the academy at age nineteen, and who has brown eyes and brown hair, is not the same as saying something like, "In earlier years Joe had no eyes and green hair.

Stating something is A and "not" B, means he is identifying something that was different between A and B. For example, Jesus was mortal before the resurrection, and not mortal afterwards. He would have to die to be resurrected which necessitates that he be mortal. Also, before the resurrection he was not glorified, but later was glorified, you can tell because he prayed to be glorified. If this sort of thing contradicts your pet doctrine, then I suggest your doctrine is in error.

This was covered in a previous post. Peter's words don't exclude John 1, remember? Nor are his words contrary to John 1. The unbelievers in John 5 sought the more to kill Jesus because Jesus said ______?

For convenience, here is the relevant portion of John 5. “17. Jesus replied to them, "My Father is working right now, and so am I." 18. His reply made the Jews more intent on killing him. Not only did he break the laws about the day of worship, but also he made himself equal to God when he said repeatedly that God was his Father.” (Joh 5:17-18, GodsWord)

A person who doesn't recognize what he is reading into a text will not reach a right or lasting conclusion.

I agree that Peter's words don't exclude John 1 just as "apples" don't exclude "dreams". They are two different things. You can tell Peter isn't talking about "the word" because he doesn't call Jesus "the word" but rather insists that Jesus is the son of God rather than being God.

Regarding your most recent verse citation. It seems you wish to accept the testimony of those who wanted to murder Jesus and who called Jesus a sinner (Sabbath breaker) as being authoritative:

18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.​

Christ's own testimony on the matter of his equality with his father:

28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.​

On the equality of Christ relative to his father, I accept the testimony of Christ over the testimony of those who wanted to murder him. As the two testimonies are in direct contradiction, one must be chosen over the other. In my view, accepting the testimony of the murderers over the testimony of the Christ is simply wrong.

Hebrews 2:5 comes after a preceding chapter and preceding verses, including the one in which it is clearly stated that the creation is through the Son, Jesus.

Yes Hebrews 2:5 does come after Hebrews 1, and it tells you what was being spoken of in Hebrews 1, he actually uses the words "about which we are speaking". In Hebrews 2:5 the author tells you which creation he is talking about, the one to come. And as is the gospel message, we are all new creations in Christ Jesus.

The citation omits the context, the intervening verses. Here they are, “20. The Jews said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple. Do you really think you're going to rebuild it in three days?" 21. But the temple Jesus spoke about was his own body.” (Joh 2:20-21, GodsWord)

Looking at what you cited again, it is clear that the fact of Jesus being raised from the dead brought to the mind of the disciples what Jesus said. Although it is now highlighted above in red bold here is the pertinent section for emphasis.

“After he came back to life, his disciples remembered that he had said this. So they believed the Scripture and this statement that Jesus had made.” (Joh 2:22, GodsWord)

That's right. Jesus got up and walked out of the tomb and the apostles believed what he said. Christ's own testimony doesn't include the words "from the dead". The "from the dead" part comes from an outside agency, which is what the apostles believed (see verse 22), it is what Paul believed:

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.​

And as the writher to the Hebrews testifies, Jesus had to pray to somebody else to save him from death, and his prayers were answered

Hebrews 5:7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.​

If you have to read the words "from the dead" into Christ's statement, you are reading into the text something that simply isn't there (something you are accusing me of), and also something that is directly contradicted multiple places elsewhere. And further scripture is so bold to link your salvation to the fact that you must believe that somebody other than Jesus raised him from the dead.

Btw, from the content of your reply it is apparent that you continue to avoid the fact that the Word that was with God, and was God, and dwelt among us is Jesus.

What the bible says is that the word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Didn't you even read the passage? It doesn't say the word dwelled among us. The word was made into something and that something is what dwelled among us.

 

[BJ Bear]

Stating something is A and "not" B, means he is identifying something that was different between A and B. For example, Jesus was mortal before the resurrection, and not mortal afterwards. He would have to die to be resurrected which necessitates that he be mortal. Also, before the resurrection he was not glorified, but later was glorified, you can tell because he prayed to be glorified. If this sort of thing contradicts your pet doctrine, then I suggest your doctrine is in error.

In this instance, the context makes it clear that identifying a when of the Who under discussion doesn't indicate a change of the Who.

I agree that Peter's words don't exclude John 1 just as "apples" don't exclude "dreams". They are two different things. You can tell Peter isn't talking about "the word" because he doesn't call Jesus "the word" but rather insists that Jesus is the son of God rather than being God.

The Son of God indicates essence, unlike with other creatures, for example, Adam and others who are called the son of God in a different context. See the previously cited verses from John 5 which you try to respond to below.

Regarding your most recent verse citation. It seems you wish to accept the testimony of those who wanted to murder Jesus and who called Jesus a sinner (Sabbath breaker) as being authoritative:

18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.​

Scripture tells us the truth in this regard, why do you seek to denigrate God's word? See the red bold above and try and demonstrate the lie from the text or from Jesus not pointing out their error in this regard.

Christ's own testimony on the matter of his equality with his father:

28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.​

On the equality of Christ relative to his father, I accept the testimony of Christ over the testimony of those who wanted to murder him. As the two testimonies are in direct contradiction, one must be chosen over the other. In my view, accepting the testimony of the murderers over the testimony of the Christ is simply wrong.

No, to accept the witness of Christ in this regard is to accept the witness of Christ to those who sought the more to kill Him. (See the context of John 5.) The reply of Jesus goes on for twenty-nine verses. In those verses Jesus speaks of His equality with His Father and His role as the Son.

People err greatly when instead of reading what Scripture says and means according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given then take passages out of context to suit their own purposes.

Yes Hebrews 2:5 does come after Hebrews 1, and it tells you what was being spoken of in Hebrews 1, he actually uses the words "about which we are speaking". In Hebrews 2:5 the author tells you which creation he is talking about, the one to come. And as is the gospel message, we are all new creations in Christ Jesus.

You're still ignoring and denying the context of Hebrews 1. For example, nothing in Hebrews two denies that all of creation was through the Son, Hebrews 1:2; He holds everything together through the power of His word, Hebrews 1:3, etc.

A person who ignores and denies the context of Hebrews 1 also ignores and denies that the Son is the one through whom all things are made, that is, he will miss, “10. God also said, "Lord, in the beginning you laid the foundation of the earth. With your own hands you made the heavens.11. They will come to an end, but you will live forever. They will all wear out like clothes. 12. They will be taken off like a coat. You will change them like clothes. But you remain the same, and your life will never end.” (Heb 1:10-12, GodsWord)

Focusing the reader on the "new clothes" to come doesn't deny the old clothes or the one through whom both sets of "clothes" are created and upheld.

That's right. Jesus got up and walked out of the tomb and the apostles believed what he said. Christ's own testimony doesn't include the words "from the dead". The "from the dead" part comes from an outside agency, which is what the apostles believed (see verse 22),

That ignores the context since it was the fact of the resurrection that led the disciples to remember what Jesus said, "I will raise it up," see John 2:19.

it is what Paul believed:

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.​

Saying God raised Jesus necessarily means that Jesus is not excluded. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and was God... John 1.

And as the writher to the Hebrews testifies, Jesus had to pray to somebody else to save him from death, and his prayers were answered

Hebrews 5:7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.​

If you have to read the words "from the dead" into Christ's statement, you are reading into the text something that simply isn't there (something you are accusing me of), and also something that is directly contradicted multiple places elsewhere. And further scripture is so bold to link your salvation to the fact that you must believe that somebody other than Jesus raised him from the dead.

If a person pays attention to the context of Hebrews 5 then he will see that the context is only the role of the Son.

See the section above on John 5. If a person reads the rest of John chapter five closely then he will see that equality and role are not synonymous.

What the bible says is that the word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Didn't you even read the passage? It doesn't say the word dwelled among us. The word was made into something and that something is what dwelled among us.

"Didn't you even read the passage? It doesn't say the Word," ceased to be God and dwelt among us.

 

[Stephen]

In this instance, the context makes it clear that identifying a when of the Who under discussion doesn't indicate a change of the Who.

Is your argument that Jesus was never glorified and is at present an unglorified mortal? Before his resurrection, he was most definitely a mortal, you can tell he was mortal because he died. He was also not glorified, because he prays to be glorified. If you accept that he is no longer mortal and that he is at present glorified, then you must accept that he changed and the change is important. And as a consequence, your objection to my post is moot.

The Son of God indicates essence, unlike with other creatures, for example, Adam and others who are called the son of God in a different context. See the previously cited verses from John 5 which you try to respond to below.

This is a textbook example of "reading into the scriptures". The word "essence" and "unlike other creatures" are absent from the scriptures. Jesus is identified as the son of God in scriptures to make the connection with the others, not to set him apart. One of the great promises of the scriptures is:

Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. - 1 John 3:2​

Scripture tells us the truth in this regard, why do you seek to denigrate God's word? See the red bold above and try and demonstrate the lie from the text or from Jesus not pointing out their error in this regard.

No, to accept the witness of Christ in this regard is to accept the witness of Christ to those who sought the more to kill Him. (See the context of John 5.) The reply of Jesus goes on for twenty-nine verses. In those verses Jesus speaks of His equality with His Father and His role as the Son.

People err greatly when instead of reading what Scripture says and means according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given then take passages out of context to suit their own purposes.

Let's go through some of Christ's comments in the next 29 verses in John 5 and ask the question: does Jesus 1) support the idea of his equality with God or 2) reject the idea of equality with God.

Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself;​

By myself I can do nothing; ​

If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.​

For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me.​

And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.​

I have come in my Father’s name, ​

How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God​

But do not think I will accuse you before the Father.​

If we actually read the passage, Jesus constantly reiterates that he is in the service of his god and their god. This is one of the few times Jesus defended himself against a false accusation and we should accept his defense as genuine. His clear words in regard to the relationship between him and his father were "my father is greater than I". Jesus was not a sinner (a Sabbath breaker) and he was not claiming to be equal to his father.

If you have to cling to the idea that Jesus is a sinner and is equal to his God despite his clear objections to the idea, then what more clear way could Jesus say that his father is greater than him?

You're still ignoring and denying the context of Hebrews 1. For example, nothing in Hebrews two denies that all of creation was through the Son, Hebrews 1:2; He holds everything together through the power of His word, Hebrews 1:3, etc.

A person who ignores and denies the context of Hebrews 1 also ignores and denies that the Son is the one through whom all things are made, that is, he will miss, “10. God also said, "Lord, in the beginning you laid the foundation of the earth. With your own hands you made the heavens.11. They will come to an end, but you will live forever. They will all wear out like clothes. 12. They will be taken off like a coat. You will change them like clothes. But you remain the same, and your life will never end.” (Heb 1:10-12, GodsWord)

Focusing the reader on the "new clothes" to come doesn't deny the old clothes or the one through whom both sets of "clothes" are created and upheld.

The word "aionas" (ages) in Hebrews 1:2 does not mean "all of creation". I do not deny that the ages were made through Christ. If you actually read the passage, God is the active agent, and Christ is the passive instrument which God used. As Jesus showed the apostles after his resurrection, the scriptures spoke of him. The apostles testified throughout the New Testament that Jesus is the man in the image of God. He is the pinnacle of the creation. Hebrews 1:3 actually identifies Jesus as the radiance of God and the exact imprint of God's hypostases. Which by definition means that Jesus is not God, but rather he is an imprint of God.

And then we move to a red herring, a quotation of Psalm 102, where the speaker is claimed to be God (and presumably speaking to the son). Let's read the Psalm:

For my days vanish like smoke;​

my bones burn like glowing embers.​

My heart is blighted and withered like grass;​

I forget to eat my food.​

In my distress I groan aloud​

and am reduced to skin and bones.​

I am like a desert owl,​

like an owl among the ruins.​

I lie awake; I have become​

like a bird alone on a roof.​

All day long my enemies taunt me;​

those who rail against me use my name as a curse.​

For I eat ashes as my food​

and mingle my drink with tears​

because of your great wrath,​

for you have taken me up and thrown me aside.​

My days are like the evening shadow;​

I wither away like grass.​

God is not in distress, his bones don't burn like embers, he isn't reduced to skin and bones, and he isn't oppressed by somebody else's great wrath. What God did do was lay the foundation of the earth, and by his own hands he made the heavens. God isn't speaking, God is the one being spoken to. The word "God" doesn't appear in greek in Hebrews 1:10 which is citing Psalm 102. We have another textbook instance of somebody "reading into the scriptures" and using their reading into as some sort of proof.

That ignores the context since it was the fact of the resurrection that led the disciples to remember what Jesus said, "I will raise it up," see John 2:19.

Saying God raised Jesus necessarily means that Jesus is not excluded. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and was God... John 1.

It remains, the scripture you wish to use to prove that Jesus raised himself "from the dead", Jesus didn't actually say "from the dead" and further the way the apostles interpreted the event was that Jesus "was raised from the dead" not "raised himself from the dead". If you have to read into the scriptures that Christ meant "from the dead" as your proof, then just be clear to yourself that your evidence isn't Christ's words, but what you read into Christ's words. And saying that God raised Jesus from the dead does necessarily exclude Jesus because God was identified separately from Jesus as Paul stated:

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.​

This is how you would identify God as one party and Jesus as another party. If it was important that Jesus raised himself, Paul is skillful enough with language to say something to the effect of "Jesus raised himself".

If a person pays attention to the context of Hebrews 5 then he will see that the context is only the role of the Son.

See the section above on John 5. If a person reads the rest of John chapter five closely then he will see that equality and role are not synonymous.

This whole "role of the son" nonsense is another textbook example of "reading into the scriptures". Jesus is God's son, he's not playing a role, he is the son of God. If we read Hebrews 5, God says to Jesus "You are my son", not "You are in the role of my son". Just like we aren't to be in the "role" of children of God, but we are to be children of God.

"Didn't you even read the passage? It doesn't say the Word," ceased to be God and dwelt among us.

It says the "word" "became" something else and that something is Jesus. The thing the word became was mortal, and powerless, and God was identified as his father. If God is Jesus's father, by definition that means Jesus isn't God.

 

[BJ Bear]

Is your argument that Jesus was never glorified and is at present an unglorified mortal? Before his resurrection, he was most definitely a mortal, you can tell he was mortal because he died. He was also not glorified, because he prays to be glorified. If you accept that he is no longer mortal and that he is at present glorified, then you must accept that he changed and the change is important. And as a consequence, your objection to my post is moot.



This is a textbook example of "reading into the scriptures". The word "essence" and "unlike other creatures" are absent from the scriptures. Jesus is identified as the son of God in scriptures to make the connection with the others, not to set him apart. One of the great promises of the scriptures is:

Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. - 1 John 3:2​

My claim is nothing other than that of John, Paul, and the rest of the OT and NT. The word that was in the beginning with God, and was God, and dwelt among us, John 1:1-14. His prayer in John 17 was that He be glorified with the glory He had with God before there was a creation, John 17:1-5.

In other words, when Scripture refers to the incarnation, or Jesus who is the Christ, it is referring to a single person, the Word incarnate. So Paul, the writer to the Hebrews, etc., refer to Jesus, the Son of the living God, the Christ, as the one through whom all things were created.

I've previously demonstrated the above from the immediate context of passages you cute and will continue to do so. Its not like the Apostles and Evangelists were ambiguous in their witness regarding the LORD God incarnate for all men.

Regarding 1John, read the epistle and consider the context. For example it starts this way regarding the Word which in the beginning was with God, and was God, “1. The Word of life existed from the beginning. We have heard it. We have seen it. We observed and touched it.2. This life was revealed to us. We have seen it, and we testify about it. We are reporting to you about this eternal life that was in the presence of the Father and was revealed to us. 3. This is the life we have seen and heard. We are reporting about it to you also so that you, too, can have a relationship with us. Our relationship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4. We are writing this so that we can be completely filled with joy.” (1Jo 1:1-4, GodsWord)

If you consider the context and continue reading from the passage you cited through the first few passages of 1John 4 then you will find, “1. Dear friends, don't believe all people who say that they have the Spirit. Instead, test them. See whether the spirit they have is from God, because there are many false prophets in the world.2. This is how you can recognize God's Spirit: Every person who declares that Jesus Christ has come as a human has the Spirit that is from God. 3. But every person who doesn't declare that Jesus Christ has come as a human has a spirit that isn't from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that you have heard is coming. That spirit is already in the world.” (1Jo 4:1-3, GodsWord)

It is again the singular person being referred to, the Word incarnate, Jesus who is the Christ.

Let's go through some of Christ's comments in the next 29 verses in John 5 and ask the question: does Jesus 1) support the idea of his equality with God or 2) reject the idea of equality with God.

<snipped because of length>​

Well you omitted a passage which defeats your claims and the purpose of citing passages from John 5. Here it is, “Jesus said to the Jews, "I can guarantee this truth: The Son cannot do anything on his own. He can do only what he sees the Father doing. Indeed, the Son does exactly what the Father does.” (Joh 5:19, GodsWord) That is a clear declaration of equality. What is different is the observable role of the incarnate Word, Jesus, in taking away the sin of the world.

The rest of what you cited above is an affirmation of His equality to all who are familiar with the Law and the Prophets, and have at least a modest understanding of them. Jesus was not saying anything that is contrary to God being His father and that He is equal to the Father.

For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me.​

Jesus is doing the works, the miracles, etc, unlike other creatures like Peter and John, see Acts 3:1-16. His role as the incarnate Son is to do the works which His Father has given Him to do.

And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.​

Jesus is again referring to the law and the Prophets. As Andrew put it, “Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the man whom Moses wrote about in his teachings and whom the prophets wrote about. He is Jesus, son of Joseph, from the city of Nazareth."” (Joh 1:45, GodsWord)

I have come in my Father’s name, ​

How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God​

But do not think I will accuse you before the Father.​

The incarnate Word that was with God, and was God, has come from the only God. That is again a claim of equality to anyone paying attention to the context.

If we actually read the passage, Jesus constantly reiterates that he is in the service of his god and their god. This is one of the few times Jesus defended himself against a false accusation and we should accept his defense as genuine. His clear words in regard to the relationship between him and his father were "my father is greater than I". Jesus was not a sinner (a Sabbath breaker) and he was not claiming to be equal to his father.

See above regarding the passage from John 5 which you omitted, and the rest above regarding what you've cited from John 5.

If you have to cling to the idea that Jesus is a sinner and is equal to his God despite his clear objections to the idea, then what more clear way could Jesus say that his father is greater than him?

That is a non sequitur. Nowhere have I claimed Jesus was a sinner, and continue to mischaracterize John 5 and the rest of Scripture.

If you are again hopscotching through Scripture and are now referring to John 14:28 then the statement has to do with roles of the Father and the Son. The Word became incarnate in the service of the Father to suffer, die, and be raised for all men.

The word "aionas" (ages) in Hebrews 1:2 does not mean "all of creation". I do not deny that the ages were made through Christ. <snipped because of length>.

The contrast in Hebrews 1 is between the two creations or two sets of clothes. In other words, It is just as Hebrews 1:2 says, Jesus created the ages or worlds.

And then we move to a red herring, a quotation of Psalm 102, <snipped because of length>

That is your red herring since a psalm wasn't quoted in my previous reply.

It remains, the scripture you wish to use to prove that Jesus raised himself "from the dead", Jesus didn't actually say "from the dead" and further the way the apostles interpreted the event was that Jesus "was raised from the dead" not "raised himself from the dead". If you have to read into the scriptures that Christ meant "from the dead" as your proof, then just be clear to yourself that your evidence isn't Christ's words, but what you read into Christ's words. And saying that God raised Jesus ...<snipped because of length>

Regardless of your misinterpretation it was the fact of the death and resurrection of Jesus that reminded the Apostles of these words of Jesus, "I will raise it up," see John 2.

This whole "role of the son" nonsense is another textbook example of "reading into the scriptures". Jesus is God's son, he's not playing a role, he is the son of God. If we read Hebrews 5, God says to Jesus "You are my son", not "You are in the role of my son". Just like we aren't to be in the "role" of children of God, but we are to be children of God.

His role as the incarnate Son in taking away the signs of the world is different from the Father's role since the Father was not incarnate.

It says the "word" "became" something else and that something is Jesus. The thing the word became was mortal, and powerless, and God was identified as his father. If God is Jesus's father, by definition that means Jesus isn't God.

Read Scripture according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it is given. Don't despise and mock God and his word by treating it like a set of blocks or wax nose. People can make Scripture say anything when they take it out of context

The revelation of Christ in Scripture is greater than the miniscule reasoning power of sinful men. Christians receive that witness through faith rather than look around and count noses and then say to themselves God must conform to how I perceive people on earth.

 

[101G]

It is again the singular person being referred to, the Word incarnate, Jesus who is the Christ.

Not to interrupt your conversatation, but when a good point is made, it needs discussion, and clarification with edification.
correct, at John 1:1 the Word is a Single person, who is the same single person that is God, John 1:1c.

but my question to you, how is this one single person, "THE WORD" is the same single person who is "GOD?".

looking to hear your reply, thanks.
PICJAG, 101G.

 

[Stephen]

My claim is nothing other than that of John, Paul, and the rest of the OT and NT. The word that was in the beginning with God, and was God, and dwelt among us, John 1:1-14. His prayer in John 17 was that He be glorified with the glory He had with God before there was a creation, John 17:1-5.

In other words, when Scripture refers to the incarnation, or Jesus who is the Christ, it is referring to a single person, the Word incarnate. So Paul, the writer to the Hebrews, etc., refer to Jesus, the Son of the living God, the Christ, as the one through whom all things were created.

I've previously demonstrated the above from the immediate context of passages you cute and will continue to do so. Its not like the Apostles and Evangelists were ambiguous in their witness regarding the LORD God incarnate for all men.

We began this discussion with you claiming me of postulating two Jesuses because I agreed with the OP that immediate context of Colossians 2 and 3 were referring to Christ after he was resurrected and glorified and also agreed that the immediate context of Colossians 2 and 3 were not referring to Christ before his death and glorification. The conclusion you can make from Colossians 2 and 3 is that point in time in which the phrase "in him dwells the godhead bodily" is his present state, not his mortal state.

This seems to conflict with whatever strange doctrine you are promoting, you have wandered all over John's writings, but have yet to discuss Colossians 2 and 3. If you are going be claiming to discuss immediate context, such a claim would be better supported if you actually cited the passage under discussion one or more times.

Regarding 1John, read the epistle and consider the context. For example it starts this way regarding the Word which in the beginning was with God, and was God, “1. The Word of life existed from the beginning. We have heard it. We have seen it. We observed and touched it.2. This life was revealed to us. We have seen it, and we testify about it. We are reporting to you about this eternal life that was in the presence of the Father and was revealed to us. 3. This is the life we have seen and heard. We are reporting about it to you also so that you, too, can have a relationship with us. Our relationship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4. We are writing this so that we can be completely filled with joy.” (1Jo 1:1-4, GodsWord)

Let's read on in 1 John and see what time period John places "the beginning" at:

Beloved, I am not writing a new command to you, but an old command which you have had from the beginning. The old command is the Word which you have heard. 2:7​

As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 2:24​

This is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 3:11​

If your doctrine claims that "in the beginning" means "before the creation", John and the people he was writing to understood "the beginning" being referred to as something completely different. They were there in "the beginning", they heard from "the beginning".

If you consider the context and continue reading from the passage you cited through the first few passages of 1John 4 then you will find, “1. Dear friends, don't believe all people who say that they have the Spirit. Instead, test them. See whether the spirit they have is from God, because there are many false prophets in the world.2. This is how you can recognize God's Spirit: Every person who declares that Jesus Christ has come as a human has the Spirit that is from God. 3. But every person who doesn't declare that Jesus Christ has come as a human has a spirit that isn't from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that you have heard is coming. That spirit is already in the world.” (1Jo 4:1-3, GodsWord)

It is again the singular person being referred to, the Word incarnate, Jesus who is the Christ.

You are correct, 1 John tells you a way to spot a false prophet. Jesus is human. If you think he came as something else, like say "God" or "LORD God" or whatever, you are an antichrist.

So putting it all together. John and the people he was writing to were there from "the beginning" putting "the beginning" being spoken of as the time period of Christ's ministry. And what they heard was the word made flesh, from the beginning. And anybody who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is an antichrist. I agree with all of that.

Well you omitted a passage which defeats your claims and the purpose of citing passages from John 5. Here it is, “Jesus said to the Jews, "I can guarantee this truth: The Son cannot do anything on his own. He can do only what he sees the Father doing. Indeed, the Son does exactly what the Father does.” (Joh 5:19, GodsWord) That is a clear declaration of equality. What is different is the observable role of the incarnate Word, Jesus, in taking away the sin of the world.

The fact that Jesus copies his father doesn't make him equal to his father. It is a further statement of inequality. He does what he sees the father doing, like a human children do when they learn from their parents. The father shows the son what he is doing, just like human parents do for their children. If Jesus was equal to God, God wouldn't have to show him anything, and he wouldn't have to see what the father is doing. This isn't a statement of equality, quite the opposite, this is Jesus saying that his father his showing him how to do things.

Jesus is doing the works, the miracles, etc, unlike other creatures like Peter and John, see Acts 3:1-16. His role as the incarnate Son is to do the works which His Father has given Him to do.

Read that again and more slowly. Peter also did miracles. And if Christ's father gave him a task to do, then we have another clear statement of inequality.

Jesus is again referring to the law and the Prophets. As Andrew put it, “Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the man whom Moses wrote about in his teachings and whom the prophets wrote about. He is Jesus, son of Joseph, from the city of Nazareth."” (Joh 1:45, GodsWord)

Read that again. Everybody present said that Jesus is "the man whom Moses wrote about". Nobody believed Jesus was God. Let's read the passage Phillip was referring to:

18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.​

Again, a clear statement of inequality between God and this man. God will raise him up. He will be from among the Israelites. God will put his words in that man's mouth. The man will do what God commands him. What greater declaration of inequality between God and the man God raised up could there be?

That is a non sequitur. Nowhere have I claimed Jesus was a sinner, and continue to mischaracterize John 5 and the rest of Scripture.

If you are asserting that Christ's opponents were correct, that Jesus broke the sabbath and was making himself equal to God, then yes, you did claim that Jesus was a sinner.

If you are again hopscotching through Scripture and are now referring to John 14:28 then the statement has to do with roles of the Father and the Son. The Word became incarnate in the service of the Father to suffer, die, and be raised for all men.

John 14:28 is a clear declaration by Christ of his relationship to his father as to his equality. He clearly claimed that he is not equal to his father. It isn’t hopscotching to bring in Christ’s testimony regarding his equality. Your claim is that he is equal to his father. He claims the opposite. One of you is right, and one of you is wrong. My money is on Jesus.

The contrast in Hebrews 1 is between the two creations or two sets of clothes. In other words, It is just as Hebrews 1:2 says, Jesus created the ages or worlds.

Hebrews 1:2 says "God created" not "Jesus created".

That is your red herring since a psalm wasn't quoted in my previous reply.

If you didn't know that Hebrews 1:10-12 is a quotation of Psalm 102, then please consider the fact that you didn't know enough about the passage to be utilizing it in a discussion.

Read Scripture according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it is given. Don't despise and mock God and his word by treating it like a set of blocks or wax nose. People can make Scripture say anything when they take it out of context

The revelation of Christ in Scripture is greater than the miniscule reasoning power of sinful men. Christians receive that witness through faith rather than look around and count noses and then say to themselves God must conform to how I perceive people on earth.

Accusations of this sort are not fruitful. (And once again, you identify the "word" as something other than a person)

 

[BJ Bear]

Not to interrupt your conversatation, but when a good point is made, it needs discussion, and clarification with edification.
correct, at John 1:1 the Word is a Single person, who is the same single person that is God, John 1:1c.

but my question to you, how is this one single person, "THE WORD" is the same single person who is "GOD?".

looking to hear your reply, thanks.
PICJAG, 101G.

I usually look at the material of dogmas for any definitive statement so I wouldn't say anything in this regard beyond the scriptural witness, i.e., "...and the Word was with God, and was God." See John 1:1.

If the question is regarding the philosophy used in establishing the dogma then it may not be using the same categories in the same way as those who framed it. Maybe you can clarify your question?

In the meantime from the Athanasian Creed:

"3 And the catholic* faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4 Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
5 For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost."

* The word catholic has an interesting history. If anyone reads through the actual history of the Christian churches involved in establishing the dogma then that person will realize that it is an error to read Roman Catholicism back into it. Emperor Theodosius "invited those who accepted the core of what is called trinitarian dogma to wear the badge of catholic christians." (Just a rough remembrance of something written by Pusey.)

 

[101G]

I usually look at the material of dogmas for any definitive statement so I wouldn't say anything in this regard beyond the scriptural witness, i.e., "...and the Word was with God, and was God." See John 1:1.

If the question is regarding the philosophy used in establishing the dogma then it may not be using the same categories in the same way as those who framed it. Maybe you can clarify your question?

In the meantime from the Athanasian Creed:

"3 And the catholic* faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4 Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
5 For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost."

* The word catholic has an interesting history. If anyone reads through the actual history of the Christian churches involved in establishing the dogma then that person will realize that it is an error to read Roman Catholicism back into it. Emperor Theodosius "invited those who accepted the core of what is called trinitarian dogma to wear the badge of catholic christians." (Just a rough remembrance of something written by Pusey.)

agreed.
I'm a "Diversified Oneness" just what the Lord Jesus taught, as well as his apostle, and also the early church disciple taught this also. the Lord Jesus is God in John 1:1 that is in the ECHAD of First and Last. just as Isaiah 41:4 and Isaiah 48:12 clearly points out.

this same teaching is expressed throught the NT, starting boldly in the book of ACT by his apostles and disciples.

now the catholic... I have only one ISSUE with them in their early church history. and here it is... "why they don't accept the truth of their church history that it was a woman who was their first BISHOP/PASTOR?.

and not only the catholic, there are many who do not ordain women at all, not just as Bishops/Pastors, but as Prophets as well as teachers also.
and these ordination are right in the bible clearly stated.

but there is a lot of work in the Church of these congregations,

stay blessed.

PICJAG, 101G

 

[Stephen]

Not to interrupt your conversatation, but when a good point is made, it needs discussion, and clarification with edification.
correct, at John 1:1 the Word is a Single person, who is the same single person that is God, John 1:1c.

but my question to you, how is this one single person, "THE WORD" is the same single person who is "GOD?".

looking to hear your reply, thanks.
PICJAG, 101G.

Wow, what a question. None of the premises of the question are true, so the question is nonsensical. The answer to the question is that "the word" isn't a person, and isn't the same single person who is God.

The word "logos" is used 40x in the book of John. It doesn't refer to a person in the 36 times outside of John 1. The word "logos" permeates the gospel of John, and it is ridiculous to have it mean one thing in the introduction of the book, but make it mean something out through the rest of the book.

 

[OldShepherd]

* * *
* The word catholic has an interesting history. If anyone reads through the actual history of the Christian churches involved in establishing the dogma then that person will realize that it is an error to read Roman Catholicism back into it. Emperor Theodosius "invited those who accepted the core of what is called trinitarian dogma to wear the badge of catholic christians." (Just a rough remembrance of something written by Pusey.)

"Catholic" is a Biblical word. Many people do not know this. It comes from two Greek word Kata Holos, which means "according to the whole." It occurs in the following 6 verses.
καθ ολης kath oles [1] Luke 4:14 [2] Luke 8:39 [3] Luke 23:5 [4] Acts of the Apostles 9:31 [5] Acts of the Apostles 9:42 [6] Acts of the Apostles 10:37

 

[101G]

Wow, what a question. None of the premises of the question are true, so the question is nonsensical. The answer to the question is that "the word" isn't a person, and isn't the same single person who is God.

Listen and Learn, "Word", G3056 λόγος logos (lo'-ğos) n.
1. a word, something said (including the thought).
]we don't need to go any futher

have you ever hear of the phrase, "my word is my rep.". listen and Learn, just a couple examples. Isaiah 38:4 "Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying," ..... then came? ... the word of the LORD? did the word walk by coming? of course not, it came by speaking. now who is the Word? answer the LORD. the LORD'S word is HIM, not somthing, or someone else word.... my God

listen, when Stephen speak, who do we see, or hear? answer Stephen, not 101G, because the words is not 101G's, but Stephen words..... underst5and. "the word was "WITH" God. is it not your own words you? listen and hear, now in layman's term to clearly understand.
Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." who is God's own ARM? God himself in flesh. scripture, Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?"if one would read Isaiah chapter 53, one will know that this ARM of God is the Lord Jesus... the Christ... correct... well 101G, what do this have to do with the "Word in John 1:1?". answer, Hebrews 1:1 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,"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;"
God did what? .... spoke and speaking means .... drum roll .... the use of a, a, a, a "Word". my God even in Layman terms is too easy not to understand. yes "a" word. listen to the definition of Logos

LOGOS means a word, something said (including the thought).
G3056 λόγος logos (lo'-ğos) n.
1. a word, something said (including the thought).

there it is "a" word spoken....... is this even in LAYMAN'S TERMS to easy not to UNDERSTAND? .......... can I have a "WORD" with you. oh this is too easy.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[Nathan P]

Colossians 2:9
King James Bible
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

Now read the Greek below on the present ongoing meaning of DWELLS . The bodily dwelling of Deity is permanent not temporary. The Incarnation was PERMANENT.

κατοικεῖ (katoikei)
Verb - Present Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's Greek 2730: To dwell in, settle in, be established in (permanently), inhabit. From kata and oikeo; to house permanently, i.e. Reside.

8.2 σωματικός, ή, όν; σωματικῶςa: (derivatives of σῶμαa ‘body,’ 8.1) pertaining to a physical body—‘bodily, physical, bodily form.’[1] Louw Nida

Expositor's Greek Testament
Colossians 2:9. in Him and in Him alone.—κατοικεῖ: “permanently dwells”. The reference is to the Exalted State, not only on account of the present, but of the context and Paul’s Christology generally.—πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος: “all the fulness of the Godhead”. πᾶν is emphatic, the whole fulness dwells in Christ.

Body
sōmatikṓs (an adverb, derived from 4984 /sōmatikós which is an adjective derived from 4983 /sṓma, "body") – bodily(used only in Col 2:9)Loew & Nida Greek Lexicon

Never once in the NT is soma ever used of something nonphysical or immaterial .

Paul is talking in Col chapters 2-3 about the glorified resurrected Christ now seated at the right hand of God not the earthly Christ pre resurrection. This is a slam dunk that He is in a human glorified resurrection body and that He continues to have all the fullness of Deity dwelling bodily in the present.

Bodily (σωματικῶς) In bodily fashion or bodily-wise. The verse contains two distinct assertions: 1. That the fullness of the Godhead eternally dwells in Christ. The present tense κατοικεῖ dwelleth, is used like ἐστιν is (the image), Colossians 1:15, to denote an eternal and essential characteristic of Christ's being. The indwelling of the divine fullness in Him is characteristic of Him as Christ, from all ages and to all ages. Hence the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him before His incarnation, when He was "in the form of God" (Philippians 2:6). The Word in the beginning, was with God and was God (John 1:1). It dwelt in Him during His incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and His glory which was beheld was the glory as of the Only begotten of the Father (John 1:14; compare 1 John 1:1-3). The fullness of the Godhead dwells in His glorified humanity in heaven.

2. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him in a bodily way, clothed the body. This means that it dwells in Him as one having a human body. This could not be true of His preincarnate state, when He was "in the form of God," for the human body was taken on by Him in the fullness of time, when "He became in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7), when the Word became flesh. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in His person from His birth to His ascension. He carried His human body with Him into heaven, and in His glorified body now and ever dwells the fullness of the Godhead. Vincent Greek Word Studies


(2:9) Commenting on the contents of this verse, Lightfoot says; “The apostle justifies the foregoing charge that the doctrine was not according to Christ: ‘In Christ dwells the whole plērōma (πληρωμα) (fulness, plenitude), the entire fulness of the Godhead, whereas they represent it to you as dispersed among several spiritual agencies. Christ is the fountain-head of all spiritual life, whereas they teach you to seek it in communion with inferior creatures.’ ”

“Dwelleth” is katoikei (κατοικει). Oikeō (Ὀικεω) means “to be at home.” Kata (Κατα), prefixed, means “down,” thus showing permanence. The compound verb was used of the permanent residents of a town as compared with the transient community. The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action. The translation reads: “Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fulness of the Godhead in bodily fashion.”

Dwelleth imports more than a transient stay for a few minutes, or a little while, even abiding in him constantly and for ever, as dwelling most usually notes, 2 Corinthians 6:16. That which doth thus perpetually abide in his person, as denominated after the human nature, is all the fulness of the Godhead, viz. that rich and incomprehensible abundance of perfections, whereof the supreme and adorable nature is full; so that indeed there is not at all any perfection or excellency in the Divine nature but is found abiding in him. And after no common or ordinary way, but by a hypostatical or personal union of the Godhead with the manhood in Christ; which is not by way of mixture, confusion, conversion, or any other mutation;

The dictionary defines Godhead as divine or essence. The nature of God existing especially as 3 persons. You have to prove the Godhead is talking about the 3 there.

 

[101G]

The dictionary defines Godhead as divine or essence. The nature of God existing especially as 3 persons. You have to prove the Godhead is talking about the 3 there.

not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider what the bible dictionary, the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, says about the Godhead, or the ECHAD of God.
Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
here OFFSPRING is,
G1085 γένος genos (ǰe'-nos) n.
kin.
{abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective}
[from G1096]
KJV: born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock
Root(s): G1096

lets examine this definition.
#1. Kin, as in KINSman Redeemer. for he, the Lord Jesus, took on flesh and blood in likeness of a man. born in flesh

#3. Diversity: the state of being diverse; variety. and this states of being diverse or VARIETY is expressed in a NUMERICAL DIFFERENCE of the same sort. which the Greek word G243 allos clearly express. ie... ANOTHER, as in another Comforter, who is the same one person, the Lord Jesus. so what do G243 Allos states? Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort. THERE IS THE "GODHEAD". and "sort" means, 1. a particular kind, species, variety, class, or group, distinguished by a common character or nature: 2. character, quality, or nature:

another term for Root and Offspring is First and Last..... oh my, this is too easy.

so Nathan P, I agree with you we need to get our dictionaries and LOOK up theses words ... "WITH" ... the Holy Spirit Lead.

thanks,

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[OldShepherd]

The dictionary defines Godhead as divine or essence. The nature of God existing especially as 3 persons. You have to prove the Godhead is talking about the 3 there.

Theotes
θεότης, ητος, ἡ (Plut., Mor. 415bc οὕτως ἐκ μὲν ἀνθρώπων εἰς ἥρωας, ἐκ δὲ ἡρώων εἰς δαίμονας αἱ βελτίονες ψυχαὶ τὴν μεταβολὴν λαμβάνουσιν. ἐκ δὲ δαιμόνων ὀλίγαι μὲν ἔτι χρόνῳ πολλῷ διʼ ἀρετῆς καθαρθεῖσαι παντάπασι θεότητος μετέσχον=so from humans into heroes and from heroes into demi-gods the better souls undergo their transition; and from demi-gods, a few, after a long period of purification, share totally in divinity; Lucian, Icarom. 9; ApcSed 2:4 al.; Tat. 12, 4; 21, 2; Mel., Fgm. 6; Herm. Wr. 12, 1; 13, 7a; Proclus, Theol. 137 p. 122, 5 al.; Cleopatra 62; 117; 137; οἱ αἱρετικοὶ διαφόρους εἰσάγοντες θεότητας Did., Gen. 184, 28; θ. τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 2, 36, 17) the state of being god, divine character/nature, deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for θεός (Orig., C. Cels. 7, 25, 9): τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θ. the fullness of deity Col 2:9 (s. Nash s.v. θειότης). ἐπιζητεῖν περὶ τῆς θ. inquire concerning the deity Hm 10, 1, 4; cp. 5f. δύναμις τῆς θ. power of the deity 11:5; πνεῦμα (τῆς) θ. 11:10, 14.—DELG s.v. θεός. TW. Sv.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 452.

 

[Stephen]

Listen and Learn, "Word", G3056 λόγος logos (lo'-ğos) n.
1. a word, something said (including the thought).
]we don't need to go any futher

Correct. The word isn't a person. (which is my position)

have you ever hear of the phrase, "my word is my rep.". listen and Learn, just a couple examples. Isaiah 38:4 "Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying," ..... then came? ... the word of the LORD? did the word walk by coming? of course not, it came by speaking. now who is the Word? answer the LORD. the LORD'S word is HIM, not somthing, or someone else word.... my God

I'm going to guess that you didn't even read your own dictionary definition of the word "logos" if you immediately posit the question "who is the word". Look at your dictionary definition and you will notice that the word isn't a person.

Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." who is God's own ARM? God himself in flesh. scripture, Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?"if one would read Isaiah chapter 53, one will know that this ARM of God is the Lord Jesus... the Christ... correct... well 101G, what do this have to do with the "Word in John 1:1?". answer, Hebrews 1:1 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,"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;"
God did what? .... spoke and speaking means .... drum roll .... the use of a, a, a, a "Word". my God even in Layman terms is too easy not to understand. yes "a" word. listen to the definition of Logos

As Hebrews 1 states, God has a son, whom "he" appointed, we can establish two very true things, God is a "he" (single person) which means the trinitarian position is false. And further, God has a son, who is a separate "whom" (another person) which means the modalist position is false.

However, the unitarian that God is a single person, and Jesus Christ is his son is explicitly stated.

 

[101G]

Correct. The word isn't a person. (which is my position)

is your words you? or is it someone else....... reproved.

I'm going to guess that you didn't even read your own dictionary definition of the word "logos" if you immediately posit the question "who is the word". Look at your dictionary definition and you will notice that the word isn't a person.

see above,

As Hebrews 1 states, God has a son, whom "he" appointed, we can establish two very true things, God is a "he" (single person) which means the trinitarian position is false. And further, God has a son, who is a separate "whom" (another person) which means the modalist position is false.

However, the unitarian that God is a single person, and Jesus Christ is his son is explicitly stated.

Another ERROR on your part. Son here is not biological .... hello... anyone home?
two , you said, "And further, God has a son, who is a separate "whom" (another person) which means the modalist position is false."
Stephen. that is the most ignorant statement I hear you say yet, listen and LEARN, Another, in the Greek there are two words that describe our one English word "Another", they are ,G243 and G2087 ,allos, and heteros. listen Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort
while heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes "another of a different sort.".... (smile), see the difference... Oh my, my, my. Lord Jesus help us all.

then you said, "However, the unitarian that God is a single person, and Jesus Christ is his son is explicitly stated" is not the unitarian position that the Lord Jesus is the "shaliah", or the agent of God, have they change their position?

understand, the unitarians position is just as wrong as the trinitarians, my, my, my, the pot calling the kettle black. what is this world comming too .... damnation?... yes, in a hurry.

one more time, listen to the bible as to who the Lord Jesus is...... Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." do God have to use PICTURES? one more, Isaiah 59:16 "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him."

my God all the title of God right before our eyes, the Father, who is the Son, diversified in flesh, (his own ARM), and the same one God, who is the intercessor, (the Holy Spirit) ... God, the Lord Jesus almighty, himself. all these titles of God in one scripture..

Lord Jesus please open the eyes of the blind.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[BJ Bear]

We began this discussion with you claiming me of postulating two Jesuses because I agreed with the OP that immediate context of Colossians 2 and 3 were referring to Christ after he was resurrected and glorified and also agreed that the immediate context of Colossians 2 and 3 were not referring to Christ before his death and glorification.

Yes, your interpretation leads to multiple persons because it denies the one Jesus, the Word incarnate who in the beginning was with God, and was God, and through whom all things were made.

The conclusion you can make from Colossians 2 and 3 is that point in time in which the phrase "in him dwells the godhead bodily" is his present state, not his mortal state.

This seems to conflict with whatever strange doctrine you are promoting, you have wandered all over John's writings, but have yet to discuss Colossians 2 and 3. If you are going be claiming to discuss immediate context, such a claim would be better supported if you actually cited the passage under discussion one or more times.

Yoir claims in this regard are simply false. If one pays attention to the context then one necessarily sees and hopefully takes to heart the following:
“14. His Son paid the price to free us, which means that our sins are forgiven.15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16. He created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Whether they are kings or lords, rulers or powers-- everything has been created through him and for him. 17. He existed before everything and holds everything together. 18. He is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, the first to come back to life so that he would have first place in everything.” (Col 1:14-18, GodsWord)

Let's read on in 1 John and see what time period John places "the beginning" at:

Beloved, I am not writing a new command to you, but an old command which you have had from the beginning. The old command is the Word which you have heard. 2:7​

As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 2:24​

This is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 3:11​

If your doctrine claims that "in the beginning" means "before the creation", John and the people he was writing to understood "the beginning" being referred to as something completely different. They were there in "the beginning", they heard from "the beginning".

The context excludes your interpretation. The beginning in 1 John 1 is something being conveyed by John to his intended recipients. “1. The Word of life existed from the beginning. We have heard it. We have seen it. We observed and touched it. 2. This life was revealed to us. We have seen it, and we testify about it. We are reporting to you about this eternal life that was in the presence of the Father and was revealed to us.” (1Jo 1:1-2, GodsWord)

You are correct, 1 John tells you a way to spot a false prophet. Jesus is human. If you think he came as something else, like say "God" or "LORD God" or whatever, you are an antichrist.

He is the Word that was with God, and was God. See John 1:1ff.

The fact that Jesus copies his father doesn't make him equal to his father. It is a further statement of inequality. He does what he sees the father doing, like a human children do when they learn from their parents. The father shows the son what he is doing, just like human parents do for their children. If Jesus was equal to God, God wouldn't have to show him anything, and he wouldn't have to see what the father is doing. This isn't a statement of equality, quite the opposite, this is Jesus saying that his father his showing him how to do things.

Scripture says Jesus was sinless. In love He affirmed to the unbelievers and everyone else what the unbelievers thought of Him being equal to God, that is, the Son does exactly what the Father does.

Read that again and more slowly. Peter also did miracles. And if Christ's father gave him a task to do, then we have another clear statement of inequality.

Peter and John didn't work miracles of their own power. “We believe in the one named Jesus. Through his power alone this man, whom you know, was healed, as all of you saw.” (Act 3:16, GodsWord)

Read that again. Everybody present said that Jesus is "the man whom Moses wrote about". Nobody believed Jesus was God. Let's read the passage Phillip was referring to:

18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.​

The incarnate Lord would be of the seed of Eve, see Genesis 3:16-4:1. When you have a few minutes do a search on the literal translation of Génesis 4:1. You will find that it is not at all the common English translation.

The pericope you chose is a good one, but it doesn't exclude other pertinent sections of Scripture.

If you are asserting that Christ's opponents were correct, that Jesus broke the sabbath and was making himself equal to God, then yes, you did claim that Jesus was a sinner.

I am asserting that the unbelievers were right in their understanding of Jesus' claim regarding His Father. That does not make Him a dinner.

John 14:28 is a clear declaration by Christ of his relationship to his father as to his equality. He clearly claimed that he is not equal to his father. It isn’t hopscotching to bring in Christ’s testimony regarding his equality. Your claim is that he is equal to his father. He claims the opposite. One of you is right, and one of you is wrong. My money is on Jesus.

If your money is on Jesus then pay attention to the context of His words in John 14. For example, “13. I will do anything you ask the Father in my name so that the Father will be given glory because of the Son. 14. If you ask me to do something, I will do it.” (Joh 14:13-14, GodsWord)

Hebrews 1:2 says "God created" not "Jesus created".

“In these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. God made his Son responsible for everything. His Son is the one through whom God made the universe.” (Heb 1:2, GodsWord)

If you didn't know that Hebrews 1:10-12 is a quotation of Psalm 102, then please consider the fact that you didn't know enough about the passage to be utilizing it in a discussion.

The Psalm remains your red herring since you chose to ignore the context of the snip in the letter, again see Heb 1:2.

Accusations of this sort are not fruitful. (And once again, you identify the "word" as something other than a person)

The observation may not have yet been fruitful for you, but it may be a helpful observation or reminder to some casual passers by.

For the record, the same type of error which prompted the observation appeared in your latest reply in the sections regarding Col. 1, 1 John 1, Hebrews 1, and John 14, see above.

 

[Stephen]

Another ERROR on your part. Son here is not biological .... hello... anyone home?

Let's look at the passage:

2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.​

The passage is about the present tense son, who ascended into heaven with scars on his hands, and who enjoyed eating fish with his apostles. To deny that Jesus came in the flesh and is at present in the flesh is akin to declaring yourself an antichrist.

two , you said, "And further, God has a son, who is a separate "whom" (another person) which means the modalist position is false."
Stephen. that is the most ignorant statement I hear you say yet, listen and LEARN, Another, in the Greek there are two words that describe our one English word "Another", they are ,G243 and G2087 ,allos, and heteros. listen Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort
while heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes "another of a different sort.".... (smile), see the difference... Oh my, my, my. Lord Jesus help us all.

In this instance there is a distinction without a difference. If Jesus is numerically different than God, he isn't God. If he is of the same sort as God but is identified separately from God, he numerically different than God but of the same sort as God, and therefore isn't God. In both cases God is one person and Jesus is another person.

then you said, "However, the unitarian that God is a single person, and Jesus Christ is his son is explicitly stated" is not the unitarian position that the Lord Jesus is the "shaliah", or the agent of God, have they change their position?

understand, the unitarians position is just as wrong as the trinitarians, my, my, my, the pot calling the kettle black. what is this world comming too .... damnation?... yes, in a hurry.

Sons sent on behalf of the father are also agents of the father. See the parable of the tenants. I have no idea what you are asking here as being one doesn't preclude you from being the other.

one more time, listen to the bible as to who the Lord Jesus is...... Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." do God have to use PICTURES? one more, Isaiah 59:16 "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him."

I read it. God did use pictures. In a symbolic prophecy God shows us a picture of Christ being his right arm. The thousands of non-symbolic descriptions show God and Jesus to be separate persons. Proper bible study would be to see how the symbols were actually implemented rather than cling to a misunderstanding of the symbolic picture. I suggest that reading the bible shows that God and Jesus are two separate persons.