Does God have eyes?

jesus is God and he has eyes.

Jesus is God's human representative of God to creation.

How else could we relate to God, if God did not have a means to relate Himself to us?


No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him.

[He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].



John 1:18
 
That is a libel that I am not predisposed to put up with.
Is the word God?
You can certainly attack JM on this point, who believes that "God is a category", but you can't attack me as I don't believe the same as him.
But you have categories of Gods ...You have regular noun Gods and Title Gods.
Let me explain why there is no point in continuing this debate. Your extremist unitarian creed is based in heresy akin to unenlightened Judaism, which gave rise to sundry heresies, long condemned of old, including adoptionism, and is kept relevant today only by its attacks against the opposite high Trinitarian/Sabellian error. You live for attacking high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism. Since I don't credit it, you're attacking the wrong person.
That explains nothing... You cannot continue because you have no scripture to support your nonsense.
Thus your unitarianism fails to consider that the "Word of God" uttered by the prophets was "God," even in the Old Testament, in that anyone who disobeyed it was given over to immediate destruction. Indeed your earlier repudiation of even the very principle of divine ageny is a statement that you are clueless as to how God works.
So you again admit you have more than one Gods. You gave a god who is the word, then you have another God who is the father.
In so far as you may have valid points against the JM version of high Trinitarianism/Sabellianism, you fail to consider that your own position is far from orthodox. Indeed it is impossible for anyone to understand you, because you chop and change your mind, and because you are COMPLETELY incoherent: eg. you say "Jesus came out from God all other sons are born by faith" but yet you deny the incarnation of Jn 1:14 and accuse anyone who believes in it of being a Hindu.
Do you believe that all men are incarnate?
You have recourse to scurrilous tactics e.g. you said to me "You think that Jesus was not a man" - even when I have said many times that he was 100% man.
Since you believe Jesus is 100% man how do you account for Jesus being the Word whom you say is God?
You accuse me of polytheism, even though I acknowledge God as the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3). I conclude you are an inveterate slanderer.
But you believe the word is God, don't you?
You are a stormtrooper, and on a one man mission, which is to attack high Trinitarianism / Sabellianism. But when you're faced with the truth, which is not Sabellian, you carry on attacking as you can't desist. You have to continually make things up in order to carry on attacking.
You are the one making up things...Who told you that I am those things that you labeled me? You made them up didn't you?
Your unitarianism is so extreme that you don't recognize the incarnation of Jn 1:14.
Jesus is not a Hindu God.
You say that "Jesus Christ came from God"
Jesus is the one who makes the claim...
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
but you cannot articulate how he came or where he was before he came.
He came as a baby and grew into a man. He was in God before he came...
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
And if you say, well he was simply predestined in the mind of God, such is meaningless; for so too was every other believer.
As if to say but I did not say... Why are you pretending I said something that I did not say?
And where did Jesus ascend to? Answer the questions coherently, or shut up.
He ascended to the right hand of his God..
Absolute rubbish. "The God of me" in John 20:28 is a noun usage, as also in Jn 1:1c, John 10:34-36, 2 Cor 4:4, and elsewhere.
Titles are nouns...
Noun usage of "God" certainly carries the implication of agency of the one who does bear the title of God, where the context allows.
Then the one who carries the implication of agency is not God. That is not rocket science...The Word carries the implication of agency. Therefore the word is not God. Keep in mind believers have only one God the father.
That is like Jesus calling his disciples sheep. In relation to living beings, are disciples sheep or humans?
 
He ascended to the right hand of his God..
So what makes you so sure he wasn't seated at the right hand of God before his incarnation?

BTW, I assume that by referring to a Hindu incarnation, you are referring to an incarnation without a kenosis (an emptying of divine attributes) - although it seems likely that even the Hindu incarnation involves an assumption of at least a partial kenosis. However the Logos was emptied of all such divine attributes as to enable Jesus to be made 100% flesh, as is clearly stated in Phil 2:6 (which is another distinction between the JM version of Christianity and mine).
 
Last edited:
So what makes you so sure he wasn't seated at the right hand of God before his incarnation?
I made no argument as to where he was or wasn't before he became flesh... That is not the topic of discussion.
BTW, I assume that by referring to a Hindu incarnation, you are referring to an incarnation without a kenosis (an emptying of divine attributes) - although it seems likely that even the Hindu incarnation involves an assumption of at least a partial kenosis.
incarnation is incarnation. It assumes that a spirit In this case "God" is born flesh. The scripture is clear that a body was prepared for the HS.
However the Logos was emptied of all such divine attributes as to enable Jesus to be made 100% flesh, as is clearly stated in Phil 2:6 (which is another distinction between the JM version of Christianity and mine).
You have already established the Logos is a title...Tell us who (not by title but by name) was emptied.
Here is the context of the passage you are referring to...
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
( God is a spirit Jesus was a spirit, same form, therefore equal form)
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
(Jesus took human form, He did this by God preparing him as a body and then filling the body with the HS)
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
 
I made no argument as to where he was or wasn't before he became flesh... That is not the topic of discussion.
It certainly is the topic of discussion, and I'm not discussing anything else.
incarnation is incarnation. It assumes that a spirit In this case "God" is born flesh. The scripture is clear that a body was prepared for the HS.
God is not "a spirit" - rather in the nature of Spirit. Again your lack of knowledge of Greek grammar betrays you. And "God" wasn't incarnated (your Greek grammar problem again).

May be it's time to fact the fact; and attribute your extreme unitarianism to a defective education in Greek grammar.

You have already established the Logos is a title...Tell us who (not by title but by name) was emptied.
We aren't told the name of the Logos prior to the incarnation. Not all heavenly names are revealed: Rev 19:12.

Here is the context of the passage you are referring to...
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
( God is a spirit Jesus was a spirit, same form, therefore equal form)
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
(Jesus took human form, He did this by God preparing him as a body and then filling the body with the HS)
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
 
Last edited:
God is not "a spirit" - rather in the nature of Spirit. Again your lack of knowledge of Greek grammar betrays you.
Greek grammar does not forbid the translation “a spirit”. Once again you demonstrate your lack of Greek knowledge.
And "God" wasn't incarnated (your Greek grammar problem again).
He was according to John 1. You conflate “God” with “the Father”. John does not do that.
May be it's time to fact the fact; and attribute your extreme unitarianism to a defective education in Greek grammar.
Perhaps it’s time for you to do the same since you’ve displayed your own “defective education in Greek grammar” here.
 
However the Logos was emptied of all such divine attributes as to enable Jesus to be made 100% flesh, as is clearly stated in Phil 2:6 (which is another distinction between the JM version of Christianity and mine).
This is another misstatement of my position. I believe Jesus to have been 100% flesh. I believe that he emptied himself of his divinity during that time. I am unsure whether he possessed a dual nature such as Trinitarians espouse or if he was simply “God” by identity during his incarnation. If you aren’t willing or capable of stating my position accurately, you should refrain from mentioning it at all.
 
Greek grammar does not forbid the translation “a spirit”. Once again you demonstrate your lack of Greek knowledge.
Of course Greek grammar does not "forbid" a translation, for it is incapable of forbidding anything. Any translation is entirely at the discretion of the translator.

Yet there would have to be a specific contextual or grammatical reason to use "a" in English before a Greek predicate. When the context is the throne of God, "a" is singularly inapposite (cf. Jn 1:1c) because God cannot be defined as "a" <anything> as God is God.

"A spirit" carries an inference of the spirit of something created: cf Luk 24:39, i.e. the spirit of an individual.

He was according to John 1. You conflate “God” with “the Father”. John does not do that.

Perhaps it’s time for you to do the same since you’ve displayed your own “defective education in Greek grammar” here.
The bible agrees with me. Jn 1:14 says "The Logos was made flesh" and not "God was made flesh." You just don't credit what it says.

I reject all your spurious attempts to invalidate my arguments. The NET bible agrees with me re Jn 4:24.
 
Of course Greek grammar does not "forbid" a translation, for it is incapable of forbidding anything. Any translation is entirely at the discretion of the translator.
What juvenile pedantry.
Yet there would have to be a specific contextual or grammatical reason to use "a" in English before a Greek predicate.
There is no grammatical reason to exclude translating John 1:1 as “a god”. That’s the specific context we were discussing. You aren’t addressing the point I made, because you know it’s true.
When the context is the throne of God, "a" is singularly inapposite (cf. Jn 1:1c) because God cannot be defined as "a" <anything> as God is God.
Off-topic
"A spirit" carries an inference of the spirit of something created: cf Luk 24:39, i.e. the spirit of an individual.
Doesn’t pertain to grammar.
The bible agrees with me.
Only in your imagination.
Jn 1:14 says "The Logos was made flesh" and not "God was made flesh." You just don't credit what it says.
You have forgotten John 20:28. Was Jesus/the word not flesh there?
I reject all your spurious attempts to invalidate my arguments. The NET bible agrees with me re Jn 4:24.
You don’t have arguments. You have assertions, and I’ve already refuted your assertions.

The NET Bible doesn’t agree with you. Giving one translation does not mean that another is grammatically impossible. Once again, you misrepresent your sources.
 
It certainly is the topic of discussion, and I'm not discussing anything else.

Are we not discussing if the word is God or if the word is not God?
God is not "a spirit" - rather in the nature of Spirit.
Your argument is with john.
John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Again your lack of knowledge of Greek grammar betrays you.
You are the only one doing betrayal here
And "God" wasn't incarnated (your Greek grammar problem again).
So in your theology who was incarnated? You are arguing that the Word is God are you not?
May be it's time to fact the fact; and attribute your extreme unitarianism to a defective education in Greek grammar.
Your Greek grammar is not helping you ...You are saying the Word is God and the Word was made flesh, but God was not made flesh
We aren't told the name of the Logos prior to the incarnation.
That is because there is no incarnation...The fact is you are claiming an incarnation but you have no idea who was incarnated...
Not all heavenly names are revealed: Rev 19:12.
It appears that nothing is revealed to you...You just depend on your Greek grammar.
 
The bible agrees with me. Jn 1:14 says "The Logos was made flesh" and not "God was made flesh." You just don't credit what it says.
Yet you chastise me for saying the Logos is not God... Your claim is that "The Logos was God" is a proper translation...
 
Are we not discussing if the word is God or if the word is not God?
No, we've moved on to discussing whether, if Christ ascended to the right hand of God, whether he could have been at the right hand of God before his incarnation, in accordance with his own words in John 6:62 "Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!"

Obviously he was at the right hand of God before his incarnation, which you deny.

Your argument is with john.
John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

You are the only one doing betrayal here

So in your theology who was incarnated? You are arguing that the Word is God are you not?

Your Greek grammar is not helping you ...You are saying the Word is God and the Word was made flesh, but God was not made flesh

That is because there is no incarnation...The fact is you are claiming an incarnation but you have no idea who was incarnated...

It appears that nothing is revealed to you...You just depend on your Greek grammar.
Look, Mr. Unitarian Stormtrooper, I've got nothing to learn from you. I've learnt nothing from you all the time you've been on this forum except that you belong to a cult that is deeply heretical and extremely dangerous to faith.
 
You have forgotten John 20:28. Was Jesus/the word not flesh there
John 20:28 is a personal profession of faith and acknowledged that Jesus and his father are one, but doesn't entitle Jesus as "the God" but "the God of me" which you endlessly ignore for discreditable reasons.

John 1 is a statement of eternal doctrine. "God" does not a reside in the flesh, otherwise Jesus would just be "a god." It is axiomatic that God (the God) lives in heaven: this is inculcated by the Old Testament and by Jesus.

If you want to be a JW, and see Jn 1:1c as talking about Jesus and /or the Logos as "a god" that's you affair. Count me out. That's not the language of the OT or the NT. The correct language is "of God" - cf. "The Logos of God" Rev 19;13 or "The Spirit of God." Jn 1:1c denotes the reality of the Logos being ruler over creation, underneath God the Father ("the God").

The Logos (risen Christ) and the Spirit are neither termed "the God" nor "a god" in the Greek. Confounding the Father and Jesus/the Logos is a foolish idea. The Greek doesn't do it, so why do you? I have no truck with this perverted theology.
 
Last edited:
No, we've moved on to discussing whether, if Christ ascended to the right hand of God, whether he could have been at the right hand of God before his incarnation, in accordance with his own words in John 6:62 "Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!"

Obviously he was at the right hand of God before his incarnation, which you deny.


Look, Mr. Unitarian Stormtrooper, I've got nothing to learn from you. I've learnt nothing from you all the time you've been on this forum except that you belong to a cult that is deeply heretical and extremely dangerous to faith.
 
No, we've moved on to discussing whether, if Christ ascended to the right hand of God, whether he could have been at the right hand of God before his incarnation,
You have already alluded that the Word before being flesh was not Jesus.
in accordance with his own words in John 6:62 "Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!"
You alluded that Jesus did not exist before being born flesh....
I don't know why you insist on calling "Jesus" by the title "The Word." They may be the same spiritual entity, but they don't exist in the same jurisdiction, and so are not comparable.
these are your words
Obviously he was at the right hand of God before his incarnation, which you deny.
Here you admit two Gods God the father and Jesus a defacto(illegal) God
cjab said:
Heaven and Earth are different worlds. What exists as man in one, exists with all the attributes of God in the other, bar the identity of the Father, who remains always above Christ, who is your de facto "God."
Look, Mr. Unitarian Stormtrooper, I've got nothing to learn from you. I've learnt nothing from you all the time you've been on this forum except that you belong to a cult that is deeply heretical and extremely dangerous to faith.
I have learned from you, that you have a defacto(illegal) God
 
John 20:28 is a personal profession of faith and acknowledged that Jesus and his father are one,
There is nothing in Thomas’s remarks that suggests anything directly about the unity of Jesus and his Father. You are inserting that understanding into the text.
but doesn't entitle Jesus as "the God" but "the God of me" which you endlessly ignore for discreditable reasons.
The use of a modifying genitive phrase does not necessarily change the referent of the noun. You are erroneously assuming that it always does. I’ve pointed out your error repeatedly.
John 1 is a statement of eternal doctrine. "God" does not a reside in the flesh, otherwise Jesus would just be "a god." It is axiomatic that God (the God) lives in heaven: this is inculcated by the Old Testament and by Jesus.
Jesus was in the flesh and addressed as “God” in John 20:28. I can’t help it you are unwilling to accept the facts.
If you want to be a JW, and see Jn 1:1c as talking about Jesus and /or the Logos as "a god" that's you affair. Count me out. That's not the language of the OT or the NT.
That’s not what we were discussing. You made the claim that grammar does not allow the translation “a god”, and I corrected your error. My doctrine has nothing in common with the JW position. This is another ad hominem.
The correct language is "of God" - cf. "The Logos of God" Rev 19;13 or "The Spirit of God." Jn 1:1c denotes the reality of the Logos being ruler over creation, underneath God the Father ("the God").
Now you are trying to correct John, too?
The Logos (risen Christ) and the Spirit are neither termed "the God" nor "a god" in the Greek.
Jesus is called “o theos” in John 20:28 whether you accept the modifier or not.
Confounding the Father and Jesus/the Logos is a foolish idea.
I haven’t done this. You are refusing to acknowledge what I’ve said, because you have no integrity.
The Greek doesn't do it, so why do you? I have no truck with this perverted theology.
You have “no truck” with reading comprehension.
 
You have already alluded that the Word before being flesh was not Jesus.

You alluded that Jesus did not exist before being born flesh....

these are your words
I said they are not comparable in repect of their God-like attributes. I didn't say they didn't have the same identity.

Now please answer the question: where was "the Son of man before" re John 6:62?

Here you admit two Gods God the father and Jesus a defacto(illegal) God
cjab said:
Heaven and Earth are different worlds. What exists as man in one, exists with all the attributes of God in the other, bar the identity of the Father, who remains always above Christ, who is your de facto "God."
You're getting confused between Christ as Lord and Christ as God. Now there is one Lord and one God, but the distinction in terminology pre/post incarnation is largely down to the change in our relation to the Logos pre/post incarnation.

I suspect you don't acknowledge Christ as Lord, otherwise why are you so opposed to John 1:1c? All that the John 1:1c formula means is that Christ as the Logos ruled heaven and earth, before he became Son of Man and before he ascended to become Lord; but prior to the incarnation, the Logos acted soley under the YHWH name (of God the Father). God the Father is always above the Logos, wherever he is.

To be sure Christ ascended to become ruler of heaven and earth again (as Paul says in Eph 1:20-23).

You don't get to become ruler of heaven and earth without being invested with all the powers of God and without being one with the Father. It's not that difficult to grasp.

I have learned from you, that you have a defacto(illegal) God
No, I have one Lord and one God (Eph 4:5,6): the Logos was "God" because invested with all the powers of the Father, but he had done anything to be distinguished from his Father before the incarnation. Afterwards the incarnation he became Lord. That is why Christ said "everything that belongs to the Father is mine" just before he ascended.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top