Is the Father called "my God" in John 20:28?

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

That's a matter of opinion because textual criticism has many doubters as to the basis of some saying one script is more accurate than another here. It's by no means only the KJV. It simply can't be trusted to be the only basis for your doctrine when other scriptures that don't have these script issues are clearer. For example:

The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:35

Yes, some have uniformed opinions and others are informed. I just presented the facts of the matter. If you don't what to believe the facts, okay.

I didn't use it to justify my doctrine. I just quoted the ESV, an extremely well respected Translation of the Bible, and explained the reasoning behind the translational difference. I am not arguing Jesus is God the Son because of this translation of John 1:18. FYI, the Greek of Luke 1:35 is υἱὸς θεοῦ. The genitive here can communicate the idea that God is the Father of this Son, or it can communicate the idea that this Son is God, i.e. God the Son. To clarify, I'm not arguing that the second idea is correct; I'm just saying it's more complicated than what you are considering.

Jesus didn't say "look THROUGH ME and see the Father". You're twisting the scripture. Jesus said this as a man and his disciples were visibly seeing him.

I didn't say Jesus said "look THROUGH ME and see the Father". Perhaps, you shouldn't change someone wording as to accuse them of wrong doing.

Yet you contradict yourself in John 1:18 because according to your preferred version of John 1:18 "no has has seen God", but then in the same verse "the only God... he has made him known". You arbitrary, without textual support, insert "God the Father" for the first "God" in the verse and then "God the Son" for the second occurrence of "God" in this verse.

How is this contradictory? The first use of God is clearly referring to the Father, and the second use is clearly referring to the Son. Therefore, no contradiction at all.

You're playing games. Your doctrine strongly asserts an eternally begotten God the Son. So whether you meant it in one of your sentences or not is beside the point.

And? I wasn't making that argument. So, I'm not playing games. You're just pretending I'm making arguments I'm not to find some reason to attack me.

You're separating the Father from his Word too much. The whole purpose of a person having a word is that it is the expression of oneself. Why do you strip the Father of His own word and insert a second eternal person that not a single Jewish person in the OT had any idea even existed?

So, the only reason you have to reject my interpretation is theological. Interesting.

It's nonsensical if you hold to a cathedral stained glass view of God the Father having an old body and then a younger man sitting next to him. That's polytheism. God is Spirit and they that worship him worship him in Spirit and in truth. Not silly pagan depictions of body-limited deities.

So in response to argument against your interpretation, you attack my theology. That doesn't seem reasonable.

Why not just take John's use of the term Logos seriously? Why does John use the term logos if YOUR terminology is more better?

I am taking John's use of the term Logos seriously. John is using the title "the Word" for Jesus just like Jesus used the titles "the Way, the Truth," and the Life" for himself. Why he choose to use this title is interesting, but it is irrelevant to the argument I'm presenting.

Again, you are not grasping that God is indeed a Spirit who is omnipotent and everywhere present. The Father's logos is His visible expression or Glory in Isaiah 6. Again you arbitrarily insert "Father" or "Son" in verses but the Biblical authors didn't see any need to distinguish between persons. Is your physical body another person than the human spirit within your body? Is your word another person of you?

So, you are interpreting it similarly to the way I am. You're just not willing to think through all the logical implication of this passage. The passage says "he has made him know". Not, the impersonal visible expression made him known. And, if it is just saying, God's impersonal visible expression made him known what on earth does "No one has ever seen God" mean, and why is John bringing this up?

If you think so, this is why you are getting into trouble with the other Isaiah scriptures where YHWH declares in the strongest monotheistic language possible that "there is no God, beside me... I know not any". Your view of God is not "I AM" but "WE ARE" because you want to go down the rabbit trail of having a second divine personage who alone is the Word of God. That gives you a "WE ARE" and that is a problem for you. That you live with this sort of Schizophrenia where you really do conceive of a concept of God as three distinct eternal persons who love one another while not admitting that you have a "WE ARE" God.

Are you forgetting that we are monotheists? Or, are you just pretending otherwise? The Father and Son are different persons while being the same God.

We don't need to say anyone lied, but we do need to stick with the fundamental doctrine of God that he is "I AM" and not "WE ARE". "No man has seen God" therefore needs to be understood with qualifications and this is true even with your John 1:18 "God...God" rendering. John wrote with the understanding that his readers would understand the qualifications. For example, in 1 John 5:18 he says “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not". Are we to be strict literalists here and discount everything else John writes and actually believe that everyone born again never sins? You've got to take this style of language with assumed qualifications otherwise you contradict fundamental doctrine.

1 Timothy 6:15-16 "... Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing, 15which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.

Oh, so instead of seriously dealing with the text, we are to double down on your theology and ignore what the text is actually talking about.

God Bless

 

[OldShepherd]

Does "pros" also mean "towards". God bless you.

Here is the complete definition of "pros" from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon one of, if not. the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available.

πρός prep. expressing direction ‘on the side of’, ‘in the direction of’: w. gen. ‘from’, dat. ‘at’, or acc. (the most freq. usage in our lit.) ‘to’ (s. the lit. s.v. ἀνά. beg.) (Hom.+).
① w. gen. (pseudepigr. only TestSol 10:4 C; apolog. exc. Ar.) marker of direction or aspect from which someth. is determined, to the advantage of, advantageous for (Thu. 3, 59, 1 οὐ πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας δόξης τάδε; Hdt. 1, 75; Dionys. Hal. 10, 30, 5; Diod S 18, 50, 5; Lucian, Dial. Deor. 20, 3; Mel., HE 4, 26, 8; Ath. 36, 1; B-D-F §240; Rob. 623f) οἱ πρ. ζωῆς μαζοί the life-giving breasts 1 Cl 20:10. πρ. τῆς σωτηρίας in the interest of safety Ac 27:34 (πρὸς τῆς σ‌. as Jos., Ant. 16, 313).
② w. dat. (pesudepigr. only TestSol 6:4 D; TestAbr [s. below]; JosAs 19:1.—Just.; Mel., HE 4, 26, 7; Ath., R. 22 p. 75, 10) marker of closeness of relation or proximity
ⓐ of place near, at, by (Hom. et al. incl. Aristarch. Samos 398, 20; LXX; TestSol 6:4 D; Jos., Ant. 8, 349; 381) Mk 5:11; around Rv 1:13. πρ. τῇ θύρᾳ ἑστηκέναι stand at the door (Menand., Fgm. 420, 1; 830 K.=352, 1; 644 Kö.; JosAs 19:1) J 18:16; cp. 20:11. πρὸς τῇ πύλῃ GJs 4:4; ἐγγίζοντος αὐτοῦ πρ. τῇ καταβάσει τοῦ ὄρους when he came close to the slope of the mountain Lk 19:37 (s. κατάβασις). πρ. τῇ κεφαλῇ, τοῖς ποσίν at the head, at the feet J 20:12. τὰ πρ. ταῖς ῥίζαις the parts near the roots Hs 9, 1, 6; 9, 21, 1. In geographical designations Μαγνησία ἡ πρ. Μαιάνδρῳ Magnesia on the Maeander IMagnMai ins.—(Cp. the temporal use: πρὸς ἑσπέρᾳ ἐστίν it takes place at evening TestAbr B 2 p. 106, 7 [Stone p. 60]; cp. Just., D. 105, 3 and 5; 142, 1.)
ⓑ in addition to (Hom. et al.; Polyb., Just.; Mel., HE 4, 26, 7; Ath., R. 22 p. 75, 10; ins) πρὸς τούτοις (SIG 495, 105; 685, 70 and 100; 796 B, 30; 888, 35 al.; UPZ 26, 18; 25 [163 B.C.]; 2 Macc 4:9; 5:23; 9:17, 25; 14:4, esp. 12:2; Philo, Aet. M. 67 al.; Just., A I, 40, 5; D. 93, 4 al.) 1 Cl 17:1.
③ w. acc. (pseudepigr. and apolog. throughout) marker of movement or orientation toward someone/someth.
ⓐ of place, pers., or thing toward, towards, to, after verbs
α. of going; s. ἄγω 5, ἀναβαίνω 1aα, ἀνακάμπτω 1a, ἀπέρχομαι 1b, διαβαίνω, διαπεράω, εἴσειμι, εἰσέρχομαι 1bα, ἐκπορεύομαι 1c, also ἐπισυνάγομαι Mk 1:33, ἔρχομαι 1aβ, ἥκω 1d et al.—προσαγωγὴ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Eph 2:18. εἴσοδος 1 Th 1:9a.
β. of sending; s. ἀναπέμπω Lk 23:7, 15; Ac 25:21, ἀποστέλλω 1bα, πέμπω.
γ. of motion gener.; s. βληθῆναι (βάλλω 1b), ἐπιστρέφω 1a, 4ab, κεῖμαι 2, πίπτω 1bαא and ב, προσκολλάω, προσκόπτω 1, προσπίπτω.
δ. of leading, guiding; s. ἄγω 1a, ἀπάγω 2a and 4, also ἕλκω 2 end J 12:32, κατασύρω, etc.
ε. of saying, speaking; s. ἀποκρίνομαι 1, also δημηγορέω Ac 12:21, εἶπον 1a, λαλέω 2aγ and 2b, λέγω 1bγ et al. Hebraistically λαλεῖν στόμα πρὸς στόμα speak face to face (Jer 39:4; ApcEsdr 6:6 p. 31, 10 Tdf.) 2J 12b; 3J 14 (cp. PGM 1, 39 τὸ στόμα πρὸς τὸ στόμα). πρὸς ἀλλήλους to one another, with each other, among themselves: s. ἀντιβάλλω, διαλαλέω, also διαλέγομαι Mk 9:34, διαλογίζομαι 8:16; Lk 20:14, εἶπον 24:32; J 16:17; 19:24, λαλέω, λέγω et al. πρὸς ἑαυτούς to themselves, to each other: s. διαλογίζομαι 1; εἶπον Mk 12:7; J 7:35; λέγω (Ps.-Callisth. 2, 15, 7 πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἔλεγεν; Just., D. 62, 2) Mk 10:26; 16:3. διαθήκην ὁ θεὸς διέθετο πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ὑμῶν, λέγων πρὸς Ἀβραάμ God made a covenant with your fathers, when he said to Abraham Ac 3:25 (διατίθημι 1). ὅρκον ὀμνύναι πρ. τινα (ὀμνύω, end) Lk 1:73.
ζ. of asking, praying δέομαι Ac 8:24. εὔχομαι (s. εὔχομαι 1; cp. 2 Macc 9:13) 2 Cor 13:7. προσεύχομαι (cp. 1 Km 12:19; 2 Esdr 12: 4; 2 Macc 2:10) Hv 1, 1, 9. γνωρίζεσθαι πρὸς τὸν θεόν Phil 4:6 (γνωρίζω 1).—Also after nouns like δέησις, λόγος et al. Ro 10:1; 15:30; 2 Cor 1:18 al.
ⓑ of time near, at, or during (a certain time)
α. denoting approach toward (X., Pla. et al.) πρὸς ἑσπέραν toward evening Lk 24:29 (so Just., D. 97, 1; s. ἑσπέρα).
β. of temporal duration for πρὸς καιρόν for a time, for a while (καιρός 1a) Lk 8:13; 1 Cor 7:5. πρὸς καιρὸν ὥρας (καιρός 1a) 1 Th 2:17. πρὸς ὥραν for an hour, i.e. for a short time J 5:35; 2 Cor 7:8; Gal 2:5a; Phlm 15; MPol 11:2. πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας Hb 12:10. Also πρὸς ὀλίγον Js 4:14; GJs 19:2 (ὀλίγος 3). πρὸς τὸ παρόν for the present Hb 12:11 (πάρειμι 1b).
ⓒ of goal (aiming) at or (striving) toward
α. with conscious purpose for, for the purpose of, on behalf of οὗτος ἦν ὁ πρὸς τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην καθήμενος this was the one who sat (and begged) for alms Ac 3:10. πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ Ro 3:26. τοῦτο πρὸς τὸ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν σύμφορον λέγω 1 Cor 7:35a; cp. 35b. ἐγράφη πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν 10:11. Cp. Ro 15:2; 1 Cor 6:5; 2 Cor 4:6; 7:3; 11:8; Eph 4:12.—W. acc. of the inf. (Polyb. 1, 48, 5; PRyl 69, 16; BGU 226, 22; Jer 34:10; 2 Macc 4:45; TestJob 45:4; Jos., Ant. 14, 170; 15, 148 al.; Just., D. 132, 1) πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in order to be seen by men Mt 23:5; cp. 6:1. πρὸς τὸ κατακαῦσαι αὐτά 13:30. πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με 26:12. πρὸς τὸ ἀποπλανᾶν εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς Mk 13:22. πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ 2 Cor 3:13. Cp. Eph 6:11a; 1 Th 2:9; 2 Th 3:8; Js 3:3 v.l.
β. gener. of design, destiny (Demetr.[?]: 722 Fgm. 7 Jac. πρὸς τὴν κάρπωσιν; TestJob 42:7 τὰ πρὸς θυσίαν; Jos., Bell. 4, 573 τὸ πρ. σωτηρίαν φάρμακον) τῷ θεῷ πρὸς δόξαν for the glory of God 2 Cor 1:20 (on πρὸς δόξαν cp. SIG 456, 15; 704e, 21; 3 Macc 2:9; Just., A I, 15, 10 μηδὲν πρὸς δόξαν ποιεῖν). τῇ πυρώσει πρὸς πειρασμὸν ὑμῖν γινομένῃ 1 Pt 4:12.—After adjectives and participles for ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομήν Eph 4:29 (ἀγ. 1a) ἀδόκιμος Tit 1:16. ἀνεύθετος πρὸς παραχειμασίαν Ac 27:12. γεγυμνασμένος Hb 5:14. δυνατός 2 Cor 10:4. ἐξηρτισμένος 2 Ti 3:17. ἕτοιμος (q.v. b) Tit 3:1; 1 Pt 3:15. ἱκανός (q.v. 2) 2 Cor 2:16. ὠφέλιμος 1 Ti 4:8ab; 2 Ti 3:16.​

​

Character limit. Continued next post.​

 

[OldShepherd]

Previous post continued.

γ. of the result that follows a set of circumstances (so that) πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν γινέσθω everything is to be done in such a way that it contributes to edification 1 Cor 14:26; cp. vs. 12; Col 2:23 (but see eδ below); 1 Ti 4:7. ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτήν one who looks at a woman with sinful desire Mt 5:28, but s. eε below. λευκαί εἰσιν πρὸς θερισμόν they (the fields) are white, so that the harvest may begin J 4:35. αὕτη ἡ ἀσθένεια οὐκ ἔστιν πρὸς θάνατον this disease is not of the kind that will lead to death 11:4. Cp. ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον 1J 5:16f.
ⓓ of relationship (hostile or friendly), against, for
α. hostile against, with after verbs of disputing, etc.; s. ἀνταγωνίζομαι, γογγύζω, διακρίνομαι (διακρίνω 5b), διαλέγομαι 1, πικραίνομαι (πικραίνω 2), στασιάζω, ἔστην (ἵστημι B3). ἐστίν τινι ἡ πάλη πρός Eph 6:12. ἔχειν τι πρός τινα have anything (to bring up) against someone Ac 24:19. μομφὴν ἔχειν πρός τινα Col 3:13. πρᾶγμα ἔχειν πρός τινα 1 Cor 6:1 (πρᾶγμα 4). ἐγένετο γογγυσμὸς τῶν Ἑλληνιστῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἑβραίους Ac 6:1. τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν ἀνέῳγεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς 2 Cor 6:11 (ἀνοίγω 7). ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες πρὸς αὐτούς Lk 23:12. βλασφημίαι πρὸς τὸν θεόν Rv 13:6 (cp. TestJob 25:10 εἰπὲ ἓν ῥῆμα πρὸς τὸν θεόν). ἀσύμφωνοι πρ. ἀλλήλους unable to agree among themselves Ac 28:25 (Tat. 25, 2); cp. the structure of Col 2:23.
β. friendly to, toward, with, before ἐργάζεσθαι τὸ ἀγαθόν Gal 6:10ab (ἐργάζομαι 2a). μακροθυμεῖν 1 Th 5:14. εἰρήνην ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν θεόν Ro 5:1 (s. εἰρήνη 2b). παρρησίαν ἔχειν πρὸς τ. θεόν 1J 3:21; cp. 5:14. πίστιν ἔχειν πρὸς τ. κύριον Ἰ. Phlm 5. πεποίθησιν ἔχειν πρὸς τ. θεόν 2 Cor 3:4. ἔχειν χάριν πρὸς ὅλον τὸν λαόν Ac 2:47 (FCheetham, ET 74, ’63, 214f). πραΰτητα ἐνδείκνυσθαι Tit 3:2. ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖν Col 4:5. ἤπιον εἶναι πρὸς πάντας 2 Ti 2:24.—After substantives: πίστις 1 Th 1:8 (cp. 4 Macc 15:24; Just., D. 121, 2); παρρησία 2 Cor 7:4; κοινωνία 6:14; συμφώνησις vs. 15 (cp. Is 7:2).
ⓔ to indicate a connection by marking a point of reference, with reference/regard to
α. with reference to (Ocellus Luc. c. 42 πρὸς ἡμᾶς=with reference to us) ἔγνωσαν ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν εἶπεν they recognized that he had spoken the parable with reference to them Mk 12:12; Lk 20:19; cp. 12:41 (Vita Aesopi cod. G 98 P. οἱ Σάμιοι νοήσαντες πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς εἰρῆσθαι τοὺς λόγους; Just., D. 122, 3 ταῦτα … πρὸς τὸν χριστὸν … εἴρηται). ἔλεγεν παραβολὴν πρὸς τὸ δεῖν προσεύχεσθαι he told them a parable about the need of praying 18:1 (Just., D. 90, 5 σύμβολον … πρὸς τὸν χριστόν). οὐδεὶς ἔγνω πρὸς τί εἶπεν αὐτῷ nobody understood with respect to what (=why) he said (this) to him J 13:28. πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν with reference to (i.e. because of) your perversity Mt 19:8; Mk 10:5 (Just., D. 45, 3). Cp. Ro 10:21a; Hb 1:7f. οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ πρὸς οὐδὲ ἓν ῥῆμα he did not answer him a single word with reference to anything Mt 27:14 (s. ἀποκρίνομαι 1). ἀνταποκριθῆναι πρὸς ταῦτα Lk 14:6 (s. ἀνταποκρίνομαι). ἀπρόσκοπον συνείδησιν ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν θεόν have a clear conscience with respect to God Ac 24:16.
β. as far as … is concerned, with regard to (Maximus Tyr. 31, 3b) πρὸς τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος Hb 6:11. συνιστάνοντες ἑαυτοὺς πρὸς πᾶσαν συνείδησιν ἀνθρώπων we are recommending ourselves as far as every human conscience is concerned = to every human conscience (πρός w. acc. also stands simply for the dative; s. Mayser II/2 p. 359) 2 Cor 4:2. τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν that which concerns God or as adverbial acc. with reference to what concerns God (Soph., Phil. 1441; X., De Rep. Lac. 13, 11; Ps.-Isocr. 1, 13 εὐσεβεῖν τὰ πρὸς τ. θεούς; SIG 204, 51f; 306, 38; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 109, 3 εὐσεβὴς τὰ πρὸς θεούς; Ex 4:16; 18:19; Jos., Ant. 9, 236) Ro 15:17; Hb 2:17; 5:1. τὰ πρός τι that which belongs to someth.; that which is necessary for someth. (Plut., Mor. 109b; Jos., Ant. 12, 405 τὰ πρὸς τὴν μάχην; 14, 27; a standard term in state documents) τὰ πρὸς ἀπαρτισμόν Lk 14:28 v.l. τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην (TestJud 9) vs. 32; what makes for peace 19:42. Cp. Ac 28:10; 2 Pt 1:3.
γ. elliptically τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς (sc. ἐστιν); what is that to us? Mt 27:4. τί πρὸς σέ; how does it concern you? J 21:22f (cp. Epict. 4, 1, 10 τί τοῦτο πρὸς σέ; Plut., Mor. 986b; Vi. Aesopi I 14 p. 265, 4 Eberh. τί πρὸς ἐμέ; ApcMos 11 οὐ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἡ πλεονεξία σου).
δ. in accordance with ὀρθοποδεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν Gal 2:14. πρὸς τὸ κένωμα in accordance with the emptiness Hm 11:3. πρὸς τὸ θέλημα in accordance w. the will Lk 12:47; Hs 9, 5, 2. πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν 2 Cor 5:10. πρὸς ὅ Eph 3:4.—In comparison with, to be compared to (Pind., Hdt. et al.; Ps.-Luc., Halc. 3 πρὸς τὸν πάντα αἰῶνα=[life is short] in comparison to all eternity; Sir 25:19; TestJob 18:8; 23:8; Just., D. 19, 2 οὐδὲν … πρὸς τὸ βάπτισμα τοῦτο τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ἐστι; Tat. 29, 1 ὀρθοποδεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν) ἄξια πρός Ro 8:18 (RLeaney, ET 64, ’52f; 92 interprets Col 2:23 in the light of this usage). Cp. IMg 12.
ε. expressing purpose πρὸς τό w. inf. (s. Mayser II/1 p. 331f) in order to, for the purpose of Mk 13:22; Ac 3:19 v.l. Perh. Mt 5:28 (s. cγ above).
ⓕ in adverbial expressions (cp. πρὸς ὀργήν = ὀργίλως Soph., Elect. 369; Jos., Bell. 2, 534. πρὸς βίαν = βιαίως Aeschyl., Prom. 208, 353, Eum. 5; Menand., Sam. 559 S. [214 Kö.]; Philo, Spec. Leg. 3, 3. πρὸς ἡδονήν Jos., Ant. 7, 195; 12, 398; Just., A II, 3, 2 πρὸς χάριν καὶ ἡδονὴν τῶν πολλῶν) πρὸς φθόνον prob.=φθονερῶς jealously Js 4:5 (s. φθόνος, where the lit. is given). πρὸς εὐφρασίαν w. joy AcPl Ox 6, 9f (cp. Aa 1 p. 241, 1 ὑπερευφραινομένη).
ⓖ by, at, near πρός τινα εἶναι be (in company) with someone Mt 13:56; Mk 6:3; 9:19a; 14:49; Lk 9:41; J 1:1f; 1 Th 3:4; 2 Th 2:5; 3:10; 1J 1:2. διαμένειν Ac 10:48 D; Gal 2:5b. ἐπιμένειν 1:18; 1 Cor 16:7. παραμένειν 16:6 (v.l. κατα-). μένειν Ac 18:3 D. παρεῖναι 12:20; 2 Cor 11:9; Gal 4:18, 20; cp. παρουσία πρὸς ὑμᾶς Phil 1:26. παρεπιδημεῖν 1 Cl 1:2. ἐποίησεν τρεῖς μῆνας πρὸς τὴν Ἐλισάβεδ GJs 12:3. πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα Mt 26:18b. Cp. also 2 Cor 1:12; 7:12; 12:21; 2 Th 3:1; Phlm 13; 1J 2:1; Hm 11:9b v.l.—πρὸς ἑαυτούς among or to themselves Mk 9:10 (in case πρὸς ἑ. belongs w. τὸν λόγον ἐκράτησαν; B-D-F §239, 1). πρὸς ἑαυτὸν προσηύχετο he uttered a prayer to himself Lk 18:11. Cp. 24:12.—δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν tied at a door Mk 11:4. τὴν πᾶσαν σάρκα ἀνθρώπων πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἐδέσμευεν (Satan) bound all humankind to self-gratification AcPlCor 2:11. πρὸς τ. θάλασσαν by the seaside Mk 4:1b. On πρὸς τὸ φῶς at the fire Mk 14:54; Lk 22:56 s. B-D-F §239, 3; Rob. 625 (perh. w. the idea of turning toward the fire; s. also 4 Km 23:3). πρὸς ἓν τῶν ὀρέων at one of the mountains 1 Cl 10:7. τὰ πρὸς τὴν θύραν the place near the door Mk 2:2. πρὸς γράμμα letter by letter Hv 2, 1, 4.—On πρός τι terms s. PWouters, The Treatment of Relational Nouns in Ancient Grammar: Orbis 38, ’95, 149–78 (lit.). M-M. EDNT. 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), 873–875.​

 

[SeventhDay]

Previous post continued.

γ. of the result that follows a set of circumstances (so that) πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν γινέσθω everything is to be done in such a way that it contributes to edification 1 Cor 14:26; cp. vs. 12; Col 2:23 (but see eδ below); 1 Ti 4:7. ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτήν one who looks at a woman with sinful desire Mt 5:28, but s. eε below. λευκαί εἰσιν πρὸς θερισμόν they (the fields) are white, so that the harvest may begin J 4:35. αὕτη ἡ ἀσθένεια οὐκ ἔστιν πρὸς θάνατον this disease is not of the kind that will lead to death 11:4. Cp. ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον 1J 5:16f.​

ⓓ of relationship (hostile or friendly), against, for​

α. hostile against, with after verbs of disputing, etc.; s. ἀνταγωνίζομαι, γογγύζω, διακρίνομαι (διακρίνω 5b), διαλέγομαι 1, πικραίνομαι (πικραίνω 2), στασιάζω, ἔστην (ἵστημι B3). ἐστίν τινι ἡ πάλη πρός Eph 6:12. ἔχειν τι πρός τινα have anything (to bring up) against someone Ac 24:19. μομφὴν ἔχειν πρός τινα Col 3:13. πρᾶγμα ἔχειν πρός τινα 1 Cor 6:1 (πρᾶγμα 4). ἐγένετο γογγυσμὸς τῶν Ἑλληνιστῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἑβραίους Ac 6:1. τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν ἀνέῳγεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς 2 Cor 6:11 (ἀνοίγω 7). ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες πρὸς αὐτούς Lk 23:12. βλασφημίαι πρὸς τὸν θεόν Rv 13:6 (cp. TestJob 25:10 εἰπὲ ἓν ῥῆμα πρὸς τὸν θεόν). ἀσύμφωνοι πρ. ἀλλήλους unable to agree among themselves Ac 28:25 (Tat. 25, 2); cp. the structure of Col 2:23.​

β. friendly to, toward, with, before ἐργάζεσθαι τὸ ἀγαθόν Gal 6:10ab (ἐργάζομαι 2a). μακροθυμεῖν 1 Th 5:14. εἰρήνην ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν θεόν Ro 5:1 (s. εἰρήνη 2b). παρρησίαν ἔχειν πρὸς τ. θεόν 1J 3:21; cp. 5:14. πίστιν ἔχειν πρὸς τ. κύριον Ἰ. Phlm 5. πεποίθησιν ἔχειν πρὸς τ. θεόν 2 Cor 3:4. ἔχειν χάριν πρὸς ὅλον τὸν λαόν Ac 2:47 (FCheetham, ET 74, ’63, 214f). πραΰτητα ἐνδείκνυσθαι Tit 3:2. ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖν Col 4:5. ἤπιον εἶναι πρὸς πάντας 2 Ti 2:24.—After substantives: πίστις 1 Th 1:8 (cp. 4 Macc 15:24; Just., D. 121, 2); παρρησία 2 Cor 7:4; κοινωνία 6:14; συμφώνησις vs. 15 (cp. Is 7:2).​

ⓔ to indicate a connection by marking a point of reference, with reference/regard to​

α. with reference to (Ocellus Luc. c. 42 πρὸς ἡμᾶς=with reference to us) ἔγνωσαν ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν εἶπεν they recognized that he had spoken the parable with reference to them Mk 12:12; Lk 20:19; cp. 12:41 (Vita Aesopi cod. G 98 P. οἱ Σάμιοι νοήσαντες πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς εἰρῆσθαι τοὺς λόγους; Just., D. 122, 3 ταῦτα … πρὸς τὸν χριστὸν … εἴρηται). ἔλεγεν παραβολὴν πρὸς τὸ δεῖν προσεύχεσθαι he told them a parable about the need of praying 18:1 (Just., D. 90, 5 σύμβολον … πρὸς τὸν χριστόν). οὐδεὶς ἔγνω πρὸς τί εἶπεν αὐτῷ nobody understood with respect to what (=why) he said (this) to him J 13:28. πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν with reference to (i.e. because of) your perversity Mt 19:8; Mk 10:5 (Just., D. 45, 3). Cp. Ro 10:21a; Hb 1:7f. οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ πρὸς οὐδὲ ἓν ῥῆμα he did not answer him a single word with reference to anything Mt 27:14 (s. ἀποκρίνομαι 1). ἀνταποκριθῆναι πρὸς ταῦτα Lk 14:6 (s. ἀνταποκρίνομαι). ἀπρόσκοπον συνείδησιν ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν θεόν have a clear conscience with respect to God Ac 24:16.​

β. as far as … is concerned, with regard to (Maximus Tyr. 31, 3b) πρὸς τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος Hb 6:11. συνιστάνοντες ἑαυτοὺς πρὸς πᾶσαν συνείδησιν ἀνθρώπων we are recommending ourselves as far as every human conscience is concerned = to every human conscience (πρός w. acc. also stands simply for the dative; s. Mayser II/2 p. 359) 2 Cor 4:2. τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν that which concerns God or as adverbial acc. with reference to what concerns God (Soph., Phil. 1441; X., De Rep. Lac. 13, 11; Ps.-Isocr. 1, 13 εὐσεβεῖν τὰ πρὸς τ. θεούς; SIG 204, 51f; 306, 38; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 109, 3 εὐσεβὴς τὰ πρὸς θεούς; Ex 4:16; 18:19; Jos., Ant. 9, 236) Ro 15:17; Hb 2:17; 5:1. τὰ πρός τι that which belongs to someth.; that which is necessary for someth. (Plut., Mor. 109b; Jos., Ant. 12, 405 τὰ πρὸς τὴν μάχην; 14, 27; a standard term in state documents) τὰ πρὸς ἀπαρτισμόν Lk 14:28 v.l. τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην (TestJud 9) vs. 32; what makes for peace 19:42. Cp. Ac 28:10; 2 Pt 1:3.​

γ. elliptically τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς (sc. ἐστιν); what is that to us? Mt 27:4. τί πρὸς σέ; how does it concern you? J 21:22f (cp. Epict. 4, 1, 10 τί τοῦτο πρὸς σέ; Plut., Mor. 986b; Vi. Aesopi I 14 p. 265, 4 Eberh. τί πρὸς ἐμέ; ApcMos 11 οὐ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἡ πλεονεξία σου).​

δ. in accordance with ὀρθοποδεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν Gal 2:14. πρὸς τὸ κένωμα in accordance with the emptiness Hm 11:3. πρὸς τὸ θέλημα in accordance w. the will Lk 12:47; Hs 9, 5, 2. πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν 2 Cor 5:10. πρὸς ὅ Eph 3:4.—In comparison with, to be compared to (Pind., Hdt. et al.; Ps.-Luc., Halc. 3 πρὸς τὸν πάντα αἰῶνα=[life is short] in comparison to all eternity; Sir 25:19; TestJob 18:8; 23:8; Just., D. 19, 2 οὐδὲν … πρὸς τὸ βάπτισμα τοῦτο τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ἐστι; Tat. 29, 1 ὀρθοποδεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν) ἄξια πρός Ro 8:18 (RLeaney, ET 64, ’52f; 92 interprets Col 2:23 in the light of this usage). Cp. IMg 12.​

ε. expressing purpose πρὸς τό w. inf. (s. Mayser II/1 p. 331f) in order to, for the purpose of Mk 13:22; Ac 3:19 v.l. Perh. Mt 5:28 (s. cγ above).​

ⓕ in adverbial expressions (cp. πρὸς ὀργήν = ὀργίλως Soph., Elect. 369; Jos., Bell. 2, 534. πρὸς βίαν = βιαίως Aeschyl., Prom. 208, 353, Eum. 5; Menand., Sam. 559 S. [214 Kö.]; Philo, Spec. Leg. 3, 3. πρὸς ἡδονήν Jos., Ant. 7, 195; 12, 398; Just., A II, 3, 2 πρὸς χάριν καὶ ἡδονὴν τῶν πολλῶν) πρὸς φθόνον prob.=φθονερῶς jealously Js 4:5 (s. φθόνος, where the lit. is given). πρὸς εὐφρασίαν w. joy AcPl Ox 6, 9f (cp. Aa 1 p. 241, 1 ὑπερευφραινομένη).​

ⓖ by, at, near πρός τινα εἶναι be (in company) with someone Mt 13:56; Mk 6:3; 9:19a; 14:49; Lk 9:41; J 1:1f; 1 Th 3:4; 2 Th 2:5; 3:10; 1J 1:2. διαμένειν Ac 10:48 D; Gal 2:5b. ἐπιμένειν 1:18; 1 Cor 16:7. παραμένειν 16:6 (v.l. κατα-). μένειν Ac 18:3 D. παρεῖναι 12:20; 2 Cor 11:9; Gal 4:18, 20; cp. παρουσία πρὸς ὑμᾶς Phil 1:26. παρεπιδημεῖν 1 Cl 1:2. ἐποίησεν τρεῖς μῆνας πρὸς τὴν Ἐλισάβεδ GJs 12:3. πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα Mt 26:18b. Cp. also 2 Cor 1:12; 7:12; 12:21; 2 Th 3:1; Phlm 13; 1J 2:1; Hm 11:9b v.l.—πρὸς ἑαυτούς among or to themselves Mk 9:10 (in case πρὸς ἑ. belongs w. τὸν λόγον ἐκράτησαν; B-D-F §239, 1). πρὸς ἑαυτὸν προσηύχετο he uttered a prayer to himself Lk 18:11. Cp. 24:12.—δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν tied at a door Mk 11:4. τὴν πᾶσαν σάρκα ἀνθρώπων πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἐδέσμευεν (Satan) bound all humankind to self-gratification AcPlCor 2:11. πρὸς τ. θάλασσαν by the seaside Mk 4:1b. On πρὸς τὸ φῶς at the fire Mk 14:54; Lk 22:56 s. B-D-F §239, 3; Rob. 625 (perh. w. the idea of turning toward the fire; s. also 4 Km 23:3). πρὸς ἓν τῶν ὀρέων at one of the mountains 1 Cl 10:7. τὰ πρὸς τὴν θύραν the place near the door Mk 2:2. πρὸς γράμμα letter by letter Hv 2, 1, 4.—On πρός τι terms s. PWouters, The Treatment of Relational Nouns in Ancient Grammar: Orbis 38, ’95, 149–78 (lit.). M-M. EDNT. 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), 873–875.​

Thus, "pros" can be a referent as well? God bless you.

 

[Anthony]

You have to see Jesus as the Father and the Son because Jesus is the only one true God called the Father. The problem is that we separate God who is the Father from the Son. Jesus said that "I and the Father are one". Therefore when you think of Jesus you must think of the Father and not just the Son. Jesus said that if you saw him you saw the Father therefore that is what you see. You see Father and the Son in relationship and that is what you must see when you see God the Father. That is what God wants you always to see. Do you understand that? God bless you.

I see it differently. The Father and The Son dipicts covenant relationship between God and Israel. Who is the 'firstborn son' ? The Firstborn inherits all the father's promises. So Israel as an heir inherits all father's spiritual blessings.

The Son of God not only reprents Israel corporately but also Mediated for Israel because Israel is in flesh bound by Torah after fleshly ordinances. It needed to transition from flesh to being spiritual to get spiritual inheritance. That's why Israel needed a Spiritual Seed for transition. That Spiritual Seed is The Son of the Living God.

To tightly understand the NT, we must be connected to the OT and historical Israel. Just reading the NT without the OT deprives us of the harmony of scriptures.

The Son inThe NT is YHWH of the OT. YHWH is revealed in duality of powers in OT. He is presented as The Father as well as The Husband; Invisible as well as in the Form of a Man in Whose image and likeness Adam was created. We are all offsprings of God and outwardly look like Him.

Adam was His offspring (we all thus are). The story in NT is that He became Offspring of Adam/Abraham to save mankind. Root as well as the Offspring. Many people who don't believe this are offended and day and night they make The Messiah a lesser God. But He is fully God and there is no knowledge of God beyond Him.

Unitarians/JWs don't know Him as they see scriptures in the NT where The Son calls The Father as His God. They misinterpret Phil 2:

5 Have this in your mind, which was also in Messiah Yeshua,

6 who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.

The form of God is the figure of a Man in creation. YHWH was in the form of a Man in whose image mankind were created (His offspring).

Gen 1:26 God said, “Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness. .......

Why does God use US and OUR - plural pronounce? It's to demonstrate His duality of being Transcendent as well being in creation in the figurehead of a Man.

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of יהוה Elohim walking about in the garden in the cool of the day, and Aḏam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of יהוה Elohim among the trees of the garden.

YHWH Elohim WALKING and having a VOICE and PRESENCE? He is in the form of a Man.

Exod 15: 3 “יהוה is a man of battle, יהוה is His Name.

There are hundreds of other scriptures. That's what Phil 2:5-6 speak of Yeshua Messiah having the Form of God. He is the Face and Presence of Transcendent God Who can never be seen, heard or approached.

That's why The Messiah told Philip that seeing Him is in reality seeing The Father (referring to Transcendent God). He is speaking as The Son being His offspring also. YHWH became our Yeshua. The Root became the Offspring in His love for us. This is offensive to many cults.

Adam was His figure (image outwardly) and The One Who was to come would be the Offspring ;

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

How can we live, move and have our being if we are not His Offspring? We outwardly look like the Figurehead.

I struggled to understand this for a long time until by His grace saw the harmony of scriptures. Now being saved need to conform to His Spiritual image partaking of His love and holiness.

 

[Andreas]

Nope, maybe, just maybe, you should listen to the argument presented as opposed to assuming I'm saying something silly. πρὸς can be used in many ways, but it isn't used to say something is with someone. To my knowledge, that's not within its semantic range. If you disagree, then find a use of πρὸς in the NT that communicates a persons has some object with them.

God Bless

https://biblehub.com/greek/4314.htm

 

[Andreas]

How is this contradictory? The first use of God is clearly referring to the Father, and the second use is clearly referring to the Son. Therefore, no contradiction at all.

It only works for you to read into it these eternal persons because you have the Trinitarian lenses on. Like evolutionists and fossils. It's not like fossils come with birthdays stamped on them, evolutionists just make inferences based on their prior assumptions. Nothing that contradicts their narrative is allowed by default. So with you.

I am taking John's use of the term Logos seriously. John is using the title "the Word" for Jesus just like Jesus used the titles "the Way, the Truth," and the Life" for himself. Why he choose to use this title is interesting, but it is irrelevant to the argument I'm presenting.

Therein is the problem. I highly recommend that you think of it as relevant in forming your theology. What is your definition of the Greek "logos"?

So, you are interpreting it similarly to the way I am. You're just not willing to think through all the logical implication of this passage. The passage says "he has made him know". Not, the impersonal visible expression made him known. And, if it is just saying, God's impersonal visible expression made him known what on earth does "No one has ever seen God" mean, and why is John bringing this up?

There is nothing impersonal about Christ. Is your physical body impersonal? The Son is the express image of God the Father (Hebrews 1:3).

You're mischaracterizing everything. The Biblical view is not three eternal persons and then one person comes down and lives as a man. The Biblical view is that the One true God became flesh, a genuine man, while simultaneously existing as He always has as omnipotent Spirit.

Are you forgetting that we are monotheists? Or, are you just pretending otherwise? The Father and Son are different persons while being the same God.

I know that Trinitarians say they are monotheists but it seems like I'm always trying to remind you to not jump off the polytheistic cliff.

 

[Andreas]

When you have an advanced degree with a few semesters of Greek as I do you might know enough to lecture me.
A.T Robertson Word Pictures in the N.T. Taught graduate level Greek for 40+ years.

With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.​

AOC was an economics major too.

I understand that Greek words can have shades of meaning not always brought out in translation to English. Sometimes there are nuances in the language that even Greek scholars would struggle with. But, I also know that it is the pattern of false prophets to use these shades of meaning to establish doctrine. They can be enrich teaching and preaching on practical Christian living but not for establishing fundamental doctrine. JW's do that.

So, please step back from the polytheism cliff and as objective as you can don't you realize that two bodies that are literally face to face is bold, pants on fire polytheism?

If you really want to take the intimacy concept seriously in John 1:1, then I would suggest to you that nothing is more intimate to God the Father than his own logos.

 

[OldShepherd]

AOC was an economics major too.
I understand that Greek words can have shades of meaning not always brought out in translation to English. Sometimes there are nuances in the language that even Greek scholars would struggle with. But, I also know that it is the pattern of false prophets to use these shades of meaning to establish doctrine. They can be enrich teaching and preaching on practical Christian living but not for establishing fundamental doctrine. JW's do that.
So, please step back from the polytheism cliff and as objective as you can don't you realize that two bodies that are literally face to face is bold, pants on fire polytheism?
If you really want to take the intimacy concept seriously in John 1:1, then I would suggest to you that nothing is more intimate to God the Father than his own logos.

Well, you just lost any credibility you might have had accusing me of "polytheism." Here is what I know from scripture.

Anti-Trinitarians endlessly squabble and bicker about words, used by Trinitarians, trying to express the nature of God, as revealed in scripture, e.g. e.g. Trinity,””triune,””person,""being,""entity," etc., etc., All words are inherently finite and imperfect, therefore any , are totally inadequate to describe God, the infinite, perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. ​

Here yet again scriptural truths I have posted before, without any so-called unscriptural words or man made doctrines.​

1. There is one God! The Father is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Father is not the Son or the Spirit. Numerous vss. e.g., John 6:27, Gal 1:1, Gal 1:3, Eph 6:23, Philippians 2:11, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Tim 1:2, Titus 1:4, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:17 et. al.​

2. There is one God! The Son is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. ​

[1] Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.​

[2]Isaiah 7:14​

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.​

[3]Luk 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.​

[4] Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[5] Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ​

[6] Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him[God created the world, Gen 1:1], and the world knew him not. ​

[7] Joh 1:14 And the Word [acting on Himself] became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. ​

[8] Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, μονογενὴς θεὸς ] which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.​

[9] John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

[10] Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. [Jewish leaders speaking] ​

[11] Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.[John speaking]​

[12] Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, [Amen, Amen] I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am [ אהיה/ehyeh, I am, Ex 3:14]. ​

[13] John 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his [Jesus] glory, and spake of him[יהוה/YHWH, Isa 6:1ff].​

Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple​

[14] Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?​

[15] Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was[Jesus was aware of His existence,with God, before the world was created.].

[16] Joh 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine[Everything that belongs to the Father belongs to Jesus]; and I am glorified in them.​

​

Character limit. Continued next post.​

​

 

[OldShepherd]

[Previous post continued]

[17] Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, [Jesus] My Lord and my God. [Thomas addressed Jesus as God and Jesus praised him.]​

[18] Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.​

[19] Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever[Jesus called God]. Amen.​

[20] 2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[21] Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: ​

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: ​

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: ​

[22] Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. ​

[23] Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: ​

[24] Heb 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; ​

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; ​

[25] Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever[God calls the Son, God]: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. ​

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. ​

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: ​

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;​

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. ​

[26] Heb 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. ​

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. ​

[27] Phi 2:6 Who, being [existing] in the form of God, thought it not something to be used to His advantage the being[present, active infinitive] equal with God:[The being equal to God was a then and there reality not something considered and declined.]​

[28] 1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh[Jesus called God], is justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

[29] 1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ[Jesus called God], which is our hope; ​

[If Jesus is not God and savior in vs,1 He is not Lord and savior in vs. 11. Same grammatical construction]​

2 Peter 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.​

[30] 1 Tim 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;[The lamb is king of kings, Rev 17:14, Jesus is king of kings, Rev 19:16, God is Lord of Lords Deu 10:17]​

​

[Character limit continued next post]​

 

[OldShepherd]

[Previous post continued]

[31] Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ[Jesus called God. If Jesus is not God in Tts 2:13 He is not Lord and Savior 2 Pet 1:11, same grammatical structure.];​

14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.​

[32] 2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ[Jesus called God. If Jesus is NOT God and savior 2 Pet 1:1, He is not Lord and savior vs. 2:11, same grammatical structure.]:​

[33] 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life[Jesus called God].​

[34] Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings[יהוה/YHWH, Deu 10:17]: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.​

[35] Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS[יהוה/YHWH, Deu 10:17].​

[36] Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be[יהוה/YHWH, Isa 40:10].​

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.[יהוה/YHWH, Isa 44:6]​

There is one God! The Holy Spirit is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Scripture which address or refer to the Holy Spirit as God. Acts 5:3-4; Acts 28:25-27-Isa 6:8-10; Heb 10:15-17=Jer 32:33-34; Heb 3:7-11-Ps 95:1011, Deu 1:34-35
Scripture which identify the Holy Spirit as God

[1] Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?​

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.​

This passage, Act 5:3-4, above, identifies the Holy Spirit as God by equating lying to the H.S. with lying to God.

[2] Act 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,​

26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:​

27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.​

This passage Act 28:25-27, above, identifies the Holy Spirit as YHWH by saying the H.S. spoke words which were spoken by YHWH, in Isa 6:8-10, below.

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, [יהוה/YHWH] saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.​

9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.​

10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.​

= = = = = = = = = = =

[3] Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,​

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. [O.T. see יהוה/YHWH, Jer 31:33-34]​

This passage, Heb 10:15-17, above, identifies the Holy Spirit as YHWH by saying words spoken by YHWH, in Jer 31:33-34, below, were spoken by the H.S.

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, [יהוה/YHWH] I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.​

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.​

= = = = = = = = = = =

[4] Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,​

8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:​

9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.​

10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. [O.T. יהוה/YHWH, Ps 95:10]​

11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) [O.T. יהוה/YHWH, Deu 1:34-35]​

This passage, Heb 3:7-11, above, identifies the Holy Spirit as YHWH by saying words spoken by YHWH in Psa 95:10-11, and Deu 1:34-35, below, were spoken by the Holy Spirit.

Psa 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:​

11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.​

= = = = = = = = = =​

Deu 1:34 And the LORD [יהוה/YHWH] heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying, that they should not enter into my rest.​

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

How is this contradictory? The first use of God is clearly referring to the Father, and the second use is clearly referring to the Son. Therefore, no contradiction at all.

It only works for you to read into it these eternal persons because you have the Trinitarian lenses on. Like evolutionists and fossils. It's not like fossils come with birthdays stamped on them, evolutionists just make inferences based on their prior assumptions. Nothing that contradicts their narrative is allowed by default. So with you.

Something doesn't become contradictory when someone takes off their colored glasses.

I am taking John's use of the term Logos seriously. John is using the title "the Word" for Jesus just like Jesus used the titles "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" for himself. Why he choose to use this title is interesting, but it is irrelevant to the argument I'm presenting.

Therein is the problem. I highly recommend that you think of it as relevant in forming your theology. What is your definition of the Greek "logos"?

So, I need to agree with all of your philosophizing about Logos in order to take John's use of the term Logos serious? Such isn't a serious critique. Especially given the fact that you not taking the actual wording of the verse into consideration while interpreting John 1:1. John is using the title "the Word" for Jesus just like Jesus used the titles "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" for himself.

So, you are interpreting it similarly to the way I am. You're just not willing to think through all the logical implication of this passage. The passage says "he has made him know". Not, the impersonal visible expression made him known. And, if it is just saying, God's impersonal visible expression made him known what on earth does "No one has ever seen God" mean, and why is John bringing this up?

There is nothing impersonal about Christ. Is your physical body impersonal? The Son is the express image of God the Father (Hebrews 1:3).

Yes, my physical body is impersonal. I, the person indwelling my body, is personal, not the physical body.

The Son is the express image of God the Father. And? How is this relevant to prove your case as opposed to mine? Oh yeah, such doesn't differentiate between us. I just realize that Jesus was making the Father known in Genesis 18 too.

BTW, If the Logos is the visible expression of God, not a distinct person from God the Father, and one sees the Logos, then they saw God. What John said "No one has ever seen God" is a lie. Why are you arguing that John lied?

You're mischaracterizing everything. The Biblical view is not three eternal persons and then one person comes down and lives as a man. The Biblical view is that the One true God became flesh, a genuine man, while simultaneously existing as He always has as omnipotent Spirit.

Asserting your dogma isn't a reason to believe what your claiming. If the only person who is the one true God became flesh, a genuine man, then who is he praying too? Who does this person look to as his God in verses like John 20:17—"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"? Saying the change in perspective caused by the incarnation is enough to justify such language is beyond credulity.

Are you forgetting that we are monotheists? Or, are you just pretending otherwise? The Father and Son are different persons while being the same God.

I know that Trinitarians say they are monotheists but it seems like I'm always trying to remind you to not jump off the polytheistic cliff.

We haven't. You just pretend we are.

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

[Previous post continued]

[17] Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, [Jesus] My Lord and my God. [Thomas addressed Jesus as God and Jesus praised him.]​

​

All the verses you listed are what Oneness people love and hold to. What is happened is that you are just interpreting these verses with Trinitarian lenses on. It's not that any of these verses say "Trinity", "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost", "three persons". Yes you are feeling these words are "imperfect" because there is still a part of you that knows you're out on a rabbit trail. The words Trinitarians often use describe false concept or mischaracterize God. There are shades of truth mixed in empty words. Yes, it is true that Jesus is God but not as a second person in the Godhead. Trinitarians see Jesus walking in the flesh on the earth as a sort of God the Son with human window dressing. Trinitarians say God is omnipresent but then develop concepts that put the three persons within a body-centric concept. It reminds me of the three blind men who never saw an elephant and then each touches a different part of the elephant. The blind man touching the tail says the elephant is like a rope. The blind man touching the trunk says the elephant is like a hose. The blind man touching the ear, says the elephant is like a large pancake. There is some truth in what they say but they are all mischaracterizing the elephant. This is like Trinitarians describing God.

Oneness believers hold that there is One true God alone and we are to love him with all our heart, soul and strength (Deut 6:4). We believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There is one God the Father who is over all and in you all (Eph 4:6). God the Father is Spirit (John 4:24). Holiness describes God's basic moral character and Spirit describes God fundamental non-moral nature. The Holy Spirit is descriptive of God in action or God's presence in the regenerating the believer (the Father in you all - Eph 4:6). The Son is simply this one God manifested in the flesh as a genuine and true human permanently. The distinction between Father and Son, and Jesus prayers arises because of the Son is a genuine human.

 

[Andreas]

So, I need to agree with all of your philosophizing about Logos in order to take John's use of the term Logos serious? Such isn't a serious critique. Especially given the fact that you not taking the actual wording of the verse into consideration while interpreting John 1:1. John is using the title "the Word" for Jesus just like Jesus used the titles "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" for himself.

All those titles have a rich meaning and purpose, not because they sound cute. Do you know what the definition of logos is and why Jesus has that title?

Yes, my physical body is impersonal. I, the person indwelling my body, is personal, not the physical body.

This odd statement is part of the problem with understanding Oneness. Some of the ancients took your view to the extreme and called all physical matter evil by definition. I don't think you do, but there is still that subtle influence of the ancient Greeks. Of course you body is personal. Just because it can die doesn't mean its not personal. Paul said, to glorify God in YOUR BODY and spirit. Does your drivers license have your personal picture on it or what?

If you we can't agree that your physical body is you, then we are disagreeing on fundamental reality of what we can see.

The Son is the express image of God the Father. And? How is this relevant to prove your case as opposed to mine? Oh yeah, such doesn't differentiate between us. I just realize that Jesus was making the Father known in Genesis 18 too.

You have the incarnation as a manifestation of the 2nd person, not the first person. Jesus said if you know me, you know the Father. If you see me you see the Father. He is the Father's logos. As the song, "Joy to the World" says, "Word of the Father now in flesh appearing".

BTW, If the Logos is the visible expression of God, not a distinct person from God the Father, and one sees the Logos, then they saw God. What John said "No one has ever seen God" is a lie. Why are you arguing that John lied?

Your preferred version of John 1:18 holds that "the only God, who is at the Father’s side", so you are saying too that God is seen.

The correct way to understand John 1:18 is with the simple qualification that no one has seen God as omnipotent Spirit as in 1 Timothy 6:16

"who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen."

Asserting your dogma isn't a reason to believe what your claiming. If the only person who is the one true God became flesh, a genuine man, then who is he praying too? Who does this person look to as his God in verses like John 20:17—"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"? Saying the change in perspective caused by the incarnation is enough to justify such language is beyond credulity.

Have we been discussing this so long that you have not known that Jesus was praying as a man to the omnipotent and everywhere present God?

Please stop holding a body-centric view of three persons in the Godhead as depicted in Trinitarian stained glass windows. This is bold, pants on fire polytheism.

 

[OldShepherd]

All the verses you listed are what Oneness people love and hold to. What is happened is that you are just interpreting these verses with Trinitarian lenses on. It's not that any of these verses say "Trinity", "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost", "three persons". Yes you are feeling these words are "imperfect" because there is still a part of you that knows you're out on a rabbit trail. The words Trinitarians often use describe false concept or mischaracterize God. There are shades of truth mixed in empty words. Yes, it is true that Jesus is God but not as a second person in the Godhead. Trinitarians see Jesus walking in the flesh on the earth as a sort of God the Son with human window dressing. Trinitarians say God is omnipresent but then develop concepts that put the three persons within a body-centric concept. It reminds me of the three blind men who never saw an elephant and then each touches a different part of the elephant. The blind man touching the tail says the elephant is like a rope. The blind man touching the trunk says the elephant is like a hose. The blind man touching the ear, says the elephant is like a large pancake. There is some truth in what they say but they are all mischaracterizing the elephant. This is like Trinitarians describing God.

Oneness believers hold that there is One true God alone and we are to love him with all our heart, soul and strength (Deut 6:4). We believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There is one God the Father who is over all and in you all (Eph 4:6). God the Father is Spirit (John 4:24). Holiness describes God's basic moral character and Spirit describes God fundamental non-moral nature. The Holy Spirit is descriptive of God in action or God's presence in the regenerating the believer (the Father in you all - Eph 4:6). The Son is simply this one God manifested in the flesh as a genuine and true human permanently. The distinction between Father and Son, and Jesus prayers arises because of the Son is a genuine human.

Thank you for this vague, irrelevant, meaningless opinion. I classify this reply in the "Neener, neener, neener. I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" category.
If Jesus is not "God and savior" in 2 Pet 1:1 He is not Lord and savior vs 2:11. Same grammatical structure.

2 Peter 1:1​

(1) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:​

2 Peter 1:11​

(11) For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.​

 

[OldShepherd]

All those titles have a rich meaning and purpose, not because they sound cute. Do you know what the definition of logos is and why Jesus has that title?
This odd statement is part of the problem with understanding Oneness. Some of the ancients took your view to the extreme and called all physical matter evil by definition. I don't think you do, but there is still that subtle influence of the ancient Greeks. Of course you body is personal. Just because it can die doesn't mean its not personal. Paul said, to glorify God in YOUR BODY and spirit. Does your drivers license have your personal picture on it or what?
If you we can't agree that your physical body is you, then we are disagreeing on fundamental reality of what we can see.
You have the incarnation as a manifestation of the 2nd person, not the first person. Jesus said if you know me, you know the Father. If you see me you see the Father. He is the Father's logos. As the song, "Joy to the World" says, "Word of the Father now in flesh appearing".
Your preferred version of John 1:18 holds that "the only God, who is at the Father’s side", so you are saying too that God is seen.
The correct way to understand John 1:18 is with the simple qualification that no one has seen God as omnipotent Spirit as in 1 Timothy 6:16
"who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen."
Have we been discussing this so long that you have not known that Jesus was praying as a man to the omnipotent and everywhere present God?
Please stop holding a body-centric view of three persons in the Godhead as depicted in Trinitarian stained glass windows. This is bold, pants on fire polytheism.

Stating your unsupported opinion, over and over, is meaningless. You must show grammatically, lexically, historically etc. that your opinion is correct and whatever you are addressing is incorrect.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

So, I need to agree with all of your philosophizing about Logos in order to take John's use of the term Logos serious? Such isn't a serious critique. Especially given the fact that you not taking the actual wording of the verse into consideration while interpreting John 1:1. John is using the title "the Word" for Jesus just like Jesus used the titles "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" for himself.

All those titles have a rich meaning and purpose, not because they sound cute. Do you know what the definition of logos is and why Jesus has that title?

Yes, I know the definition of Logos. But, you're getting off track. What is John 1 teaching about this one with the title Logos? The one with the title Logos always existed. The one with the title Logos was with God, the one with the title Logos was God. This one with the title Logos made all things that were made. This one with the title Logos became flesh, and this one with the title Logos reveals the Father.

Yes, my physical body is impersonal. I, the person indwelling my body, is personal, not the physical body.

This odd statement is part of the problem with understanding Oneness. Some of the ancients took your view to the extreme and called all physical matter evil by definition. I don't think you do, but there is still that subtle influence of the ancient Greeks. Of course you body is personal. Just because it can die doesn't mean its not personal. Paul said, to glorify God in YOUR BODY and spirit. Does your drivers license have your personal picture on it or what?

If you we can't agree that your physical body is you, then we are disagreeing on fundamental reality of what we can see.

Did I say I didn't agree my physical body is me? I was being very precise with my wording. Perhaps, you shouldn't read too much into it.

The Son is the express image of God the Father. And? How is this relevant to prove your case as opposed to mine? Oh yeah, such doesn't differentiate between us. I just realize that Jesus was making the Father known in Genesis 18 too.

You have the incarnation as a manifestation of the 2nd person, not the first person. Jesus said if you know me, you know the Father. If you see me you see the Father. He is the Father's logos. As the song, "Joy to the World" says, "Word of the Father now in flesh appearing".

When push comes to shove, you change the topic. Jesus is the express image of God the Father. That's why If you know Jesus, you know the Father. How does this differentiate between us? Again, it doesn't. I just realize that Jesus was making the Father known in Genesis 18 too.

Seriously, who was walking with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre? Was it a manifestation of the Father, denying John 1:18, or was it the Word making the Father known?

BTW, If the Logos is the visible expression of God, not a distinct person from God the Father, and one sees the Logos, then they saw God. What John said "No one has ever seen God" is a lie. Why are you arguing that John lied?

Your preferred version of John 1:18 holds that "the only God, who is at the Father’s side", so you are saying too that God is seen.
The correct way to understand John 1:18 is with the simple qualification that no one has seen God as omnipotent Spirit as in 1 Timothy 6:16
"who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen."

I'm not talking about the second half of John 1:18. Why bring 1 Timothy 6:16 up if your solution is that there is another way to see the same God? John 1:18a says "No one has ever seen God." No qualification. 1 Timothy 6:16 says "whom no one has ever seen or can see." No qualification. But, your solution to Isaiah seeing "the King, YHWH of Hosts" is Isaiah saw the visible expression of God. Seriously? That's a direct contradiction to John 1:18a and 1 Timothy 6:16.

Asserting your dogma isn't a reason to believe what your claiming. If the only person who is the one true God became flesh, a genuine man, then who is he praying too? Who does this person look to as his God in verses like John 20:17—"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"? Saying the change in perspective caused by the incarnation is enough to justify such language is beyond credulity.

Have we been discussing this so long that you have not known that Jesus was praying as a man to the omnipotent and everywhere present God?

Yes, but Jesus was praying as a man to the omnipotent and everywhere present God doesn't make any sense outside of at least a personal distinction.

Please stop holding a body-centric view of three persons in the Godhead as depicted in Trinitarian stained glass windows. This is bold, pants on fire polytheism.

Who's holding a body-centric view of three persons in the Godhead as depicted in Trinitarian stained glass windows? I'm not Catholic; I'm not Orthodox. I find those depictions as heretical. Whho are you talking to?

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

Yes, I know the definition of Logos. But, you're getting off track. What is John 1 teaching about this one with the title Logos? The one with the title Logos always existed. The one with the title Logos was with God, the one with the title Logos was God. This one with the title Logos made all things that were made. This one with the title Logos became flesh, and this one with the title Logos reveals the Father.

And the Logos was God. Don't you see that John doesn't distinguish "persons" in a Godhead? It's just "God". Simply "God". Not God such and such person, but just "God". As a Trinitarian you should ask why John wasn't thinking in Trinitarian concepts. I ask myself, what kind of concept of God would I need to have if I were to express myself like John? It's certainly not Trinitarian.

Square peg/round hole = Trinitarian/John's gospel.

Did I say I didn't agree my physical body is me? I was being very precise with my wording. Perhaps, you shouldn't read too much into it.

If you body is you, then how is it not personal? You are going down a rabbit trail and I know to you it sounds sophisticated but like other empty philosophy it is losing touch with reality.

When push comes to shove, you change the topic. Jesus is the express image of God the Father. That's why If you know Jesus, you know the Father. How does this differentiate between us? Again, it doesn't. I just realize that Jesus was making the Father known in Genesis 18 too.

There is no changing topic. You are still in the mindset of a pre-resurrection disciple. You are in the "Lord, show us the Father" way of thinking. You are just not grasping the Father's Logos was expressed.

Seriously, who was walking with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre? Was it a manifestation of the Father, denying John 1:18, or was it the Word making the Father known?

This makes me think that you have a "Father is body constrained" God concept. What is it going to take for you to fully accept that the Father is everywhere present?

I'm not talking about the second half of John 1:18. Why bring 1 Timothy 6:16 up if your solution is that there is another way to see the same God? John 1:18a says "No one has ever seen God." No qualification. 1 Timothy 6:16 says "whom no one has ever seen or can see." No qualification. But, your solution to Isaiah seeing "the King, YHWH of Hosts" is Isaiah saw the visible expression of God. Seriously? That's a direct contradiction to John 1:18a and 1 Timothy 6:16.

I brought up John 1:18 because you love to quote your preferred version of it. But, you seem to totally overlook that it says that "the only God has" made him known. So right in the same verse you are saying no one has seen God but then it says God has made him known. Ever according to your version of that verse you have a qualification.

Do you have a problem with God being both visible and invisible at the same time? What exactly is your limitations you are artificially trying to put upon knowing God?

Yes, but Jesus was praying as a man to the omnipotent and everywhere present God doesn't make any sense outside of at least a personal distinction.

Using the standard definition of "person" doesn't fit with making Jesus a second person because of his humanity. The unique incarnation by the omnipotent creator and Father of all, defies your petty categories. Jesus is the manifestation of God the Father. In taking on the form of man he was not God the Son, or even God the Father with human window dressing on. He became a real man.

You see you have a concept of distinct, multiple persons up in the eternal Godhead without any valid reason for them being distinct up there other than just saying it. All three are supposedly the same substance and co-equal. Ancient Trinitarians did this because they didn't fully appreciate the true distinction that occurred when God became man. God living within the scope of a genuine human existence really meant a distinct sort of way of existing and viewing the world and reality. Because God is not body bound like you conceive, He can also continue to exist as omnipotent Spirit while incarnate. This is a real distinction but it is a distinction due to the incarnation, not a second personhood. The same personal God was simultaneously man and omnipotent Spirit.

Who's holding a body-centric view of three persons in the Godhead as depicted in Trinitarian stained glass windows? I'm not Catholic; I'm not Orthodox. I find those depictions as heretical. Whho are you talking to?

Your concept that you express betrays you.

 

[Andreas]

Stating your unsupported opinion, over and over, is meaningless. You must show grammatically, lexically, historically etc. that your opinion is correct and whatever you are addressing is incorrect.

I'm just taking the plain reading of John 1:1. The onus is on you to prove that taking a relatively minor shade of meaning from the word "pros" is justified in teaching eternal persons in the Godhead eyeballing each other.

 

[OldShepherd]

I'm just taking the plain reading of John 1:1. The onus is on you to prove that taking a relatively minor shade of meaning from the word "pros" is justified in teaching eternal persons in the Godhead eyeballing each other over tea.

What you could do is find 2-3 other occurrences of pros and see if you can sustain your argument. That is what A.T. Robertson did in the article I quoted above. FYI that is how real vs. wannabe scholars do it. That is what I would expect from someone truly interested in the truth.