Jesus is GOD the SON...He is NOT the FATHER.

Oh, so you reject Scripture based upon the theology you read into the word "ECHAD".
no, U do, do you know what the ECHAD of God is, and Means? ....... do U? no, by your answer and question U asks.
I'm asking a very, very straight forward question, and you categorically refuse to interact with such. Well, you lost a lot of respect I had for you today. I thought you tried to take Scripture seriously, but you clearly don't take John 17:5 seriously.
for the LAST TIME this is ONLY "ONE" Person spoken of in John 17:3 in relation to verse 5 in the conversation.

now let 101G help you out on Conjunctions in Context. see that Conjunction "and" there in John 17:3? now Listen and LEARN, James 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

is God, ..... "AND" ........ the Father ONE PERSON, or two Separate and distinct persons here in context? your answer please.

101G.
 
Oh, so you reject Scripture based upon the theology you read into the word "ECHAD".
no, U do, do you know what the ECHAD of God is, and Means? ....... do U? no, by your answer and question U asks.

Yes, God is one. Tell me how that is relevant in any way to "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."?

I'm asking a very, very straight forward question, and you categorically refuse to interact with such. Well, you lost a lot of respect I had for you today. I thought you tried to take Scripture seriously, but you clearly don't take John 17:5 seriously.
for the LAST TIME this is ONLY "ONE" Person spoken of in John 17:3 in relation to verse 5 in the conversation.

That's not answering my question. All you are doing is defining what you mean by person as opposed to explaining how ECHAD interacts with "I had with you before the world existed."

God Bless
 
Yes, God is one. Tell me how that is relevant in any way to "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."?
you still haven't gotten it yet ... have you. this will be the Last time 101G address this. Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
QUESTION TIME. How many is US and OUR here in this verse? 101G say one PERSON. can 101G prove this? yes, Now Listen and Learn.

the Lord Jesus answers the Pharisees concerning divorcement. now, can the Lord Jesus LIE? ... no. listen and Learn, Matthew 19:3 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"
now, the Lord Jesus said a "he" a single person made man male and female in the beginning. and this he is God. how do 101G know that he is God?. because our brother Mark recorded the same conversation in his Gospel, Mark 10:5 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept." Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." so now we KNOW who the "he" is in Matthewa 19:4 and he is a singular person. and how do we KNOW THIS? for the Lord Jesus said it is written. so where is it written that God is a "he" when he made man male and female in the beginning.? answer, the very next verse after Genesis 1:26. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

HOLD THE PRESS. HOW DID GOD GO FROM A "US" AND "OUR" IN VERSE 26, TO A "HIS", AND A "HE" IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE, 27?

101G KNOW HOW..... DO YOU? IF SO PLEASE START EXPLAING HOW GOD WENT FROM BEING A PLURALITY IN VERSE 26 TO A SINGULARITY IN VERSE 27....... REMEMBER, THE LORD JESUS CANNOT LIE. AND HE SAID GOD IS A "HE" A SINGLE PERSON.... IN THE BEGINNING ........ "ALONE", AND "BY HIMSELF", JUST AS ISAIAH 44:24 STATES...... (SMILE).
OH MY,

now let's hear it from you how God is a plurality in a singularity at the beginning. once more AT the BEGINNING.

Oh Dear, will he get it right? ......... lol, lol, lol, .... :unsure:

I cannot wait to hear this answer.

101G.
 
Yes, God is one. Tell me how that is relevant in any way to "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."?
you still haven't gotten it yet ... have you. this will be the Last time 101G address this. Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
QUESTION TIME. How many is US and OUR here in this verse? 101G say one PERSON. can 101G prove this? yes, Now Listen and Learn.

the Lord Jesus answers the Pharisees concerning divorcement. now, can the Lord Jesus LIE? ... no. listen and Learn, Matthew 19:3 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"
now, the Lord Jesus said a "he" a single person made man male and female in the beginning. and this he is God. how do 101G know that he is God?. because our brother Mark recorded the same conversation in his Gospel, Mark 10:5 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept." Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." so now we KNOW who the "he" is in Matthewa 19:4 and he is a singular person. and how do we KNOW THIS? for the Lord Jesus said it is written. so where is it written that God is a "he" when he made man male and female in the beginning.? answer, the very next verse after Genesis 1:26. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

HOLD THE PRESS. HOW DID GOD GO FROM A "US" AND "OUR" IN VERSE 26, TO A "HIS", AND A "HE" IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE, 27?

101G KNOW HOW..... DO YOU? IF SO PLEASE START EXPLAING HOW GOD WENT FROM BEING A PLURALITY IN VERSE 26 TO A SINGULARITY IN VERSE 27....... REMEMBER, THE LORD JESUS CANNOT LIE. AND HE SAID GOD IS A "HE" A SINGLE PERSON.... IN THE BEGINNING ........ "ALONE", AND "BY HIMSELF", JUST AS ISAIAH 44:24 STATES...... (SMILE).
OH MY,

now let's hear it from you how God is a plurality in a singularity at the beginning. once more AT the BEGINNING.

Oh Dear, will he get it right? ......... lol, lol, lol, .... :unsure:

I cannot wait to hear this answer.

In order to explain John 17:5, it might be easier to interact with what Jesus said in John 17:5, as opposed to jumping all over Scripture and never commenting on John 17:5.

God Bless
 
Hower ever? did flesh and blood come from heaven? no. so you're reproved. for flesh and blood came out of Mary, here on EARTH.

well now, if Jesus is conceived, then he's not God. for God has no biological mother or father. and since you're in the flesh thinking fleshly. then by your definition of conception, the Holy Spirit is the "FATHER" then. for the conciever of a child is the Father. see your fleshly ignorance now? what was conceived in the woman Mary was a body for the Son of Man to come in. the Son of God is only the temple, tabernacle, or dwelling place for the Spirit..... the "Son of Man who came from heaven. you need to understand the difference between the Son of God/Flesh bone and blood, vs the Son of Man the "Spirit".

ERROR, "a Child is BORN" is the Son of God. scripture, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." the Son of God is BORN/flesh bone and blood. read Luke 1:25 again. now what was "GIVEN?" spirit, "a son GIVEN", the Son of Man was given, came from heaven as with all spirit. scripture, Isaiah 42:5 "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:"

breath and spirit are GIVEN....... did you not understand with Adam? God formed man, Flesh and bone. a body of dust, and blew into it, it, it, the breath of LIFE, and he LIVED by the spirit that was given him. let's see it clearly. Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." UNDERSTAND NOW?

ERROR, the Son of Man did not DIE on the cross. but separated from that ... "dust/called a body". listen, if someone who is married... just for an example, was killed in an accident. the police come to that home and informs the wife that her HUSBAND was killed in an accident, and will she come down to the morgue to IDENTIFY the BODY, the BODY of, of, her HUSBAND. the body is not the HUSBAND, but the house, the temple that the HUSBAND/spirit dwelt in and now no more.
7D, you need to understand the difference between the spirit, and the body. and what is the Frist death. this is basic bible study, you should know this.

101G.
Do you realize that we are saying some of the same things but how we see the Son of God and the son of man needs explaining.

We know that it is God who us Spirit made an abode in the son of man.

We agree that the Word is God and the Son of God and God is the Echad mentioned in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:26,27!

We agree that the God is Spirit and the Spirit of Christ is God in the flesh just as the Spirit of Christ that indwells us is God and is Jesus.

However the Son of God is not flesh but the son of man is and it is clear that the baby mentioned in Isaiah 9:6 is called the Son of God. Notice "called" the Son of God. What is this distinction?

The distinction is that while the Son of God was in the flesh as a human person called the son of man we have to ask where is the Son of God? The Son of God was in the flesh just as God was in the flesh who is Spirit but you can be sure that the son of man is flesh!

The Son of God and the son of man is not the same thing at all.

Jesus knew that he was the Son of God as the son of man and how did he know? Jesus as the son of man had to identify with his true nature in the Father just as we have to identify with our new nature in Christ.

The Son of God becoming a human servant of God is a role of God and that is the sign God gave to us revealing God in a Father and Son relationship.

The Son of God and the son of man is not the same thing.

The son of man is natural not permanent because Adam was natural and not permanent but the Son of God is eternal in the Now AND IS PERMANENT.

JESUS IS CALLED THE SECOND ADAM BUT ALL IN CHRIST ARE PART OF THE SECOND ADAM AND THE SECOND ADAM IS ETERNAL AND PERMANENT!

Yet the son of man is of the first Adam but not the Son of God!

Both the Oneness doctrine and the trinitarian doctrine teach that Jesus is a God-man but there is no such thing as a God-man and the Son of God taking on the form of a human servant does not mean the Son of God is flesh because the Son of God is Spirit and is part of the Echad just as the Father is! Jesus is in fact both. Jesus said that he was in the Father and the Father was in him and that is what the Echad is!

God bless you! :)
 
Last edited:
Do you realize that we are saying some of the same things but how we see the Son of God and the son of man needs explaining.
No we're NOT saying some of the same thing. listen real closely. John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." THE "SON OF MAN" CAME FROM HEAVEN, NOT THE SON OF GOD. THE SON OF GOD CAME OUT OF MARY.

AND NOTICE, HERE IN JOHN 3:13 THE "SON OF MAN" WAS IN HEAVEN AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS ON EARTH...... (smile), and you still haven't got the e-mail yet..... has U? check your spam area.

now, until you can understand the difference in the Son of Man/spirit, from heaven, and the Son of God/flesh from the earth. then we can talk.

101G.
 
Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

God is not BORN, flesh bone and Blood is Born.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." THERE IS NO FLESH, BONE, AND BLOOD BEFORE THE WORLD WAS. ..... (PER JOHN 17:5). one don't glory human flesh.... What was before the World is "Spirit", and the Spirit/God was "ALONE", and "BY HIMSELF" Uh O. this means there was only one Person before the World, (Per Isaiah 44:24). and only ONE person at ....... get this Genesis 1:26.... :oops: YIKES... because Genesis 1:26 prove that one, and only one person was present. and the US and the OUR......(God, and 101G knows..... (smile).

101G
 
No one in the New Testament identifies Jesus as the Father...

In addition...

No one in the New Testament identifies Jesus as "God the Son".

Rather, Jesus is called "the Son of God".

Correct?


P.S.

If you don't think "God the Father" is synonymous with "The Father of God"...

Then "God the Son" would not be synonymous with "The Son of God".
 
Here in this scripture is the proof that Jesus is the one and only God called the Father.


Here we have one God in expression, and it is God in a Father and Son relationship, and it is indicated by the preposition "with" meaning toward or pointing to God or face to face with God.

If Jesus is the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son, then God has interchangeable roles of his own personage.

God includes Father and Son which Jesus is or there in no God at all!


God bless you.
 
Here in this scripture is the proof that Jesus is the one and only God called the Father.


Here we have one God in expression, and it is God in a Father and Son relationship, and it is indicated by the preposition "with" meaning toward or pointing to God or face to face with God.

If Jesus is the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son, then God has interchangeable roles of his own personage.

God includes Father and Son which Jesus is or there in no God at all!


God bless you.
John 1:1 literally says God was with God....The SON created all things according to Colossians 1:13-17...John 6:38,62....For I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me....No one in the New Testament identifies Jesus as the Father only the SON.
Jesus always refered to the Father as HE...HIM....Another witness...but never ME....The Trinity simply says The Father...Son...Holy Spirit actually and individually exist and all have the status of God.
 
ADDRESSING the OP.
is not the term "Father" synonyms with "FIRST?" as in the creator or originator of something? yes, please look it up. and is not the Lord Jesus the HEAD/FIRST of the Church? let's check the Record.

Colossians 1:16 "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:" Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
here the term preeminence means, G4409 πρωτεύω proteuo (prō-tev'-ō) v.
to be first (in rank or influence).
[from G4413]
KJV: have the preeminence
Root(s): G4413

to be first in anything is the title rendered.

as HEAD of the Church, head when used as a noun as The person commanding most authority within a group or an organization, as here in Colossians 1:18, it is synonyms with "Father", and since Jesus is the HEAD of us, his Body, the church, then he is our Father of all who are BORN AGAIN.

so clearly the Lord Jesus is referred to as Father in the NT as well as in the Book of Revelation

:ninja:
You missed verse 13... Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son...
Son is the topic of the verses that follow....and you know what it says...HE created all things...There is no Father Jesus...No one in the New Testament says he is and I don't either!
Lets also add Hebrews 3:6...But Christ
as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” He is a SON over us not a Father!
 
Last edited:
You missed verse 13... Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son...
Son is the topic of the verses that follow....and you know what it says...HE created all things...There is no Father Jesus...No one in the New Testament says he is and I don't either!
Lets also add Hebrews 3:6...But Christ
as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” He is a SON over us not a Father!
More exactly Jesus is a Father and Son over us and is one person. Why is Jesus called Emanuel?
 
More exactly Jesus is a Father and Son over us and is one person. Why is Jesus called Emanuel?
There is no one in the New Testament that identifies Jesus as the Father and that includes Jesus himself...
God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit....that is the teaching of Jesus, Paul, John and Peter.
 
There is no one in the New Testament that identifies Jesus as the Father and that includes Jesus himself...
God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit....that is the teaching of Jesus, Paul, John and Peter.

In addition…

There is no one in the New Testament that identifies Jesus as “God the Son” and that includes Jesus himself.

Correct?
 
Colossians 1:13-17 makes it clear that the SON created all things that gives him the status of GOD.
Thomas declared to JESUS the SON...My Lord and My God.
The oldest Sources of John P66 and P75 read at John 1:18...the only begotten God.
Jesus told the Jews...Before Abraham was I AM.
Titus 2:13...Out Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now what is your conclusion???
 
Colossians 1:13-17 makes it clear that the SON created all things that gives him the status of GOD.
Thomas declared to JESUS the SON...My Lord and My God.
The oldest Sources of John P66 and P75 read at John 1:18...the only begotten God.
Jesus told the Jews...Before Abraham was I AM.
Titus 2:13...Out Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now what is your conclusion???
The biggest blunder in Trinitarianism is that it considers The Father and The Son are Names of God rather than titles.

Another blunder is seeing The Father and The Son to be two distinct Persons based on surface reading of the NT.

The Son is the Express Image of transcendent God's substance in Creation.

God is transcendent (beyond space, matter and time) in His existence. Creation is external to Him. No one has ever seen Him nor can see, perceive or hear Him.

The Son was seen because He is part of His own creation.

Trinitarians mix up apples with oranges when they say God is multi-personal. This is mis-representation of God and is idolatry. Trinitarianism may be very popular but is mis-representation of Who God is.

The distinction is not between Persons but realms. Transcendent and Immanent creation.

The title of the Son is temporal and will end when The Son will be handing over the Kingdom to The Father. He will be The Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6) in the age to come (New Creation).
 
More exactly Jesus is a Father and Son over us and is one person. Why is Jesus called Emanuel?
His Sonship is temporal and He will be the Everlasting Father in the age to come.

His Sonship is to incorporate adoption of sons in God's family.

The distinction is not between Persons of God but rather distinction between the realms of transcendence and immanence.
 
Colossians 1:13-17 makes it clear that the SON created all things that gives him the status of GOD.
Thomas declared to JESUS the SON...My Lord and My God.
The oldest Sources of John P66 and P75 read at John 1:18...the only begotten God.
Jesus told the Jews...Before Abraham was I AM.
Titus 2:13...Out Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now what is your conclusion???
The biggest blunder in Trinitarianism is that it considers The Father and The Son are Names of God rather than titles.

Interesting claim given that I've never, ever heard a single Trinitarian claim "The Father and The Son are Names of God rather than titles."

Another blunder is seeing The Father and The Son to be two distinct Persons based on surface reading of the NT.

Jesus is the one who said "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. All we claim is that there is an eternal I vs you distinction between the Father and the Son as Jesus clearly taught in this verse. If you think this is surface level reading, then explain how "I had with you" doesn't mean there is an I and a you before the world was?

The Son is the Express Image of transcendent God's substance in Creation.

Yep.

God is transcendent (beyond space, matter and time) in His existence. Creation is external to Him. No one has ever seen Him nor can see, perceive or hear Him.

Yep.

The Son was seen because He is part of His own creation.

The Son was seen because He "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Phil 2:7. Or as John puts it, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:1, 14. Sorry, I can't stop just reading the text.

Trinitarians mix up apples with oranges when they say God is multi-personal. This is mis-representation of God and is idolatry. Trinitarianism may be very popular but is mis-representation of Who God is.

The distinction is not between Persons but realms. Transcendent and Immanent creation.

The title of the Son is temporal and will end when The Son will be handing over the Kingdom to The Father. He will be The Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6) in the age to come (New Creation).

How can it be wrong to recognize personal distinctions when Scripture goes out of its way to present personal distinctions between the Father and the Son in eternity past? FYI, no one is denying the distinction between the Transcendent and the Immanent with respect to the Father and the Son in the incarnation, but such a distinction of realms doesn't justify statements like "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5.

God Bless
 
Interesting claim given that I've never, ever heard a single Trinitarian claim "The Father and The Son are Names of God rather than titles."
That's because you base your understanding from traditional teachings than personal revelation from God. Even when doctrine is correct and you don't receive confirmation from God on personal level, you are lost. There is nobody to your defence on the day of judgement. You have to stand alone and can't blame on your teachers as they too will stand all alone.

First prove The Father and The Son are The Names of God as distinct Persons.




Jesus is the one who said "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. All we claim is that there is an eternal I vs you distinction between the Father and the Son as Jesus clearly taught in this verse. If you think this is surface level reading, then explain how "I had with you" doesn't mean there is an I and a you before the world was
There was nobody named Jesus in the first century. This shows you haven't received anything from God or you would not have used corrupted Name of Jesus. Also, you are so ignorant of the OT to see no such name exists in Hebrew scriptures and neither in any genealogy. Yahusha was born in the Tribe of Yahusha (Angicised - Judah). He is also called as The Lion of the Tribe of Yahudah. Nobody ever kept that name Jesus (based from Greco-Roman culture).

Yahusha spoke always in parabolic language and if one reads on from the surface he is not born from above because he doesn't understand the spiritual nature of the word of God.

Surface reading looks like The Father and The Son are distinct Persons but when we compare spiritual with spiritual Yahusha is the same God in creation as well as being Transcendent (beyond space, matter and time):

1Tim 6:
14 that you guard the command b spotlessly, blamelessly, until the appearing of our Master יהושע Messiah,

15 which in His own seasons He shall reveal – the blessed and only Ruler, the Sovereign of sovereigns and Master of masters,

16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or is able to see, to whom be respect and everlasting might. Amĕn.

There is a Divine Rule: The First shall be the Last and The Last shall be The First.

God fulfilled that - though Being The First in His Estate, in time He became Last so that He shall be The First as The Everlasting Father in the New Creation - Isaiah 9:6.

Yep.



Yep.



The Son was seen because He
"emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Phil 2:7. Or as John puts it, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:1, 14. Sorry, I can't stop just reading the text.
The WORD and God are not two distinct Persons side by side. One relates to being in Creation and THE GOD being Transcendent. There is no definite article before God in John 1:1c. If it were so there would have been two God Persons.
How can it be wrong to recognize personal distinctions when Scripture goes out of its way to present personal distinctions between the Father and the Son in eternity past? FYI, no one is denying the distinction between the Transcendent and the Immanent with respect to the Father and the Son in the incarnation, but such a distinction of realms doesn't justify statements like "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5.
Scriptures are spiritual in nature and they are designed to be understood spiritually. Otherwise, Bible would be no different from any book in library. The reading and understanding is different from common books.

For eg : Mat 24 :15 nobody would understand what's is abomination of desolation.
Neither one would understand those in Yahudah run to the mountains.

Yet it applies to all the NT believers.

Scriptures are off limits to surface readers.
God Bless
The distinction between The Father and The Son are not between Persons but God fulfilling His own will in creation.
 
Interesting claim given that I've never, ever heard a single Trinitarian claim "The Father and The Son are Names of God rather than titles."
That's because you base your understanding from traditional teachings than personal revelation from God. Even when doctrine is correct and you don't receive confirmation from God on personal level, you are lost. There is nobody to your defence on the day of judgement. You have to stand alone and can't blame on your teachers as they too will stand all alone.

First prove The Father and The Son are The Names of God as distinct Persons.

How does me supposedly basing my understanding on traditional teachings rather than personal revelation from God relevant in any way to Trinitarians supposedly thinking "The Father and The Son are Names of God rather than titles."? FYI, I don't believe "The Father and The Son are The Names of God." So, why should I prove something I don't believe? It seems to me like you believe a lot of things about Trinitarians that simply are not true.

Jesus is the one who said "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. All we claim is that there is an eternal I vs you distinction between the Father and the Son as Jesus clearly taught in this verse. If you think this is surface level reading, then explain how "I had with you" doesn't mean there is an I and a you before the world was
There was nobody named Jesus in the first century. This shows you haven't received anything from God or you would not have used corrupted Name of Jesus. Also, you are so ignorant of the OT to see no such name exists in Hebrew scriptures and neither in any genealogy. Yahusha was born in the Tribe of Yahusha (Angicised - Judah). He is also called as The Lion of the Tribe of Yahudah. Nobody ever kept that name Jesus (based from Greco-Roman culture).

The vacuous response of one who doesn't care what Yahusha actually said in John 17:5. Yahusha is the one who said "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. All we claim is that there is an eternal I vs you distinction between the Father and the Son as Yahusha clearly taught in this verse. If you think this is surface level reading, then explain how "I had with you" doesn't mean there is an I and a you before the world was.
Yahusha spoke always in parabolic language and if one reads on from the surface he is not born from above because he doesn't understand the spiritual nature of the word of God.

So in a prayer to God, Yahusha purposefully used deceptive language? Yahusha is the one who said "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. All we claim is that there is an eternal I vs you distinction between the Father and the Son as Yahusha clearly taught in this verse. If you think this is surface level reading, then explain how "I had with you" doesn't mean there is an I and a you before the world was.

Surface reading looks like The Father and The Son are distinct Persons

Then, that's what God told us, and we need to believe it. We should not reject the words of God based upon our philosophical understanding of other verses.

The Son was seen because He "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Phil 2:7. Or as John puts it, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:1, 14. Sorry, I can't stop just reading the text.
The WORD and God are not two distinct Persons side by side. One relates to being in Creation and THE GOD being Transcendent. There is no definite article before God in John 1:1c. If it were so there would have been two God Persons.

"The WORD and God are not two distinct Persons side by side"— a dogmatic response rejecting the very words of Scripture. John says "the Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:1, 14. Deal with the words of Scripture.
"There is no definite article before God in John 1:1c."—Yep, and there is no definite article in any Translation of John 1:1c either "the Word was God". Can you please make a relevant point?

"If it were so there would have been two God Persons."—In reality, if John 1:1c said ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος or ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς, then there couldn't have been two God Persons because it would teach the Word = the God, aka they were the same person. It's your theology that requires a second article in John 1:1c, not ours.

How can it be wrong to recognize personal distinctions when Scripture goes out of its way to present personal distinctions between the Father and the Son in eternity past? FYI, no one is denying the distinction between the Transcendent and the Immanent with respect to the Father and the Son in the incarnation, but such a distinction of realms doesn't justify statements like "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5.
Scriptures are spiritual in nature and they are designed to be understood spiritually. Otherwise, Bible would be no different from any book in library. The reading and understanding is different from common books.

For eg : Mat 24 :15 nobody would understand what's is abomination of desolation.
Neither one would understand those in Yahudah run to the mountains.

Yet it applies to all the NT believers.

Scriptures are off limits to surface readers.

Thanks for not answering my question. Is this game where you change the topic and hide from serious consideration of the actual words of Scripture how you hide your rejection of Scripture?

God Bless
 
Back
Top