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

[The-Plural-One-God]

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).

This is another prime example of Eraser Theology...Do everything you can to remove REALITY OF EXISTENCE...The Father and Jesus are a ventriloquist act.

When real interaction is presented what removes that reality....for example Romans 8:26

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Also Romans 8:34

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

This is clear interaction between the Father Son and Holy Spirit on our behalf...

Put your Eraser down and grasp God's REALITY OF EXISTENCE!

 

[Anthony]

This is another prime example of Eraser Theology...Do everything you can to remove REALITY OF EXISTENCE...The Father and Jesus are a ventriloquist act.

When real interaction is presented what removes that reality....for example Romans 8:26

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Also Romans 8:34

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

This is clear interaction between the Father Son and Holy Spirit on our behalf...

Put your Eraser down and grasp God's REALITY OF EXISTENCE!

It's called carnal reading of scriptures.

I am not erasing anything but you are not aware scriptures are spiritual in nature and spiritual must be compared with spiritual.

Do you know The Son came by His own decree as Transcendent God (beyond space, matter and time)?

The Fatherhood of God is through His Sonship by decree. No two Persons involved anywhere. If you believe multiple Persons then you are an idolator - misrepresenting God Who is both Transcendent and also part of His own creation.

Sitting at the Right Hand doesn't mean God is on the Left hand of The Son.

Intercession is based on His Priesthood after the order of Melkitsedek Who by His own blood entered the Most Holy securing salvation for His elect (limited atonement).

He is ever living there to make intercession for us - in perspective of time where many of His elect were still to come to salvation.

His intercession is based on His atonement and resurrection from the dead. Not that He repeatedly have to pray for each.

 

[Anthony]

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.

If the Father and The Son are not Names then they are not two Persons either. There are so many Trinitarians who believe F, S and HS are names of God in the NT.

There is also no longer Yahuah because He has morphed into Yahusha Messiah. That's the only Name we have salvation.

The whole prophetic clock of God hovers around covenant Israel. If Israel is divorced and dispersed then Israel can't go back to OT Yahuah.

He was also husband to Israel Who divorced. Now the spiritual Israel (out of corporate nation) is bethroed to Messiah as chaste virgins.

No Father would give his divorced wife to his son as that would be an abomination.

It shows Yahuah had to morph into Yahusha Messiah, The Son and through His death and resurrection He made dispersed Israel as chaste virgin. The adulteress becomes a virgin in Messiah - a new creation.

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.

I already explained to you on John 17:5 before but you turned your dead ear.

John 17 is the prayer of Yahusha Messiah in His capacity as The Mediator.

The 'world' in John 17:5 refers to the elect of God.

4 “I have esteemed You on the earth, having accomplished the work You have given Me that I should do.

5 “And now, esteem Me with Yourself, Father, with the esteem which I had with You before the world was.

6 “I have revealed Your Name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to Me, and they have guarded Your Word.

If you understand that The Fatherhood of God is by the Sonship of Yahusha.

He is both Transcendent God (beyond space, matter and time) as well as part of His own creation as The Firstborn and Firstfruits.

It was willed by God that the elect will be given to His expressed Image in creation as The Firstborn. So the glory of The Father He had before the world was (His elect) would be given to Him as The Only God in New Creation as acknowledged by His elect. Not that Father and Son are multi-persons.

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.



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 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.



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

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.



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.


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.



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 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.



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

See above

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

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.

If the Father and The Son are not Names then they are not two Persons either.

Why would anyone believe such an assertion?

There are so many Trinitarians who believe F, S and HS are names of God in the NT.

I've never, ever met a Trinitarian who ever believed F, S and HS are names of God. It seems to me like you believe a lot of things about Trinitarians that simply are not true.

There is also no longer Yahuah because He has morphed into Yahusha Messiah. That's the only Name we have salvation.
The whole prophetic clock of God hovers around covenant Israel. If Israel is divorced and dispersed then Israel can't go back to OT Yahuah.
He was also husband to Israel Who divorced. Now the spiritual Israel (out of corporate nation) is bethroed to Messiah as chaste virgins.
No Father would give his divorced wife to his son as that would be an abomination.
It shows Yahuah had to morph into Yahusha Messiah, The Son and through His death and resurrection He made dispersed Israel as chaste virgin. The adulteress becomes a virgin in Messiah - a new creation.

Do you like talking? Because, none of this is relevant to our conversation.

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.

I already explained to you on John 17:5 before but you turned your dead ear.
John 17 is the prayer of Yahusha Messiah in His capacity as The Mediator.
The 'world' in John 17:5 refers to the elect of God.
4 “I have esteemed You on the earth, having accomplished the work You have given Me that I should do.
5 “And now, esteem Me with Yourself, Father, with the esteem which I had with You before the world was.
6 “I have revealed Your Name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to Me, and they have guarded Your Word.
If you understand that The Fatherhood of God is by the Sonship of Yahusha.
He is both Transcendent God (beyond space, matter and time) as well as part of His own creation as The Firstborn and Firstfruits.
It was willed by God that the elect will be given to His expressed Image in creation as The Firstborn. So the glory of The Father He had before the world was (His elect) would be given to Him as The Only God in New Creation as acknowledged by His elect. Not that Father and Son are multi-persons.

Hello? Where did you get "The 'world' in John 17:5 refers to the elect of God."? Let's just pretend a word means something based upon the theological ways we can manipulate it as to support our dogma. Seriously, how desperate are you? I'm searching the lexicons to see if you have any justification, and I see nothing. Where besides in this verse is κόσμος ever in reference to the Elect? κόσμος can be in reference to

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews

Where do you see "the elect" in this list? Seriously, if your entire theology is based upon an assertion utterly foreign to the language itself, you are clearly wrong and no one should ever take your proclamations seriously. You are just a man who likes to twist Scripture to justify his opinions.

Besides, even if the term κόσμος means elect, and you still have Yahusha say "I had with you" proving there was an I and a you, two persons.

God Bless

 

[Anthony]

Why would anyone believe such an assertion?

I have not asked you to believe! It's your choice.

I've never, ever met a Trinitarian who ever believed F, S and HS are names of God. It seems to me like you believe a lot of things about Trinitarians that simply are not true.

Well ask one person called Johnny Guitar in Trinity threads.

But that same stronghold is in your mind that they are Persons.

There was Yahuah in the OT both as The Father and Husband as well. You will not find Yahuah in the NT - obviously He transitioned Himself to Yahusha as The Son to fulfill the prophetic scriptures and be both be The Everlasting Father as well as the Husband of His Assembly in the New Creation. It's painful for you to acknowledge the truth. It's in Him The Sonship, The Fatherhood and Husbandhood is fulfilled.

Do you like talking? Because, none of this is relevant to our conversation.



Hello? Where did you get "The 'world' in John 17:5 refers to the elect of God."? Let's just pretend a word means something based upon the theological ways we can manipulate it as to support our dogma. Seriously, how desperate are you? I'm searching the lexicons to see if you have any justification, and I see nothing. Where besides in this verse is κόσμος ever in reference to the Elect? κόσμος can be in reference to -

John always refers to the WORLD as either the elect or the wicked system/people whether you like it or not. I don't go by the understanding of Christianity but by the mindset of Hebraic Covenant:

John 3:16 “For Elohim so loved the world that He gave His only brought-forth Son, so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but possess everlasting life.

John is speaking of Elohim's love for His specific people of the world and not general people of the world because He provided limited atonement.

Faith is a gift from Elohim and can't be manufactured by humans on their own. Thus they don't have capability to believe in Yahusha Messiah by their free will.

John 17:4 “I have esteemed You on the earth, having accomplished the work You have given Me that I should do.

Imagine Father being esteemed on earth that's empty of people. It's not possible!

John 17:5 “And now, esteem Me with Yourself, Father, with the esteem which I had with You before the world was.

It's within the context of the previous verse that He esteemed The Father on the Earth. The next verse gives clarity:

6 “I have revealed Your Name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to Me, and they have guarded Your Word.

He is speaking about His specific elect The Father gave Himself out of the WORLD.

Therefore, Trinitarian understanding of John 17:5 that The Father and The Son were distinct Persons before creation doesn't stand the test. Only the unregenerate would argue otherwise.

Heb 2:13 And again, “I shall put My trust in Him.” And again, “See, I and the children whom Elohim gave Me.”

It's in His Sonship that The Elect of Elohim are adopted in His family.

Therefore, the titles of The Father and The Son are salvific in nature and not eternally as distinct Persons in God.

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jew.

The above is irrelevant to our argument. One can prove alone from scriptures rather than generalising John 17-5 to mean something else.

Where do you see "the elect" in this list? Seriously, if your entire theology is based upon an assertion utterly foreign to the language itself, you are clearly wrong and no one should ever take your proclamations seriously. You are just a man who likes to twist Scripture to justify his opinions.

Scriptures are a testimonial to the elect but damnation to the non elect. They are addressed to covenant Israel from where Jews and gentiles come (lost sheep).

You in your present set of mind are incapable of understanding scriptures because they are spiritual in the letter.

Besides, even if the term κόσμος means elect, and you still have Yahusha say "I had with you" proving there was an I and a you, two persons.

Get this in your mind that the titles of the Father and The Son are salvific in nature and has no relevance before the creation. He was the Father and Husband to covenant Israel. It's because Israel was unfaithful to Yahuah He sent her away with the certificate of divorce in dispersion. Yahuah Himself had to transition to Yahusha in order to purify her as chaste virgin to be bethroed to Him in New Creation. It's only with the mindset of new creation one realises that He is The Elohim and The Father in the new creation.

The rest who are not transformed are bound with Satan within the perimeter of 1000 years to be loosed to trample the outercourt of the Assembly/Congregation making it a dead carcass.

God Bless

Yahusha blesses only His elect with wisdom and understanding.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Why would anyone believe such an assertion?

I have not asked you to believe! It's your choice.

You mean I have a choice to reject nonsense like "If the Father and The Son are not Names then they are not two Persons either."? Good, then I categorically reject such silliness.

I've never, ever met a Trinitarian who ever believed F, S and HS are names of God. It seems to me like you believe a lot of things about Trinitarians that simply are not true.

Well ask one person called Johnny Guitar in Trinity threads.

Does he actually say "F, S and HS are names of God", or are you just making stuff up?

Do you like talking? Because, none of this is relevant to our conversation.

Hello? Where did you get "The 'world' in John 17:5 refers to the elect of God."? Let's just pretend a word means something based upon the theological ways we can manipulate it as to support our dogma. Seriously, how desperate are you? I'm searching the lexicons to see if you have any justification, and I see nothing. Where besides in this verse is κόσμος ever in reference to the Elect? κόσμος can be in reference to -

John always refers to the WORLD as either the elect or the wicked system/people whether you like it or not. I don't go by the understanding of Christianity but by the mindset of Hebraic Covenant:

So, when it doubt, you double down on asserting your excuse and blame it on the Jews.

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jew.

The above is irrelevant to our argument. One can prove alone from scriptures rather than generalising John 17-5 to mean something else.

The above is a listing of all the uses of the term κόσμος in the Greek. If you want to claim κόσμος means the elect, you need to prove it, not just claim it.

Where do you see "the elect" in this list? Seriously, if your entire theology is based upon an assertion utterly foreign to the language itself, you are clearly wrong and no one should ever take your proclamations seriously. You are just a man who likes to twist Scripture to justify his opinions.

Scriptures are a testimonial to the elect but damnation to the non elect. They are addressed to covenant Israel from where Jews and gentiles come (lost sheep).
You in your present set of mind are incapable of understanding scriptures because they are spiritual in the letter.

So when you are called out on your manipulation of Scripture, you simply assert your opinion that I can't understand what you you understand without any justification whatsoever.

Besides, even if the term κόσμος means elect, and you still have Yahusha say "I had with you" proving there was an I and a you, two persons.

Get this in your mind that the titles of the Father and The Son are salvific in nature and has no relevance before the creation. He was the Father and Husband to covenant Israel. It's because Israel was unfaithful to Yahuah He sent her away with the certificate of divorce in dispersion. Yahuah Himself had to transition to Yahusha in order to purify her as chaste virgin to be bethroed to Him in New Creation. It's only with the mindset of new creation one realises that He is The Elohim and The Father in the new creation.

The rest who are not transformed are bound with Satan within the perimeter of 1000 years to be loosed to trample the outercourt of the Assembly/Congregation making it a dead carcass.

When in doubt, change the topic as to ignore the actual words of Scripture. You still have Yahusha say "I had with you" proving there was an I and a you, two persons.

God Bless

Yahusha blesses only His elect with wisdom and understanding.

True, to bad you have yet to be blessed with wisdom or understanding.

God Bless

 

[Anthony]

You mean I have a choice to reject nonsense like "If the Father and The Son are not Names then they are not two Persons either."? Good, then I categorically reject such silliness.

It may be nonsense to carnal men who can only surface read scriptures and can't go beyond.

Where does it say The Father is a Person or an individual? How can Transcendent God be a Person? Have you gone beyond creation to see The Father? What carnality you are teaching. The Son is the express image of His Substance in the form of Man. The Son is not the image of The Person called Father. The Father is not a Man or an Individual in any sense. He is invisible Spirit Who can't be ever seen or heard.

Yahusha Messiah is the same God Who came from the very being of transcendent God to be the part of His own creation first in Sonship and then our only God and everlasting Father in the new creation.

Does he actually say "F, S and HS are names of God", or are you just making stuff up?

If they are not Names they are titles of The same God in transcendence and in creation. Not Trinity of Persons. Ignorantly you are misrepresenting God which is idolatry. You need to be born from above to realise Who and What God is.

So, when it doubt, you double down on asserting your excuse and blame it on the Jews.

I don't blame the Jews who are truly Jew. I am a true Jew because my Saviour was a Jew. There are carnal Jews too who are synagogue of HaShatan.

The above is a listing of all the uses of the term κόσμος in the Greek. If you want to claim κόσμος means the elect, you need to prove it, not just claim it.

It doesn't matter but you have to see within context and how John uses it. You can't digest the truth and over all Bible to prove John 17:5 wrong. You can't digest Trinitarianism is idolatry and is a pagan concept. There is only One God and has been expressed by Yahusha Messiah in Bodily form in Whom dwells all fullness of The Deity. One Who ascended far above all heavens (beyond creation) Bodily. He is the Most High!

So when you are called out on your manipulation of Scripture, you simply assert your opinion that I can't understand what you you understand without any justification whatsoever.

Your Trinity is manipulation of scriptures. You have no idea of God being beyond space matter and time as well as being part of His own creation. This distinction you manipulate as Persons. This is carnality and damnable idolatry.

When in doubt, change the topic as to ignore the actual words of Scripture. You still have Yahusha say "I had with you" proving there was an I and a you, two persons.

Damnable heresy of Multiple Persons in God. How can you understand scriptures when you are not born of heavenly Jerusalem which is the mother of all the elect?

True, to bad you have yet to be blessed with wisdom or understanding.

God Bless

Thankfully I have come out of the darkness of Greco-Roman mindset of Christianity.

I am of Hebrew covenant mindset. No one can understand NT without the OT.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

You mean I have a choice to reject nonsense like "If the Father and The Son are not Names then they are not two Persons either."? Good, then I categorically reject such silliness.

It may be nonsense to carnal men who can only surface read scriptures and can't go beyond.

Hello, you just make stuff up, and now, I'm carnal for not accepting your made up nonsense?

Where does it say The Father is a Person or an individual? How can Transcendent God be a Person? Have you gone beyond creation to see The Father? What carnality you are teaching. The Son is the express image of His Substance in the form of Man. The Son is not the image of The Person called Father. The Father is not a Man or an Individual in any sense. He is invisible Spirit Who can't be ever seen or heard.

Yahusha Messiah is the same God Who came from the very being of transcendent God to be the part of His own creation first in Sonship and then our only God and everlasting Father in the new creation.

You are missing the point. You don't get to set up the standards by which God communicates with man. All you can do is believe what God says. And, Yahusha say "I had with you" proving there was an I and a you, two persons.

Does he actually say "F, S and HS are names of God", or are you just making stuff up?

If they are not Names they are titles of The same God in transcendence and in creation. Not Trinity of Persons. Ignorantly you are misrepresenting God which is idolatry. You need to be born from above to realise Who and What God is.

Yes, Trinitarians have always said they are titles for the same God. They are used to distinguish between I and you distinctions within the Godhead.

The above is a listing of all the uses of the term κόσμος in the Greek. If you want to claim κόσμος means the elect, you need to prove it, not just claim it.

It doesn't matter but you have to see within context and how John uses it. You can't digest the truth and over all Bible to prove John 17:5 wrong. You can't digest Trinitarianism is idolatry and is a pagan concept. There is only One God and has been expressed by Yahusha Messiah in Bodily form in Whom dwells all fullness of The Deity. One Who ascended far above all heavens (beyond creation) Bodily. He is the Most High!

Just because you claim to see something in Scripture doesn't make it so. What about the context expresses that this use of κόσμος in Greek means elect?

So when you are called out on your manipulation of Scripture, you simply assert your opinion that I can't understand what you you understand without any justification whatsoever.

Your Trinity is manipulation of scriptures.

Just because you make a claim, doesn't make it true. So when you are called out on your manipulation of Scripture, you simply assert your opinion that I can't understand what you understand without any justification whatsoever.

You have no idea of God being beyond space matter and time as well as being part of His own creation.

Why would you think this? You sure do claim a lot of things while justifying nothing.

This distinction you manipulate as Persons. This is carnality and damnable idolatry.

No, I just use person as a word for that distinction. I need some word, in English we use person. Other languages use other words. That literally cannot be carnal or idolatry. It's simply silly even to say so.

When in doubt, change the topic as to ignore the actual words of Scripture. You still have Yahusha say "I had with you" proving there was an I and a you, two persons.

Damnable heresy of Multiple Persons in God. How can you understand scriptures when you are not born of heavenly Jerusalem which is the mother of all the elect?

Sorry, you can call it a damnable heresy all you want, Yahusha say "I had with you" proving there was an I and a you, two persons. Deal with Scripture.

God Bless

 

[SeventhDay]

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."



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?



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.



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

It is Father, Son and son which are the roles of God who is Father which is the first role, Son is the second and son is the third. God (Father) is in himself Father and Son in relationship and God (Father) sent the Son into the world and tool on the form of a human servant called the son of man. The Son of man returned as the Son of God to the Father who is and has always been with the Father as Son of God. Jesus is God in all these three roles. God bless you.

 

[Anthony]

It is Father, Son and son which are the roles of God who is Father which is the first role, Son is the second and son is the third. God (Father) is in himself Father and Son in relationship and God (Father) sent the Son into the world and tool on the form of a human servant called the son of man. The Son of man returned as the Son of God to the Father who is and has always been with the Father as Son of God. Jesus is God in all these three roles. God bless you.

It's not just the roles but God being Transcendent (beyond space time and matter) as well as becoming part of His own creation as The Firstborn over all creation. He is the beginning of the New Creation in Whom we transition.

All the 'isms' of Christianity are based on carnal interpretation of scriptures whereby they remain in the old creation where there is sin and death.

Misrepresentation of God is idolatry.

The true doctrine is based on comparing spiritual with the spiritual. The Father is the Sending End and The Son is the Receiving End on our behalf because He came to where we are.

People misinterpret scriptures because they see everything dimly as through the mirror not maturing enough to prepare their hearts to see their only God and Savior Yahusha Messiah in the New Creation - where He is being called Everlasting Father.

His Sonship will end when death as the last enemy is being subdued at the end of this age - 1Cor 15:24-28.

In His Sonship is our adoption of spiritual sons in the family of God.

In the age to come (New Creation), He will be our only God face to face with His redeemed people.

Trins look for a Father outside of Him as another Person as dimly looking through a mirror. It's opaque! That's why they don't understand.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

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."

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?

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.

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.

It is Father, Son and son which are the roles of God who is Father which is the first role, Son is the second and son is the third. God (Father) is in himself Father and Son in relationship and God (Father) sent the Son into the world and tool on the form of a human servant called the son of man. The Son of man returned as the Son of God to the Father who is and has always been with the Father as Son of God. Jesus is God in all these three roles. God bless you.

Call them roles all you want. The words "I had with you" don't refer to two different roles of the same person.

God Bless

 

[Yahchristian]

Call them roles all you want. The words "I had with you" don't refer to two different roles of the same person.

Just to clarify your TRINITARIAN doctrine…

1) Does “I” highlighted below refer to “the man Christ Jesus”?

John 8:58… Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

2) Does “I” highlighted below refer to “the man Christ Jesus”?

John 8:58… Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

1 Timothy 2:5… For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

[SeventhDay]

Call them roles all you want. The words "I had with you" don't refer to two different roles of the same person.

God Bless

Indeed, it does refer to roles and we know the one Lord God who is one person said: Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

 

[SeventhDay]

Just to clarify your TRINITARIAN doctrine…

1) Does “I” highlighted below refer to “the man Christ Jesus”?

John 8:58… Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

2) Does “I” highlighted below refer to “the man Christ Jesus”?

John 8:58… Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus who is the Son of God assumed a human role as the son of man who pointed to God in a unified Father and Son relationship, yet God is one person therefore, they are roles of God within himself. The son of man had a beginning so who is Jesus referring to?

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Call them roles all you want. The words "I had with you" don't refer to two different roles of the same person.

Indeed, it does refer to roles and we know the one Lord God who is one person said: Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

I and you are personal pronouns. They are used to refer to persons, not roles. Nothing in your comment or verse proves that God is only one person. Again, the words "I had with you" cannot refer to two different roles of the same person. That's not how personal pronouns work.

God Bless

 

[SeventhDay]

I and you are personal pronouns. They are used to refer to persons, not roles. Nothing in your comment or verse proves that God is only one person. Again, the words "I had with you" cannot refer to two different roles of the same person. That's not how personal pronouns work.

God Bless

Now, tell me is the son of man a role of God? Yes, or no?

 

[SeventhDay]

Just to clarify your TRINITARIAN doctrine…

1) Does “I” highlighted below refer to “the man Christ Jesus”?

John 8:58… Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

2) Does “I” highlighted below refer to “the man Christ Jesus”?

John 8:58… Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

1 Timothy 2:5… For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Did the son of man exist before Abraham od the Son of God> Is the son of man the same as the Son of God who is in the eternal Now with the Father. Is not the son of man called the everlasting Father yet is not the son of man a role of God.

 

[SeventhDay]

Call them roles all you want. The words "I had with you" don't refer to two different roles of the same person.

God Bless

Jesus said to Philip if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. Also, the son of man is called the mighty God and everlasting Father, yet the son of man is not immortal and had a beginning. Why is the son of man and the Son of God given all the titles of the Father? it is because God has three roles of himself and is one person!

 

[SeventhDay]

It's not just the roles but God being Transcendent (beyond space time and matter) as well as becoming part of His own creation as The Firstborn over all creation. He is the beginning of the New Creation in Whom we transition.

All the 'isms' of Christianity are based on carnal interpretation of scriptures whereby they remain in the old creation where there is sin and death.

Misrepresentation of God is idolatry.

The true doctrine is based on comparing spiritual with the spiritual. The Father is the Sending End and The Son is the Receiving End on our behalf because He came to where we are.

People misinterpret scriptures because they see everything dimly as through the mirror not maturing enough to prepare their hearts to see their only God and Savior Yahusha Messiah in the New Creation - where He is being called Everlasting Father.

His Sonship will end when death as the last enemy is being subdued at the end of this age - 1Cor 15:24-28.

In His Sonship is our adoption of spiritual sons in the family of God.

In the age to come (New Creation), He will be our only God face to face with His redeemed people.

Trins look for a Father outside of Him as another Person as dimly looking through a mirror. It's opaque! That's why they don't understand.

God as the Father and Son exist eternally in the Now and that is a permanent Father and Son relationship, yet it is the one God who has roles within himself. If you see God as only the Father and not the Son, then you are not seeing God at all. However, son of man is a assumed role of God with a beginning and an end to manifested adopted sons of God in Christ who are returning back home with the Father just as Jesus did. Now, the son of man is coming home to who he is who is the Son that assumed the role of the son of man. The same can be said to all the adopted sons in Christ Jesus who are returning to the eternal Now where they always have been as sons of God in Christ.

 

[SeventhDay]

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.

It is sonship that is temporal not Sonship which is eternal. Now, those who speak of Jesus having two natures makes Jesus atonement of non-effect and negates The Son of God assuming the role of the son of man. Trinity doctrine is destructive doctrine and is a denial of who Yahusha is!