latreuō

Fred

Well-known member
Doctrinally, he becomes deity per Jn 1:1c, (in being one with the Father) but Jesus never becomes the person of God, which is your Sabellian heresy.

May be Jn 1:1c should have been translated "The word was deity".
That He is God means He was always God.

Your polytheism is showing.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Doctrinally, he becomes deity per Jn 1:1c, (in being one with the Father)
John 1:1 doesn't say anything about Jesus/Logos becoming anything. It says he was God.
but Jesus never becomes the person of God, which is your Sabellian heresy.
He didn't say Jesus did become the person of God. That is the error of this whole quote.
May be Jn 1:1c should have been translated "The word was deity".
No. The word was God is correct.
 

cjab

Well-known member
John 1:1 doesn't say anything about Jesus/Logos becoming anything. It says he was God.
A typical and moderately slanderous misreading of what I actually said, which was contextually related to what the risen Christ became on his ascension into heaven. The Word became flesh, and the flesh became the Logos with deific powers (Rev 19:13). Shouldn't present any issues, except to the Sabellians on this board.

He didn't say Jesus did become the person of God. That is the error of this whole quote.
That "Jesus is God" is what Fred endlessly preaches. To pretend otherwise is rank dishonesty. Actually I can't find that statement in the bible.

No. The word was God is correct.
No, it's incorrect. The Greek says "God was the Word." This has a different slant from "The Word was God" because the emphasis is on who is de facto God (acting God) over creation. The Word is identified. If the Greek had said "The Word was God" then the emphasis would have been on who the Word is, but in Jn 1:1c the emphasis is on who God is as a matter of doctrine.

As for the word "deity," I have reflected on it somewhat, and would see it this way: if Christ is assessed independently of or apart from the Father, as in Col 2:9 then deity is acceptable. If Christ is construed alongside the Father on God's throne, then there is but one God. (As in Jn 1:1c, the throne of God is under consideration, "God" is properly used).
 
Last edited:

Fred

Well-known member
That "Jesus is God" is what Fred endlessly preaches. To pretend otherwise is rank dishonesty. Actually I can't find that statement in the bible.

There is more than one way to express a truth claim. The fact that you can't figure this out is pathetic.
 

cjab

Well-known member
There is more than one way to express a truth claim. The fact that you can't figure this out is pathetic.
If it was a necessary doctrine for salvation, I'm sure the NT would have stated it. In fact it says the exact opposite: if you don't believe that Jesus came in the flesh, you're an antichrist.
 

cjab

Well-known member

John Milton

Well-known member
A typical and moderately slanderous misreading of what I actually said, which was contextually related to what the risen Christ became on his ascension into heaven. The Word became flesh, and the flesh became the Logos with deific powers (Rev 19:13). Shouldn't present any issues, except to the Sabellians on this board.
I said nothing slanderous. You incorrectly stated that Jesus "becomes deity per Jn. 1:1:c". That was a false statement. If that's not what you intended to say, the error is yours not mine. As is clear in what you wrote below...
...Doctrinally, he becomes deity per Jn 1:1c, (in being one with the Father)...
That "Jesus is God" is what Fred endlessly preaches. To pretend otherwise is rank dishonesty.
"Jesus is God" is not the same as what you said. For you to pretend that the statement is the same as what you said below is rank dishonestly.See below...
Jesus never becomes the person of God, which is your Sabellian heresy.
Actually I can't find that statement in the bible.
I've already addressed your flawed logic in the post below. You never answered the question I asked you. This suggests that you already know that you are wrong.
I’ve already addressed the logical error you are making here elsewhere. Just because a specific phrase is not used does not mean that the idea is not supported by scripture.

Your answer to this question should prove the point: The New Testament doesn’t tell us that Jesus had two nostrils. Do you agree with me that Jesus had two nostrils?

No, it's incorrect.
The translation is correct. You are pretending to know Greek again.
The Greek says "God was the Word." This has a different slant from "The Word was God"
It emphasizes the fact that the Word was God, but I don't think you like that very much.
because the emphasis is on who is de facto God (acting God) over creation.
Absolutely wrong. It emphasizes that the Word was God.
The Word is identified. If the Greek had said "The Word was God" then the emphasis would have been on who the Word is, but in Jn 1:1c the emphasis is on who God is as a matter of doctrine.
Nope. The proposition deals with the Word.
As for the word "deity," I have reflected on it somewhat, and would see it this way: if Christ is assessed independently of or apart from the Father, as in Col 2:9 then deity is acceptable. If Christ is construed alongside the Father on God's throne, then there is but one God. As in Jn 1:1c, the throne of God is under consideration, "God" is properly used.
Your reflection is worthless. In John 1 the Word is intentionally distinguished from the Father, and yet he is still called God. The throne of God is nowhere in view in Jn. 1.
 

Fred

Well-known member
If in fact he was YHWH, as you say, he would have been called "YHWH."
Applying an OT passage about YHWH in reference to Jesus in the NT is the same thing.
And remember cjab, this refers to praying to the Lord Jesus - and since God alone is the proper recipient of prayer demonstrates the Lord Jesus is God.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I said nothing slanderous. You incorrectly stated that Jesus "becomes deity per Jn. 1:1:c". That was a false statement. If that's not what you intended to say, the error is yours not mine. As is clear in what you wrote below...
That was a true statement as Christ said, Jhn 6:62 "Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!"

What I said was a true reflection of Christ's word's which you deny, because for you, Christ never "descended" as he is always "God".

"Jesus is God" is not the same as what you said.
Obviously, as I do not preach that "Jesus is God."

For you to pretend that the statement is the same as what you said below is rank dishonestly.See below...
I never pretended any such thing. Here you go again raising false aspersions.

I've already addressed your flawed logic in the post below. You never answered the question I asked you. This suggests that you already know that you are wrong.
I’ve already addressed the logical error you are making here elsewhere. Just because a specific phrase is not used does not mean that the idea is not supported by scripture.

Your answer to this question should prove the point: The New Testament doesn’t tell us that Jesus had two nostrils. Do you agree with me that Jesus had two nostrils?
Not a satisfactory answer: "Jesus is God" is Sabellianism and worse as it denies the incarnation.


The translation is correct. You are pretending to know Greek again.
You are repudiated by people more knowledgeable than you:

Chrys C. Caragounis (and Jan Van der WATT on Jn 1:1).

"For a Hellene the construction of και Θεός ην ό Λόγος is perfectly
normal. It is exactly what he would have expected. The structure of the
phrase emphasizes the word Θεός. If Θεός were not to be emphasized,
then the clause would have been: και ό Λόγος ην Θεός."


It emphasizes the fact that the Word was God, but I don't think you like that very much.
I like it a lot, because it shows the Word on God's throne acting with the power of God, but says nothing about the Word's composition, other than as possessed of the glory of God, which is deduced from the Word being on God's throne.

It is your obession with the composition of the Word itself separate from the glory of God the Father that is most unscriptural, even disturbing. Presumably it derives from the Tertullian obsession with God's "substance." I discern that as fetishism.

Absolutely wrong. It emphasizes that the Word was God.

Nope. The proposition deals with the Word.

Your reflection is worthless. In John 1 the Word is intentionally distinguished from the Father, and yet he is still called God. The throne of God is nowhere in view in Jn. 1.
Go learn some Greek.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Applying an OT passage about YHWH in reference to Jesus in the NT is the same thing.
No, it's transparently not the same thing. Rather it involves acknowledgement of the conferring of authority of the Father by the Father onto the Son.

And remember cjab, this refers to praying to the Lord Jesus - and since God alone is the proper recipient of prayer demonstrates the Lord Jesus is God.
First you are like a gramaphone record with a stuck needle, as you cannot stop saying "Jesus is God." Every thread of yours, every post, is devoted to "Jesus is God." Most people are sick of having this rammed down their throats by you, I should imagine. (Not that you care how offensive you are as you accompany it by constantly accusing others of heresy just for disagreeing with your own opinions that you admit are not directly taught by scripture.)

Secondly it isn't even controversial that Jesus sits at the right hand of God.

Thirdly, as God is the proper recipient of prayer, it was Jesus who told us to pray to the Father in his name. If you think you are going to come onto this forum and teach contrary to what the Lord Jesus himself taught, you should take your (Sabellian) heresy elsewhere. It is the glorification of the name of Jesus that is required, and his name isn't glorified by carnal worship or by lip service in the form of "Jesus is God" which is a Sabellian maxim.
 
Last edited:

Fred

Well-known member
Most people are sick of having this rammed down their throats by you, I should imagine.


If heretics don't like that "Jesus is God" then that's too bad.

Rather it involves acknowledgement of the conferring of authority of the Father by the Father onto the Son.

Many ways to do that without applying YHWH unto Jesus.
(Not that you care how offensive you are as you accompany it by constantly accusing others of heresy just for disagreeing with your own opinions that you admit are not directly taught by scripture.)

Secondly it isn't even controversial that Jesus sits at the right hand of God.

Thirdly, as God is the proper recipient of prayer, it was Jesus who told us to pray to the Father in his name

Which doesn't detract at all from Jesus being the proper recipient of prayer which proves He is God,

your (Sabellian) heresy Sabellian

You are confused. See post 92.
 

Fred

Well-known member
The singular pronoun always refers to one person, not two.

To whom is being referred to in the following passages:

1 John 2:3 (Him; His)
1 John 2:4 (Him; His)
1 John 2:5 (His; Him)
1 John 2:6 (Him; He)
1 John 2:8 (Him)
1 John 2:12 (His)
1 John 2:13 (Him)
1 John 2:14 (Him)
1 John 2:20 (Holy One)
1 John 2:25 (He)
1 John 2:27 (Him; His; Him)
1 John 2:28 (Him; He; Him; His)
1 John 2:29 (He; Him)
1 John 3:2 (He; Him X2; He)
1 John 3:3 (Him; He)
1 John 3:5 (He; Him)
1 John 3:6 (Him X3)
1 John 3:7 (He)
1 John 3:19 (Him)
1 John 3:23 (He)
1 John 3:24 (His; Him; He)
1 John 4:4 (He)
1 John 4:13 (Him; He X2; His)
1 John 4:17 (He)
1 John 4:19 (He)
1 John 4:21 (Him)
1 John 5:14 (Him; His; He)
1 John 5:15 (He; Him)
1 John 5:20 (Him X2; He)
3 John 1:7 (Name)
Revelation 6:10 ('holy and true')
 

Fred

Well-known member
Contrariwise, John is "very strict" with the use of the singular pronoun: so strict that the plural pronoun is never used of God and Christ together

Go ahead and prove your assertion how John is "very strict" - To whom is being referred to in the passages in post 115?
 

cjab

Well-known member
To whom is being referred to in the following passages:

1 John 2:3 (Him; His)
1 John 2:4 (Him; His)
1 John 2:5 (His; Him)
1 John 2:6 (Him; He)
1 John 2:8 (Him)
1 John 2:12 (His)
1 John 2:13 (Him)
1 John 2:14 (Him)
1 John 2:20 (Holy One)
1 John 2:25 (He)
1 John 2:27 (Him; His; Him)
1 John 2:28 (Him; He; Him; His)
1 John 2:29 (He; Him)
1 John 3:2 (He; Him X2; He)
1 John 3:3 (Him; He)
1 John 3:5 (He; Him)
1 John 3:6 (Him X3)
1 John 3:7 (He)
1 John 3:19 (Him)
1 John 3:23 (He)
1 John 3:24 (His; Him; He)
1 John 4:4 (He)
1 John 4:13 (Him; He X2; His)
1 John 4:17 (He)
1 John 4:19 (He)
1 John 4:21 (Him)
1 John 5:14 (Him; His; He)
1 John 5:15 (He; Him)
1 John 5:20 (Him X2; He)
3 John 1:7 (Name)
Revelation 6:10 ('holy and true')
Why should I do your work for you?
 

cjab

Well-known member
If heretics don't like that "Jesus is God" then that's too bad.
You're the heretic on stilts. You preach the false gospel of antichrist, that doesn't acknowledge the ability of Jesus to become human: hence the reason for the hypostatic union. For one thing is clear: it's that God is not a man: Jesus taught that truth by acknowledging the Father as his God, but you would contradict even the very words of Christ. You are self-condemned.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
That was a true statement
John 1:1 says absolutely nothing about Jesus becoming deity. Your statement was 100% false.
as Christ said, Jhn 6:62 "Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!"
This says nothing about the origins of Christ's divinity. I don't know why you haven't yet grasped this.
What I said was a true reflection of Christ's word's which you deny, because for you, Christ never "descended" as he is always "God".
I deny it because, as I said above, your understanding of those passages is incorrect. What I have said here is that Jesus was 100% God, became 100% man, and resumed being 100% God. You cannot reconcile those remarks with your claim here that I have said that Jesus is always God. You are probably confused by the fact that although Jesus's identity remains the same his attributes don't, at least that's a much nicer way of taking your remarks than supposing that you are willfully distorting them.
Obviously, as I do not preach that "Jesus is God."
Since you say you recognize that the propositions are not the same, then you clearly owe Fred an apology for claiming he said something he didn't say. That was the point I was making.
I never pretended any such thing. Here you go again raising false aspersions.
You claimed that Fred said something he didn't say. Now you are claiming that you knew all along that what you were saying didn't match his remarks. If you know you were wrong, you owe an apology.
Not a satisfactory answer: "Jesus is God" is Sabellianism and worse as it denies the incarnation.
It is not Sabellianism, and it does not deny the incarnation. It is to you because you don't recognize that "God" doesn't necessarily equal "the Father." That's your error not mine.
You are repudiated by people more knowledgeable than you:

Chrys C. Caragounis (and Jan Van der WATT on Jn 1:1).

"For a Hellene the construction of και Θεός ην ό Λόγος is perfectly
normal. It is exactly what he would have expected. The structure of the
phrase emphasizes the word Θεός. If Θεός were not to be emphasized,
then the clause would have been: και ό Λόγος ην Θεός."
Lol. We are saying the same thing. You are the one falsely claiming that this emphasis somehow relates to the Father or his throne rather than the word.
I like it a lot, because it shows the Word on God's throne acting with the power of God, but says nothing about the Word's composition, other than as possessed of the glory of God, which is deduced from the Word being on God's throne.
This is rich. You take a verse that says the word was God, deny that the statement the word was God says anything about the word's composition, and then say it shows the word being on God's throne which is nowhere in the verse. Worse, you say that the word being on God's throne (which is nowhere in the verse) leads one to deduce that he has the glory of God. This is a nonsensical take on John 1:1.
It is your obession with the composition of the Word itself separate from the glory of God the Father that is most unscriptural, even disturbing. Presumably it derives from the Tertullian obsession with God's "substance." I discern that as fetishism.
I have no obsession with the composition of the word. I take John at his word that the Word was God. You are making every vain effort to disprove what you don't accept.
Go learn some Greek.
Lol. It is true, however, that there are always things to learn.
 
Top