What is the Oneness of God as taught by Oneness Pentecostals?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
I agree. So, John 1:1 then clearly teaches a distinction between the Father and the Son prior to creation. That doesn't help your case. Connect it to John 1:1 or not, John 17:5 expresses there was a distinction between the Father and the Son prior to creation.

I don't disagree that the "Son of God" is called that because of his actual humanity, but that doesn't answer the fact that the one who walked on earth with the name Jesus, with the title the Son of God, was distinct and experiencing glory with the Father before the world was.

Singular "me" because there is a singular God. No problem for Trinitarians. Why would words Trinitarians use to distinguish persons necessarily have to correlate a word relating to God being creator? Category error. This final bit simply expresses utter confusion on what we are talking about.

You're conflating the "Word" and "Son". The Word is eternal because there was never a time when the Father didn't have His own Word. The "Word" of John 1:1 is a functional distinction similar to you and your word can be distinguished. The Father's own presence glorified His Word. When the Word became flesh, the distinction became more than functional, but the distinction brought about by His genuine humanity began. The Word became the son, and a literal "Son" begins at Luke 1:35. In God's mind and plan, the Son and His crucifixion and his glorification was known before the world began, but its literal fulfillment began at Luke 1:35/Galatians 4:4 in the fullness of TIME.

That's a nice narrative, but none of this interacts with the wording of either John 1:1 or John 17:5. John 1:1 says the Word was face to face with God. John 17:5 says "I had with you". If I and you both didn't exist before the foundation of the world as an I and you, then Jesus lied when he said "I had with you". Both of these express a clear distinction, before the world was, that goes far, far, far beyond God having his voice/plan/idea(word) with him. This works if you want to placate a questioner in your congregation, but it simply ignores what John actually wrote.

I'm not conflating anything: The Word in John 1:1 is a title for the one who walked around as a human with the name Jesus prior to his incarnation. And, John 17:5 expresses that the I/you distinction between the human Jesus and the Father existed prior to the world existing. That's what this verse says, and no storytelling is going to change what John 17:5 says.

In short, deal with the text. I don't care how you like to explain it in your church. I only care right now about what the text says in John 17:5 and John 1:1. And, you simply didn't speak to it. It says "I had with you", and you talked about Jesus getting glory because of a plan God had for him at that time. That's not having glory. Jesus said "I had with you".

When the Son was first named Son is irrelevant. Why the Son was named Son is irrelevant. That God had a plan that was fulfilled in the fulness of time is irrelevant. None of this expresses how Jesus had glory before the world was with someone else, the Father.

Luke 1:35 says
"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God." It does not say "a literal "Son" begins."

Like most Trinitarians, in practical terms you see his human flesh as window dressing. That is, the distinctions between Father and Son were eternal and this Father and Son distinction simply was carried forward into the incarnation with the exception we got to see it for the first time due to his flesh.

How does that make his human flesh a window dressing. It sounds like you heard this analogy somewhere and are repeating it without ever really thinking about it. We believe the distinction existed prior to the incarnation because that's what Scripture says. How doe this have any relevance to Jesus' human flesh? Answer: there is no relevance. You just repeated something someone else said.

Finally, the singular "me" is most certainly a problem for Trinitarians. "NONE BESIDE ME" is not logically or grammatically the same as "NONE BESIDE US". Trinitarian theology is schizophrenic in that it characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements. Trinitarians strain at Genesis 1:26 to read into the word "US" as "three persons" because they find a rare instance of a verse they can construe into a plurality, yet demand that there is no problem when a singular God who is called "I AM" says "none beside ME".

In reality, the fact that we are monotheists means there is no problem here for Trinitarians. That you think we are not monotheists is the real reason why you reject the Trinity.

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
So many first-hand witnesses deceived in the same way? Not only die for it, but could men this deluded write with the wisdom and purity that these men did?
Who says they wrote with wisdom and purity?

They wrote the most published book in history that is quoted and admired for its purity and wisdom more than any other book.
And?

In other religions you have bits and pieces of historical evidence that could be used to give some credibility, but there is nothing that can compare to the evidence that these first-hand witnesses of the resurrection proclaim. Saying "they're truly deceived" doesn't give an adequate answer to the facts as accepted by nearly all current ancient historians. Why and how could these first-hand witnesses do what they did if not actually true? There is nothing like it to compare to.
Cults do crazy things.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
In reality, both emphatically point to Jesus being LORD. And, you know it. You just don't want to admit it. Are you rejecting that the LORD created everything? Because, both verses point out that Jesus is the Lord who made everything.
The plain evidence of Tanakh can't be overriden by an apparent proof text on your part. Don't talk about what I know because we both know you don't.

Looking at Psalm 45 and 102 shows no mention of a son being the God. None. Also, if you understood Jewish thinking better, you'd know that the idea that God created the world with Israel, Messiah, in mind, is what is being talked about in Hebrews 1 and 1 Cor 8. One God, the Father. God reigns on earth through man, as is evident by the kings of Israel sitting on YHWH's throne.

BTW, God doesn't bow to another person. Jesus does.

Too bad the NT teaches that both are the only True God making your point vacuous. Try actually quoting Ephesians 1:3. It says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ..." It says blessed be the God who is also the Father of Jesus. It doesn't say Jesus isn't God.
It teaches that your divinity is subservient to another. That isn't God.

If you wanted to say the Father is the God of Jesus, look at v14 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory..." But then again, that Jesus is both God and man eliminates this verse as necessarily implying Jesus is a secondary God under the Father.
See above. God doesn't worship another.

With respect to his humanity, the Father is the God of Jesus.
See above. Your lord has a God.

With respect to his divinity, Jesus is the same God as the Father given that there is only one true God. which Scripture points out countless times.
And yet scripture points out not to have another god, person, before Him, not to worship or bow to another. Jesus bows to another with both natures. ;)

Yet, Hebrews said of Jesus "But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” Therefore, it's saying that in some way Jesus both died yet is truly immortal.
Dying isn't truly immortal. ;)Adding a new nature isn't the same.

You could just reject the NT like most Jews, but for some reason, you choose to act irrationally.
Rotfl... his death contradicts years without end. Who's being irrational, DOGB?

God Bless
Yep.
 
Last edited:

Andreas

Active member
That's a nice narrative, but none of this interacts with the wording of either John 1:1 or John 17:5. John 1:1 says the Word was face to face with God. John 17:5 says "I had with you". If I and you both didn't exist before the foundation of the world as an I and you, then Jesus lied when he said "I had with you". Both of these express a clear distinction, before the world was, that goes far, far, far beyond God having his voice/plan/idea(word) with him. This works if you want to placate a questioner in your congregation, but it simply ignores what John actually wrote.

I'm not conflating anything: The Word in John 1:1 is a title for the one who walked around as a human with the name Jesus prior to his incarnation. And, John 17:5 expresses that the I/you distinction between the human Jesus and the Father existed prior to the world existing. That's what this verse says, and no storytelling is going to change what John 17:5 says.

In short, deal with the text. I don't care how you like to explain it in your church. I only care right now about what the text says in John 17:5 and John 1:1. And, you simply didn't speak to it. It says "I had with you", and you talked about Jesus getting glory because of a plan God had for him at that time. That's not having glory. Jesus said "I had with you".

When the Son was first named Son is irrelevant. Why the Son was named Son is irrelevant. That God had a plan that was fulfilled in the fulness of time is irrelevant. None of this expresses how Jesus had glory before the world was with someone else, the Father.

Luke 1:35 says
"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God." It does not say "a literal "Son" begins."



How does that make his human flesh a window dressing. It sounds like you heard this analogy somewhere and are repeating it without ever really thinking about it. We believe the distinction existed prior to the incarnation because that's what Scripture says. How doe this have any relevance to Jesus' human flesh? Answer: there is no relevance. You just repeated something someone else said.



In reality, the fact that we are monotheists means there is no problem here for Trinitarians. That you think we are not monotheists is the real reason why you reject the Trinity.

God Bless

It says "WITH" and not "face to face". You're adding to the Bible by inserting a rare meaning of the Greek "pros". Pros is used often in the NT and has many subtle differences in meaning and you happen to pull out one and make it into a doctrine.

This is the Trinitarian version of what JW's do with John 1:1 though none have been bold enough to actually put that into an English translation. Look at all the dozens ( https://biblehub.com/parallel/john/1-1.htm ) of English translations of John 1:1 and NONE render it as "face to face". The context does not need it or imply it. Maybe you should write some of the Bible translators and give them your information as to why they translated it wrong.

In addition to adding to John 1:1 what is not there, you take away meaning of John 17:5 by ignoring that Jesus said "with Yourself, with the glory". Jesus didn't say "give me my glory back". In context with the rest of the book of John, this goes right back to John 1:1 and the Logos being with God and God. The Logos is God's Self expressed. It is a functional distinction as Jesus the man looks back on his former glory with the Father and by the Father as the Father's Word. God who is transcendent is also immanent and God's immanent self is sometimes called "the word".

You said, "The Word in John 1:1 is a title for the one who walked around as a human with the name Jesus prior to his incarnation". I'm going to take this as a typo on your part because Trinitarians DO NOT believe Jesus was human before the incarnation. Perhaps you can clarify.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
In reality, both emphatically point to Jesus being LORD. And, you know it. You just don't want to admit it. Are you rejecting that the LORD created everything? Because, both verses point out that Jesus is the Lord who made everything.
The plain evidence of Tanakh can't be overriden by an apparent proof text on your part. Don't talk about what I know because we both know you don't.

Looking at Psalm 45 and 102 shows no mention of a son being the God. None. Also, if you understood Jewish thinking better, you'd know that the idea that God created the world with Israel, Messiah, in mind, is what is being talked about in Hebrews 1 and 1 Cor 8. One God, the Father. God reigns on earth through man, as is evident by the kings of Israel sitting on YHWH's throne.

BTW, God doesn't bow to another person. Jesus does.

If you believe the above, then this is a reason why you should reject the NT. None of this shows these NT verses don't teach Jesus is LORD. In fact, one has to simply refuse to read either Hebrews 1 or 1 Cor. 8 to believe they are talking about "the idea that God created the world with Israel, Messiah, in mind." There is simply no squaring that circle.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Too bad the NT teaches that both are the only True God making your point vacuous. Try actually quoting Ephesians 1:3. It says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ..." It says blessed be the God who is also the Father of Jesus. It doesn't say Jesus isn't God.
It teaches that your divinity is subservient to another. That isn't God.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
If you wanted to say the Father is the God of Jesus, look at v14 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory..." But then again, that Jesus is both God and man eliminates this verse as necessarily implying Jesus is a secondary God under the Father.
See above. God doesn't worship another.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
With respect to his humanity, the Father is the God of Jesus.
See above. Your lord has a God.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
With respect to his divinity, Jesus is the same God as the Father given that there is only one true God. which Scripture points out countless times.
And yet scripture points out not to have another god, person, before Him, not to worship or bow to another. Jesus bows to another with both natures. ;)

Why talk with one whose ego won't allow him to learn anything? The above is a straw man of my position. I'm done trying to explain my position on this. Moving on until you learn to act differently.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yet, Hebrews said of Jesus "But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” Therefore, it's saying that in some way Jesus both died yet is truly immortal.
Dying isn't truly immortal. ;)Adding a new nature isn't the same.

And, refusing to listen as to make meaningful responses is utterly disrespectful. Try interacting with my position.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You could just reject the NT like most Jews, but for some reason, you choose to act irrationally.
Rotfl... his death contradicts years without end. Who's being irrational, DOGB?

That's not what history says.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
That's a nice narrative, but none of this interacts with the wording of either John 1:1 or John 17:5. John 1:1 says the Word was face to face with God. John 17:5 says "I had with you". If I and you both didn't exist before the foundation of the world as an I and you, then Jesus lied when he said "I had with you". Both of these express a clear distinction, before the world was, that goes far, far, far beyond God having his voice/plan/idea(word) with him. This works if you want to placate a questioner in your congregation, but it simply ignores what John actually wrote.

I'm not conflating anything: The Word in John 1:1 is a title for the one who walked around as a human with the name Jesus prior to his incarnation. And, John 17:5 expresses that the I/you distinction between the human Jesus and the Father existed prior to the world existing. That's what this verse says, and no storytelling is going to change what John 17:5 says.

In short, deal with the text. I don't care how you like to explain it in your church. I only care right now about what the text says in John 17:5 and John 1:1. And, you simply didn't speak to it. It says "I had with you", and you talked about Jesus getting glory because of a plan God had for him at that time. That's not having glory. Jesus said "I had with you".

When the Son was first named Son is irrelevant. Why the Son was named Son is irrelevant. That God had a plan that was fulfilled in the fulness of time is irrelevant. None of this expresses how Jesus had glory before the world was with someone else, the Father.

Luke 1:35 says "And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God." It does not say "a literal "Son" begins."



How does that make his human flesh a window dressing. It sounds like you heard this analogy somewhere and are repeating it without ever really thinking about it. We believe the distinction existed prior to the incarnation because that's what Scripture says. How doe this have any relevance to Jesus' human flesh? Answer: there is no relevance. You just repeated something someone else said.



In reality, the fact that we are monotheists means there is no problem here for Trinitarians. That you think we are not monotheists is the real reason why you reject the Trinity.
It says "WITH" and not "face to face". You're adding to the Bible by inserting a rare meaning of the Greek "pros". Pros is used often in the NT and has many subtle differences in meaning and you happen to pull out one and make it into a doctrine.

In Greek, there are multiple prepositions that can be translated "with". The phrase in Greek is ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. The preposition in question is πρὸς, and when it means with, it means being in a group with some people or being with some other person. It never means anything like having something with you. It's very typical to be translated towards. The Word was towards God? Oh, it's the idea of facing someone else's face. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." The phrase then face to face is τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον. Do you see the correlation between the use of this word πρὸς and being with someone else yet? Because that's what is clearly going on in John 1:1b.

Besides, what's the subject in John 1:1b? Answer: The Word. Therefore, if you taking this "with" as "having something with you", then this verses says the Word has God with him. The Word is the subject of the clause so that subject would be the one with the object, in this case God. The sentence is written 100% backwards to how you are reading it.

Frankly if John was talking about God having this plan, will, idea or whatnot with him, he wouldn't have used πρὸς, and he wouldn't have made the Word the subject in the clause.

This is the Trinitarian version of what JW's do with John 1:1 though none have been bold enough to actually put that into an English translation. Look at all the dozens ( https://biblehub.com/parallel/john/1-1.htm ) of English translations of John 1:1 and NONE render it as "face to face". The context does not need it or imply it. Maybe you should write some of the Bible translators and give them your information as to why they translated it wrong.

In reality, I was adding a qualifier to express how I think it should be understood, and I presented a strong rational for that understanding. So, the context does require/imply it, no even demands it. Do you have anything justifying reading John 1:1b as the Object of the Preposition possessing the Subject of the independent clause? Why? Because, you're literally reading the sentence backwards.

In addition to adding to John 1:1 what is not there, you take away meaning of John 17:5 by ignoring that Jesus said "with Yourself, with the glory". Jesus didn't say "give me my glory back". In context with the rest of the book of John, this goes right back to John 1:1 and the Logos being with God and God. The Logos is God's Self expressed. It is a functional distinction as Jesus the man looks back on his former glory with the Father and by the Father as the Father's Word. God who is transcendent is also immanent and God's immanent self is sometimes called "the word".

You said I "take away meaning of John 17:5 by ignoring that Jesus said 'with Yourself, with the glory'." What? How am I ignoring this? Why is this relevant at all to the topic? And, I didn't say it said "give me my glory back". This is a straw man. You're attacking me for something I did not say or do to distract from what I did say. John 17:5 says "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." So, no matter who is involved, what is being shared, the text says "I had with thee before the world was." Therefore, I and thee existed distinct before the world was. Deal with the text and stop bring up irrelevant distractions from the issue at hand.

FYI, by stating
"It is a functional distinction as Jesus the man looks back on his former glory with the Father and by the Father as the Father's Word." you are categorically rejecting Oneness completely because you are admitting the distinction exists existed prior to the incarnation. If Jesus remembers that distinction from before the world existed, then it actually existed, and you have rejected Oneness.

You said, "The Word in John 1:1 is a title for the one who walked around as a human with the name Jesus prior to his incarnation". I'm going to take this as a typo on your part because Trinitarians DO NOT believe Jesus was human before the incarnation. Perhaps you can clarify.

Seriously, if you tried, you could easily understood what I meant. The second person had the title "the Word" before the incarnation and was given the title "the Son" at his birth.

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
If you believe the above, then this is a reason why you should reject the NT.
And I do. You know that.

None of this shows these NT verses don't teach Jesus is LORD. In fact, one has to simply refuse to read either Hebrews 1 or 1 Cor. 8 to believe they are talking about "the idea that God created the world with Israel, Messiah, in mind." There is simply no squaring that circle.
You know yourself your statement is false as many Christians believe the same thing. In fact, there's a book entitled, "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-inflicted Wound", by Buzzard and Hunting, which point these things out.

Why talk with one whose ego won't allow him to learn anything?
You'd have to ask yourself.

The above is a straw man of my position. I'm done trying to explain my position on this. Moving on until you learn to act differently.
Sure. ;) I've pointed out in several places in our discussions how you have a false god, and worship of another is part of it.

And, refusing to listen as to make meaningful responses is utterly disrespectful. Try interacting with my position.
And I have.

That's not what history says.
Rotfl... dying makes one not immortal, eternal. It's crystal clear. ;)

God Bless
Always
 

Andreas

Active member
In Greek, there are multiple prepositions that can be translated "with". The phrase in Greek is ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. The preposition in question is πρὸς, and when it means with, it means being in a group with some people or being with some other person. It never means anything like having something with you. It's very typical to be translated towards. The Word was towards God? Oh, it's the idea of facing someone else's face. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." The phrase then face to face is τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον. Do you see the correlation between the use of this word πρὸς and being with someone else yet? Because that's what is clearly going on in John 1:1b.

Besides, what's the subject in John 1:1b? Answer: The Word. Therefore, if you taking this "with" as "having something with you", then this verses says the Word has God with him. The Word is the subject of the clause so that subject would be the one with the object, in this case God. The sentence is written 100% backwards to how you are reading it.

Frankly if John was talking about God having this plan, will, idea or whatnot with him, he wouldn't have used πρὸς, and he wouldn't have made the Word the subject in the clause.



In reality, I was adding a qualifier to express how I think it should be understood, and I presented a strong rational for that understanding. So, the context does require/imply it, no even demands it. Do you have anything justifying reading John 1:1b as the Object of the Preposition possessing the Subject of the independent clause? Why? Because, you're literally reading the sentence backwards.



You said I "take away meaning of John 17:5 by ignoring that Jesus said 'with Yourself, with the glory'." What? How am I ignoring this? Why is this relevant at all to the topic? And, I didn't say it said "give me my glory back". This is a straw man. You're attacking me for something I did not say or do to distract from what I did say. John 17:5 says "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." So, no matter who is involved, what is being shared, the text says "I had with thee before the world was." Therefore, I and thee existed distinct before the world was. Deal with the text and stop bring up irrelevant distractions from the issue at hand.

FYI, by stating
"It is a functional distinction as Jesus the man looks back on his former glory with the Father and by the Father as the Father's Word." you are categorically rejecting Oneness completely because you are admitting the distinction exists existed prior to the incarnation. If Jesus remembers that distinction from before the world existed, then it actually existed, and you have rejected Oneness.



Seriously, if you tried, you could easily understood what I meant. The second person had the title "the Word" before the incarnation and was given the title "the Son" at his birth.


God Bless


Why haven't any Bible translators in the history of man rendered John 1:1 as you say? Just a look at the breakdown of the Greek "pros" here https://biblehub.com/greek/4314.htm and it is clear even for non-Greek speaking people that you are reading into it what you want to.

Oneness people have always taught the "Word was with God", not simply "the Word was God". As I've said countless times before, it is similar to you and your own Logos/Word. There is a distinction between your Word and yourself, but not as another person. It's a functional distinction. However, when the Word was made flesh, there also arose a distinction due to his genuine humanity. To say that his humanity introduced no distinction would be denying his humanity and making Jesus into a sort of puppet body, not actually human.

Trinitarians, by and large, hold that "God the Son" is a title that the 2nd person in the Godhead had from eternity. Do you agree?

If Jesus is "THE FIRST" in the Bible, how can he be known as "the second" by Trinitarians?
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Why haven't any Bible translators in the history of man rendered John 1:1 as you say? Just a look at the breakdown of the Greek "pros" here https://biblehub.com/greek/4314.htm and it is clear even for non-Greek speaking people that you are reading into it what you want to.

Oneness people have always taught the "Word was with God", not simply "the Word was God". As I've said countless times before, it is similar to you and your own Logos/Word. There is a distinction between your Word and yourself, but not as another person. It's a functional distinction. However, when the Word was made flesh, there also arose a distinction due to his genuine humanity. To say that his humanity introduced no distinction would be denying his humanity and making Jesus into a sort of puppet body, not actually human.

Trinitarians, by and large, hold that "God the Son" is a title that the 2nd person in the Godhead had from eternity. Do you agree?

If Jesus is "THE FIRST" in the Bible, how can he be known as "the second" by Trinitarians?
Very interesting response. 👍

I'm curious how DOGB will respond?
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
If you believe the above, then this is a reason why you should reject the NT.
And I do. You know that.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
None of this shows these NT verses don't teach Jesus is LORD. In fact, one has to simply refuse to read either Hebrews 1 or 1 Cor. 8 to believe they are talking about "the idea that God created the world with Israel, Messiah, in mind." There is simply no squaring that circle.
You know yourself your statement is false as many Christians believe the same thing. In fact, there's a book entitled, "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-inflicted Wound", by Buzzard and Hunting, which point these things out.

Many? You mean fringe? It truly fun watching them do back flips trying to twist Scripture as to not admit what Scripture clearly teaches. BTW, I don't know Hunting, but Buzzard is a laughing stock.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why talk with one whose ego won't allow him to learn anything?
You'd have to ask yourself.

Given that I'm asking myself this rhetorical question, I am.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That's not what history says.
Rotfl... dying makes one not immortal, eternal. It's crystal clear. ;)

And, rising again changes everything. Again, any argument that doesn't take into consideration our actual position, duel natures, proves nothing.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
In Greek, there are multiple prepositions that can be translated "with". The phrase in Greek is ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. The preposition in question is πρὸς, and when it means with, it means being in a group with some people or being with some other person. It never means anything like having something with you. It's very typical to be translated towards. The Word was towards God? Oh, it's the idea of facing someone else's face. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." The phrase then face to face is τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον. Do you see the correlation between the use of this word πρὸς and being with someone else yet? Because that's what is clearly going on in John 1:1b.
Besides, what's the subject in John 1:1b? Answer: The Word. Therefore, if you taking this "with" as "having something with you", then this verses says the Word has God with him. The Word is the subject of the clause so that subject would be the one with the object, in this case God. The sentence is written 100% backwards to how you are reading it.
Frankly if John was talking about God having this plan, will, idea or whatnot with him, he wouldn't have used
πρὸς, and he wouldn't have made the Word the subject in the clause.

In reality, I was adding a qualifier to express how I think it should be understood, and I presented a strong rational for that understanding. So, the context does require/imply it, no even demands it. Do you have anything justifying reading John 1:1b as the Object of the Preposition possessing the Subject of the independent clause? Why? Because, you're literally reading the sentence backwards.

You said I
"take away meaning of John 17:5 by ignoring that Jesus said 'with Yourself, with the glory'." What? How am I ignoring this? Why is this relevant at all to the topic? And, I didn't say it said "give me my glory back". This is a straw man. You're attacking me for something I did not say or do to distract from what I did say. John 17:5 says "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." So, no matter who is involved, what is being shared, the text says "I had with thee before the world was." Therefore, I and thee existed distinct before the world was. Deal with the text and stop bring up irrelevant distractions from the issue at hand.
FYI, by stating
"It is a functional distinction as Jesus the man looks back on his former glory with the Father and by the Father as the Father's Word." you are categorically rejecting Oneness completely because you are admitting the distinction exists existed prior to the incarnation. If Jesus remembers that distinction from before the world existed, then it actually existed, and you have rejected Oneness.

Seriously, if you tried, you could easily understood what I meant. The second person had the title "the Word" before the incarnation and was given the title "the Son" at his birth.
Why haven't any Bible translators in the history of man rendered John 1:1 as you say? Just a look at the breakdown of the Greek "pros" here https://biblehub.com/greek/4314.htm and it is clear even for non-Greek speaking people that you are reading into it what you want to.

I didn't say it was a translation. So, why do you think this question is meaningful? I can quote countless commentaries, grammars and the like all agreeing with me. Practically everyone agrees. Even apostate agnostics like Bart D. Ehrman agree that's what is being expressed here. So, why do you doubt all of Greek Grammar on this one?

BTW, Why do all Bible Translations Capitalize Word? Oh yeah, because they all see it as a title for Jesus before he got that name.

Your Greek breakdown:

4314 prós (a preposition) – properly, motion towards to "interface with" (literally, moving toward a goal or destination).​
4314 /prós ("towards, with") indicates "extension toward a goal, with implied interaction or reciprocity (L & N, 1, 84.18), with "presumed contact and reaction" (L & N, 1, 84.23). 4314 (prós) naturally suggests the cycle of initiation and response(L-N, 1,90.25, 90.33).​
[4314 (prós) can mean "in view of," or "in light of, but never "against," except where the context indicates an active exchange (interface) done in opposition.]​

So, what here expresses the idea of God having something with him? Oh yeah, not one of these uses applies to your understanding. The Word had motion towards to "interface with" God? The Word had extension toward a goal, with implied interaction or reciprocity God? The Word was "in view of," or "in light of, but never "against," God? None of these help your case, some don't fit at all, but all of them express that the Word was a person in some relationship with God.

FYI, try using BDAG. That is the recognized academic lexicon. It will even break down how to distinguish between the various uses grammatically.

Oneness people have always taught the "Word was with God", not simply "the Word was God". As I've said countless times before, it is similar to you and your own Logos/Word. There is a distinction between your Word and yourself, but not as another person. It's a functional distinction. However, when the Word was made flesh, there also arose a distinction due to his genuine humanity. To say that his humanity introduced no distinction would be denying his humanity and making Jesus into a sort of puppet body, not actually human.

And yet, you just admitted "Jesus the man looks back on his former glory with the Father and by the Father as the Father's Word." That means this distinction is experiential/relational before the world was. You don't like the term person, then don't use it. That doesn't change the fact that one self could distinguish between itself and another while both were recognized as the one true God, aka Trinitarianism.

BTW, I didn't say
"his humanity introduced no distinction". And, analogies like "There is a distinction between your Word and yourself, but not as another person." might show something is possible, but they will never prove a perspective is correct. Besides, my word will never look back on anything because there is no self to experience something or look back to remember that something, but the Word "looks back on his former glory with the Father" which means your analogy fails to even parallel what your trying to express by using said analogy.

Trinitarians, by and large, hold that "God the Son" is a title that the 2nd person in the Godhead had from eternity. Do you agree?

I don't know anyone who would say that. God the Son is a title modern English Trinitarians use to parse out who they are talking about. We would all use it as a title of the 2nd person in the Godhead at any point in time.

If Jesus is "THE FIRST" in the Bible, how can he be known as "the second" by Trinitarians?

Because, Jesus is the first in relationship to being the creator, and he is second only in how we talk about the Trinity.

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Many? You mean fringe? It truly fun watching them do back flips trying to twist Scripture as to not admit what Scripture clearly teaches. BTW, I don't know Hunting, but Buzzard is a laughing stock.
There are many folks here in the forums that take the same position as outlined in the book. Many here say the same thing regarding the twisting of scripture with your position on the trinity as well and think your position is rather laughable too.

Once again, when shown evidence that an honest reading can show a different reading and understanding than yours, you fluff it off. This has been common play for you and not very honest, DOGB.

BTW, do you have a theological degree of some sort? Not that it matters, I'm just curious.

Given that I'm asking myself this rhetorical question, I am.
So you find yourself with an ego not willing to learn or admit your wrong. See above.

And, rising again changes everything.
No, at best it shows that your god died and decomposed as all bodies do after death. Then you have the evidence of the Talpiot tomb. James Tabor has a good site on the subject of Talpiot, https://jamestabor.com/category/talpiot-jesus-family-tomb/.

Again, any argument that doesn't take into consideration our actual position, duel natures, proves nothing.
I believe you mean dual, and not duel. God is eternal and doesn't die or bleed. That doesn't bode well for your position.

God Bless
Certainly.
 
Last edited:
Top