I dont get it..Does believing Jesus is Gods SON make you a non-Christian?

[Bandit]

I have to admit, I'm struggling more and more with the trinity as a concept. Seems to me our language is just not equipped to accurately describe what God is. I suspect we're all wrong.

I tend to think that we, as created beings confined to a created existence and with finite knowledge, just can't understand the Infinite God. I think we can see pieces of God, in a sense, but those pieces can't be made to fit within our physical universe. So I, too, struggle with the concept of the trinity (how to fit the pieces together), but I do not deny the truth of the pieces just because I can't make complete sense of them when combined. So I believe Jesus is God and is one with the Father, but is also somehow separate from the Father (and then there is the Spirit). These are some of the pieces, and I think I can accept and understand the pieces individually, but I must admit that when I put them together that I am still bewildered. A full understanding of the Infinite God is not going to be apprehended in a finite universe by a finite mind - but then I don't believe God expects us to understand Him in His fullness. Some things we have to accept by faith and move on.

[guestman]

One of the surest ways to insulate yourself, as well as your beliefs, is to convince yourself you're 'reasonable' while others who disagree with you aren't. Christians tend to do this by claiming they are 'Spirit filled' whereas those who disagree with them aren't 'Spirit filled'. Others are fond of 'educated / un-educated', 'logical / illogical', and so on and so forth. I could quite easily imply you aren't a reasonable person yourself, but that misses the point of what should be a conversation, not a soap-box sermon series.

Being reasonable people, we ought to ask the question: is it possible for Jesus to be divine, but not God? First, it should be clear - and I think we all agree here - that if Jesus isn't God, then he can't be God. David Taylor posted portions of Isaiah 43 - 45 in another thread, just recently:

43:11 I, even I, am (YHWH) the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
44:6 Thus saith (YHWH) the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer (YHWH) the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
45:5 I am (YHWH) the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am (YHWH) the LORD, and there is none else.
45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I (YHWH) the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

These verses would be among those I was alluding to earlier. So is it possible that Jesus is a 'begotten god', a type of deity, but not God? Well, what does John mean by 'begotten'? The term 'begotten' is used five times in the New Testament (at last count): John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18 and 1 John 4:9. It would be a mistake for us to take the word 'begotten', upon up Encarta, read a definition and proclaim, 'aha! That's it!'. The Greek in this verse is much more complex, and I would suggest that W. Hall Harris III is likely correct in suggesting that The NEB, TEV and NET render this Scripture more accurately than those that use the old-English 'begotton' (see here for a brief article on the topic: http://bible.org/seriespage/prologue-john-11-18).

NEB: "No man has ever seen God; but the only one, himself God, the nearest one to the Father’s heart, has made him known.”
TEV: “No one has ever seen God. The only One, who is what God is, and who is near the Father’s side, has made him known.”
NET: “No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in the presence of the Father, has made God known.”

This rendering has the advantage of drawing connects back to the introductory verses of John's gospel, which makes mention of the Logos. Now that said...

...You wouldn't happen to be quoting Scripture from here, would you?: http://www.witnessoftruth.com/articl...n-explain.html. Even so, let's examine your translation closer:

John 1:18 "no man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him."

John says that "no man has seen God at any time", and I see no reason to dispute this. There were various theophanies in the Old Testament, but not even Moses was allowed to see God. Skipping to the end of the verse John writes, "the only-begotten god who is in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him". That's interesting -- how does a mere man explain the father? Ignoring the word 'begotten' for the time being, this verse seems to correspond with Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3, etc. Jesus is identified with God (as God) in these verses, and I see no reason why John would be saying anything different. Not only that but these verses agree with what was written in Isaiah. So we know in the very least, then, that 'begotten' isn't denoting some ontological status to Jesus where he is higher than the angels, but somehow lesser than God. It's very clear these Scriptures are referring to Jesus as God.

When Jesus was on the earth, he displayed being reasonable. For example, he showed genuine love toward those who had a crippling disability, as in the man with leprosy (Matt 8:1-3) and the "man with a withered hand", whereas the Jewish religious leaders never lifted a finger of assistance toward either of these, but sought to murder Jesus.(Matt 12:9-14)

Is it possible for Jesus to be divine, but not God ? Yes, for John 1:18 says (as you have my quotation) that "no man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." For instance, are angels considered "gods" ?

At Job 38:7, it says that upon the earth being founded, that "the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause." The Hebrew for "sons of God" literally means "godlike ones.” (Hebrew, beneh´ ’Elo·him´, Targums, "the bands of angels", Greek Septuagint, "my angels"). Hence, Jesus as a "Son of God" is divine, a "godlike one", but not God Almighty.

What does the words "only-begotten" mean, with Jesus calling himself the "only-begotten Son of God" at John 3:16 and 18 ? The Greek words rendered as "only-begotten" is monogenes, and literally means "single of it's kind, only", or "the only member of a kin or kind",(Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) and is used to describe the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents. For example, at Judges 11:34, concerning Jephthah's daughter, it said that "she was absolutely the only child (Hebrew weraq´ hi’ yechi·dhah´; Greek monogenes). Besides her he had neither son nor daughter."

In the online interlinear, Scripture4all, the meaning of monogenes is "only-generated", as at John 3:16 and 18 concerning Jesus, Luke 7:12 with regard to the son of "widow of Nain", and Luke 8:42, concerning the daughter of Jairus. The word "generate" means "create: to bring something into existence."(Encarta Dictionary) Thus, as was Jephthah's daughter, the widow of Nain, her son, Jairus' daughter, these being "generated" or being brought into existence, so likewise Jesus was also "generated" or brought into existence, and had a beginning, just as any son or daughter, he being the only one directly created (only-begotten) by God.

Hence, Jesus is God's first act of creation. That is why Jesus said that he is the "beginning of the creation by God".(Rev 3:14) Could Jesus say this if he were God without a beginning ?(Ps 90:2) If he did, he would be lying if he were God, thus invalidating the ransom.

Quoting from Isaiah 43-45 does not in any way prove what you are supposing, that Jesus is God, but rather establishes that ' besides Jehovah, there is no savior.'(Isa 43:11) Isaiah 44:6 establishes that Jehovah as the true God, with him saying that "I am the first and the last, and besides me there is no God." The same goes for Isaiah 45:5 (and verse 21), whereby Jehovah (not Jesus) says that "I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God."

Thus, only Jehovah is God, not Jesus, for after Jesus baptism, he went into a Jewish synagogue, whereby the scroll of Isaiah was given him. He then read from Isaiah 61:1, 2: "Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” (Luke 4:18, 19) How could Jesus be Jehovah and yet say that "Jehovah's spirit is upon me" ? Reasonable people can see that Jesus is not Jehovah or YHWH, but is Jehovah's "only-generated Son".(John 3:18)

[allyc33]

I have to admit, I'm struggling more and more with the trinity as a concept. Seems to me our language is just not equipped to accurately describe what God is. I suspect we're all wrong.

I posted these scriptues before and never got anyones reasoning on them... We could go on and on forever about the scriptures that contradict each other. But this one seems to explain that God did give his Son authority.. and maybe thats why it seems he is God..

John 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

thoughts please...

[guestman]

I posted these scriptues before and never got anyones reasoning on them... We could go on and on forever about the scriptures that contradict each other. But this one seems to explain that God did give his Son authority.. and maybe thats why it seems he is God..

John 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

thoughts please...

The Scriptures of John 3:35 and 1 Corinthians 15:24, 25, 27, 28 that you used point to Jesus as being subservient to his Father, Jehovah God. Jesus, after having met the Samaritan woman at the well, told her: "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father (not the Son) with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father (not the Son) is looking for suchlike ones to worship him."(John 4:22, 23)

Hence, all worship belongs to God the Father, not the Son of God, for Jesus also worships God the Father, as do the angels. Revelation 19:1-3 says: "After these things I heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven. They said: “Praise Jah (shortened form of Jehovah), you people! The salvation and the glory and the power belong to our God....For he has executed judgment upon the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication"....And right away for the second time they said: “Praise Jah, you people! "

[Athanasius]

When Jesus was on the earth, he displayed being reasonable. For example, he showed genuine love toward those who had a crippling disability, as in the man with leprosy (Matt 8:1-3) and the "man with a withered hand", whereas the Jewish religious leaders never lifted a finger of assistance toward either of these, but sought to murder Jesus.(Matt 12:9-14)

That is both interesting, and fairly irrelevant.

Is it possible for Jesus to be divine, but not God ? Yes, for John 1:18 says (as you have my quotation) that "no man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." For instance, are angels considered "gods" ?

You've asserted that it's possible for Jesus to be divine but not God, yet you've not attempted an explanation at how exactly this works. Mind explaining?

As for John 1:18, theon ('God') is lacking the article. This suggests to me that John isn't speaking of God as a person, but rather God in essence, and no one, not even Moses, has seen God in essence.

Where are angels considered gods?

At Job 38:7, it says that upon the earth being founded, that "the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause." The Hebrew for "sons of God" literally means "godlike ones.” (Hebrew, beneh´ ’Elo·him´, Targums, "the bands of angels", Greek Septuagint, "my angels"). Hence, Jesus as a "Son of God" is divine, a "godlike one", but not God Almighty.

Angels aren't deity, and all you've done here is equated Jesus with angelic status.

What does the words "only-begotten" mean, with Jesus calling himself the "only-begotten Son of God" at John 3:16 and 18 ? The Greek words rendered as "only-begotten" is monogenes, and literally means "single of it's kind, only", or "the only member of a kin or kind", (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) and is used to describe the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents. For example, at Judges 11:34, concerning Jephthah's daughter, it said that "she was absolutely the only child (Hebrew weraq´ hi’ yechi·dhah´; Greek monogenes). Besides her he had neither son nor daughter."

In the online interlinear, Scripture4all, the meaning of monogenes is "only-generated", as at John 3:16 and 18 concerning Jesus, Luke 7:12 with regard to the son of "widow of Nain", and Luke 8:42, concerning the daughter of Jairus. The word "generate" means "create: to bring something into existence."(Encarta Dictionary) Thus, as was Jephthah's daughter, the widow of Nain, her son, Jairus' daughter, these being "generated" or being brought into existence, so likewise Jesus was also "generated" or brought into existence, and had a beginning, just as any son or daughter, he being the only one directly created (only-begotten) by God.

Monogenes literally means 'one of a kind' (as you say), and the KJV is incorrect to render the word as 'only-begotten'. The purpose of John 1 (v18) isn't to describe a relation between child and parent, but to bring emphasis to Jesus' being the only Son of God, and as such He being the only person who can fully reveal the father. In referring to Judges 11:34, you're ignoring the context of John.

Your online interlinear is wrong: nothing more to say to that.

Hence, Jesus is God's first act of creation. That is why Jesus said that he is the "beginning of the creation by God".(Rev 3:14) Could Jesus say this if he were God without a beginning ?(Ps 90:2) If he did, he would be lying if he were God, thus invalidating the ransom.

The Greek arche refers likely to source, origin or ruler. It doesn't refer to beginning as in 'first created'. This refers back to 1 John, Colossians 1, etc.

Quoting from Isaiah 43-45 does not in any way prove what you are supposing, that Jesus is God, but rather establishes that ' besides Jehovah, there is no savior.'(Isa 43:11) Isaiah 44:6 establishes that Jehovah as the true God, with him saying that "I am the first and the last, and besides me there is no God." The same goes for Isaiah 45:5 (and verse 21), whereby Jehovah (not Jesus) says that "I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God."

Give that a little bit more thought, you've almost understood my point in bringing up those Scripture.

Thus, only Jehovah is God, not Jesus, for after Jesus baptism, he went into a Jewish synagogue, whereby the scroll of Isaiah was given him. He then read from Isaiah 61:1, 2: "Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” (Luke 4:18, 19) How could Jesus be Jehovah and yet say that "Jehovah's spirit is upon me" ? Reasonable people can see that Jesus is not Jehovah or YHWH, but is Jehovah's "only-generated Son".(John 3:18)

Reasonable people don't constantly refer to 'reasonable people'. Your constant mention of reasonable people is a fallacy known as 'poisoning the well'. Do stop with it.

To answer your question: Philippians 2.

[guestman]

That is both interesting, and fairly irrelevant.



You've asserted that it's possible for Jesus to be divine but not God, yet you've not attempted an explanation at how exactly this works. Mind explaining?

As for John 1:18, theon ('God') is lacking the article. This suggests to me that John isn't speaking of God as a person, but rather God in essence, and no one, not even Moses, has seen God in essence.

Where are angels considered gods?



Angels aren't deity, and all you've done here is equated Jesus with angelic status.



Monogenes literally means 'one of a kind' (as you say), and the KJV is incorrect to render the word as 'only-begotten'. The purpose of John 1 (v18) isn't to describe a relation between child and parent, but to bring emphasis to Jesus' being the only Son of God, and as such He being the only person who can fully reveal the father. In referring to Judges 11:34, you're ignoring the context of John.

Your online interlinear is wrong: nothing more to say to that.



The Greek arche refers likely to source, origin or ruler. It doesn't refer to beginning as in 'first created'. This refers back to 1 John, Colossians 1, etc.



Give that a little bit more thought, you've almost understood my point in bringing up those Scripture.



Reasonable people don't constantly refer to 'reasonable people'. Your constant mention of reasonable people is a fallacy known as 'poisoning the well'. Do stop with it.

To answer your question: Philippians 2.

The word "deity" means "god or goddess: a god, goddess, or other divine being".(Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005) Jesus is deity and was among the throngs of angels who are also deity or "godlike ones" (Hebrew beneh´ ’Elo·him´) who "joyfully cried out together....who began shouting in applause" when the foundation of the earth was laid.(Job 38:4, 7)

Who can live outside the boundaries of the earth if not a "godlike" one, for all angels are spirit "sons of God", capable of going anywhere in the universe without harm and at speeds that far exceed the speed of light.(Dan 9:21) These are outside the material realm (Job 1:6; 2:1), just as loyal ones from the earth are changed into an immortal spirit "son of God" upon death (1 Cor 15:46, 50, 53) that now comes before the presence of God (Rev 11:16), as Jesus did.(Heb 9:24)

Jesus is Jehovah's "master worker" that assisted him in building the universe.(Prov 8:30) There the Hebrew word ’a·mohn´ ("master worker") is used, meaning literally a fosterling or a child who is nurtured, one who is provided with care and upbringing and also has the sense of "training", "cunning workman", a "skilled architect" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, H525 and H542).

Thus, Jesus is God's "skilled architect" or 'skilled angel', that assisted him in creating the universe with all life. To be called God's "master worker" shows a difference than being called "Creator"(Isa 40:28; 42:5), for at Proverbs 8:22, it says that "Jehovah himself produced ("produced", Hebrew qanah meaning "to erect, i.e.create", H7069) me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago." Hence, Jesus as God's "master worker" was the "earliest of his achievements of long ago."

With the apostle John using the words "only-begotten god" at John 1:18 denotes that Jesus is the only person directly created by Jehovah God, just as anyone could see if they "dug" a little deeper.(Prov 2:4, 5) For example, the apostle Paul says of Isaac, that "by faith Abraham, when he was tested....attempted to offer up his only-begotten son."(Heb 11:17) Thus, Isaac was Abraham's "only-generated" son through Sarah, in which his lineage led down to Jesus as the promised "seed".(Gen 22:18)

Actually, without the Greek word ton ("the") before theos ("god"), is identifying a quality that Jesus as God's Son has, that of being "godlike", but not God, being the "only-begotten god" or "only-generated god" (Greek monogenes theos). He is the first among hundreds of millions of angels that came into existence through Jehovah's will, the "firstborn of all creation."(Col 1:15; Dan 7:10) At John 1:1a, the definite article ton ("the") is before theos (God), denoting a specific person, or "the God" (John 1:1a) and not just "a god" (John 1:1b), or theos without the definite article, defining a "godlike" quality.

And it should be noted that before the first and third occurrence of "God" at John 1:1, 2, in which the definite article ton is used, John uses the Greek word theon, whereas at the second occurrence, John changes it to theos without the definite article, distinguishing it from "the God" in the same sentence.

[Athanasius]

The word "deity" means "god or goddess: a god, goddess, or other divine being".(Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005) Jesus is deity and was among the throngs of angels who are also deity or "godlike ones" (Hebrew beneh´ ’Elo·him´) who "joyfully cried out together....who began shouting in applause" when the foundation of the earth was laid.(Job 38:4, 7)

The word 'deity' is uttered in reference to any entity which might be taken, or mistaken, for God (to your 'Encarta' dictionary I raise you a Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries). There is perhaps the idea of 'lesser deity' or some such thing (which I am assuming is what the author(s) of Encarta meant to say when they said 'or other divine being'), but this idea is distinct from the word by which we refer to angels -- 'angelic', e.g. angelic host. The problem with Encarta is they flippantly included the phrase 'other divine being' when it is clear that this has no place within the definition. What is an 'other divine being' that is equal to a god or goddess, and also above all else? It's a bad definition, and you should know better than to be referencing it.

Jesus is deity, yes, and the angels were worshiping him... And Job wasn't there (which is really the point of the passage).

Who can live outside the boundaries of the earth if not a "godlike" one, for all angels are spirit "sons of God", capable of going anywhere in the universe without harm and at speeds that far exceed the speed of light.(Dan 9:21) These are outside the material realm (Job 1:6; 2:1), just as loyal ones from the earth are changed into an immortal spirit "son of God" upon death (1 Cor 15:46, 50, 53) that now comes before the presence of God (Rev 11:16), as Jesus did.(Heb 9:24)

God can do all these things, and more. Hebrews 24:9 doesn't say Jesus isn't God, and in fact, Hebrews 10 strongly suggests that He is.

Jesus is Jehovah's "master worker" that assisted him in building the universe.(Prov 8:30) There the Hebrew word ’a·mohn´ ("master worker") is used, meaning literally a fosterling or a child who is nurtured, one who is provided with care and upbringing and also has the sense of "training", "cunning workman", a "skilled architect" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, H525 and H542).

The shoe is on the other foot...

Shoe literally means, 'a covering for the foot', but in the context of my little bit of poetry shoe doesn't mean what it literally means. Proverbs 8 seems quite the imaginative description of wisdom (feminine), and as such it strikes me as inappropriate to only quote Strong's definition, at least in a piece of text that is quite obviously not all that literal. In any case, I don't think Solomon had Jesus in mind when writing Proverbs 8:30, and I don't see any New Testament authors making references to this bit of Scripture, either (especially Jesus Himself). Within the entire context of this chapter I have to ask -- are you really saying God created the wisdom that he already possessed?

Thus, Jesus is God's "skilled architect" or 'skilled angel', that assisted him in creating the universe with all life. To be called God's "master worker" shows a difference than being called "Creator"(Isa 40:28; 42:5), for at Proverbs 8:22, it says that "Jehovah himself produced ("produced", Hebrew qanah meaning "to erect, i.e.create", H7069) me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago." Hence, Jesus as God's "master worker" was the "earliest of his achievements of long ago."

'Skilled angel' isn't a valid translation, and that's why you haven't quoted some concordance or dictionary. The context of this chapter of Scripture is God's wisdom. What textual reason do you have for replacing 'wisdom' with 'Jesus'?

With the apostle John using the words "only-begotten god" at John 1:18 denotes that Jesus is the only person directly created by Jehovah God, just as anyone could see if they "dug" a little deeper.(Prov 2:4, 5) For example, the apostle Paul says of Isaac, that "by faith Abraham, when he was tested....attempted to offer up his only-begotten son."(Heb 11:17) Thus, Isaac was Abraham's "only-generated" son through Sarah, in which his lineage led down to Jesus as the promised "seed".(Gen 22:18)

The Apostle Paul didn't write John 1:18 -- John did. As we already discussed: monogenes doesn't denote, 'only person directly created by God'. It means 'one of a kind', without reference to being created, begotton, etc.

Actually, without the Greek word ton ("the") before theos ("god"), is identifying a quality that Jesus as God's Son has, that of being "godlike", but not God, being the "only-begotten god" or "only-generated god" (Greek monogenes theos). He is the first among hundreds of millions of angels that came into existence through Jehovah's will, the "firstborn of all creation."(Col 1:15; Dan 7:10) At John 1:1a, the definite article ton ("the") is before theos (God), denoting a specific person, or "the God" (John 1:1a) and not just "a god" (John 1:1b), or theos without the definite article, defining a "godlike" quality.

In John 1, theos is the predicate to logos: theos en ho logos: God was the Word. And it is the presence of 'ho' (an article, but not the one you want) that allows us to distinguish who exactly the subject is: 'God' or the 'Word'? The lack of the definite article isn't really a problem then, just as it isn't a problem when theos (without the article) is used in John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; to refer to God.

And it should be noted that before the first and third occurrence of "God" at John 1:1, 2, in which the definite article ton is used, John uses the Greek word theon, whereas at the second occurrence, John changes it to theos without the definite article, distinguishing it from "the God" in the same sentence.

The change from theos to theon allows the distinction I mentioned above.

[guestman]

I have no need to continue with this so-called discussion. Enough evidence has been presented to help the original poster allyc33 to grasp that Jesus is not God, but God's "only-begotten Son." I hope she continues to move forward with this "truth" that can set her free (John 8:32), adding other "truths" to her "basket" till she is abounds "with accurate knowledge and full discernment."(Phil 1:9) This so-discussion reminds me of my grandfather, who would argue with a "sign post".

[Athanasius]

I have no need to continue with this so-called discussion. Enough evidence has been presented to help the original poster allyc33 to grasp that Jesus is not God, but God's "only-begotten Son." I hope she continues to move forward with this "truth" that can set her free (John 8:32), adding other "truths" to her "basket" till she is abounds "with accurate knowledge and full discernment."(Phil 1:9) This so-discussion reminds me of my grandfather, who would argue with a "sign post".

The evidence you presented is under dispute; I would say that presents a 'need' for you to continue. But if you don't want to, then you don't want to.

[guestman]

The evidence you presented is under dispute; I would say that presents a 'need' for you to continue. But if you don't want to, then you don't want to.

Throughout Jesus ministry, despite the Scriptural proof and outright evidence that he was the Messiah, the Jewish religious leaders fought him "tooth and nail". Hence, after his condemnation of them for their lack of love regarding their parents (Matt 15:3-11), these were "stumbled". Jesus however told his disciples: "Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”(Matt 15:13, 14)

If a person wishes to continue arguing, I will follow what Jesus said: "Let them be". Repetitive arguing is a dead end street. When sound evidence is given, but cast aside, which many a trinitarian has done, then it is time to leave. Allyc33 has recognized that Jesus is not God. For example, here is something to consider (for those who are willing to reason).

Since Jesus fully understood family relationships, if he were God or equal to him, what family relationship would he have of used to show this ? We’ve read that Jesus spoke of God as his heavenly Father. And when Jesus was baptized, a voice from heaven referred to Jesus as His Son. In fact, Jesus specifically called himself God’s Son.(John 10:36) Now, if a person wanted to teach that two people are equal, what sort of family relationship might be used to illustrate the point ? Father and Son or two brothers, perhaps identical twins ? Reasonably, the latter.

Yet, Jesus referred to God as the Father and to himself as the Son. So, what message Jesus was conveying ? Was not Jesus describing one individual as being older and as having more authority than the other. If Jesus really were God, would not Jesus, as the Great Teacher, have thought of the same comparison of two brothers, perhaps identical twins—or an even clearer example of equality ? But, instead, he used the terms “Father” and “Son” to describe his relationship with God.

If Jesus truly is God, wouldn’t it be expected that Jesus’ disciples would have plainly said so ? Yet, nowhere in the Scriptures do we read of their teaching that. On the contrary, notice what one of Jesus’ early followers, the apostle Paul, wrote. At Philippians 2:9, he describes what God did after Jesus’ death and resurrection: “God exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.” According to this verse, what did God do for Jesus ? It says that "God exalted Jesus to a superior position".

But if Jesus were equal to God before he died and God later exalted him to a higher position, wouldn’t that put Jesus above God ? How could anyone be superior to God ? Based on this evidence, then, could it be said that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God ? Does not the Bible says that Jesus is God's Son, with Jesus himself saying such at John 3:16 and 18 ? Hence, Jesus told the truth about his relationship with his Father, that he is God's Son, subservient to his Father, describing it exactly as it is, he the Son, and God his Father.(2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3,17; Col 1:3)

[Athanasius]

Throughout Jesus ministry, despite the Scriptural proof and outright evidence that he was the Messiah, the Jewish religious leaders fought him "tooth and nail". Hence, after his condemnation of them for their lack of love regarding their parents (Matt 15:3-11), these were "stumbled". Jesus however told his disciples: "Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”(Matt 15:13, 14)

We are, I would imagine, following the example of those most noble minded Bereans (Acts 17:11):

11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Perhaps it could also be said that in our examination of the doctrine of the Trinity and personhood of Christ, we rightly follow what is written in 1 John 4:1:

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

With this in mind: you're not Jesus, and we're not religious leaders. We aren't fighting Jesus 'tooth and nail', and you aren't the only man within a multitude of the blind who can see clearly (if you can see at all). It's one thing to quote Scripture; it's another to quote it appropriately. You're adept at the former, I'm quite good at the latter.

If a person wishes to continue arguing, I will follow what Jesus said: "Let them be". Repetitive arguing is a dead end street. When sound evidence is given, but cast aside, which many a trinitarian has done, then it is time to leave. Allyc33 has recognized that Jesus is not God. For example, here is something to consider (for those who are willing to reason).

In 2 Timothy 2:23, Paul said the following to Timothy:

23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

In Luke 22:50-51, Jesus said:

50 And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered and said, “[a]Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him.

Context is everything; and where Paul really is advising Timothy to avoid 'foolish and stupid arguments', Jesus is not, at the point of his arrest. Certainly, we're not crucifying Christ or selling him for a pouch of sliver: the reference to Luke 22 is inappropriate. It is likewise certain that discussions regarding Scripture, God and the person of Christ are not 'foolish or stupid'. Nor has this discussion, which has focused on Scripture, been 'foolish or stupid'.

'For those who are willing to reason'. That reminds me of Paul, in Acts 17:1-2:

1 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Thessalonica, a place whose people were less noble minded than the Bereans. You aren't a Berean among a multitude of Thessalonians, either. I'm quite willing to reason, and to my willingness you have responded with caricatures, fallacies, accusations and what otherwise might very well be called lies. It's one thing to quote Scripture; it's another to live by its teachings.

Since Jesus fully understood family relationships, if he were God or equal to him, what family relationship would he have of used to show this ? We’ve read that Jesus spoke of God as his heavenly Father. And when Jesus was baptized, a voice from heaven referred to Jesus as His Son. In fact, Jesus specifically called himself God’s Son.(John 10:36) Now, if a person wanted to teach that two people are equal, what sort of family relationship might be used to illustrate the point ? Father and Son or two brothers, perhaps identical twins ? Reasonably, the latter.

And yet, what does Scripture say about Jesus?

John 1:1-3

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

John 8:58:

58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

John 10:30:

30 I and the Father are one.

John 14:8-9:

8 Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
9 Jesus *said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father;

Philippians 2:5-7:

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Jesus spoke of God as his heavenly father because, having been 'made in the likeness of men', the Father was Jesus' heavenly father. If Jesus had said, 'I am God's twin', then what does this imply? It implies that there are two distinct but nearly identical gods. Yet we know that there is only one God, such as is proclaimed in Deuteronomy 6:4:

4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!

Compare this with a multitude of other Scripture, which for the sake of space I won't list (because I believe you don't disagree with them). For this reason, the twin analogy doesn't work.

Yet, Jesus referred to God as the Father and to himself as the Son. So, what message Jesus was conveying ? Was not Jesus describing one individual as being older and as having more authority than the other. If Jesus really were God, would not Jesus, as the Great Teacher, have thought of the same comparison of two brothers, perhaps identical twins—or an even clearer example of equality ? But, instead, he used the terms “Father” and “Son” to describe his relationship with God.

Is God a 'Father' in the sense of being married, having a wife and producing a child through sexual relations? Then why should we assume that Jesus' use of 'Father' entails all that fatherhood actually entails? Jesus' use of Sonship refers to his being God, alongside the Father. There are no God's but YHWH: no lesser-gods, no twin gods.

If Jesus truly is God, wouldn’t it be expected that Jesus’ disciples would have plainly said so ? Yet, nowhere in the Scriptures do we read of their teaching that. On the contrary, notice what one of Jesus’ early followers, the apostle Paul, wrote. At Philippians 2:9, he describes what God did after Jesus’ death and resurrection: “God exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.” According to this verse, what did God do for Jesus ? It says that "God exalted Jesus to a superior position".

According to Philippians 2, Jesus emptied Himself and God restored Him. Context is everything, faux-Arius. Before Pilate, Jesus quite clearly stated He is God. Those first-century Jews had no problems understanding the blasphemy that was spoken that day.

But if Jesus were equal to God before he died and God later exalted him to a higher position, wouldn’t that put Jesus above God ? How could anyone be superior to God ?

It's one thing to quote Scripture, and quite another to quote it appropriately. Read the rest of Philippians 2.

Based on this evidence, then, could it be said that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God ? Does not the Bible says that Jesus is God's Son, with Jesus himself saying such at John 3:16 and 18 ? Hence, Jesus told the truth about his relationship with his Father, that he is God's Son, subservient to his Father, describing it exactly as it is, he the Son, and God his Father.(2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3,17; Col 1:3)

Based on the evidence, which you apparently don't want to further discuss (yet here you are), Jesus is God. If you say you're going to bow out, then bow out (Matthew 5:37). It turns our you're no Arius either. You're just a guest man.

[allyc33]

I must be honest in that I am not qualified to debate this as intensely as some of you. I do however feel that when we look for answers and feel a mystery has been set before us, there is nothing wrong with studying and learning and possibly applying other types of accurate information.
But then I suppose there would be a debate on what is considered to be accurate.

I asked for thoughts on a other scriptures found in John and 1 Corinthians but have yet to have anyone (that does believe in the Trinity) reply.
If I missed it I apologize…

Please… any thoughts on this previous post… and the and thoughts on the scriptures that are quoted

From June 11th:
I posted these scriptues before and never got anyones reasoning on them... We could go on and on forever about the scriptures that contradict each other. But this one seems to explain that God did give his Son authority.. and maybe thats why it seems he is God..

John 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Thanks

[LookingUp]

I must be honest in that I am not qualified to debate this as intensely as some of you. I do however feel that when we look for answers and feel a mystery has been set before us, there is nothing wrong with studying and learning and possibly applying other types of accurate information.
But then I suppose there would be a debate on what is considered to be accurate.

I asked for thoughts on a other scriptures found in John and 1 Corinthians but have yet to have anyone (that does believe in the Trinity) reply.
If I missed it I apologize…

Please… any thoughts on this previous post… and the and thoughts on the scriptures that are quoted

From June 11th:
I posted these scriptues before and never got anyones reasoning on them... We could go on and on forever about the scriptures that contradict each other. But this one seems to explain that God did give his Son authority.. and maybe thats why it seems he is God..

John 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Thanks

I have a question for you. In what way is Jesus not subject to God right now?

[allyc33]

I have a question for you. In what way is Jesus not subject to God right now?

God is Jesus' Father.... His superior.. God chose to put everything in his sons hands. God gave Jesus authority temporarily but the scripture says that
Jesus will eventually hand everything back to his Father. If God did not give Jesus authority (or place did not place everything in his hands) then Jesus would not have authority. (or would not have everything placed in his hands)

John 3:35 says that The Father placed everything in his (Jesus's) hands.

If my mother did not give me something of hers.. then I would not have it. It would still be hers.

If my mother did choose to give me something near and dear to her heart... it does not mean that she is not my mother anymore...

1 Corinthians 15:27 "for he (God) has put EVERYTHING under his (Jesus) feet.. it also says... ("it is clear that this does not include God himself),who put everything under Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father

1 Corinthians 15:28 then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him,



I still dont have any thoughts on this scripture from anyone.

[Bandit]

The evidence you presented is under dispute; I would say that presents a 'need' for you to continue. But if you don't want to, then you don't want to.

I would say that Athanasius is correct.