Wow, so what do you really believe? ...Statement of Faith

[DaveB]

If you are interested in a rich contrarian discussion of the 'before the world existed' passages in John, you can listen to this podcast, which is scriptural and reasoned. I think it will change your mind, but maybe not.

http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-62-dr ... l-of-john/

Notice the red arrow in the attachment. Will play it right on your computer.

[Eaglesway]

I believe Jesus was completely limited to humanity in His incarnation. He did not ever know all things while in His human body.

If we accept the book of Revelation as valid, then He didn't know all things after His resurrection either.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John ... (Rev 1:1 ESV)

Revelation was written after Jesus' resurrection. The above verse indicates that God gave Jesus a revelation of things to take place quickly, and Jesus revealed it to John, who then wrote it down.

By the way, the Greek word "ταχος" means "quickly," not necessarily "soon." It may refer to events taking place and ending quickly, even though they may occur thousands of years later. Both the Holman Christian Standard Bible and Young's Literal Translation render the word as "quickly."
Rotherham translates it as "with speed."

No man knows the hour, not even the Son, it is reserved to the Father.... another possible example that Jesus didnt/doesnt know all things after His resurrection.

Also another good verse tht Jesus is not equal to the Father even ascended and glorified.

I think "genesthai en tachei" means "come to be immediately". I personally dont believe John's revelation is a chronological eschatology of future history. I believe it is primarily a series of pictures of spiritual realities, revelations to and of the Bride, His church- some of whwich touch on the future and the end of the age, in the sense of the consummation of things already in existence.

[Eaglesway]

"If we suffer with Him we will also reign with Him" 2 Tim 2:12

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God." Roman 8:18,19

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. Hebrews 2:10

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Eph 2:7

He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of His creation.… James 1:18



I think the idea that we were all saved just to "go to heaven" is nearly as destructive to the gospel as the idea of eternal torment. Understanding why God has done all these things and what He is creating seems to me to be "obviously fundamental" to understanding His wisdom, His truth.

Take the "whys" out of wise and what do you have?

All things will be gathered into one in Christ, for what? What when it is done? So we can sit aroun in a Christian Nirvana and suck our thumbs and stare at an image of God as we sing praise songs?

Forgive my sarcasm

We speak a wisdom among the mature that the rulers of this world do not know- otherwise they would not have crucified Jesus. They disarmed themselves through the foolishness of their wisdom, being darkened in their understanding, blinded by their lust and greed and desire for authority.

Picture....

Little children drawing lines on the ground of the earth, the moon the sun and the stars, as opposed to a hologram of an ever expanding universe, as opposed to soaring in the Spirit through that ever expanding universe.

Draw it on the ground and say, "This is what it looks like, agree or get out!"

To a certain extent, to me, it is about starting and ending points. What are we missing as we stare at our drawing on the ground rather than looking to the sky and yearning to fly?

To what end has God done all these things? Certainly not so that we can define Him. He defined Himself in Jesus, the one who came in mysteries and parables.

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7“Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?”


Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him. 1 John 5:1

“THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” Romans 10:8-11

"If you confess with your mouth Jesus is part of the Trinity and believe in your heart that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three; co-equal, co-eternal and one in essence, existing as one God in three persons- you can be in the church and go to heaven." Lamechiah 10:4

Or be excluded from Christ for believing otherwise. Or be burned at the stake for teaching otherwise. And be tormented forever in either case.

A rather disappointing gospel imo. I prefer to believe we will be priests and sons of God restoring souls, celebrating life and creating portals through an ever expanding universe \o/

[Eaglesway]

If you are interested in a rich contrarian discussion of the 'before the world existed' passages in John, you can listen to this podcast, which is scriptural and reasoned. I think it will change your mind, but maybe not.

http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-62-dr ... l-of-john/

Notice the red arrow in the attachment. Will play it right on your computer.

Hi Dave,

I listened to some of Dale's podcasts. I have spent time at Atlanta Bible College. I taught a class as a guest speaker there once- not as a Biblical Unitarian, but rather as a "why none of the above are totally true" proponent. I know one of his guest speakers. I am very familiar with their position and while I think I completely understand the position, I just don't completely agree with it.

It requires making to many adjustments to too many plain faced statements in the word of God. Sort of twisting the scriptures to fit a particular paradigm.

I like Paidon's attitude towards terminology. Jesus called YHWH the One true God. So I agree with that. Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me", so I agree with that. "Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I" and "All authority on heaven and earth is given to me by My Father", so I agree with that, as it stands, just as Paul does in 1 Cor 15: 25-28. Paul said Jesus is before all things and that God created the all things through Him, as does John in his gospel, as does the writer of Hebrews(1:1-3), so I must agree with that, as well as with many plain-faced sayings, "I can do nothing without my Father....the Father in me does the works"....."For so it pleased the Father to make all fulness dwell in Him"

So the rub for me is this. Conversations may be had about how Jesus pre-existed, in what form, etc- but His own use of personal pronouns in reference to it causes me to agree that He was conscious of Himself and His part in the plan as He performed it. He then, in obedience to the Father and the purpose for which He Is Who He Is, submitted to being found in appearance(schema-echo) as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient....

Ah well, I am sure you know where all that leads. We probably are mostly all quite familiar with the various views.

So to me a Biblical Unitarian must disregard or reinterpret Jesus' own words to make Him not existent as a conscious id before the incarnation- much like an ETr must re-interpret such statements as "If I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me" and "Behold, I am making all things new"....and when Paul or John agree with those staements by Jesus the ETr must re-interpret those plain-faced sayings of John and Paul as well.

I just don't reason that way. I am definitely willing to chat about whether my understanding of certain plain faced sayings in the scripture are correct, and willing to examine my position by the context of all scripture. But I don't believe it is hermeneutically or exegetically correct to shy away from or re-state these plain-faced statements. They are their to limit our speculattive tangents, in my opinion.

Believe it or not- I don't care what the truth is, because whatever is true is true whether I see it clearly or not. I have nothing to gain or lose by adhering to one view or another, because my only joy is in discovering what is the truest image I can see through the looking glass of the scriptures.

I note however, that Biblical Unitarians are largely annihilationists. I consider the inability to see ultimate reconciliation in the scriptures as an indicator of myopia, because it is one of the foundations- elementary principles of the oracles of God, listed in Hebrews 6. Also, having spent a lot of time with them, I find Biblical Universalists to be strongly attached to their agenda, and not very willing to listen to alternative view- just as are Modalists and Trinitarians. I am a staunch defender of the "mystery of Deity". I dont think it is absolutley clear. I accept all the primary views as reasonable in measure, acceptable to discuss, impossible to debate, and not legitimate soteriological issues.

What I really believe is that the one who believes in the Son has the Father also- before that person even has the wherewithal to consider the details, and before they become religious enough to determine that someone else is not saved if they dont see it like them

All those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Perhaps this brief YouTube video,will shed light on Biblical Unitarianism.

[DaveB]

It requires making to many adjustments to too many plain faced statements in the word of God. Sort of twisting the scriptures to fit a particular paradigm.

Well obviously we are going to disagree on that point. I think it is very clear that those 'plain faced statements' are not plain at all. And, I'm not a unitarian btw. But the following appear sound and faithful to the scriptures:

"Philippians 2:5-11 is not Paul’s attempt to explain the “Incarnation” or how a divine being divested himself of his divine prerogatives. It is not an exposition about the preexistence of Christ. Instead Paul uses a real life example from the life of Jesus to illustrate his appeal for humility and mutual submission. Like Adam Jesus was in the “form of God.” Unlike Adam he did not attempt to become “like God.” Instead he chose to deny himself his rights and took on the form of a servant. In obedience to his Father he embraced the shameful death of the cross rather than attempt to seize likeness with God."
"The so-called "preexistence" of Jesus in John refers to his "existence" in the Plan of God. The church has been plagued by the introduction of non-biblical language. There is a perfectly good word for "real" preexistence in the Greek language (pro-uparchon). It is very significant that it appears nowhere in Scripture, but it does in the writings of Greek church fathers of the second century. These Greek commentators on Scripture failed to understand the Hebrew categories of thought in which the New Testament is written."

so sometimes, plain is not plain.
But we've made our positions know, and I hope there is sweet peace between us.

[LLC]

Dave, you brought up a good point. I agree that Greek commentators may have failed to understand the Hebrew thought in which the scriptures were written. I don't believe in the pre-existence of Jesus as a third person of the Trinity because I don't believe in the Trinitarian theory. Eaglesway, there are things that are said of Jesus that also apply to man which have been written about in the Old and New Testaments. However, you did bring up a good point about the name of God. This is one of the reasons I believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. In John 17:26, Jesus says this: " And I have declared to them Your name. Who knows, I may be reading into this from my own perspective, but from what I understand, Jesus never called God by any specific name. I don't even think He called God Yahweh. There are plenty of passages where He refers to God as the Father. So, what is God's name? My answer is Jesus.

[DaveB]

So, what is God's name? My answer is Jesus.

And His Father's name is:

[Paidion]

In ancient Israel, God's name seems to have been expressed by the Tetragrammaton.



In English, this is expressed with the letters "YHWH." By inserting vowels, the word "Yahweh" was formed.

However God commanded that his name not be taken in vain. So sometime in the past, the Israelites came up with the thought that if they never pronounced the name of God, then they could not possibly take that name in vain. I don't know when or how that decision was made—but is was.
Whenever God's name appeared in the Scripture, the term "The LORD" was substituted. This was carried over in to the Septugint, the Greek translation that was made several hundred years before Christ. The English transliteration of the Greek is "ho kurios". And so the New Testament writers in Greek always used "ho kurios" wherever YHWH occurred. Jesus quoted such Old Testament scriptures, but of course the writers of the Gospel wrote "ho kurios". Thus even if Jesus, in quoting the OT had uttered the name "YHWH," the writers would have written "ho kurios" in its place.

This practice had some wierd results, such as the following verse:

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them. (Exodus 6:3 ESV)

"The LORD" is not a name. But YHWH is.

[[email protected]]

Thanks Paidon. Good information.

[LLC]

Dave, For me , the name of the Father is Jesus.

Paidion, Your post is very interesting. Does Jesus ever call the Father Lord? I haven't studied too much into this, but from what I understand, Yahweh simply means "He is". If this is the case, the name does not give us much information about who He is. I think that in the Old Testament days, the changing of one's name had great significance. I believe God gave Himself a new name, Jesus, one that is everlasting.

[davo]

For mine, I have to agree with Paidion… “YHWH” is a name not a title. Yes like many names it carries a given meaning, but it is a name nonetheless.

[Eaglesway]

Dave, For me , the name of the Father is Jesus.

Paidion, Your post is very interesting. Does Jesus ever call the Father Lord? I haven't studied too much into this, but from what I understand, Yahweh simply means "He is". If this is the case, the name does not give us much information about who He is. I think that in the Old Testament days, the changing of one's name had great significance. I believe God gave Himself a new name, Jesus, one that is everlasting.

I see YHWH as being a name tells us a tremendous amount about God.

God is the one truly pure being. His character and divine nature are utterly one. With Him there is no shadow of turning.

Titles are defining aspects of His relationship with us, but everything proceeds from who He is, and He Is That He Is.

"I have glorified my word above all my name".

There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby they may be saved, than the name above every name. That name is only important because it identifies a particular person, and that person is who He is, and to know His name- but not know Him, means very little. But the name, and faith in that name as a connecting point to Who He Is is incredibly powerful.

Jesus is "the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature"

We are being conformed to the image of Christ, and thus- partakers of the divine nature.

The gospel is "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

"For so it pleased the Father to make all the fulness dwell in Him." All the fulness means a compelling manifestation of exactly who God the Father is in character and in nature.

"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

Jesus was the icon of God. Click on Jesus, YHWH comes out- click on Logos, the one who was with God in the beginning YHWH opens like a rose blooming in the desert right before your eyes.

it is(imo) for this reason that as every knee bows, and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that as all things are gathered into one in Christ, that God will be ALL IN ALL, because to be in Christ is to be in God and to be cdonformed to the image of Jesus is to be conformed to the image of YHWH, to be "filled up to all the fulness of God.

14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

[Paidion]

For me , the name of the Father is Jesus.

LLC, are you with a "Oneness" group such as the UPC or one of the "Apostolic" churches?
I've heard the statement "God's name is Jesus" only from those groups.

However, having said that, it seems that the Father and the Son share the name "Yahweh."

In his "Dialogue With Trypho," Justin Martyr used Genesis 19:24 in support of that belief:

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

Two Individuals are called "Yahweh" in this verse—one in heaven who was the source of the sulfur and fire, and one on the earth who was the agent by which the heavenly Yahweh rained the sulfur and fire.

In the context preceding this verse, three "men" came to Abraham. Two of them went on to Sodom, and one remained, whom Abraham addresses as "Yahweh." Finally, Yahweh leaves Abraham and goes to Sodom to carry out the destruction.

[Eaglesway]

There is also the concept that YHWH can take the face of His messengers. "He makes His messengers winds, His ministers flames of fire." So in some cases you have angels speaking in the first person, as if, like water, He is able to move through out all His servants and appear in the first person.

"For it is God who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness" who has shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."1 Cor 4

The wind blows where it wills and you hear the sound of it but you dont know where it is coming from or where it goe. So t is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.Jn 3:5

Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights(photon), with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow(YHWH). In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. Jam 1:17

The word for lights is photon..... interesting to me.

"A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of all forms of electromagnetic radiation including light. It is the force carrier for electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons."

Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits(pneumaton) and live heb 12:9


The one true God is the father of all spirits, and with that He is the Father of Lights of whom Jesus is the brightest and through whom all the other lights came to be.

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. Heb 1:1-3

All this goes to the name YHWH who is who he is.

For He is the fulness of deity in bodily form,,,,the glory of God in the face of Christ

"If any man has not believed out gospel it is because the god of this world has blinded the eyes of Him so that He cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ"

The veils will all be burned away by the light, "Upon this mountain I will destroy the veil that covers all the peoples"(Isaiah)... We are that mountain(Heb 12).

Come let us go to the mountain of the house of the Lord to seek His face and learn of Him

As we become transparent..... pure of spirit, broken and contrite of heart, the glory of God shines out of us because we are no longer double minded, drinking and speaking out of two wells.

We are who we are, conformed to His image. He is all in all. We have no shadow of turning. Every hidden thing has been brought to light. His face is in our face. His words in our words. The fire has become the water of life. The clay become like a shining, transparent inwardly illuminated jewel..

and I saw the glory of the God of Israel coming from the east. His voice was like the roar of rushing waters, and the land was radiant with his glory(Ez 43:2).


https://youtu.be/xNLtPLFECNw

[LLC]

Paidion, I am not part of a Oneness group. It is basically what I believe the writers of the Bible are trying to say. To me, one true God does not mean two or three. It means one true God. If Jesus is not that one true God, then He would only be a god who represents God. If Jesus is not the Spirit of the Father, then who is? I suppose each one of us must decide for ourselves what God or gods we want to follow. I've already decided who my God is. His name is Jesus.

[Paidion]

So when Jesus prayed to the Father, was He talking to Himself?

For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

To me, that sounds like two different divine Individuals.

[Paidion]

To me, one true God does not mean two or three. It means one true God. If Jesus is not that one true God...

But Jesus Himself addressed his Father as the only true God:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

With that little conjuction "and", Jesus identified Himself as someone OTHER THAN the only true God.

[DaveB]

That's true, Paidion, and could anything be clearer?
When (some - not all) Trins say they have a richer understanding than the rest of us, I just shake my head. What could be richer than knowing the Father, the only true God, and his only-begotten Son the man Jesus Christ, and knowing the fellowship of the Spirit? Adding some terminology to that does not make it 'richer' or a 'deeper understanding' - I think the Scripture is sufficient.

[LLC]

My belief also comes from what is written in the Bible.
Paidion, You mentioned 1 Corinthians 8:6. I understand this verse as saying that Jesus is both the one Lord and the one true God. For example, if I said I have one sister and one best friend, Cheryl, what I am saying here is that Cheryl is both my best friend and my sister. My best friend and my sister are not two separate individuals. So in this verse there is only one God (Jesus) who is both the Father and the Lord.

Isaiah 45:21 says this: "And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me."
Isaiah 43:11 "I even I , am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior."
Acts 4:12 (speaking of Jesus) "Nor is there salvation in any other name under heaven given to men by which we may be saved."
If the one true God is the only Savior, and there is no other name besides Jesus by which we may be saved, then I would say that Jesus is the one true God.

John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said to Him(Jesus) "My Lord and My God".

Isaiah 9:6 "And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, EVERLASTING FATHER, Prince of Peace."

Jesus says this in Matthew 4:10 "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve."
If we are only to worship the Father, the one true God, then why does Jesus not say anything when people worship Him as in Matthew 2:11,14:33, 28:9 ?
Paidion, you also asked if Jesus was praying to Himself. My question would be, that if Jesus told us to pray in private, then how do the writers of the Bible know what Jesus is saying in His prayers?

[Paidion]

Isaiah 9:6 "And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, EVERLASTING FATHER, Prince of Peace."

This sentence is frequently quoted by Modalists ("oneness people) as proof that the Messiah IS "the mighty God and everlasting Father." However, this sentence is not found in the Septuagint. The New Testament writers when quoting the Old Testament used either the Septuagint, or the Hebrew text type found in Cave 4 at Qumran. In any case, their quotes correspond to the Septuagint (around 300 B.C.) and not to the Masoretic text which was not completed until the 9th century. What follows is an English translation of the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 9:6,7.

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgement and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.

[Paidion]

Paidion, you also asked if Jesus was praying to Himself. My question would be, that if Jesus told us to pray in private, then how do the writers of the Bible know what Jesus is saying in His prayers?

Jesus did ask his disciples to pray in private instead of shouting prayers in public as the Pharisees did to demonstrate how devout they were.
However, there were times when Jesus prayed in the presence of his disciples. John 17:1-26 is a record of one such prayer.

[Paidion]

Paidion, You mentioned 1 Corinthians 8:6. I understand this verse as saying that Jesus is both the one Lord and the one true God.

Your understanding is not obvious from the text. In any case, Paul clearly distinguished between the one God and Christ:

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)

[LLC]

1John 5:20 says this: "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."

From what I understand the Lord is God. They are one and the same. Acts 17:24 "God , who made the world and everything in it, since he is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands."
Deuteronomy 10:14 "Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it."
Mark 12:29-32 Jesus said "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart...32 "So the scribe said to Him, 'Well said Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He."
Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords."

If Jesus is Lord of all as it says in Acts 10:36, then to me, what the New Testament writers are saying is that Jesus is the one true God.

[DaveB]

"Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power."
1 Cor 15.24 NIV

He does not hand over the kingdom to Himself!

[Paidion]

1John 5:20 says this: "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."

Unfortunately the passage is missing in all extant manuscripts of the New Testament copied prior to 300 A.D. Very little of 1 John is found in those manuscripts. However, assuming the words are accurate, there is considerable debate concerning the antecedent of the last "He" (actually "This").
True, the antecedent is usually the closest noun—in this case "Jesus Christ." However, it may be "Him who is true" (the Father, the second closest).
In some passage in the New Testament, the antecedent is several sentences before the word to which it refers.

[LLC]

Paidion, In comparing the Old Testament to the New Testament, I notice that all the things said about God are the exact same things that are said about Jesus.

Nehemiah 9:6 says this: "You (God) alone are the Lord; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens with all their host, the earth and all things on it."
Colossians 1:16 "For by Him(Jesus) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth."

Isaiah 43:10-11"Before Me there was no God formed nor shall there be after Me. I, even I am the Lord and besides me there is no Savior."
Titus 2:13 "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

Job 33:4 "The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
John 1:4 In Him (Jesus) was life and the life was the light of the world."

John 8:2 Jesus says, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness but have the light of life."
1John1:5 "This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all."


From these verses as well as the ones I previously mentioned, to me, it becomes quite clear what the writers of the New Testament are saying, that Jesus is the one true God.

[DaveB]

LLC - what is your take on this, as I posted above?

"Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power."
1 Cor 15.24 NIV

He does not hand over the kingdom to Himself!

[davo]

From these verses as well as the ones I previously mentioned, to me, it becomes quite clear what the writers of the New Testament are saying, that Jesus is the one true God.

It can equally be said of those verses that Jesus REPRESENTS the one true God i.e., Yahweh, as in the likes of “If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father” equates to representative equivalence NOT ontological sameness… Jesus WAS God’s Man fulfilling what Adam (Israel) failed to live up to.

[LLC]

Dave, I did read your post, and to be honest, I find Paul to be very confusing at times. I often wonder when he says something, what he means by it, or if it is even Paul who wrote it. From what I understand, when we follow Jesus, we are following the one true God. When we follow Jesus we are subjects to the one true God. So, it doesn't make sense to me, if this verse is speaking of Jesus, why would Jesus need to turn the kingdom over to the Father when we have already turned our hearts over to the one true God?

Davo, If Jesus is only a representative of God, then He would not be God, but only a god. When we become Christ-like, we are also God's representatives or men of God. However, we are not God.

2 Peter 1:1 claims that Jesus is God. "To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
John 20:28 "Thomas answered and said to Him (Jesus) ' My Lord and my God.' "
1 Timothy 6:14-15 says this: " that you keep this commandment without spot until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing which He will manifest in His own time, He who is he the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords who alone has immortality."
Jeremiah 10:10 "But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King."
Revelation 17:14 "These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of Kings."

If Jesus is the Lord, and He is Lord of lords and King of kings, then there is no higher power. What they are saying is that Jesus is God the Father, the one and only true God.

One has to wonder if the authors of the New Testament had different opinions as to who Jesus was.

[davo]

Davo, If Jesus is only a representative of God, then He would not be God, but only a god. When we become Christ-like, we are also God's representatives or men of God. However, we are not God.

It is wrong to say Jesus was… “only a representative of God” – Jesus was THE representative, the final representative of God.

2 Peter 1:1 claims that Jesus is God. "To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

NO it doesn’t… you are simply reading that punctuated according to a biased theory.

John 20:28 "Thomas answered and said to Him (Jesus) ' My Lord and my God.' "

This is simply a record of Thomas’ confession… that doesn’t mean Thomas meant such according to the ontological inference you are reading into it.

1 Timothy 6:14-15 says this: " that you keep this commandment without spot until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing which He will manifest in His own time, He who is he the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords who alone has immortality."

Again the punctuation can read “His” as God’s “own time” i.e., what the Father alone determined etc, something Jesus himself in the gospels confessed ignorance of.

Jeremiah 10:10 "But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King."
Revelation 17:14 "These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of Kings."

Again it is poor form just to assume “Lord of lords and King of Kings” equates to Jesus being God… you are arbitrarily reading too much INTO the text.

If Jesus is the Lord, and He is Lord of lords and King of kings, then there is no higher power. What they are saying is that Jesus is God the Father, the one and only true God.

No they weren’t… THAT’S what you are asserting through reading INTO the text, but that’s different!

[LLC]

Davo, I don't think I am reading anything into the text. To me, it's pretty plain and clear in saying what it says.
Deuteronomy 10:17 says this: "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome."
We know that the Lamb is speaking of Jesus. When it says that the Lamb is Lord of lords and King of kings then yes, they are stating that Jesus is the great God Almighty. To me, Lord of all other lords and God of all other gods can only be God the Father.

It seems to me that whoever wrote these verses firmly believed that Jesus was the one and only true God. To them there was no other, and I believe the same. As I mentioned before, I suppose that each one of us must decide for ourselves who Jesus is.

[Paidion]

There are two different meanings of the word "God" in the New Testament. Indeed both meanings are used in a single verse (John 1:1)

In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God...

In this part of the sentence, "God" refers to "The only true God," as Jesus addressed Him (as recorded in John 17:3). Jesus also referred to Himself in John 17:3 as Someone other than "the only true God." Also, in the first part of John 1:1 quoted above, the word for "God" is preceded by the article as it usually is in reference to the one God. It could be translated as "... and the Logos was with the God." Indeed, "God" with the article is the most frequent use of the word "God" in the New Testament, and if there is no other modifier it ALWAYS refers to the Father. "The God" in the nominative case (ο θεος) occurs 244 times in the New Testament and in the accusative case (τον θεον) 111 times.

Also the word "with" doesn't seem to mean physically with God, but "with" Him in the sense of having the same mind, the same LOVE, the same purpose, etc. Even among people, "with" is sometimes used in that way. If Sam makes a statement and Joe agrees, Joe might say, "I'm with you, Sam."

"... and the Logos was God." Here the word "God" is not used in reference to "the God" (the only true God.) Unlike the first use of the word "God" it does NOT have an article. Also, the word "God" precedes the phrase verb "was," so that it doesn't read "The Logos was God" but "God was the Logos." At first sight, we might think this is the same thing. But this reversal of the order of the words gives the clause a special meaning. This reversal is also used in 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 that literally reads "The God love is." Placing "love" before "is" indicates that "love" is the kind of thing that God is, that God is the essence of love. The same reversal is used in John 17:17 that literally reads "The word of you reality is." Thus by placing "reality" before "is" indicates that reality (or "truth" if you will) is the kind of thing that God's word is, that God's word is the essence of reality.

So how does this apply to John 1:1? By placing "God" before "was" it is indicated that "God" (or Divinity) is the kind of thing that the Logos was, that God is the essence of the Logos. Why is "God" or "Divinity" the essence of the Logos, the Son of God? Because He was the only-begotten Son of God, "begotten before all ages" as the early Christians affirmed, and as was stated even in the original Nicene Creed. Just as a human being begets a human being, so God begat a Divine Being, and He begat only One. Thus the Son was unique in the sense of being the only Son whom God begat. This also explains the sense in which the early Christians referred to Christ as "God," but never as "THE God."

[Paidion]

1 Timothy 6:14-15 says this: " that you keep this commandment without spot until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing which He will manifest in His own time, He who is he the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords who alone has immortality."

The NASB puts it this way (reddening mine):
...that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.

How can "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" be Jesus, when He is one "whom no man has seen or can see"? Many people had seen Jesus while He walked the earth, some had seen Him after God raised Him from the dead, and many shall see Him when they are raised from the dead.

2 Peter 1:1 claims that Jesus is God. "To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

This verse indeed seems to refer to "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" as one and the same Person, especially since there is no "our" before "Savior" in the Greek. The ASV has distinguished "our God" from the Saviour by inserting "the" before Savior, that is, "our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ." The King James does it by placing "our" before "Savior" instead of before "God": " the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." However, most translations render it exactly as it is in Greek, "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." This is the best verse I know that appears to support your position, LLC.

HOWEVER! I just discovered this minute that the Diaglot translates the phrase as "the God of us and a savior Jesus Anointed."
The Diaglot has not inserted the indefinite article "a" illegitimately. There is only one article in Greek, and that is "the." When there is no article before a noun, it is often correct to insert the indefinite article "a". So I cannot fault the Diaglot translation; it seems to be correct. Here are three other verses in which "Savior" does not have the article before it, in which all translations render it as "a Savior":

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
Acts 13:23 Of this man’s offspring God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised.
Philippians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Until I looked at the Diaglot at this very moment, I thought there was no way to translate the phrase that could grammatically indicate "God" and "Savior" as two different Individuals. But now I see that the verse doesn't contradict all the other passages that refer to the Father and the Son as two Individual divine Persons. So, my present translation of 2 Peter 1:1 is a follows:

Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to the ones having obtained equally precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and a Savior Jesus Christ.

[LLC]

Paidion, Isaiah 43:11 says this: " I, even I, am the Lord, and there is no savior besides Me."
Hosea 13:4 " Yet I am the Lord your God ever since the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but Me; for there is no savoir besides Me."
Is God the Father the savior or is Jesus the savior? From these verses I would say there is only one God that can be the savior.

I'm not sure what verse it is, but Jesus says somewhere that those who see Him, have seen the Father.

1 Kings 8:23 says this: "O LORD, the God of Israel, there is no God like You in heaven above or on earth beneath."
Exodus 9:14 "so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth."
1 Chronicles "O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You."
Jeremiah 10:6 "There is none like You, O Lord."
Isaiah 46:9 "For I am God, and there is no other, I am God, and there is no one like Me."

These verses say that the one true God is unique, and there is no one else like Him in heaven or on earth. So for the writers of the New Testament to say that Jesus is the EXACT imprint of the one true God( the Father) implies that Jesus is the one and only true God.

[Paidion]

Paidion, Isaiah 43:11 says this: " I, even I, am the Lord, and there is no savior besides Me."

"I am Yahweh, and there is no Savior besides Me."
I have no problem with that statement. The Father and the Son share the name "Yahweh."

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven (Genesis 19:24)

Two different Individuals in one verse, each of which is called "Yahweh." The One on earth, with whom Abraham was talking, was the One through whom the sulfur and fire rained upon the cities, but the source of the sulfur and fire was the One in heaven. There was One in heaven called "Yahweh" from whom the sulfur and fire originated, and One on earth called "Yahweh" by whom the fire and brimstone rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Both are so united in character, purpose, etc. that they may be called "One." That's what Jesus meant when He said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30). He didn't mean They were the same Individual. If that were the case, then Jesus would have been talking to Himself when He prayed to the Father.

So for the writers of the New Testament to say that Jesus is the EXACT imprint of the one true God( the Father) implies that Jesus is the one and only true God.

I don't think it implies that at all! If you make an exact imprint of something, you have two entities, not just one. For example, if you have a piece of paper with a drawing of a horse on it, and you make an exact imprint of that horse, then you have two drawings of that horse.

I'm not sure what verse it is, but Jesus says somewhere that those who see Him, have seen the Father.

I'm sure you are referring to the following passage:

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:8,9)

You probably think this clinches your view. But consider the following scenario:

I have two photos of myself, one in the left pocket (A), and one in the right (B). But they look EXACTLY the same, for they were made from the same negative. Thus if you have seen A, then you won't see anything different if you look at B. Or you could say, "Whoever has seen A, has seen B."

Now let's say, I show you photo A, holding it in my left hand. Then I say, "I'm going to show you another photo. I take B out of my right pocket and show it to you, holding it in my right hand.

"That's the same photo!" you exclaim.

"No, it isn't." I reply. I have one photo in my left hand and another in my right; that makes two."

So why do you say they are the same photo? Simply because B is the exact imprint, the exact image of A. But that doesn't make them a single entity.
They are one in appearance, but two in number.

So the Son of God is the exact image of his Father. They have the same attributes, the same purpose, the same intention, the same Love. They alike in every way. Yet there is not just one of them, but two.

[LLC]

Paidion, No two things in this world are exactly the same, and yet we are supposed to believe that there are two Gods that are exactly the same. this goes against all that we see in the world around us. Each and every thing has it's own uniqueness, something that gives it individuality. In the photograph example that you mentioned, yes, there may be two pictures exactly the same, however the picture is of one individual. There is but one you. If one were to make a copy of the Mona Lisa, for example, it would not be the original and would be considered a fake.

As Jesus Himself says in Mark 10:18, God alone is the only perfectly perfect being. For in order to be perfectly perfect, one would have to have all knowledge. From what I understand, God the Father is the only one who knows all things. If this is true then Jesus was not as perfectly perfect as everyone makes Him out to be. He would have had to err at some point.

Again, from what I understand, God the Father is the supreme authority over all. When it comes down to either what Jesus says verses what Yahweh says, who do we follow? When it comes down to what we ourselves say or what another person says verses what Jesus says, who do we follow? I suppose what Jesus says would then be the supreme authority.

Is God the Father exactly like Jesus, or is Jesus exactly like God the Father?

[Eaglesway]

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And [b]He(Jesus) is the radiance of His(the Father) glory and the exact representation of His nature(the Father), and upholds all things by the word of His power.(Jesus)

[davo]

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven (Genesis 19:24)

Two different Individuals in one verse, each of which is called "Yahweh." The One on earth, with whom Abraham was talking, was the One through whom the sulfur and fire rained upon the cities, but the source of the sulfur and fire was the One in heaven.

Hi Paidion… I think there’s a strong probability you are reading more into this than the text allows.

Gen 19:24 Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.

There is not two distinct i.e., different Yahweh’s (the LORD is one) in this text… “out of the heavens” (Heb pl.) references from whence came the fiery blast, not from whom –– “the Lord” being twice mentioned makes the from whom singularly self-evident and thus obvious.

[LLC]

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And [b]He(Jesus) is the radiance of His(the Father) glory and the exact representation of His nature(the Father), and upholds all things by the word of His power.(Jesus)

Eaglesway, In thinking about Paidion's photographic example, my question would be, how do we know that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father's nature? If the Father did not come in person to testify of Himself and show us His own nature then we have nothing to compare with. We know what the nature of Jesus is, but is this the nature of the Father? For example, if a child was given up for adoption at birth and never met his/her true father, this child may imagine what his/her father is like, but unless the father actually shows up in person, how would he know the true nature of his father?

[DaveB]

Maybe backwards a little? The teaching is that, looking at Jesus, we can be certain the Father is like that.

Is that begging the question? Depends on your epistemology which, in this case and many others, is a choice. All a man can do is choose what to believe.

[Eaglesway]

This is the importance of the scriptures. I believe it because it is written. I also believe it because it has been revealed to be in the Holy Spirit, the Teacher who leads us into all truth. Beyond that, the revelation of Jesus Christ crucified itself testifies to the divine nature - and as DaveB said, at a certain point we either believe it or we dont, but the testimony is what it is- whether we choose to believe or are chosen to believe.

[Paidion]

Okay, LLC, I concede that the Father and the Son are not exactly the same. And as you have pointed out, only the Father is omniscient. Jesus Himself indicated that He did not know when the events He predicted (as recorded in Matthew 24) would take place:

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matthew 24:36 ESV)

Even after his resurrection, Jesus did not know about the events that would soon take place, but the Father gave the revelation of those things to Him, and then He sent His angel to make it known to John.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John...

Now how can this be the case, LLC, if the Father and the Son are one and the same divine Individual?

[Paidion]

Hi Paidion… I think there’s a strong probability you are reading more into this than the text allows.

Gen 19:24 Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.

There is not two distinct i.e., different Yahweh’s (the LORD is one) in this text… “out of the heavens” (Heb pl.) references from whence came the fiery blast, not from whom –– “the Lord” being twice mentioned makes the from whom singularly self-evident and thus obvious.

Well, it is not I who am reading the text this way. Justin Martyr read it this way in his "Dialogue With Trypho." The thought never occurred to me until I read it in Justin Martyr. But after having read it there, I agreed with him.

First, Justin indicates that it was "the Lord" who remained behind to talk to Abraham. He had also indicated that the Father could not appear on a small part of the earth since He fills all things. So He indicated that "the Lord" (or Yahweh) was the Son of God, who received the commission from "the Lord" who remained in heaven to bring destruction to Sodom.

And after another pause I added: “And now have you not perceived, my
friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens,
is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and
communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the
conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no
longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who
received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to
inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms:
‘The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’

—Dialogue With Trypho, end of chapter 61

[Paidion]

There is not two distinct i.e., different Yahweh’s (the LORD is one)

Yes, the LORD (Yahweh) is one. However, that doesn't necessarily imply one Person.
Jesus also said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30 ESV) Did He mean that He and the Father were one Person? I don't think so. In the immediately preceding verse, He said, "My Father, who has given them [my sheep] to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." He spoke of his Father as if He were a different Individual.

Jesus often prayed to his Father. He addressed Him as, "My God." (Matthew 27:46) Was He praying to Himself? Was He his own God? If not, then when He said, "I and the Father are one," He must not have meant that they were the same Person. He must have been referring to their total unity. I suggest that is where God said, "Yahweh is one," He also meant that total unity, and not that there was no other divine Individual who shared the name "Yahweh" with Him.

[Eaglesway]

IMO....

Since Yahweh definess Himself as "I AM", IMO He is defining Himself by the purity of His being, and shares His name with no one, (He is the One True God)but has bestowed the rights of His name upon His Son, who is the image of YHWH(For so it pleased the Father to make all the fulness dwell in Him). The Son is the fulness od deity in bodily form...."If you have seen me you have seen the Father" does not mean He is the Father, it means He is the express image of the Father and the exact representation of the Father's nature(Heb 1:3). "I and My Father are one" does not mean Jesus and His Father are the same person, it means they are in perfect unity, harmony, oneness of purpose, etc.

When Jesus prays that, "You may be one, even as I and the Father are one"(Jn 17) He is speaking of the same kind of unity- not making us out to be gods or a part of the godhead.

We are to be one in unity of purpose, in the sharing of the divine nature, in love for one another, that out "joy may be full" and that "the world will know you are my disciples" and that "the Father has loved you"....or in other words, just as He and the Father are one, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me and I am in you".

[Paidion]

Very good.

[davo]

Well, it is not I who am reading the text this way. Justin Martyr read it this way in his "Dialogue With Trypho." The thought never occurred to me until I read it in Justin Martyr. But after having read it there, I agreed with him.

But that’s exactly it… you do agree with him and you’re the one presenting that (his) position as being legit. With all due respect to Justin… like you and me Paidion he has NO justifiable claim to inspiration. His/yours is a proposition that is IMO unsustainable.

He had also indicated that the Father could not appear on a small part of the earth since He fills all things.

So… just because Justin cannot conceive nor countenance such a thing this makes his rendition therefore so? Really?

So He indicated that "the Lord" (or Yahweh) was the Son of God, who received the commission from "the Lord" who remained in heaven to bring destruction to Sodom.

This I suggest is his proposition being driven 100% by his own presuppositions he brought to the text. Consider the logical flow of this (IMO absurd) machination… “the second man is the man from heaven” your “Yahweh Jesus” – but Yahweh from heaven was meant to be “the Father” NOT “the Son”. Further we now have by way of consistent application of said proposition “the second man from heaven” (Jesus) walking and conversing in the Garden with the “the first man of the earth” i.e., Adam; and yet conventional common sense has ALWAYS understood the Yahweh of Paradise to have been “the Farther” – held to any logical consistency what you are advocating turns this on its head.

I put it to you that Justin’s ‘2 Yahweh’ model is an invention borne from a mind not able to be lifted above its own wooden literalism… and as a result a cacophony of contradicting confusion results.

There is not two distinct i.e., different Yahweh’s (the LORD is one)

Jesus also said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30 ESV) Did He mean that He and the Father were one Person? I don't think so. In the immediately preceding verse, He said, "My Father, who has given them [my sheep] to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." He spoke of his Father as if He were a different Individual.

Jesus often prayed to his Father. He addressed Him as, "My God." (Matthew 27:46) Was He praying to Himself? Was He his own God? If not, then when He said, "I and the Father are one," He must not have meant that they were the same Person. He must have been referring to their total unity. I suggest that is where God said, "Yahweh is one,"…

I agree… NO argument with any of that.

…He also meant that total unity, and not that there was no other divine Individual who shared the name "Yahweh" with Him.

This here however is arguing from silence, i.e., there are NO texts of Scripture applying “Yahweh” to any other individual OTHER THAN the One in the Bible also declared to be “the Father”, period! That’s just a fact! It is a spurious interpretation by Justin that has invented his conclusion.

A text out of context has become a pretext.

[LLC]

Still pondering some of the other questions that everyone has brought up.

Jesus does say in John 8:58 "I AM". To me this means that He is the Father. Can anyone truly and accurately speak for another? For example, no one else can speak for Paidion, Davo or Eaglesway except for you yourself. I would say that the same thing goes for God. God is the only one that is able to speak Himself. Can someone else share a name? I think this would be considered identity theft.

So, when Yahweh says " vengeance is Mine" or when Jesus says "love your enemies" which nature of God are we to follow? I would say that this may be one reason God gave Himself a new name-Jesus.

[davo]

Can anyone truly and accurately speak for another?

Of course they can… God’s prophets did it all the time. Jesus, prophet par excellence did this all the time… “I only speak what I hear the Father say” etc. In the British Commonwealth the respective ‘Governors’ General’ in their official role speak and act ON BEHALF OF the Crown… when they speak/act the Queen speaks/acts, i.e., they carry Her authority and power.