A Question concerning 2 John 1:7

[Behold]

This is a deceiver and an antichrist'
(2John 1:7)

All Cross denying Heresies are a "doctrine of the devil". "Doctrines of Devils".. (KJV) Hebrews 13:9

So, what is that? How to see it?

Its simple....

Its this.

The Cross is in the Devil's way.. Its prevent's Him from utterly destroying all of Humanity.

A.) On this Earth.. The Devil only has one problem....its THE Cross of Christ..., and how to get rid of it.

Satan Hates The Cross of Christ, because its the eternal Reconciliation between God and Man.
So, the Devil wants to get rid of it. And He wants His deceived to get rid of it for him... But He has to be clever.. so that when He does this, you wont realize it... unless you are very discerning.

He does it like this..
The Devil creates Theology, by twisting Bible Verses.... so that His Theology sounds true. And its goal is to subvert The Cross.
And once you realize that a Theology is doing this, then you understand who is behind it.

Where this can be painful or very hard to deal with, is when you realize that you have been deceived, and its the very denomination that you loved and have served. Or its the very scholar or favorite Pastor, or books or commentaries that you BELIEVED IN, that have led you from The Light.
So, once you realize this.. you see that you have to leave it... and then... if your family is there.. then you are now the Heretic, once you start trying to help them see the same LIGHT that you've been shown.
That's a hard situation, and you have to work it out, and get out of there, and get them out of there.

For example.... there are many ways to deny The Cross, and here are 4 of the most popular.

A way to DENY The Cross, is to LIMIT IT...........to only : some people can be saved.

A way to DENY The Cross, is to deny that Justification by Faith, : is God's sole means of saving you through Christ.

A way to DENY The Cross, is to add to it...... water, commandment keeping, Law and works.

A way to DENY The Cross is to teach that you can lose Salvation.

Reader..

To DENY The Cross, is to somehow add to it, or reduce it, theologically....most often by misusing or twisting Bible Verses mostly found in the New Testament.

So.....What is The Cross proving?

Its proving that Jesus IS Salvation, and there is nothing else.

John 14:6

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Yes, He always spoke His Father's Word, but that does not make Him any less Divine than His Father.

Of course it does make him less divine than His Father, Joe.

• God doesn't speak what other person asks Him to speak, nor does what other person asks Him to do.
• God is not the Messenger or Ambassador of anyone.
• God can't say that He doesn't do things on his own authority.
• God can't say there is another greater than Him, nor that He doesn't know things that other knows.
• God is not sent by anyone, nor raised by anyone, nor exalted to heaven by anyone, nor invited to sit at the right of anyone. On the contrary, God is who sends, raises, exalts and invites to site at his right.
• God does not intercede for men before any other authority, because He is The Authority.
• God is God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

John 1:1 is not the "word of God " but is in fact the WORD WHO WAS GOD. A Person, not an abstraction.

He the Word, the Son became literally flesh, a man whom we know is Jesus.

That is ctystal clear from Johns Prologue since God created everything and the scriptures tell us that it was the Son ( the Word who was God ) created all things and without HIM nothing was made that was made.

hope this helps !!!

If the Word was literally a Person, and God was a "family" of Persons (to use the term of @Dizerner), John 1:1 could be read like this:

In the beginning there was the Person,​

and the Person was with the Family*​

and the Person was the Family. ​

(We can replace "Family" with any other term for a collective like "Council", "Group", "Government", etc. The point is the same)

How can a person be a family? How can an individual be a collective? This would be absurd.

Consider this other rendition:

In the beginning there was Jesus​

and Jesus was with The Father, with Himself, and with the Holy Spirit, ​

and Jesus was The Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit​

How can Jesus be The Father, Himself and the Holy Spirit if they are different persons? This would be absurd.

CONCLUSION: John 1: 1 is a written in poetic language by the evangelist and can't be taken literally, because it would lead to an absurdity.
In contrast, John 17:1-3 and John 20:27 are direct, unequivocal statements in plain language uttered by Jesus Himself about the nature of His Father and his relationship with Him.

 

[Dizerner]

If the Word was literally a Person, and God was a "family" of Persons (to use the term of @Dizerner), John 1:1 could be read like this:

In the beginning there was the Person,​

and the Person was with the Family*​

and the Person was the Family. ​

(We can replace "Family" with any other term for a collective like "Council", "Group", "Government", etc. The point is the same)

How can a person be a family? How can an individual be a collective? This would be absurd.

This is a very basic logical mistake that Unitarians and Oneness constantly make.

The word "person" is not semantically equivalent to the word "god," that is the false assertion here, nature and person are different things.

If I say Fido is a dog, and Fluffy is a dog, I am not thereby asserting that Fido is Fluffy, it simply does not follow.

It's a very basic logical mistake and betrays a poor understanding of logic and grammar.

I don't think you ever read my link that I posted explaining to a Unitarian the Trinity and such things, you really should....

 

[civic]

If the Word was literally a Person, and God was a "family" of Persons (to use the term of @Dizerner), John 1:1 could be read like this:

In the beginning there was the Person,​

and the Person was with the Family*​

and the Person was the Family. ​

(We can replace "Family" with any other term for a collective like "Council", "Group", "Government", etc. The point is the same)

How can a person be a family? How can an individual be a collective? This would be absurd.

Consider this other rendition:

In the beginning there was Jesus​

and Jesus was with The Father, with Himself, and with the Holy Spirit, ​

and Jesus was The Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit​

How can Jesus be The Father, Himself and the Holy Spirit if they are different persons? This would be absurd.

CONCLUSION: John 1: 1 is a written in poetic language by the evangelist and can't be taken literally, because it would lead to an absurdity.
In contrast, John 17:1-3 and John 20:27 are direct, unequivocal statements in plain language uttered by Jesus Himself about the nature of His Father and his relationship with Him.

In the beginning there was the Person,
and the Person was with another Person who was God, and the Person was also God. He ( the Person who was God) was in the beginning with God who is the other Person.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

In the beginning there was the Person,
and the Person was with another Person who was God, and the Person was also God. He ( the Person who was God) was in the beginning with God who is the other Person.

Then isn’t “God” a family, as @Dizerner proposes?
Is “God” a divine person?

If I understand you correctly, What you are saying here is

In the beginning there was Jesus
And Jesus was with another divine Person
And Jesus was a divine Person

Is this what you mean?
If so, I honesty ask you to ponder…

In verse 1, Who is the divine person Jesus was with?
In verse 6, Who is the divine person who sent John The Baptist?
In verse 12, Who is the divine person we become sons of?
In verse 18, Who is the divine person nobody has seen?
In verse 29 and 36, Who is the divine person of whom Jesus is the Lamb?
In verses 34 and 49, Who is the divine person of whom Jesus is Son?
In verse 51, Who is the divine person to whom the angels belong?

 

[civic]

Then isn’t “God” a family, as @Dizerner proposes?
Is “God” a divine person?

If I understand you correctly, What you are saying here is

In the beginning there was Jesus
And Jesus was with another divine Person
And Jesus was a divine Person

Is this what you mean?
If so, I honesty ask you to ponder…

In verse 1, Who is the divine person Jesus was with?
In verse 6, Who is the divine person who sent John The Baptist?
In verse 12, Who is the divine person we become sons of?
In verse 18, Who is the divine person nobody has seen?
In verse 29 and 36, Who is the divine person of whom Jesus is the Lamb?
In verses 34 and 49, Who is the divine person of whom Jesus is Son?
In verse 51, Who is the divine person to whom the angels belong?

God is Tri-Personal and @Dizerner and I are in agreement on the Tri-Unity of the 3 Divine Persons who are God.

God said LET US make man in OUR IMAGE after OUR LIKENESS.

So God created both Adam/Eve the TWO shall become ONE- God is One yet not a solitary Person. Marriage is ONE yet more than One Person. You see a family in One unit, a unity of more than One Person.

Marriage as Jesus and the Apostles taught reflect Gods image, likeness in unity and harmony.

God is love and by definition must be more than a Solitary Person. A solitary person cannot know/experience love for to love needs another to share and experience love. This is why a unitarian god is false and cannot be love for it would be incapable of knowing and experiencing love. If anything it would be a NARCISSISTIC/ Self Love.

And we know the Biblical God has declared in many places He is Plural in Persons as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Any other God is an idol. A false god.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Dizerner]

There are Christians who misguidedly reject Social Trinitarianism, it is not absolutely necessary to realize this.

But as long as we start to realize "God" and "person" are not semantically equivalent, we can get to the truth.

A corporate pronoun, an essence/substance/nature with personal elements to it, an office and function, we see meanings for God beyond "person."

Since all three persons qualify as God we can say such things as "God was with God," meaning in this case, aspects of God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This is a very basic logical mistake that Unitarians and Oneness constantly make.

The word "person" is not semantically equivalent to the word "god,"

Well, the Bible treats God as a Person, not as a nature.
We can support the Personhood of God, in at least three ways

1. The scholarly way. Quoting about two thousand verses in the Bible. Yes, over 2000. That may take me many posts, and about a month, but perhaps you would have to admit your error before we reach that number.
2. The fun way. Asking your nearest rabbi or your nearest Children’s Sunday School.
3. The spiritual way. Asking yourself if you treat God as a Person or as a nature in your daily life. For example, when you affirm: “I’ll arrive at the airport at 7:30 PM God’s willing” or when you sing “I am a child of God”

In contrast, Polytheists do treat god as a nature. That’s why Hermes can be god and Zeus can be god and Apollo can be god. All of them have the same nature. There can be many gods as there can be many dogs, whales or oak trees. This also allows the existence of Demi-gods like Hercules: persons who have a dual nature.

 

[civic]

Well, the Bible treats God as a Person, not as a nature.
We can support the Personhood of God, in at least three ways

1. The scholarly way. Quoting about two thousand verses in the Bible. Yes, over 2000. That may take me many posts, and about a month, but perhaps you would have to admit your error before we reach that number.
2. The fun way. Asking your nearest rabbi or your nearest Children’s Sunday School.
3. The spiritual way. Asking yourself if you treat God as a Person or as a nature in your daily life. For example, when you affirm: “I’ll arrive at the airport at 7:30 PM God’s willing” or when you sing “I am a child of God”

In contrast, Polytheists do treat god as a nature. That’s why Hermes can be god and Zeus can be god and Apollo can be god. All of them have the same nature. There can be many gods as there can be many dogs, whales or oak trees. This also allows the existence of Demi-gods like Hercules: persons who have a dual nature.

Not true since it clearly says Christ who is the very NATURE God in Phil 2. So nature/person referring to God is biblical.

next fallacy

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

A corporate pronoun, an essence/substance/nature with personal elements to it, an office and function, we see meanings for God beyond "person."

That’s a polytheistic understanding.
A respectable one, by the way… But not the Jewish, Zoroastrian and Islamic monotheistic understanding that was transmitted in the Bible, the Avesta, the Quran. Not the understanding that allows a mind-to-mind interaction with God in our daily lives.
Either God is Person and no one else can be God, or we end up allowing gods and demigods.

Of course, we have another alternative: become Pantheists. God would be One but Impersonal, and all persons in the universe would be part of such God. The greatest collective ever. Not a bad choice either.

What I find invalid is to try to pass Nicaean theology as monotheistic when in fact it is not.
Your life is monotheistic. Your formal theology is not.
Someday you will align your life with your formal theology… and I will not call this “repentance” because it is not. You are not committing a sin. We all are just doing our best in trying to define He who can’t be defined.

 

[civic]

That’s a polytheistic understanding.
A respectable one, by the way… But not the Jewish, Zoroastrian and Islamic monotheistic understanding that was transmitted in the Bible, the Avesta, the Quran. Not the understanding that allows a mind-to-mind interaction with God in our daily lives.
Either God is Person and no one else can be God, or we end up allowing gods and demigods.

Of course, we have another alternative: become Pantheists. God would be One but Impersonal, and all persons in the universe would be part of such God. The greatest collective ever. Not a bad choice either.

What I find invalid is to try to pass Nicaean theology as monotheistic when in fact it is not.
Your life is monotheistic. Your formal theology is not.
Someday you will align your life with your formal theology… and I will not call this “repentance” because it is not. You are not committing a sin. We all are just doing our best in trying to define He who can’t be defined.

You stand corrected once again from Scripture. I stand on Gods word whereas you on your personal opinion. My opinions are formed from the Bible which is my Authority for all truth.

Phil 2:6- Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: morphé
Pronunciation: mor-FAY
Phonetic Spelling: (mor-fay')
Definition: Form, appearance, nature

Usage: In the New Testament, "morphé" refers to the essential form or nature of something, particularly in a way that is visible or manifest. It is used to describe the outward expression of an inner reality. The term implies more than just external appearance; it encompasses the true essence or nature of a being.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Not true since it clearly says Christ who is the very NATURE God in Phil 2. So nature/person referring to God is biblical.

next fallacy

Philippians 2 presents God as a Person. You can test it yourself in 3 easy steps:

1. Try to replace God with “nature” and see the absurdity
2. Then try to replace God by “The Father” and see how it makes sense.
3. Repeat the steps above for each of the twenty-two instances in which the term “God” is presented across Philippians.

If you want to save time for step 3, just go to the introductory statement of Paul in Philippians and you’ll have your answer

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, is “God” treated as a nature or as a Person?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You stand corrected once again from Scripture. I stand on Gods word whereas you on your personal opinion.

No. We all are sharing opinions. I think your opinion is wrong. You think my opinion is wrong.
Nobody here is spokesman of God.

My opinions are formed from the Bible

I disagree

which is my Authority for all truth.

It is not and it shouldn’t be.

Phil 2:6- Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: morphé
Pronunciation: mor-FAY
Phonetic Spelling: (mor-fay')
Definition: Form, appearance, nature

Usage: In the New Testament, "morphé" refers to the essential form or nature of something, particularly in a way that is visible or manifest. It is used to describe the outward expression of an inner reality. The term implies more than just external appearance; it encompasses the true essence or nature of a being.

Philippians 2 includes the word “nature” but does not treat God as nature, but as Person.
That’s why the verse says “did not consider equality with God…” Try to replace this term God with “nature” and then try with “The Father”.
Do the same with all the 22 instances in which Paul uses “God” in that epistle.
If you want to save time, go directly to the introduction of the epistle to understand what Paul means when he says “God”
Then let me know if Paul treats God as Person or nature.

If in doubt, we can go through more than two thousand verses.

 

[Dizerner]

So, is “God” treated as a nature or as a Person?

False dichotomy.

Words have contextual meaning.

This fallacy has an official name, "The illegitimate totality transfer."

 

[Dizerner]

Philippians 2 includes the word “nature” but does not treat God as nature, but as Person.
That’s why the verse says “did not consider equality with God…” Try to replace this term God with “nature” and then try with “The Father”.

Lol. Bro.

But to you "who, being in the form of God" makes perfect sense as "who, being in the form of [a person]."

Persons are not forms or natures. It doesn't mean "look-a-like."

You are cherry picking where it suits you.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

False dichotomy.

Words have contextual meaning.

Well, what is the contextual meaning of God in the nine instances of John 1? Why don’t you try to answer the questions I made to @civic in post #66?
What is the contextual meaning of God in the 22 instances of the epistle of Philippians? Do you really want to explore this or not?
I’ll respect your wish. In any case, I can do the analysis and post it here for our readers to see and draw their own conclusions.

 

[civic]

Philippians 2 presents God as a Person. You can test it yourself in 3 easy steps:

1. Try to replace God with “nature” and see the absurdity
2. Then try to replace God by “The Father” and see how it makes sense.
3. Repeat the steps above for each of the twenty-two instances in which the term “God” is presented across Philippians.

If you want to save time for step 3, just go to the introductory statement of Paul in Philippians and you’ll have your answer

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, is “God” treated as a nature or as a Person?

you are equivocating person with nature.

nice try since biblically they are not the same and neither are they the same in Trinitarian Theology.

this is just another fallacious argument from you.

 

[civic]

False dichotomy.

Words have contextual meaning.

This fallacy has an official name, "The illegitimate totality transfer."

exactly

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Lol. Bro.

But to you "who, being in the form of God" makes perfect sense as "who, being in the form of [a person]."

Persons are not forms or natures

That’s exacty my point.
If I say: “Adam is in the form of God”, I imply that Adam is a person, God is a person, and that both have something in common, that I refer to as “form”.

You are cherry picking where it suits you.

That’s why I invite you to go through the other remaining 20 instances in Philippians, one by one.
That way you can’t accuse me of “cherry picking”.
Do you accept the invitation?