All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Victoria]

The problem with debating Christadelphians is that they say their own reading of the text is understood clearly. When someone of equal ability and insight says the meaning is not limited to the Christadelphian's limited sense, the Christadelphians say "but those people are interpreting the scripture instead of following what we see as the obvious meaning." There is no debate because the Christadelphian assumes a superior ability.

This here sounds like Gnosticism for sure.

 

[Runningman]

I'm just saying for unitarian consistency, the unitarian must say that God and the Father are different. If that makes you a modalist, that is just building upon heresies.

In Unitarianism God is always the Father, not a separate person from God or a sock pocket like your characters in trinitarianism are. In trinitarianism, the god is the substance or essence in the three persons rather than the three persons themselves. Trinitarianism is essentially gnostic modalism, strictly speaking.

 

[mikesw]

In Unitarianism God is always the Father, not a separate person from God or a sock pocket like your characters in trinitarianism are. In trinitarianism, the god is the substance or essence in the three persons rather than the three persons themselves. Trinitarianism is essentially gnostic modalism, strictly speaking.

I have no idea what you trying to convey as trinitarianism here. I guess you are rejecting something foreign to any christian concepts ever shared. Since you are rejecting some doctrine no one has ever followed, you do not make any argument against the true Trinitarians doctrine.

If you could find a good argument for your view and convince capable scholars and theologians, you might have a bit of basis to accept your new, novel, gnostic belief. No one on his own should be pushing his private doctrines on people when they are so contrary to sound teaching.

 

[Runningman]

I have no idea what you trying to convey as trinitarianism here. I guess you are rejecting something foreign to any christian concepts ever shared

The trinity is a hastily formed doctrine and wasn't vetted enough before formalized and published me the catholics. It has been under constant debate since it was introduced because of how divisive it is.

 

[mikesw]

The trinity is a hastily formed doctrine and wasn't vetted enough before formalized and published me the catholics. It has been under constant debate since it was introduced because of how divisive it is.

Oh wow. One tenth of one percent of unstudied people debate against the Christian doctrines. You just join with those people who debate whether water is wet. That means absolutely nothing in the world of truth.

 

[Runningman]

Oh wow. One tenth of one percent of unstudied people debate against the Christian doctrines. You just join with those people who debate whether water is wet. That means absolutely nothing in the world of truth.

Whatever you say. I have the Bible on my side where there is no mention of the trinity. I'll take that any day.

 

[mikesw]

Whatever you say. I have the Bible on my side where there is no mention of the trinity. I'll take that any day.

If you desire to be blind, that is your choice.

I will share what I mentioned earlier about the problem of unitarian misinterpretation of John 1:1

It would be hard to read "the words of God were God" into John 1:1. Even the hyperliteralist should recognize that the words of someone are not equal to the one saying the words. If I said the word was with Mike and the word was Mike, that would hardly, in a literalist sense, be indicating that what I spoke actually is physically equivalent to what I am. (Hopefully this shift to a physical, created being helps make the point understood when spoken of Christ's deity being revealed.)

Somehow the unitarian Christadelphian are not bothered by their own misinterpretation.

 

[synergy]

Now that we have proven that there is no trinity, what do you say against Scripture now?

Thanks for your previous re-verification that the word "only" (or even your word "alone") acts only on the word "God" and that makes John 17:3 a Monotheistic statement, which Trinitarianism supports!

Keep those Trinitarian verses coming! You're doing a superb job!

 

[Runningman]

If you desire to be blind, that is your choice.

I will share what I mentioned earlier about the problem of unitarian misinterpretation of John 1:1

It would be hard to read "the words of God were God" into John 1:1. Even the hyperliteralist should recognize that the words of someone are not equal to the one saying the words. If I said the word was with Mike and the word was Mike, that would hardly, in a literalist sense, be indicating that what I spoke actually is physically equivalent to what I am. (Hopefully this shift to a physical, created being helps make the point understood when spoken of Christ's deity being revealed.)

Somehow the unitarian Christadelphian are not bothered by their own misinterpretation.

John 1:1 doesn’t prove Jesus is God like you claim. The Greek doesn’t actually say “the Word was the God.” What it basically says is the Word was god-like or divine in nature, not that the Word was God Himself. If John wanted to say that, he could’ve… but he didn’t. And on top of that, the verse literally says the Word was with God, so they are not the same.

People also forget that 1 John 1:1–3 doesn’t even talk about “the Word” like it’s a person. It describes it like a thing, something that was heard, seen, and handled. That’s not a person. That’s a message. A word. God’s communication.

Now go back to Genesis. God created everything by speaking. He didn’t have another divine dude floating around next to Him. It was just God and His word, His voice, His command, His power in action. That’s all “the Word” really is.

When John 1:14 says the Word was “made flesh,” it does not mean a pre-existing God-person jumped into a body. It just means God’s message took on human form in Jesus. God spoke through a man. Simple.

And John 1:18 straight up tells you Jesus was begotten. That means he had a beginning. God doesn’t have a beginning. So Jesus isn’t God, he’s God’s Son.

So no… the Word isn’t a second God, and Jesus isn’t God in disguise. The Word is God’s speech, His plan, His will. Jesus is the man who carried it in the flesh. Not God Himself, but the one God used to show Himself to the world.

 

[Victoria]

So no… the Word isn’t a second God, and Jesus isn’t God in disguise. The Word is God’s speech, His plan, His will. Jesus is the man who carried it in the flesh. Not God Himself, but the one God used to show Himself to the world.

A God who could speak everything into existence, yet, couldn't possibly dwell in the flesh among His creation???
Is anything impossible for the Lord, Runningman? You actually deny Him His glory making such a claim

 

[mikesw]

John 1:1 doesn’t prove Jesus is God like you claim. The Greek doesn’t actually say “the Word was the God.” What it basically says is the Word was god-like or divine in nature, not that the Word was God Himself. If John wanted to say that, he could’ve… but he didn’t. And on top of that, the verse literally says the Word was with God, so they are not the same.

People also forget that 1 John 1:1–3 doesn’t even talk about “the Word” like it’s a person. It describes it like a thing, something that was heard, seen, and handled. That’s not a person. That’s a message. A word. God’s communication.

Now go back to Genesis. God created everything by speaking. He didn’t have another divine dude floating around next to Him. It was just God and His word, His voice, His command, His power in action. That’s all “the Word” really is.

When John 1:14 says the Word was “made flesh,” it does not mean a pre-existing God-person jumped into a body. It just means God’s message took on human form in Jesus. God spoke through a man. Simple.

And John 1:18 straight up tells you Jesus was begotten. That means he had a beginning. God doesn’t have a beginning. So Jesus isn’t God, he’s God’s Son.

So no… the Word isn’t a second God, and Jesus isn’t God in disguise. The Word is God’s speech, His plan, His will. Jesus is the man who carried it in the flesh. Not God Himself, but the one God used to show Himself to the world.

you have not really clarified anything. You just hop away to other passages that you deny about Christ.

How was the Word the same as God when you just say logos is simply words? I have shown how that logic applies if this were applied to someone like me. It seems like the concept is so far beyond your imagination that you cannot answer to what I proposed is the same scenario applied to me.

 

[dwight92070]

John 1:1 doesn’t prove Jesus is God like you claim. The Greek doesn’t actually say “the Word was the God.” What it basically says is the Word was god-like or divine in nature, not that the Word was God Himself. If John wanted to say that, he could’ve… but he didn’t. And on top of that, the verse literally says the Word was with God, so they are not the same.

People also forget that 1 John 1:1–3 doesn’t even talk about “the Word” like it’s a person. It describes it like a thing, something that was heard, seen, and handled. That’s not a person. That’s a message. A word. God’s communication.

Now go back to Genesis. God created everything by speaking. He didn’t have another divine dude floating around next to Him. It was just God and His word, His voice, His command, His power in action. That’s all “the Word” really is.

When John 1:14 says the Word was “made flesh,” it does not mean a pre-existing God-person jumped into a body. It just means God’s message took on human form in Jesus. God spoke through a man. Simple.

And John 1:18 straight up tells you Jesus was begotten. That means he had a beginning. God doesn’t have a beginning. So Jesus isn’t God, he’s God’s Son.

So no… the Word isn’t a second God, and Jesus isn’t God in disguise. The Word is God’s speech, His plan, His will. Jesus is the man who carried it in the flesh. Not God Himself, but the one God used to show Himself to the world.

That's blasphemous, pretending the Scripture doesn't really say what it actually and obviously does say.

You can't see or touch a message. And in John 1, the Word is called or referred to as "Him" 9 times, "He" 6 times, "His" 5 times, "the Light" 5 times, "the true light" 1 time, "the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" 1 time, and "the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father" 1 time.

You said: "Not God Himself, but the one God used to show Himself to the world." What a contradiction of terms. If God used Jesus to show Himself to the world, then He IS God Himself.

Yes, He was begotten - "the only begotten God". Yes, the body of Jesus had a beginning, but His Spirit was and is eternal, the Word, God in the flesh.

He is a Person, NOT a thing.

 

[Runningman]

A God who could speak everything into existence, yet, couldn't possibly dwell in the flesh among His creation???
Is anything impossible for the Lord, Runningman? You actually deny Him His glory making such a claim

Is God powerful enough that He doesn't need to do what you say? You reduce him to a creation by making such a claim.

 

[Runningman]

you have not really clarified anything. You just hop away to other passages that you deny about Christ.

How was the Word the same as God when you just say logos is simply words? I have shown how that logic applies if this were applied to someone like me. It seems like the concept is so far beyond your imagination that you cannot answer to what I proposed is the same scenario applied to me.

This doesn't seem to follow based on what I had just said. What do you need clarification about?

 

[Runningman]

That's blasphemous, pretending the Scripture doesn't really say what it actually and obviously does say.

You can't see or touch a message.

Yes a message can be seen and touched, not literally, but people spoke of it as something that they can taste and handle.

2 Tim 2
15Make every effort to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed workman who accurately handles the word of truth.

Hebrews 6
5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age—

And in John 1, the Word is called or referred to as "Him" 9 times, "He" 6 times, "His" 5 times, "the Light" 5 times, "the true light" 1 time, "the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" 1 time, and "the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father" 1 time.

Got any evidence of the Word being the true Light?

You said: "Not God Himself, but the one God used to show Himself to the world." What a contradiction of terms. If God used Jesus to show Himself to the world, then He IS God Himself.

Yes Jesus revealed who God is.

John 1
18No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Yes, He was begotten - "the only begotten God". Yes, the body of Jesus had a beginning, but His Spirit was and is eternal, the Word, God in the flesh.

He is a Person, NOT a thing.

Begotten Son. You still have the begotten problem to deal with. Means he had a beginning point, not an eternal being.

 

[Victoria]

Is God powerful enough that He doesn't need to do what you say? You reduce him to a creation by making such a claim.

Actually, that's what you do... reduce Him to a created mortal being, saving humanity in your idol's place.

Do what I say? No, Runningman, He did so in John 1:14.

 

[mikesw]

This doesn't seem to follow based on what I had just said. What do you need clarification about?

THe problem is that you did not show any logic in how the word was with God and how the Word was God. I showed you a paraphrase that makes your previous statements on that issue blatant failures.

Here is what i posted
It would be hard to read "the words of God were God" into John 1:1. Even the hyperliteralist should recognize that the words of someone are not equal to the one saying the words. If I said the word was with Mike and the word was Mike, that would hardly, in a literalist sense, be indicating that what I spoke actually is physically equivalent to what I am. (Hopefully this shift to a physical, created being helps make the point understood when spoken of Christ's deity being revealed.)

How can you explain your sense of John 1:1 where you deny Christ as deity by being shown as the Word?

 

[Runningman]

Actually, that's what you do... reduce Him to a created mortal being, saving humanity in your idol's place.

Do what I say? No, Runningman, He did so in John 1:14.

I don't believe God is created or mortal, hence why I know Jesus isn't God. I am not sure why you think I would think God is created or mortal, but that's what you believe isn't it? Do you know Jesus is created and mortal?

 

[Runningman]

THe problem is that you did not show any logic in how the word was with God and how the Word was God. I showed you a paraphrase that makes your previous statements on that issue blatant failures.

Here is what i posted
It would be hard to read "the words of God were God" into John 1:1. Even the hyperliteralist should recognize that the words of someone are not equal to the one saying the words. If I said the word was with Mike and the word was Mike, that would hardly, in a literalist sense, be indicating that what I spoke actually is physically equivalent to what I am. (Hopefully this shift to a physical, created being helps make the point understood when spoken of Christ's deity being revealed.)

How can you explain your sense of John 1:1 where you deny Christ as deity by being shown as the Word?

Sounds like a personal problem. What I said is clear and follows reason and logic. Did you see the part where I said in Genesis there was no Word dude with God, but rather only God's spoken words?

 

[mikesw]

Sounds like a personal problem. What I said is clear and follows reason and logic. Did you see the part where I said in Genesis there was no Word dude with God, but rather only God's spoken words?

I think you have no explanation. you just want to whitewash John 1:1
My point had nothing that would be relative to Genesis. Are you just providing another example of your lack of comprehension?