Council of Nicea and Constantinople

I believe in one God,

the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,


the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

he suffered death and was buried,

and rose again on the third day


in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead

and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],

who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets........................
Then you teach--There is only 1 God, but God has a God= unreality. Jesus has a God. You see it takes believing him over the twisted lies brought by Catholicism. Trinitarians outright refuse to believe Jesus.
 
Then you teach--There is only 1 God, but God has a God= unreality. Jesus has a God. You see it takes believing him over the twisted lies brought by Catholicism. Trinitarians outright refuse to believe Jesus.
I've got a question that is off topic but I need your help on. One of colleagues believes in the following which can be classified as the Heresy of Adoptionism. Here is his heretical statement:
It refers to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry when the Word came into him. He was already 30 years old when this happened.
I did some research on which cult has that heretical belief and I found some Unitarian offshoots embody it. Does the JW Cult also embody that heresy?
 
I've got a question that is off topic but I need your help on. One of colleagues believes in the following which can be classified as the Heresy of Adoptionism. Here is his heretical statement:

I did some research on which cult has that heretical belief and I found some Unitarian offshoots embody it. Does the JW Cult also embody that heresy?
When did Jesus become YHWH's son according to Scripture?

Acts 13
33He has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.’
 
I've got a question that is off topic but I need your help on. One of colleagues believes in the following which can be classified as the Heresy of Adoptionism. Here is his heretical statement:

I did some research on which cult has that heretical belief and I found some Unitarian offshoots embody it. Does the JW Cult also embody that heresy?
Bonus question:

Why does the Bible say the Son of Man descended from heaven (John 3:13, John 6:62) but never that the Son of God descended from heaven?
 
Then you teach--There is only 1 God, but God has a God= unreality. Jesus has a God. You see it takes believing him over the twisted lies brought by Catholicism. Trinitarians outright refuse to believe Jesus.
Correct. God having a God is two Gods and is polytheism. Jesus has a God just like you and I do and that's monotheism.

What I don't understand is why they don't just copy Jesus' example. Jesus worshipped the Father, prayed to the Father, said the Father is his God. If we copy Jesus we must be doing it right, isn't that true? Then why do they argue against literally every teaching of Jesus?
 
Correct. God having a God is two Gods and is polytheism. Jesus has a God just like you and I do and that's monotheism.

What I don't understand is why they don't just copy Jesus' example. Jesus worshipped the Father, prayed to the Father, said the Father is his God. If we copy Jesus we must be doing it right, isn't that true? Then why do they argue against literally every teaching of Jesus?
I not sure how to change someone who does not realize the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. I miss how you have challenged how the Word became flesh and was among the Jews publicly for 3 years.
 
Then you teach--There is only 1 God, but God has a God= unreality. Jesus has a God. You see it takes believing him over the twisted lies brought by Catholicism. Trinitarians outright refuse to believe Jesus.
read what it has to say about Christ

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

Hello
 
When did Jesus become YHWH's son according to Scripture?

Acts 13
33He has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.’
You did not explain how that verse promotes your heresy of Adoptionism. The Word of God Person became flesh (incarnated) and was raised as Jesus. What you're up against is the entire Bible and here is one rebuttal against your heresy:

 
I not sure how to change someone who does not realize the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. I miss how you have challenged how the Word became flesh and was among the Jews publicly for 3 years.
Jews would have understood the "Word becoming flesh" as personification. The word of God is always personified in Hebrew literature, not incarnated. They would have stoned John for trying to say God literally became a human, which is why he avoided such literal statements like the plague. It probably explains why he also wrote the Word is actually a thing in 1 John 1:1-3. It's just poetry.

Meyer's NT Commentary

"The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy."
 
You did not explain how that verse promotes your heresy of Adoptionism. The Word of God Person became flesh (incarnated) and was raised as Jesus. What you're up against is the entire Bible and here is one rebuttal against your heresy:

Assigning heresies to me isn't how this works. Where did I claim adoptionism and do you agree with Acts 13:33?
 
Jews would have understood the "Word becoming flesh" as personification. The word of God is always personified in Hebrew literature, not incarnated. They would have stoned John for trying to say God literally became a human, which is why he avoided such literal statements like the plague. It probably explains why he also wrote the Word is actually a thing in 1 John 1:1-3. It's just poetry.

Meyer's NT Commentary

"The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy."
Silly argument there about the Jews seeing this use of logos as personification. Also, the Jews mostly rejected Christ and would not share an accurate perception of him.
On the other aspect here, I presume you then also agree when Meyer says this in 1:14
Μονογ. designates the Logos as the only Son (Luke vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38; Heb. xi.17; Tob. viii, 17; Herod. vil. 221; Plato, Legg. III. p. 691 D; Aesch. Ag. 898; Hes. ἔργ . 378), besides whom the Father has none, who moreover did not become such by any moral generation, as in the case of the τέκνα θεοῦ , vv. 12, 13, nor by adoption, but by the metaphysical relation of existence arising out of the divine essence, whereby He ἐν ἀρχῇ with God, being Himself divine in nature and person, vv. 1, 2. He did not first become this by His incarnation, but He is this before all time as the Logos, and He manifests Himself as the μονογ. by means of the incarnation, so that consequently the μονογ. υἱὸς is not identical (Beyschlag, p. 151 ff.) with the historical person Jesus Christ, but presents Himself in that person to believers; and therefore we are not to think of any interchange of the predicates of the Logos and the Son, “who may be also conceived of retrospectively” (Weizsäcker, 1862, p. 699).
Critical and exegetical handbook to the Gospel of John by Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm 1883, p95

So we are now agreed that Logos and Christ are represented together and inseparable. Cool!
 
Last edited:
The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.” The Bible says there is one God, and one Lord, who is the man Jesus Christ; and one gift of the holy spirit. Most Christians are aware that the original manuscripts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. However, it's not well known that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have upper-case and lower-case letters, but rather they just have one form for their letters.

Greek does have upper and lower-case letters, but the early Greek manuscripts were all written with only upper-case letters. Therefore, the early manuscripts had no such thing as the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because what was always written was the "HOLY SPIRIT." The capital or lower-case letters are always a translator’s interpretation whenever we read “Holy Spirit” or“holy spirit” or “Spirit” or“spirit” in the English Bible. The difference is usually due to the theology of the translator. The bottom line is we cannot know from the Hebrew or Greek texts whether the Author meant the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit”because we must decide based on the context and scope of Scripture whether the reference being made is to God or God’s gift.

There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy”and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God. Thus, the Hebrew or Greek words for the "HOLY SPIRIT" should be brought into English as the "Holy Spirit” when the subject of a verse is God.

None of the dozens of descriptions, titles, or names of God are believed to be a separate, co-equal “Person”in a triune God except for the “HOLY SPIRIT” and there is no solid biblical reason to make the "Holy Spirit” into a separate “Person.” In other contexts the “HOLY SPIRIT” refers to the gift of God’s nature that He placed on people and the new birth to the Christian, and in those contexts it should be translated as the “holy spirit." God placed a form of His nature which is “holy spirit” upon people when He wanted to spiritually empower them because our natural fleshly human bodies do not have spirit power of their own. This holy spirit nature of God was a gift from God to humankind and we see this in the case of Acts 2:38 when the spirit is specifically called a "gift" when given to the Christian.

God put the holy spirit upon Jesus immediately after he was baptized by John the Baptist because Jesus himself needed God’s gift of the holy spirit to have supernatural power just as the leaders and prophets of the Old Testament did. This fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies that God would put the holy spirit upon the Messiah enabling him in his ministry. The gift of the holy spirit was born “in”believers (John 14:17) after the Day of Pentecost rather than resting “upon” them and this is one reason why Christians are said to be “born again” of God’s spirit (1Peter 1:3, 23). Christians have spiritual power when they receive the gift of the holy spirit (Acts 1:8) because the holy spirit is born in them and becomes part of their very nature, and this is why Christians are called God’s “holy ones” which is usually translated as “saints” in the New Testament.

God put His gift of the “holy spirit” or the “spirit” on as many people as He deemed necessary in the Old Testament, and we see this when we look at how God took the spirit that was upon Moses and put it upon the 70 elders of Israel. However, today everyone who makes Jesus Christ their Lord receives the indwelling gift of the holy spirit and that's why Peter on the Day of Pentecost quoted the prophecy in Joel that said God would “pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Many scholars admit the concept of the Trinity that also includes reference to the "Holy Spirit” as an independent “Person” cannot be found in the Old Testament. The Jews to whom the Old Testament was given did not recognize any such being. It's a well-known historical fact that “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone,” was the cry of Israel. No verse or context openly states or even directly infers that there is a separate “Person” called “the Holy Spirit."

Almost every English version translates John 14:17 similarly to “even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” Translators capitalize “Spirit” and use “he” and “him”because of their theology. The Greek word “spirit” is neuter and the text could also be translated as “the spirit of truth” and paired with “which” and “it.” The New American Bible reads “which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.” Capitalizing the “H” and “S” and using the English pronoun “He” is appropriate when God is being referred to as “the Holy Spirit.” However, when we see the “h” and “s” having the lower case such as "the holy spirit" and all the pronouns referring to that spirit being impersonal such as “it” and “which” is when the subject under discussion is the gift of God’s nature.

One of the ways we know that “pneuma hagion” often refers to the gift of God’s nature is that it “belongs” to God, who calls it “my” spirit. The spirit is called “God’s” spirit in many verses and King David understood the holy spirit belonged to God because he wrote “…do not take your holy spirit from me.” The Bible shows us that “the holy spirit” is under God’s authority and direction, which makes sense when we understand it's the gift of His nature that He gives to believers. The words “Messiah” in Hebrew (mashiyach מָשִׁיחַ) and “Christ” in Greek (christosΧριστός) both mean “anointed one.” Thus, the early Christians would have known him as “Jesus the anointed one.” God “anointed” Jesus Christ with the holy spirit and that's why Jesus was said to have been “anointed” even though people knew he had never been formally anointed with oil (Acts 4:27;10:38).

We have no evidence in the Bible that “the Holy Spirit” was ever used as a name because no one ever used it in a direct address. Many people spoke or prayed directly to God, starting out by saying “O Yahweh” (translated as “O LORD” in almost all English versions). Furthermore, the name “Jesus” is a Greek form of the name “Joshua” (in fact, the King James Version confuses “Joshua” and “Jesus” in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) and many people spoke “to Jesus” in the Bible. But no one in the Bible ever used “the Holy Spirit” in a direct address because there's simply no actual name for any “Person” known as “the Holy Spirit” anywhere in the Bible.

The “holy spirit” God gave in the Old Testament was God’s nature, but after the Day of Pentecost He gave His nature in a new and fuller way than He had ever given it before and this is what was foretold in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). It was because this new spirit was promised in the Old Testament that the New Testament calls it “the promised holy spirit” Ephesians 1:13; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:14). We have the “first fruits” of the spirit (Romans 8:23) because Christians are the first to receive this new spirit and that's why we have the guarantee that we will be in the coming Messianic Kingdom.

The gift of the holy spirit that Christians have is a gift and thus an “it.” Jesus told the apostles that the spirit would be “in” them (John14:17)—which is what happened on the Day of Pentecost when the holy spirit went from being with or “upon” people in the Old Testament and Gospels to being born “in” people on and after the Day of Pentecost. The spirit is sent by the Father (John 14:16-17) and Jesus (John 16:7). It does not speak on its own, but it speaks only what it hears (John 16:13). Thus, the gift of the holy spirit is directed by God and Jesus, which is what we would expect since it's God’s nature born in us. The gift of the holy spirit is the nature of God, and when it's born in us it becomes part of our very nature (2 Peter 1:4).

God does not change, but the gift of God’s holy spirit that believers have today is different from the spirit that God gave in the Old Testament, and so the gift of God’s spirit has changed. The simple and straightforward reading of the Scripture is that there is one God, who is sometimes referred to as“the Holy Spirit” and one Lord who is the man Jesus Christ, and one gift of the holy spirit that is the nature of God that He gives to people.
 
Silly argument there about the Jews seeing this use of logos as personification. Also, the Jews mostly rejected Christ and would not share an accurate perception of him.
On the other aspect here, I presume you then also agree when Meyer says this in 1:14
Μονογ. designates the Logos as the only Son (Luke vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38; Heb. xi.17; Tob. viii, 17; Herod. vil. 221; Plato, Legg. III. p. 691 D; Aesch. Ag. 898; Hes. ἔργ . 378), besides whom the Father has none, who moreover did not become such by any moral generation, as in the case of the τέκνα θεοῦ , vv. 12, 13, nor by adoption, but by the metaphysical relation of existence arising out of the divine essence, whereby He ἐν ἀρχῇ with God, being Himself divine in nature and person, vv. 1, 2. He did not first become this by His incarnation, but He is this before all time as the Logos, and He manifests Himself as the μονογ. by means of the incarnation, so that consequently the μονογ. υἱὸς is not identical (Beyschlag, p. 151 ff.) with the historical person Jesus Christ, but presents Himself in that person to believers; and therefore we are not to think of any interchange of the predicates of the Logos and the Son, “who may be also conceived of retrospectively” (Weizsäcker, 1862, p. 699).
Critical and exegetical handbook to the Gospel of John by Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm 1883, p95

So we are now agreed that Logos and Christ are represented together and inseparable. Cool!
Not sure what you think we are agreeing on. Are you saying you have finally realized Jesus isn’t God and that the Word is a concept, not a person?
 
I've got a question that is off topic but I need your help on. One of colleagues believes in the following which can be classified as the Heresy of Adoptionism. Here is his heretical statement:

I did some research on which cult has that heretical belief and I found some Unitarian offshoots embody it. Does the JW Cult also embody that heresy?
The cult to Gods view= A house divided( hundreds of trinity religions) will not stand.--you can take it to the bank. They fail this true mark 100%- 1Cor 1:10= Unity of thought( all of Gods 1 truth) no division. JW,s pass that true mark 100%--- See how the darkness rules your existence.
 
Correct. God having a God is two Gods and is polytheism. Jesus has a God just like you and I do and that's monotheism.

What I don't understand is why they don't just copy Jesus' example. Jesus worshipped the Father, prayed to the Father, said the Father is his God. If we copy Jesus we must be doing it right, isn't that true? Then why do they argue against literally every teaching of Jesus?
Yes, All Jesus did was for the Father, He lived to do his Fathers will. He even taught that he must obey the Father to remain in the Fathers love as we are to obey him to remain his friend and remain in his love. ( John 15:10-14)
The blind guides teach to seek Jesus' righteousness first, where as Jesus teaches to seek his Fathers righteousness first=YHVH(Jehovah)--They better start listening to Jesus.
 
Not in the bible it doesn't.
Yeah, it does

John 1:1 (KJV 1900) — 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 20:28–29 (KJV 1900) — 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Titus 2:13 (NASB 2020) — 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

2 Peter 1:1 (NASB 2020) — 1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

John 1:18 (NASB 2020) — 18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.
 
Back
Top Bottom