Even in John 1, Jesus is not God

[Wrangler]

why not?

101G.

Because there is a difference between text ‘could’ apply to a 1st century man from it actually applying to a 4th century BC msn. See the difference?

 

[tigger2]

thanks for your post. but God settle this long ago. Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

if God said, "and there is no god with me", who is any man to say otherwise?

101G.

.............................................

This, too, is a matter of translator's choice.
"See now that I alone am he; there is no God but me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal. No one can rescue anyone from my power." - CSB.

"See ye that I alone am, and there is no other God besides me: I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand." - Douay.

"See, I am the only God. There are no others. I kill, and I make alive. I wound, and I heal, and no one can rescue you from my power." -GW.

‘Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand. - NKJV.

"See now that I alone am He; there is no God but Me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal. No one can rescue anyone from My hand." - HCSB. and others.
.........................................
Also from my personal study quoted in previous post:

All of this shows (for the first 400 years of Church history, at least) that many of those early writers (including Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus, the writer of ‘The Epistle to Diognetus,’ and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine of the 4th and 5th centuries) continued to use the term theos (without the article) as John sometimes did (“a god”). They saw nothing wrong with calling certain men “gods” if they were sincerely trying to follow God and be his representatives or ambassadors. Just because it sounds strange to our ears today in modern English is no reason to ignore the facts!

This is a fact acknowledged by even most trinitarian experts:

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods (or a god) include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

 

[Wrangler]

This, too, is a matter of translator's choice.

Welcome @tigger2!

 

[jeremiah1five]

@Wrangler I am just astounded you would submit something like this as good, sound theology.
It is not.
This individual is what you get when someone attempts to interpret the Holy Writ without the Holy Spirit.
And you know that anyone that does not have the Holy Spirit is not of God.
Does this individual have any podcasts refuting that the Father is not God, or the Holy Spirit is not God because it would be an easy transition for this guy. It's a good thing that the Bible is not one verse, and one verse does not a doctrine make.

The doctrine of the person of Christ is basic to the entire revelation of Bible Christianity. Error in this department is so serious as to make the one who holds it an heretic. To go wrong here is to go wrong everywhere, for every other doctrine of grace is inextricably bound up with the doctrine of Christ's person.
The deity of the Lord Jesus Christ can easily be proved from Scripture by showing first, that the name of God is given to Him; second, that the attributes of God are ascribed to Him; third, that the works of God are ascribed to Him; and fourth, that religious worship is commanded to be given to Him.

I'll just leave with this Scripture.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Tim. 3:16.

 

[synergy]

@Wrangler I am just astounded you would submit something like this as good, sound theology.
It is not.
This individual is what you get when someone attempts to interpret the Holy Writ without the Holy Spirit.
And you know that anyone that does not have the Holy Spirit is not of God.
Does this individual have any podcasts refuting that the Father is not God, or the Holy Spirit is not God because it would be an easy transition for this guy. It's a good thing that the Bible is not one verse, and one verse does not a doctrine make.

The doctrine of the person of Christ is basic to the entire revelation of Bible Christianity. Error in this department is so serious as to make the one who holds it an heretic. To go wrong here is to go wrong everywhere, for every other doctrine of grace is inextricably bound up with the doctrine of Christ's person.
The deity of the Lord Jesus Christ can easily be proved from Scripture by showing first, that the name of God is given to Him; second, that the attributes of God are ascribed to Him; third, that the works of God are ascribed to Him; and fourth, that religious worship is commanded to be given to Him.

I'll just leave with this Scripture.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Tim. 3:16.

Well said and to the point! It's either that one believes that "God was manifest in the flesh" or one is a heretic. Plain and simple.

 

[synergy]

Not WHO but WHAT fits the bill. The literal thoughts of God. Words are WHAT's not WHO's. The basic error in trinity land is denying a rational explanation for how a word can be with God and be God - not in the flesh (for that idea is expressed in a later verse, adding to your already confused foundation).

John 1:1 says "the Word was God". How can you possibly say that a thought was God? Are you into worshipping a God or Goddess of Thoughts? Tell us about your God or Goddess of Thoughts.

You know, some of the French Revolutionaries dedicated themselves to the worship of the Goddess of Reason. Sounds close to what you're promoting.

You suppose there is a metaphysical entity that "fits the bill" when it is merely figurative use of language.

How can my friend Ralph and be Ralph?​

How can my friend Rob and be Rob?​

How can my friend have a ick and be ick?​

Just like the video presenter, you also confuse person and essence/nature.

Again, if your take had any legitimacy, overturning the 1,000's of times God has been identified as singular being, singular pronoun, it would disprove the trinity and John 20:31 would not state his whole purpose was to prove something else; namely that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God - not God in the flesh.

But these are written so that you will put your faith in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God.​

If you were right, John 20:31 would say these are written so that you put your faith in Jesus, WHO is God incarnate. It doesn't say that. Profound!

Trinitarians want to assert there are 4 Gospels but they don't all testify and give witness to the same thing - when they obviously do. None claim Jesus is God, all claim he is the object of God's anointing.

You continue to run away from Rev 19:11-16 that manifests the Word of God.

Rev 19:11 And I saw Heaven opened. And behold, a white horse! And He sitting on him was called Faithful and True. And in righteousness He judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 And His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head many crowns. And He had a name written, one that no one knew except Himself.
Rev 19:13 And He had been clothed in a garment dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies in Heaven followed Him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, so that with it He should strike the nations. And He will shepherd them with a rod of iron. And He treads the winepress of the wine of the anger and of the wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And He has on His garment, and on His thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

 

[synergy]

Literal Translation of John 1:1c

Even the trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel!

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god [God]’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

"In John i.1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), the article could not have been omitted if John had wished to designate the λόγος as ὁ θεὸς, because in such a connexion θεὸς without the article would be ambiguous." - A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek: regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis, p. 151, G. B. Winer.

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.

And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God[2] (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young’s Analytical Concordance in the section entitled “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ....” - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.

Notice how John 1:1 has been listed as an example of “God” (or “god”) being applied to someone other than the true God (as in the case of “judges, angels, prophets, etc.”). Dr. Young also specifically tells us that John 1:1 is literally “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.” p. 54, Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary. Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean “the Word was the true God” if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.

New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer also defined theos:

“θεὸς [theos] is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Angels are literally called “gods” (Hebrew - elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know angels are called “gods” here because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels” is used in New Testament Greek. In fact, the highly trinitarian NKJV actually translates the elohim of Ps. 8:5, 6 as ‘angels’ (“For you have made him a little lower than the angels.”)

The very trinitarian New American Bible (1970), St. Joseph ed., states in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods;’ hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].” So how does noted trinitarian Dr. James Moffatt translate (at Ps. 8:6) this word that means “God” or “gods” and which is here applied to angels? Again, as at John 1:1, he translates the word for “God/god” as “divine”! “Yet thou hast made him little less than divine [elohim].” (“Heavenly beings,” NIV - see NIVSB footnote for Heb. 2:7.)

This is a tiny part of my personal study of John 1:1c and John's intended meaning as determi9ned by his grammatical usage.


Don' worry, after forty plus years of presenting it to trinitarians, Im don't expect anyone to actually read it (and NEVER attempt to reply to what I have written in it.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html

(John 1:1) "...καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος."
It literally translates into "and God was the Word".
Notice that it does not say "the God" but just "God".
So John is not talking about a Person (i.e.: God the Father), he is talking about the essence/nature of God.
In other words, the Word was God in nature/essence.

Welcome to the Berean website where we will test all things according to Koine Greek OT & NT, just like the Bereans (Hellenized Jews in Thessaloniki, Greece) did with the Koine Greek OT (LXX).

 

[101G]

Because there is a difference between text ‘could’ apply to a 1st century man from it actually applying to a 4th century BC msn. See the difference?

no, do you not have the Holy Spirit in you to HELP you understand what is true and what is not?

will not the Comforter GUIDE you in all truths?

101G.

 

[101G]

.............................................

This, too, is a matter of translator's choice.
"See now that I alone am he; there is no God but me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal. No one can rescue anyone from my power." - CSB.

"See ye that I alone am, and there is no other God besides me: I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand." - Douay.

"See, I am the only God. There are no others. I kill, and I make alive. I wound, and I heal, and no one can rescue you from my power." -GW.

‘Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand. - NKJV.

"See now that I alone am He; there is no God but Me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal. No one can rescue anyone from My hand." - HCSB. and others.
.........................................
Also from my personal study quoted in previous post:

All of this shows (for the first 400 years of Church history, at least) that many of those early writers (including Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus, the writer of ‘The Epistle to Diognetus,’ and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine of the 4th and 5th centuries) continued to use the term theos (without the article) as John sometimes did (“a god”). They saw nothing wrong with calling certain men “gods” if they were sincerely trying to follow God and be his representatives or ambassadors. Just because it sounds strange to our ears today in modern English is no reason to ignore the facts!

This is a fact acknowledged by even most trinitarian experts:

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods (or a god) include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.
29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.
30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

is that man or God as said, do not the Holy Spirit Guide you? and do he not teach us?

101G.

 

[101G]

So John is not talking about a Person (i.e.: God the Father), he is talking about the essence/nature of God.
In other words, the Word was God in nature/essence.

the Word was God in Nature/Essance. is not God a Person? what you said makes no sense.

101G.

 

[101G]

101G has never see so many Lost souls in one place at one time. it's just unbelievable.

@synergy, listen. God's Person, Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" here, express is EXACT, meaning the same PERSON, now seen, hence the IMAGE.

watch the "Who" again, but Now God's NATURE. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

the Nature or Essance of God is Spirit, manifested in flesh.

101G.

 

[synergy]

101G has never see so many Lost souls in one place at one time. it's just unbelievable.

@synergy, listen. God's Person, Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" here, express is EXACT, meaning the same PERSON, now seen, hence the IMAGE.

watch the "Who" again, but Now God's NATURE. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

the Nature or Essance of God is Spirit, manifested in flesh.

101G.

Christ is the express image of God the Father. I know that already. What are you trying to say?

 

[Wrangler]

@Wrangler I am just astounded you would submit something like this as good, sound theology.
It is not.

Did you watch the vid?

Unsound theology is the trinity doctrine that is not stated once in 66 books. There simply is no verse like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. Have you ever thought of why there is no such verse?

 

[Wrangler]

John 1:1 says "the Word was God". How can you possibly say that a thought was God?

Did you watch the vid? How can the word be WITH God and be God?

 

[Wrangler]

no, do you not have the Holy Spirit in you to HELP you understand what is true and what is not?

When you lost the argument, appeal to mysticism. You are right and I am without the Holy Spirit. Gotcha!

 

[synergy]

Did you watch the vid? How can the word be WITH God and be God?

The Word of God is a seperate entity and can be called God because He possesses the same essence/nature as God the Father. The video confuses person and essence/nature. As such, this video can be trashed.

Let me explain in more detail:
(John 1:1) "...καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος".
It literally translates into "and God was the Word".
Notice that it does not say "the God" but just "God".
So John is not talking about a Person (i.e.: God the Father), he is talking about the essence/nature of God.
In other words, the Word was God in nature/essence.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Did you watch the vid?

Unsound theology is the trinity doctrine that is not stated once in 66 books. There simply is no verse like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. Have you ever thought of why there is no such verse?

Yes, I saw the video. I listened carefully and applied everything I am in Christ to understand what he said.
He came across as a man void of the Holy Spirit experience and spoke like one. I wanted to do what the Holy Spirit does with certain people and open his eyes but that's not my ministry. You do know about tares in the field?

Now, to have a position that the Scripture doesn't say "the nature of God is a Trinity" (or you won't believe or accept) is selling yourself short, otherwise Messiah would have come the moment Adam and the woman ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and 'end' this right then and there. But for reasons known to God He instead stretched out TIME at least so that He can have a people as the sand on the seashore instead of just two people.

Personally, on such a position as you hold I believe for at least one reason why God doesn't just come out an "blurt" that "the nature of God is a Trinity" is to bring division between His true born-of-God people and those not even His people. We true born are not to be lazy to come to such a position but as directed we are to ask, seek, and knock and actually "search the Scriptures" for in them we think they have eternal life described and they are they which speak of Him." And saying, "the nature of God is a Trinity" would defeat that purpose, at least where it concerns His Son. And I find it pertinent that this not "blurting" concerns the Son.

God controls the seeing eye and hearing ear. Coupled with that God also controls the "light" any individual or generation of individuals receives to understand His Word. Looking back, we now understand that His revelation is progressive and comes to us from glory to glory. Evidence of this is in the words of Saul:

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Rom. 16:25–26.

The revelation of the Trinity of God did not find its fullest expression until the advent of the Son. Looking at the particulars of His birth also helps us edify (build brick by brick) this doctrine of the Trinity of God.
1. the prophecy of Emmanuel "God with us."
2. the name Yeshua "salvation is of the LORD."
3. the designation "king of the Jews" especially since God is a jealous God and HE is the King of the Jews and will not share His worship with anyone.
4. Herod wanting to know where He was born so he may worship Him.
5. the fact that the Magi DID worship Him.
6. later, the voice from heaven, "this is my beloved Son" (I am well pleased.)
7. commanding individuals to "come after me" which if He was not God would be blasphemous.
8. the angel Gabriel saying He "shall be the Son of the Highest" is another reference to His deity.
9. the Holy Ghost "coming upon [thee] and that holy 'thing' born shall be called the Son of God."
Progression. Threading Scripture with Scripture, line upon line, precept upon precept to come to the knowledge of the truth. And once we come to the end of Scripture pointing to any certain conclusion, we have to do something with that conclusion. Early in my Christianity I used to see three thrones in my mind and understanding but now I only see One. And not only have I come to understand the Trinity of God I am awaiting some revelation from God to myself or from another about how "a son is born; a child is given" can also be "everlasting Father."
But I am confident that if it is in Scripture, it is there for our learning and admonition, and even if it is not given to me today or tomorrow to understand "child" and "father" as one and the same, someone, somewhere will have their mind and understanding opened who will piece even that together for other believers to understand.
Progression.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Lk 24:31–32.

In my studies the conclusions are magnificent.
And sometimes the journey getting there are magnificent, too.

 

[101G]

Christ is the express image of God the Father. I know that already. What are you trying to say?

no, you don't. he is God himself Manifested for all to see, because he who is GOD that you cannot see. the Lord Jesus is not Just an IMAGE, but the EXACT PERSON who is God Manifested/the Image in human flesh. what you and I has not seen is him, JESUS the Lord in his Glorified State as a MAN. supportive scripture, 1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

that resurrected body is not what shall be, listen. 1 Corinthians 15:35 "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" 1 Corinthians 15:36 "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:" 1 Corinthians 15:37 "And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:" 1 Corinthians 15:38 "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body."

101G.



101G.

 

[101G]

When you lost the argument

Lost what argument? LOL, please bring that to my memory please. post Number please.

101G.

 

[Wrangler]

Lost what argument? LOL, please bring that to my memory please. post Number please.

101G.

See posts 48 & 55.