Jesus is God, One with the Father

[atpollard]

Just for fun, let's try the TRINITARIAN version on for size:

[John 1:1-5, 14]
1 In the beginning was [GOD THE SON], and [GOD THE SON] was with [GOD THE FATHER], and [GOD THE SON] was [GOD THE FATHER*]. 2 [GOD THE SON] was in the beginning with [GOD THE FATHER]. 3 All things came into being through [GOD THE SON], and apart from [GOD THE SON] not even one thing came into being that has come into being. 4 In [GOD THE SON] was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. 5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it. ... 14 And [GOD THE SON] became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw [GOD THE SON'S] glory, glory as of the only [Son] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

*Theologically, this word should probably be [GODHEAD], but I was keeping the word replacement simple and consistent.

 

[amazing grace]

Just for the record, that is the HYPOSTATIC UNION (Jesus is FULLY man and FULLY God) rather than having anything to do with the Trinity (One God, eternally existing in 3 persons). Modalism (which argues that GOD left heaven to become a man and returned to heaven) - only 1 God that wears different "hats" - has none of the issues with the HYPOSTATIC UNION that you object to. It just makes JESUS "fully God" wearing a man-shaped puppet (no true humanity).

It is just contrary to Apostolic scripture.

I really don't know what you are trying to say - Are you a Trinitarian or are you a Modalist? Why bring all this up?
The apostles did not teach a two nature Christ --- nothing in scripture illustrates a 'fully human' and 'fully God' individual. A human being cannot be immortal and mortal at the same time, all knowing yet not knowing, etc.

The Word predates Jesus ... but coexists with "God" and as "God". Genesis 1 is clear that God is the creator of all things. John 1 is clear that the WORD is the creator of all things ... the word was God . John is also clear that the word was WITH God (making it separate from God ... somehow "God and God" together as "WE are ONE GOD. Even back in Genesis: "Let US make mankind in OUR image - male and female." Plural GOD creates plural mankind that becomes "one flesh".

God laid down the hints right from the start. Genesis 1 uses a plural name for God and both singular and plural pronouns. God is one and more than one from the very first words that God gave us. It seems folly to ignore all that for a good human explanation of what God "really meant".

God with God as God?
How did God create? God spoke --- What did God speak by the breath of his mouth? WORDS
Whose WORDS - His own words which were with him.
The Word was God ---- if the sentence read: the Word was THE God with the definite article that would make the word equivalent to GOD but the definite article is not there so the noun GOD is used as an adjective - in the manner of an adjective.
But it doesn't matter --- tradition wins over truth.

Back in Genesis - elohim can be a single or plural noun dependant on the verbs, pronouns or adjectives used. And God said -- the use of the singular verb 'said' makes elohim a singular noun. Let us make man in our image ---- I believe God was speaking to someone other than himself. I believe that he was speaking to the created angelic beings with him. There are a total of 4 passages in which plural pronouns are used in connection with God in the whole of scripture ---- I can't let those 4 determine that God is a Triune being.

Then we have the actual creation of male and female -- all singular ...... So God created (singular) man in his own image (singular) in the image (singular) of God created he (singular) him; male and female created (singular) he them.

 

[amazing grace]

Just for fun, let's try the TRINITARIAN version on for size:

[John 1:1-5, 14]
1 In the beginning was [GOD THE SON], and [GOD THE SON] was with [GOD THE FATHER], and [GOD THE SON] was [GOD THE FATHER*]. 2 [GOD THE SON] was in the beginning with [GOD THE FATHER]. 3 All things came into being through [GOD THE SON], and apart from [GOD THE SON] not even one thing came into being that has come into being. 4 In [GOD THE SON] was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. 5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it. ... 14 And [GOD THE SON] became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw [GOD THE SON'S] glory, glory as of the only [Son] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

*Theologically, this word should probably be [GODHEAD], but I was keeping the word replacement simple and consistent.

Yeah - switching out the terms referring to God to fit your agenda --- of course, it fits the doctrine but it doesn't fit with the whole of scripture. Where did the other disciples teach that Jesus was 'God the Son'? Where is the term 'God the Son' used in scripture?
It's the same as saying 'In the beginning was God and God was with God and God was God.'

I understand 'and the word was God' to be used of God in descriptive sense --- I do not have to change the wording the comprehension lies within my understanding of what is being said.

When you read into scripture or replace the words or add to scripture ---- it is no longer truth.

 

[atpollard]

The Word was God ---- if the sentence read: the Word was THE God with the definite article that would make the word equivalent to GOD but the definite article is not there so the noun GOD is used as an adjective - in the manner of an adjective.

This is incorrect for Greek grammar (where the whole ‘definite article’ argument comes from) when the verb is a form of “to be” (like “is” or “was”). Not that you will be interested, but included because it is funny (and the world needs more funny) …

 

[amazing grace]

This is incorrect for Greek grammar (where the whole ‘definite article’ argument comes from) when the verb is a form of “to be” (like “is” or “was”). Not that you will be interested, but included because it is funny (and the world needs more funny) …

It's called the Coldwell Rule and some scholars agree with it - some do not...... I was talking more about the difference between the Greek nominative case and the Greek vocative case.

But it's good that you took the time to look it up and I appreciated the comic relief!

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP, "Jesus is God, One with the Father"

Jesus, who is God alone, is the Father in Flesh EQUALLY SHARED. and yes, "WITH" indicate the same one PERSON........

101G.

 

[Grace ambassador]

Who came in the flesh? Jesus Christ
What are we to acknowledge? that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.......

So precious friend, if we acknowledge / believe This Truth "we are Of God"?:​

​

"...Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ Is Come In The Flesh is of God:...​

(1 John 4:2 AV)​

​

And, Then, since "we are Of God" By His Amazing Grace, should we not​

also acknowledge / believe All Of The Following?:​

​

"For unto us A Child Is Born, unto us A SON Is Given: and the government​

shall be upon His Shoulder: and His Name Shall Be Called Wonderful, Counsellor,​

The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6 AV)​

​

"Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth A SON, and they​

shall call His Name Emmanuel, Which being interpreted is, God With us."​

(Matthew 1:23 Matches Isaiah 7:14 AV)​

​

"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 Timothy 3:16 AV)​

​

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and The ​

Word Was God. The same was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1-2 AV)​

+​

"And [ God ] The Word Was Made Flesh, and Dwelt among us, (and we beheld​

His Glory, The Glory As Of The Only Begotten Of The Father,) Full Of Grace And Truth."​

(John 1:14 AV)​

+
Acknowledge / believe / have faith In All Of The 500 - 700 Plain and Clear Scriptural Passages:

@civic posted: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit​

+​

Why The Triune GodHead Is Correct!​

If we Do Not acknowledge / believe ALL Of God's Word, Should we not do this?:

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your​

own selves, how that Jesus Christ Is In you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Corinthians 13:5 AV)​

Is it not Impossible For Jesus Christ Not To Be God "Omnipresent" Who Is IN ALL Grace believers?

Compare: Three Books At God's Great White Throne Judgment!!

[ Where The SON, Jesus Christ, Is God, The Righteous JUDGE! ]​

​

------------
Addendum: "the spiritual enemy's tactics" Concerning God's Word Of Truth Are FIVE-Fold, eh?

1) Question IT, 2) Add To IT, 3) subtract From IT, 4) Water IT Down, And, 5) Outright DENY IT! ​

Thus, let us Prayerfully And Carefully study IT In Order To believe IT?
----------------

And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord God Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.
...And Still praying...

 

[civic]

Just for fun, let's try the TRINITARIAN version on for size:

[John 1:1-5, 14]
1 In the beginning was [GOD THE SON], and [GOD THE SON] was with [GOD THE FATHER], and [GOD THE SON] was [GOD THE FATHER*]. 2 [GOD THE SON] was in the beginning with [GOD THE FATHER]. 3 All things came into being through [GOD THE SON], and apart from [GOD THE SON] not even one thing came into being that has come into being. 4 In [GOD THE SON] was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. 5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it. ... 14 And [GOD THE SON] became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw [GOD THE SON'S] glory, glory as of the only [Son] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

*Theologically, this word should probably be [GODHEAD], but I was keeping the word replacement simple and consistent.

I like it but with this difference in RED above leaving out the Father.

 

[amazing grace]

So precious friend, if we acknowledge / believe This Truth "we are Of God"?:​

​

"...Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ Is Come In The Flesh is of God:...​

(1 John 4:2 AV)​

Please note: The verse does not say 'Every spirit that confesses that God has come in the flesh is of God' which is the belief of Trinitarians - God came in the flesh as the Son, Jesus.

And, Then, since "we are Of God" By His Amazing Grace, should we not​

also acknowledge / believe All Of The Following?:​

​

"For unto us A Child Is Born, unto us A SON Is Given: and the government​

shall be upon His Shoulder: and His Name Shall Be Called Wonderful, Counsellor,​

The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6 AV)​

This is also about a child born in the OT.. some say Hezekiah but it is heavily relevant to our Lord Jesus Christ .... but if we apply it to Jesus to mean 'Jesus is God' then would it also be applicable to the child initially represented? If not, why not?
'Mighty God' can also mean 'Mighty Hero'. I noticed you did not highlight 'everlasting Father' any reason?

​

"Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth A SON, and they​

shall call His Name Emmanuel, Which being interpreted is, God With us."​

(Matthew 1:23 Matches Isaiah 7:14 AV)​

God with us ---- also a dual prophecy which is also a Messianic prophecy. See above.
Emmanuel = God with us/God is with us..... It is a theophoric name, (personal names that incorporate the name or title of a deity) indicating a direct correlation between the name and the divine presence - The manner that 'God is with us' ---- God was IN Christ.

"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 Timothy 3:16 AV)​

Of course, you would utilize an ambiguous verse! My footnote in the ESV: Greek Who; some manuscripts God; others Which
It can be translated 1) God was manifested in the flesh, 2) who was manifested in the flesh, 3) which was manifested in the flesh, 4) he was manifested in the flesh.
My question would be - which would fit within the meaning of that verse and within the context. Since we are to confess that Jesus came in the flesh and it was Jesus that was received up into glory and Jesus was justified righteous by the spirit ..... my choice of course would be #4, even #2 or #3.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and The ​

Word Was God. The same was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1-2 AV)​

+​

"And [ God ] The Word Was Made Flesh, and Dwelt among us, (and we beheld​

His Glory, The Glory As Of The Only Begotten Of The Father,) Full Of Grace And Truth."​

(John 1:14 AV)​

+
Acknowledge / believe / have faith In All Of The 500 - 700 Plain and Clear Scriptural Passages:

@civic posted: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit​

+​

Why The Triune GodHead Is Correct!​

If we Do Not acknowledge / believe ALL Of God's Word, Should we not do this?:

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your​

own selves, how that Jesus Christ Is In you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Corinthians 13:5 AV)​

Is it not Impossible For Jesus Christ Not To Be God "Omnipresent" Who Is IN ALL Grace believers?

Compare: Three Books At God's Great White Throne Judgment!!

[ Where The SON, Jesus Christ, Is God, The Righteous JUDGE! ]​

Yes, we should examine ourselves whether we are in the faith and prove it to our own selves which I believe I have to the best of my ability. Yep, Christ is in me - the hope of glory!

No, it is not impossible for Jesus Christ to be omnipresent in his resurrected body - as a living giving spirit.

Addendum: "the spiritual enemy's tactics" Concerning God's Word Of Truth Are FIVE-Fold, eh?

1) Question IT, 2) Add To IT, 3) subtract From IT, 4) Water IT Down, And, 5) Outright DENY IT! ​

Thus, let us Prayerfully And Carefully study IT In Order To believe IT?
And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord God Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.
...And Still praying...

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. (Eph. 1:17-21)

 

[brightfame52]

This is also about a child born in the OT.

No its not. Also the mighty God is God, another reference to the same title is in the same book Isa 10:21

The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.

Is Isa 10:21 a child ?

 

[amazing grace]

No its not. Also the mighty God is God, another reference to the same title is in the same book Isa 10:21

The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.

Is Isa 10:21 a child ?

Excuse me but yes, it is although it is also a Messianic Prophecy. Matthew brought it forward in reference to the conception and birth of the Son of God.

Isaiah 10:21 is a different context so of course it is not referring to a child.

 

[brightfame52]

it is although it is also a Messianic Prophecy.

Exactly, Jesus is the Mighty God of Isa 9:6;10:21

The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. Is there any doubt who this is?

Isaiah 10:21 is a different context so of course it is not referring to a child.

Thats okay its in a different context, its very unlikely the Holy Spirit who inspired the writer that Mighty God means a little kid in Isa 9:6 and 42 verses later the Mighty God, thats practically the same context.

 

[amazing grace]

Exactly, Jesus is the Mighty God of Isa 9:6;10:21

If you are going to take Isaiah 9:6 and say that when it's applicable to Jesus - it means Jesus is 'mighty God then it would also have to carry the same meaning to the child spoken of in that time period (Hezekiah) would also be the Mighty God.

The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. Is there any doubt who this is?

I consider this to be God. As I said, 'mighty God' being used in a whole different context.

Thats okay its in a different context, its very unlikely the Holy Spirit who inspired the writer that Mighty God means a little kid in Isa 9:6 and 42 verses later the Mighty God, thats practically the same context.

The words reflect that the writer was inspired to say about the child to be born and the son to be given would be called 'mighty God' because that is what the verse says.

 

[brightfame52]

If you are going to take Isaiah 9:6 and say that when it's applicable to Jesus - it means Jesus is 'mighty God then it would also have to carry the same meaning to the child spoken of in that time period (Hezekiah) would also be the Mighty God.

No it wouldn't thats your unfounded imposition

I consider this to be God. As I said, 'mighty God' being used in a whole different context.

Its practically the same context, 40 verses removed

The words reflect that the writer was inspired to say about the child to be born and the son to be given would be called 'mighty God' because that is what the verse says.

It was an opportune time to prophesy about Christ is all. You just finding ways to reject scripture proof that Jesus is God. I guess the little kid is the everlasting father too lol
,

 

[amazing grace]

No it wouldn't thats your unfounded imposition

Its practically the same context, 40 verses removed

It was an opportune time to prophesy about Christ is all. You just finding ways to reject scripture proof that Jesus is God. I guess the little kid is the everlasting father too lol
,

No need to keep repeating what I believe is evidently speaking of a child - a child in that era and a child to come in Isaiah 9:6.
Jesus represents the presence of this 'mighty God' as God's Son, as God's Christ, as God's agent, as the one sent by God.

 

[brightfame52]

No need to keep repeating what I believe is evidently speaking of a child -

We can let it go, I just believe you refusing a scripture proof Jesus is God

 

[FreeInChrist]

Just for fun, let's try the TRINITARIAN version on for size:


*Theologically, this word should probably be [GODHEAD], but I was keeping the word replacement simple and consistent.

In the beginning was the Word of the Godhead, and the Word of the Godhead was with the God of the Godghead, and the Word of the Godhead was

Just for fun, let's try the TRINITARIAN version on for size:

[John 1:1-5, 14]
1 In the beginning was [GOD THE SON], and [GOD THE SON] was with [GOD THE FATHER], and [GOD THE SON] was [GOD THE FATHER*]. 2 [GOD THE SON] was in the beginning with [GOD THE FATHER]. 3 All things came into being through [GOD THE SON], and apart from [GOD THE SON] not even one thing came into being that has come into being. 4 In [GOD THE SON] was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. 5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it. ... 14 And [GOD THE SON] became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw [GOD THE SON'S] glory, glory as of the only [Son] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

*Theologically, this word should probably be [GODHEAD], but I was keeping the word replacement simple and consistent.

Um... just for fun lets try rewording a wee bit of this to maybe...
"and [GOD THE SON] was God, sharing the same divine essence as [GOD THE FATHER].”

 

[atpollard]

In the beginning was the Word of the Godhead, and the Word of the Godhead was with the God of the Godghead, and the Word of the Godhead was

Um... just for fun lets try rewording a wee bit of this to maybe...
"and [GOD THE SON] was God, sharing the same divine essence as [GOD THE FATHER].”

The difference is that John actually SAID “the Word was God” and later identified the Word as “becoming flesh” in the person of Jesus Christ. So all I did was to repeat what John actually wrote with the substitution of “God the Son” (a theological descriptor for “the Word”) with “the Word” and substituted “God the Father” (the term “Father” that Jesus used to describe “God” to whom he prayed) in place of “God”. Other than the substitutions of equivalent terms, I maintained what John had written.

In contrast, you “nerfed” what John wrote to replace it with a paraphrase not found in scripture. We are not Mormons that write our own divine revelations to add to the message of the Bible.

 

[FreeInChrist]

The difference is that John actually SAID “the Word was God” and later identified the Word as “becoming flesh” in the person of Jesus Christ. So all I did was to repeat what John actually wrote with the substitution of “God the Son” (a theological descriptor for “the Word”) with “the Word” and substituted “God the Father” (the term “Father” that Jesus used to describe “God” to whom he prayed) in place of “God”. Other than the substitutions of equivalent terms, I maintained what John had written.

In contrast, you “nerfed” what John wrote to replace it with a paraphrase not found in scripture. We are not Mormons that write our own divine revelations to add to the message of the Bible.

You said " and [GOD THE SON] was [GOD THE FATHER*]

You make Jesus and the Father one.... That is not so they have always been separate. That is why for my paraphrasing .

 

[atpollard]

You said " and [GOD THE SON] was [GOD THE FATHER*]

You make Jesus and the Father one.... That is not so they have always been separate. That is why for my paraphrasing .

Note the asterisk (*) after FATHER in what you quoted. That was a link to the note at the bottom where I specifically mentioned “*Theologically, this word should probably be [GODHEAD], but I was keeping the word replacement simple and consistent.”. I had substituted “[GOD THE SON]” for “the Word” and “[GOD THE FATHER] for “God” every place those words appeared in the quoted verses (John 1:1-5,14). It was a simple, direct word substitution to make a point of comparison between the traditional Trinitarian understanding of John 1 and the convoluted reinterpretation of “the Word” needed to deny the Trinity.

I acknowledged that that specific use of “God” should be better described as “GODHEAD” than “[GOD THE FATHER]” precisely because the Son is not the Father (but both the Father and Son are “God”). However, I was “keeping the word replacement simple and consistent”.