More, or Less?

You are speaking of the word as a 'he' - a person or either you are using personification as scripture does.
A person is a “he” if a male figure ( either by physical attributes or as a spiritual attribution such as with God who is spirit.) If we speak of the Father who is spirit as a “he”, the Logos who became flesh as a “he” is logically a “he” as well. Especially given the fact that men were the only people of cultural significance in biblical contexts. The Logos as a female figure would not have been an acceptable thing. Of course the logos is a “he”; feel free to believe he was female if you disagree!

Both the Father and the Logos are persons; persons who are “with” each other “in the beginning.”


Doug
 
A person is a “he” if a male figure ( either by physical attributes or as a spiritual attribution such as with God who is spirit.) If we speak of the Father who is spirit as a “he”, the Logos who became flesh as a “he” is logically a “he” as well. Especially given the fact that men were the only people of cultural significance in biblical contexts. The Logos as a female figure would not have been an acceptable thing. Of course the logos is a “he”; feel free to believe he was female if you disagree!

Both the Father and the Logos are persons; persons who are “with” each other “in the beginning.”


Doug
that is a good point about a person being with a person. If the logos were some aspect of God rather than a conscious preexistent One, the passage would just say the words were merely an attribute of God -- such as "the Word was God's wisdom and ideals." The reality is that John 1 uses poetic language and metonymy to express what could not be explained in direct statements about Jesus' preexistence. The language also fits the logos into a correction and clarification to Philo and Greek philosophy to understand Christ's creational role.
 
Last edited:
A person is a “he” if a male figure ( either by physical attributes or as a spiritual attribution such as with God who is spirit.) If we speak of the Father who is spirit as a “he”, the Logos who became flesh as a “he” is logically a “he” as well. Especially given the fact that men were the only people of cultural significance in biblical contexts. The Logos as a female figure would not have been an acceptable thing. Of course the logos is a “he”; feel free to believe he was female if you disagree!
Correct a person is a 'he' if the person is a male figure.
We do speak of the Father as a 'he' because most fathers are male figures.The logos in John 1:1 is not a human being.
To read logos as the Son, or as Jesus in John 1:1 is reading your doctrine into the scripture.
Our English does not have grammatical gender for most nouns as do French, German, and Spanish, but it uses natural gender for people and some animals. Greek and Hebrew also have have mandatory gender systems for nouns.
In English nouns are generally neutral unless referring to specific gender roles. I have known guys to refer to their cars as 'she' but of course, that doesn't make the car a female figure --- LOL. Wisdom is referred to as 'she' but wisdom isn't a female either.
I know of a lot of women in scripture who had great significance!
Both the Father and the Logos are persons; persons who are “with” each other “in the beginning.”

Doug
In scripture, logos, being a gendered noun in the Greek, requires a 'he' as the pronoun but it is NOT a person. Words are in one's thoughts and therefore can be considered 'with' that someone.

Let's see: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, the Father and the word was God. Now do we change the definition of the first God aka Father when we read 'and the word was God' in order to make sure that we don't have the Father becoming flesh as the only Son from the Father? Y'all do have lots of switcheroos when it comes to scripture.

Here are the many definitions for logos - person is not one of them.
1. speech
1. a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea;​
2. what someone has said: a) a word, b) the sayings of God, c) decree, mandate or order, d) of the moral precepts given by God, e) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets, f) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim​
3. discourse; a) the act of speaking, speech; b) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking; c) a kind or style of​
speaking; e) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction.​
4. doctrine, teaching;​
5. anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative;​
6. matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law;​
7. the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed​
2. its use as respect to the MIND alone;
1. reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating; 2. account, i.e. regard, consideration; 3. account, i.e. reckoning, score; 4. account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment; 5. relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation; a) reason would; 6. reason cause ground

 
We do speak of the Father as a 'he' because most fathers are male figures.
All fathers are male figures…and if we speak of the Father, who is spirit, as a male why not the Logos, whom John identifies as the God of Genesis 1:1 (not to mention the Holy Spirit who was there “with him” too!)

Doug
 
In English nouns are generally neutral unless referring to specific gender roles.
All Greek nouns have gender (male, female, neuter), and that is what matters, not the English.
In scripture, logos, being a gendered noun in the Greek, requires a 'he' as the pronoun but it is NOT a person. Words are in one's thoughts and therefore can be considered 'with' that someone.
If he is a personal being, that meaning he is a relational entity, distinct from other beings of the same type (ie the Father and Holy Spirit) then he is a person by definition. If he has a will, he is a person. If he is communicative, then he is a person.

He is not a thing, so he is necessarily a person!


Let's see: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, the Father and the word was God. Now do we change the definition of the first God aka Father when we read 'and the word was God' in order to make sure that we don't have the Father becoming flesh as the only Son from the Father? Y'all do have lots of switcheroos when it comes to scripture.
We have typically come to refer to the Father as God as a general rule and concept; but again God is a type of being defined by specific characteristics. As a starting point, being eternally existent is one of the characteristics that only a being who is God can claim. John says the Logos and the Father are both existent “in the beginning” of the creation process.

The language is clear that the Logos became flesh, so there in no rational way to confuse which person who is ‘God’ is intended, which other scripture declare unequivocally, such as:

Titus 2:11For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,



Or 2Pet 1:1Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·


Doug
 
All fathers are male figures…and if we speak of the Father, who is spirit, as a male why not the Logos, whom John identifies as the God of Genesis 1:1 (not to mention the Holy Spirit who was there “with him” too!)

Doug
The Father aka God is Spirit. Spirit is a neuter noun. God aka the Father is given male pronouns because YES all father figures are male.

The logos in Greek language is given a gender which is masculine. Therefore masculine pronouns are used relative to the masculine noun. John does not identified the logos AS God but the logos is qualitatively God. The logos is being personified as a 'he' if logos was a feminine noun it would be followed by female pronouns 'she' as is wisdom in Proverbs. The Holy Spirit, who is God or the gift of holy spirit believers receive is also being personified. (John 14)
 
Last edited:
All Greek nouns have gender (male, female, neuter), and that is what matters, not the English.

If he is a personal being, that meaning he is a relational entity, distinct from other beings of the same type (ie the Father and Holy Spirit) then he is a person by definition. If he has a will, he is a person. If he is communicative, then he is a person.

He is not a thing, so he is necessarily a person!
Correct.
logos being a masculine noun in Greek REQUIRES that a masculine pronoun be used. Doesn't mean that the logos is a person it is just GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT.
The Father - Father is a masculine noun and of course, a masculine pronoun should be used. When speaking of Yahweh, aka God, aka Almighty God, aka the Most High/God, aka the Father ---- I agree - He is a 'person' - albeit a spiritual being.
I don't know why you keep bringing up 'same type'.......You dropped the ball on that conversation a while back.

The Holy Spirit - holy is singular neuter adjective describing 'spirit' and Spirit is a singular neuter noun so could use either he/she/it and be grammatically correct. The Holy Spirit being described as the Comforter, the Helper has to be given masculine pronouns because they are masculine nouns. We know that God is Holy and God is Spirit therefore God is the Holy Spirit but I would consider John 14 to be speaking of [the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4)] and personifying the gift of holy spirit one receives in the new birth (Acts 2:38) which Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:33).
We have typically come to refer to the Father as God as a general rule and concept; but again God is a type of being defined by specific characteristics. As a starting point, being eternally existent is one of the characteristics that only a being who is God can claim. John says the Logos and the Father are both existent “in the beginning” of the creation process.
I agree Yahweh is known as God and also known as Father. Yes, He does have inherent attributes which make him Yahweh ALONE. 'eternally existent'? I prefer immortal or immortality words that are actually in scripture describing God. Correct, ONLY God can claim inherent immortality. Of course God's word was there in the beginning with Him - He created by speaking, i.e. through His word (logos).
The language is clear that the Logos became flesh, so there in no rational way to confuse which person who is ‘God’ is intended, which other scripture declare unequivocally, such as:

Titus 2:11For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
You guys continue to use ambiguous verses --- meaning they can have different interpretations.
There is a one person view which I am sure is the reason you picked this verse and then there is the two person view.
The one person view calls Jesus 'our great God and Savior' and the two person view that based on context "our great God" refers to the Father, and "our Savior" refers to Jesus, treating the terms as distinct.
Or 2Pet 1:1Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·

Doug
Would Peter after having confessed this of Jesus: Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” come along and change his mind and say that Jesus Christ is God? If so, why didn't he say it in Matthew?

Despite such clear passages in scripture that repeatedly show Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, people still like to run to these unclear passages that are ambiguous in nature. This verse 2 Peter 1:1 could be speaking of one person, Jesus Christ being the God and Savior OR it could refer to two persons, the first being God and our Savior Jesus Christ being the second person.
This is the word for word translation of 2 Peter 1:1, focusing on direct literal mapping from Greek to English, is:
Symeon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ to those equally precious with us having obtained faith in righteousness of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ. (I just asked in Google search bar for the direct word for word translation of 2 Peter 1:1.) In
the KJV 2 Peter 1:1 reads 'the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ.'

2 Peter 1:1 as Titus 2:13 - the understanding lies within the individual's foundational beliefs.
 
Last edited:
If you have the quality of God, are you less than God or equal in quality?

Doug
If someone has the qualities of God then they would demonstrate the qualities of God. When I say 'qualities of God' I mean the essential character of God. Jesus is the only one who has met that standard - he is 'the express image of his person' and an 'image' is NOT the original.
Does exhibiting the qualities of God make someone God or equal to God? No
We should imitate those qualities just as Jesus did - He is after all our example.
 
I agree Yahweh is known as God and also known as Father. Yes, He does have inherent attributes which make him Yahweh ALONE. 'eternally existent'? I prefer immortal or immortality words that are actually in scripture describing God. Correct, ONLY God can claim inherent immortality. Of course God's word was there in the beginning with Him - He created by speaking, i.e. through His word (logos).
Can one be immortal and cease to exist? We are created to be immortal both in the spiritual sense and the physical sense of our being; thus the need for resurrection of the dead! But God is immortal and uncreated, thus is and will be eternally existent.

We are created in his image, and thus will always exist. We will exist in one of two environs , but we will never cease to be. But we are created, and God is not. We have a starting point; God does not! In fact, his name Yahweh, I Am, is founded on the concept of his eternal existence as his foundational principle of difference between him and his creation.

Lexical Summary
Yhvh: LORD, GOD, LORD'S
Original Word: יְהוָֹה
Part of Speech: Proper Name
Transliteration: Yhwh
Pronunciation: yah-veh
Phonetic Spelling: (yah-veh)
KJV: Jehovah, the Lord
NASB: LORD, GOD, LORD'S
Word Origin: [from H1961 (הָיָה - came)]

1. (the) self-Existent or Eternal
2. Jehovah, Jewish national name of God​
 
If someone has the qualities of God then they would demonstrate the qualities of God. When I say 'qualities of God' I mean the essential character of God. Jesus is the only one who has met that standard - he is 'the express image of his person' and an 'image' is NOT the original.
Does exhibiting the qualities of God make someone God or equal to God? No
We should imitate those qualities just as Jesus did - He is after all our example.
The “express image of his person” means there is no difference between the two expressions of what God is!

"The express image of his person" (Hebrews 1:3 KJV) describes Jesus Christ as the exact, flawless representation of God’s nature and essence. It signifies that Jesus is the perfect imprint—like a seal on wax—of God's character. This phrase highlights Jesus as the visible, identical manifestation of the invisible God.
GotQuestions.org1776026515000.webpGotQuestions.org +4
Key Details About the Phrase:
  • "Express Image" (Greek:
    charaktēr):

    Refers to an exact copy, engraving, or precise representation, indicating that Jesus perfectly replicates the nature of God.
    • "His Person" (Greek: hypostasis): Refers to God's substance, being, essence, or reality.
    • Context (Hebrews 1:3): The passage establishes Jesus not just as a prophet, but as the final, complete revelation of God, upholding all things by his power.
 
Can one be immortal and cease to exist? We are created to be immortal both in the spiritual sense and the physical sense of our being; thus the need for resurrection of the dead! But God is immortal and uncreated, thus is and will be eternally existent.
I have not idea where you are going now - you are just all over the place. You say 'eternally existent' - I say 'immortal'.
God is an immortal being and therefore incapable of death.
We are mortal beings. There is a need of resurrection because we are dead in the grave, corruptible. The resurrection is clear in 1 Corinthians 15.

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished..........But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.......So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body............In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. [1 Cor. 15:16-18,20,42-44,52-54 KJV]​
We are created in his image, and thus will always exist. We will exist in one of two environs , but we will never cease to be. But we are created, and God is not. We have a starting point; God does not! In fact, his name Yahweh, I Am, is founded on the concept of his eternal existence as his foundational principle of difference between him and his creation.

Lexical Summary
Yhvh: LORD, GOD, LORD'S

Original Word:
יְהוָֹה
Part of Speech: Proper Name
Transliteration: Yhwh
Pronunciation: yah-veh
Phonetic Spelling: (yah-veh)
KJV: Jehovah, the Lord
NASB: LORD, GOD, LORD'S
Word Origin: [from H1961 (הָיָה - came)]

1. (the) self-Existent or Eternal
2. Jehovah, Jewish national name of God​
I know Yahweh is the self existent one, an eternal immortal being ----- Jesus is NOT self existent.
 
The “express image of his person” means there is no difference between the two expressions of what God is!

"The express image of his person" (Hebrews 1:3 KJV) describes Jesus Christ as the exact, flawless representation of God’s nature and essence. It signifies that Jesus is the perfect imprint—like a seal on wax—of God's character. This phrase highlights Jesus as the visible, identical manifestation of the invisible God.
View attachment 2931View attachment 2931GotQuestions.org +4
Key Details About the Phrase:
  • "Express Image" (Greek:
    charaktēr):

    Refers to an exact copy, engraving, or precise representation, indicating that Jesus perfectly replicates the nature of God.
    • "His Person" (Greek: hypostasis): Refers to God's substance, being, essence, or reality.
    • Context (Hebrews 1:3): The passage establishes Jesus not just as a prophet, but as the final, complete revelation of God, upholding all things by his power.
I agree that Jesus is the express image of God - an exact representation of God that's how and why he could say: Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. Did that mean he was the Father aka the only true God? NO!
Who being the brightness of his glory - apaugasma - reflected brightness; of Christ in that he perfectly reflects the Majesty of God.
and the express image - charakter - 1. the instrument used for engraving or carving; 2. the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression; b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e. facsimile........​
Yes, an exact copy. A copy is not the original. Jesus reflected the glory of God his Father and he perfectly represented him in every respect ----- but he was not God.
 
Correct.
logos being a masculine noun in Greek REQUIRES that a masculine pronoun be used. Doesn't mean that the logos is a person it is just GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT.
The Father - Father is a masculine noun and of course, a masculine pronoun should be used. When speaking of Yahweh, aka God, aka Almighty God, aka the Most High/God, aka the Father ---- I agree - He is a 'person' - albeit a spiritual being.
I don't know why you keep bringing up 'same type'.......You dropped the ball on that conversation a while back.

The Holy Spirit - holy is singular neuter adjective describing 'spirit' and Spirit is a singular neuter noun so could use either he/she/it and be grammatically correct. The Holy Spirit being described as the Comforter, the Helper has to be given masculine pronouns because they are masculine nouns. We know that God is Holy and God is Spirit therefore God is the Holy Spirit but I would consider John 14 to be speaking of [the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4)] and personifying the gift of holy spirit one receives in the new birth (Acts 2:38) which Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:33).

I agree Yahweh is known as God and also known as Father. Yes, He does have inherent attributes which make him Yahweh ALONE. 'eternally existent'? I prefer immortal or immortality words that are actually in scripture describing God. Correct, ONLY God can claim inherent immortality. Of course God's word was there in the beginning with Him - He created by speaking, i.e. through His word (logos).

You guys continue to use ambiguous verses --- meaning they can have different interpretations.
There is a one person view which I am sure is the reason you picked this verse and then there is the two person view.
The one person view calls Jesus 'our great God and Savior' and the two person view that based on context "our great God" refers to the Father, and "our Savior" refers to Jesus, treating the terms as distinct.

Would Peter after having confessed this of Jesus: Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” come along and change his mind and say that Jesus Christ is God? If so, why didn't he say it in Matthew?

Despite such clear passages in scripture that repeatedly show Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, people still like to run to these unclear passages that are ambiguous in nature. This verse 2 Peter 1:1 could be speaking of one person, Jesus Christ being the God and Savior OR it could refer to two persons, the first being God and our Savior Jesus Christ being the second person.
This is the word for word translation of 2 Peter 1:1, focusing on direct literal mapping from Greek to English, is:
Symeon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ to those equally precious with us having obtained faith in righteousness of the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ. (I just asked in Google search bar for the direct word for word translation of 2 Peter 1:1.) In
the KJV 2 Peter 1:1 reads 'the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ.'

2 Peter 1:1 as Titus 2:13 - the understanding lies within the individual's foundational beliefs.
The syntax of the Greek will not allow for two separate individuals being described, and I don’t think Google is a recognized Greek scholar. I am quite capable of reading it for myself.

Perhaps you might diagram the sentence in Greek syntax if you would like to repudiate my assertions.

My understanding is that the singular use of the genitive pronoun unites the objects of its possession into a singular possession. Thus, God and Savior are unified into a singular modifier of the singular focus of possession, namely Jesus Christ. The “righteousness” is the quality Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is both God and Savior. It is not proper to duplicate the pronoun, as some are wont to do, and translate it as “our God and our savior” to indicate a possible separation of intent.

Now if someone said of our God and Father and our Savior, Jesus Christ that would necessarily mean two individuals, but the construction of 2Peter 1:1 does not allow this possibility.

Titus 2:13while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

You will note that the argument you proffered will not work here, nor does your “ambiguous verses” assertion hold any water. There is nothing ambiguous, especially in Titus 2:13-14. The only possible object of the glory of our great God and Savior is the one whose return we are awaiting, which is our blessed hope. Only the one returning is in focus here, and that is Christ.

Moreover, Thomas’ declaration in John 20:28 cannot be twisted to deny the Jesus is called both Lord and God. The deity of Christ is the foundation of Christian faith; that the God who made us, became that which he created in order to die for our redemption.


Doug
 
The syntax of the Greek will not allow for two separate individuals being described, and I don’t think Google is a recognized Greek scholar. I am quite capable of reading it for myself.
AI has been pretty reliable when checked against other sources. I also am quite capable of reading the text for myself. I read two separate distinct people in each verse - I do not collapse them together as one.
Perhaps you might diagram the sentence in Greek syntax if you would like to repudiate my assertions.

My understanding is that the singular use of the genitive pronoun unites the objects of its possession into a singular possession. Thus, God and Savior are unified into a singular modifier of the singular focus of possession, namely Jesus Christ. The “righteousness” is the quality Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is both God and Savior. It is not proper to duplicate the pronoun, as some are wont to do, and translate it as “our God and our savior” to indicate a possible separation of intent

Now if someone said of our God and Father and our Savior, Jesus Christ that would necessarily mean two individuals, but the construction of 2Peter 1:1 does not allow this possibility.

Titus 2:13while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

You will note that the argument you proffered will not work here, nor does your “ambiguous verses” assertion hold any water. There is nothing ambiguous, especially in Titus 2:13-14. The only possible object of the glory of our great God and Savior is the one whose return we are awaiting, which is our blessed hope. Only the one returning is in focus here, and that is Christ.

Moreover, Thomas’ declaration in John 20:28 cannot be twisted to deny the Jesus is called both Lord and God. The deity of Christ is the foundation of Christian faith; that the God who made us, became that which he created in order to die for our redemption.


Doug
A text that is ambiguous is a text that can be interpreted more than one way. I shouldn't have to diagram the sentence in Greek - I showed you, gave you an example where the different translations of the same verse there is a one person view and then there is the two person view but here I will show them again. The one person view calls Jesus 'our great God and Savior' and the two person view that based on context "our great God" refers to the Father, and "our Savior" refers to Jesus, treating the terms as distinct.

KJV2 Titus 2:13 looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, clearly denotes two separate people; the two person view.
AMP Titus 2:13 awaiting and confidently expecting the [fulfillment of our] blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, seems collapse the two into one; the one person view
KJV Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ clearly denotes two separate people; two person view
NASB
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, seems to collapse the two into one; one person view

ESV 2 Peter 1:1b
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: one person view
KJV2 2 Peter 1:1b
To those who have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ: two person view

When I read any of them, the text appears to be speaking of God and of Christ - each distinguished from the other.
 
I have not idea where you are going now - you are just all over the place. You say 'eternally existent' - I say 'immortal'.
God is an immortal being and therefore incapable of death.
We are mortal beings. There is a need of resurrection because we are dead in the grave, corruptible. The resurrection is clear in 1 Corinthians 15.

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished..........But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.......So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body............In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. [1 Cor. 15:16-18,20,42-44,52-54 KJV]​

I know Yahweh is the self existent one, an eternal immortal being ----- Jesus is NOT self existent.
The Logos, the pre-incarnate Jesus, is self-existent! He was already existing at the point of the beginning, the beginning of creation. He necessarily predates creation in order to be the creator. The period prior to creation is eternity past, a period when only God existed. Thus, if the Logos is the creator of Genesis 1 and John 1, then he necessarily existed prior to creation began, which means he existed at a point in which only God could exist. Therefore, he is eternally existent, and necessarily God in nature.


Doug
 
The Logos, the pre-incarnate Jesus, is self-existent! He was already existing at the point of the beginning, the beginning of creation. He necessarily predates creation in order to be the creator. The period prior to creation is eternity past, a period when only God existed. Thus, if the Logos is the creator of Genesis 1 and John 1, then he necessarily existed prior to creation began, which means he existed at a point in which only God could exist. Therefore, he is eternally existent, and necessarily God in nature.


Doug
Was Jesus born?
 
Father aka the only true God? NO!
Who being the brightness of his glory - apaugasma - reflected brightness; of Christ in that he perfectly reflects the Majesty of God.
Not reflected, but displayed. Not refracted, but demonstrated.

ἀπαύγασμα

1. Equality with the Father: The Son does not merely reflect divine glory; He manifests it. Thus the passage safeguards both the unity and distinction within the Godhead.
2. Revelation: Just as sunlight reveals the sun, the incarnate Christ reveals the Father (John 14:9). Hebrews therefore anchors all subsequent revelation, priesthood, and covenant superiority in this radiant identity.
3. Incarnation: The effulgence language maintains that in becoming man the Son did not cease to be the outshining of deity; rather, He localized that glory in redeeming humility (John 1:14).


Your definition is Thayer’s definition, which reflects his prejudiced denial of Christ’s divinity. Christ is not a mirror, he is the bearer of the radiance of God the Father’s glory. It is inherent to him.

I can remember as a kid, people at church camps we would attend would stop me and say “you’re a Jenkins aren’t you?” I, of course, would answer, ‘yes’, to which they would reply, “I could tell by looking at you!” I inherited my father’s genes, and his father’s and his father’s! I have Jenkins, genes.

The “genes” metaphorically speaking, of God are the genes that Jesus possesses. They are of the same family, the same species, the same intrinsic stuff. The radiance of God’s glory is expression of his nature. It comes from the inside, not from the outside- reflected off him, but not of him! You cannot be a follower of the true Christ and deny this. You are following a different christ!

The Father is the only true God, and the Father’s Son necessarily is too! It can be no other way, scripturally or/and logically.

Doug
 
Not reflected, but displayed. Not refracted, but demonstrated.

ἀπαύγασμα

1. Equality with the Father: The Son does not merely reflect divine glory; He manifests it. Thus the passage safeguards both the unity and distinction within the Godhead.
2. Revelation: Just as sunlight reveals the sun, the incarnate Christ reveals the Father (John 14:9). Hebrews therefore anchors all subsequent revelation, priesthood, and covenant superiority in this radiant identity.
3. Incarnation: The effulgence language maintains that in becoming man the Son did not cease to be the outshining of deity; rather, He localized that glory in redeeming humility (John 1:14).
I agree that the Son makes known the Father 'No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (made him known)[John 1:18]
And he did it so well that he could say 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.' and it's exactly what Hebrews 1:3 says ......
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, ....... He is the brightness of God's glory - He reflects God's glory and he is the exact representation of God his Father.
Your definition is Thayer’s definition, which reflects his prejudiced denial of Christ’s divinity. Christ is not a mirror, he is the bearer of the radiance of God the Father’s glory. It is inherent to him.
Nope, Strong's G541 - listed under the Outline of Biblical Usage.
And: ἀπαύγασμα, -τος, τό, (from ἀπαυγάζω to emit brightness, and this from αὐγή brightness; cf. ἀποσκίασμα, ἀπείκασμα, ἀπεικονισμα, ἀπήχημα), reflected brightness: Christ is called in Hebrews 1:3 ἀπαύγ. τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, inasmuch as he perfectly reflects the majesty of God; so that the same thing is declared here of Christ metaphysically, which he says of himself in an ethical sense in John 14:9
I can remember as a kid, people at church camps we would attend would stop me and say “you’re a Jenkins aren’t you?” I, of course, would answer, ‘yes’, to which they would reply, “I could tell by looking at you!” I inherited my father’s genes, and his father’s and his father’s! I have Jenkins, genes.

The “genes” metaphorically speaking, of God are the genes that Jesus possesses. They are of the same family, the same species, the same intrinsic stuff. The radiance of God’s glory is expression of his nature. It comes from the inside, not from the outside- reflected off him, but not of him! You cannot be a follower of the true Christ and deny this. You are following a different christ!
Yes. Like Father, Like Son. God metaphorically has 'genes'? They are not of the same family, the same species at all - God is Spirit and Jesus is a human being. Jesus was not conceived in the normal biological fashion, therefore he does not have 'genes', DNA, nor anyother 'substance' from God. Jesus was conceived by the power of the Most High, i.e. creative power.

I can be a follower of the true Christ and deny all that you have said. Jesus is not Yahweh, aka the Most High God, aka the Father because he is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
Who did Peter declare Jesus to be? Who did Paul declare Jesus to be?
Now can you truthfully say that I am following a different Christ than the one the apostles proclaimed?
The Father is the only true God, and the Father’s Son necessarily is too! It can be no other way, scripturally or/and logically.

Doug
You are following another Jesus than the one the apostles proclaimed.
God is Jesus' Father. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus said his Father was the only true God.
They are not ONE and the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom