The Trinity study ,plural references to God in the Old Testament:Plural nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs

[Capbook]

God did create all things through HIS word - His creative speech : Repeatedly 'And God said'.
Then God had a conversation - with himself or with the other spiritual beings there with him?

This interpretation is in contradiction even to the words of the Father Himself. (Heb 1:2,10)
And make Jesus wrong when He said John 5:37.
And revised John 1:1c, as "the Word was the God," to imply it was the Father's logos/speech in the creation week.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Heb 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

Heb 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

 

[Capbook]

Not those qualities, as Jesus doesn't even have those.

The Word had those qualities, as He was God. His being "God" is a personal being as also the Father is.
If you believe that God created all things through the Word, as the Word became flesh in the New Testament, I believe He is the speech/logos in the creation week, who also utter the "let Us make man in Our image."

The qualities that things like the Word can have of God are righteousness, holiness, things like that. Big giveaway that the Word is not actually God because it's not the same God it's with.

As the Word was God, He is actually God, and being in the nature of God, as divine and uncreated.
The "Word" is defined as speech, noun masculine, Scripture used third person masculine singular pronoun.

John 1:1 R1In the beginningG746 was R2the WordG3056, and the WordG3056 was R3with GodG2316, and R4the WordG3056 was GodG2316.

G3056
λόγος logos
Thayer Definition:
1) of speech
1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
1b) what someone has said
Part of Speech: noun masculine

Then we still have 1 John 1:1-3 calling the Word a thing, the Word never being God before or after John 1:1, etc. Yeah it's pretty definitive that the trinity is bunk theology.

Nothing in 1John 1:1-3 describe the Word as a thing. The Word was uncreated before and after John 1:1.

John 20:27 Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."

1Jn 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—
1Jn 1:2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
1Jn 1:3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[amazing grace]

Who else other than God has the "nature of God" (as RM claims) that is eternal and uncreated?

I guess it depends upon your definition of nature.

Jesus had the 'character', 'the characteristics' of his Father. Jesus wasn't eternal - he was a mortal being. He was not a demigod.
Jesus was created by the power of the Most High in the womb of Mary.

 

[synergy]

I guess it depends upon your definition of nature.

Jesus had the 'character', 'the characteristics' of his Father. Jesus wasn't eternal - he was a mortal being. He was not a demigod.
Jesus was created by the power of the Most High in the womb of Mary.

So you define "the nature of God" as not uncreated and not eternal. That clearly describes the nature of whom you worship. Got it.

 

[synergy]

Which prologue?

The term “Prologue” is singular, so when someone simply says “John’s Prologue,” it naturally and automatically points to the well-known introductory section of John’s major work, the Gospel of John—specifically John 1:1–18. Because “prologue” in this usage functions as a proper literary label rather than a generic description, it refers to that single, recognized opening. If a person intended to reference another Johannine writing, they would need to qualify it, such as “the prologue of 1 John".

So when will you finally acknowledge the fact that the Word, who was God (John 1:1c), tabernacled as Jesus (John 1:14), proving that Jesus is God?

The prologue in 1John 1:1-3 describes the Word like a thing.

Again, you continue to display your willful ignorance of Greek. John makes use of Greek-styled neuter pronouns in 1 John 1 to refer to an abstracted or collective reality, as he did in John 3:6: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” We can all agree that a thing is not born of Spirit, people are. Right?

 

[FreeInChrist]

I know nothing about Norse, Roman, or Greek gods.

I know that the Greeks thought gods (sound familiar!) came to earth and the only way I know that is from the record in Acts where the Gentiles thought Paul and Barnabas were gods, i.e. Zeus and Hermes.

Although I have seen Disney movies that depicted Zeus and I think Thor.........

You were not taught about mythology in 6th grade social studies? Or even by your first year in highschool? Well, alrighty then.

 

[amazing grace]

so the whole of creation came into existence only notionally through Jesus? I guess that means we only notionally exist rather than being breathing and living bodies.

That is not what I said nor what I meant as you well know.

You take a less explicit verse, 1 Peter 1:20, about his deity to deny the more explicit details of his pre-existence with God before being incarnate. Maybe John should have written a version so unitarians would understand scripture.

1 Peter 1:20 says nothing about Jesus being deity.
I understand the Gospel of John without having to have a different version.
John tells us explicitly the purpose of his gospel.

Great. Diminish everything Jesus said of himself so it is nonsensical. I think you missed the parable of God sending servants who were not come down from God but sent God's message to the Jews. That distinguishes Jesus, God's Son, who is sent from God. You just make the contrast totally insignificant.

moi?? diminish everything that Jesus said about God being his Father, God sending him, him coming from above......nope that's not me at all ---- I have not placed Jesus in the position of being the Almighty Adonai Yahweh which diminishes what Jesus did and also demotes Almighty Adonai Yahweh to that of a human being.

Yes, I have read the parable of the parable of the tenants. God sent the prophets which were killed and rejected and then sent his own Son and they also rejected him...... John was a man sent from God ---- if that makes Jesus 'God' then is John also 'God'? Of course not --- John was sent from God because God caused Zechariah and Elizabeth to be fertile.

Jesus did not exist as Jesus before he had a physical body. That is why John 1:1-18 says the pre-existent One was with God and was God before becoming incarnate as Jesus. Such basic points get so readily missed by hyperliteralist unitarians.

Jesus did not exist as God either. John 1 doesn't say the 'preexistent One was with God' it says the word was with God and the word was God in a qualitative manner. Call it hyperliteralist all you want but God says what he means and means what he says.

Jesus was not Clark Kent/Superman. Jesus did not pretend to not be able to do anything then run into whatever was available and come out as Superman to walk on water, to raise the dead, to heal the sick......
No, Jesus was a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—

 

[amazing grace]

So you define "the nature of God" as not uncreated and not eternal.

I guess it depends upon your definition of nature.

Why not just give me your definition of nature?

That clearly describes the nature of whom you worship. Got it.

That is not what I meant and YOU know it.
I worship God not a nature and I have not changed the glory of the immortal God.......

Jesus had the 'character', 'the characteristics' of his Father. Jesus wasn't eternal - he was a mortal being. He was not a demigod.
Jesus was created by the power of the Most High in the womb of Mary.

 

[amazing grace]

You were not taught about mythology in 6th grade social studies? Or even by your first year in highschool? Well, alrighty then.

If I was I don't recall -- my memory isn't what it used to be! And besides, what use do I have for Greek mythology in my everyday life so it isn't top on my list of priorities.

 

[FreeInChrist]

The question is not DID Jesus preexist - it is HOW he preexisted - literally or notionally.

Thank you for responding Runningman........
Under what name? I told you the man called Jesus came about 4000 plus years after creation and several hundred billion years if you can think back that far... but the WORD who became flesh was there.... Or John, the disciple that Jesus loved... although you wont accept this either, lied, and should have his gospel removed from the bible, started out with Him. and verse 14 says he is the one who became flesh.

Jesus wasn't 'slain from the foundation of the world' [Rev. 13:8] but it was 'according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God'. [Acts 2:23]----It's the language of scripture to say something existed before it actually existed ----- God's plans, God's promises in the Old Testament were so sure to take place that they existed before the world existed, before the foundation of the world, etc.
He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you [1 Peter 1:20]

How? How was he made manifest? Was the Father at His heavenly chemistry set or was it that it was by the Holy Spirit who got the Word into Mary to make her birth a baby with flesh?

You can come down from heaven if you come from God, God sent you, etc. and this was done by way of a miraculous conception and birth.

What the ......code red weirdness situation... are you talking about.

First.... we have John 17:5 telling us that the man Jesus saying "“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

HOW.... HOW could He say this if He sis not come down from heaven but only was a twinkle in Gods foreknowledge eye when the Holy Spirit came to earth to do what ever he did to Mary to make a baby.

He was not in heaven this is another lie of Johns

Why did he say He was? And another lie of Johns

And if the Word, who you never acknoledge as being Jesus (another lie of Johns) was not in the origin of the earth
who was with the Spirit and God in Genesis 1.... and do not dare say angels for I could bet if there were it was Lucifer and his groupies. But you know what.... That well could be that God said let us.... to Lucifer and company because with the upside down of people today Boys are girls, girls are boys, and mommy taping down their babies penises... that well could be.

Philippians 2 - Paul is teaching about humility - we are to have the same attitude as Christ who denied himself of his status of privilege and took on the attitude of a servant in service and obedience.

You cannot exist before you come into existence.

Again you deny the Word. Want a razor knife to sever those pages from your book?

The word was God in a qualitative sense, all the qualities of God, his righteousness, his faithfulness, his justice, his kindness, his gentleness, etc. became flesh and dwelt among us......as the only Son from the Father full of grace and truth.

Nope, not the same person ---- God's agent, the one sent by God carries all the authority of God including the authority to speak as God himself. Hebrews says that God spoke in these last days by his Son......... that excludes the OT.

This : Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel. ..... is a foreshadowing and type of Christ ----- 1 Cor. 10 is Christ fulfilling the living water.......'For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.' ..... the Rock that followed or came after them was Christ.

personification of 'word' with a masculine pronoun - All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made....... all things were made through the word - And God said, And God said, And God said, etc.
Colossians 1:16 tells what things were created and it wasn't the things created in the beginning.......

By the word of the LORD (Yahweh) the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. [Psalm 33:6]
Thus says the LORD (Yahweh), your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD (Yahweh), who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, [Isaiah 44:24]

Gen. 3:15 The offspring of the woman did not pre-exist except in God's plan and foreknowlege - prophecy.
Deut. 18 The prophet God was going to raise up like Moses did not pre-exist except in God's plan and foreknowledge - prophecy.
2 Samuel 7 The descendant of David to come from David's own body did not preexist except in God's plan and foreknowledge - prophecy.

Jesus did not become the Son of God until Luke 1:35 “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore (for this reason, because of this) the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

I have one final word for you and now I remember why I used it before..... IGNORE

I remember you telling me about her!

 

[FreeInChrist]

we have the testimony of what Jesus said and John shared. But that is not enough for unitarians.
We show probable examples of the Angel of the Lord that is probably the One who became incarnate and known as Jesus. But that is not enough for unitarians.
There simply is not enough evidence of who Jesus is such that a unitarian would be satisfied with his pre-existence.

Maybe they have redacted offending verses from their own bibles so as to not have anything that might convince them. I have never known such people that read something and cannot understand, even when it is explained.

Guess I am just too old to understand

 

[mikesw]

That is not what I said nor what I meant as you well know.

You are lucky I gave some basis for making sense of what you said.

1 Peter 1:20 says nothing about Jesus being deity.
I understand the Gospel of John without having to have a different version.
John tells us explicitly the purpose of his gospel.

You do try hard to give a purpose of his gospel despite veering away from the meaning behind John 1.

moi?? diminish everything that Jesus said about God being his Father, God sending him, him coming from above......nope that's not me at all ---- I have not placed Jesus in the position of being the Almighty Adonai Yahweh which diminishes what Jesus did and also demotes Almighty Adonai Yahweh to that of a human being.

Wow. You consider the pre-existence One underlying Jesus' existence as diminishing his glory? You diminish God's love of sending the Word in the likeness of human flesh as diminishing God and his Son? I cannot go for that. You do try to say your interpretation fits the words but in reality you force the words into your interpretation.

Yes, I have read the parable of the parable of the tenants. God sent the prophets which were killed and rejected and then sent his own Son and they also rejected him...... John was a man sent from God ---- if that makes Jesus 'God' then is John also 'God'? Of course not --- John was sent from God because God caused Zechariah and Elizabeth to be fertile.

You get worse arguments as time goes on -- apparently out of desperation. Indeed John 1:6 says John was sent by God. However, Jesus came from heaven, e.g. John 6:38 and 50-51. Then John 3:17 says Jesus was sent into the world. That is distinct from John the Baptist who appears more as an ambassador who is sent. The equating of the two is stretched and superfluous.

Jesus did not exist as God either. John 1 doesn't say the 'preexistent One was with God' it says the word was with God and the word was God in a qualitative manner. Call it hyperliteralist all you want but God says what he means and means what he says.

John 1 loses all sensibility if you miss that conscious participation of the Word in creation. You miss the bridge John creates from the culture of first-century Judaism and the Greek philosophy. Otherwise, when missing that context, John 1 has no cultural significance nor basis for recognizing why he speaks of the logos

Jesus was not Clark Kent/Superman. Jesus did not pretend to not be able to do anything then run into whatever was available and come out as Superman to walk on water, to raise the dead, to heal the sick......

You assume a metaphysical sense of deity that has never been supported. You make it out that the John is no longer talking about the Word but is talking about the whole existence of God merely taking on the shell of a man. You essentially are arguing against modalism not against the essence of the Triune God with Jesus' incarnation. Such arguments never held water.

No, Jesus was a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—

There is no rejection by Christians that Jesus was human. It is perfectly acceptable to mention his humanity. However, scripture shows his pre-existence as the one given the designation as Logos. You have to now say the Word no longer preexisted. Too many forbidden points of John's testimony arise in your interpretation. Plus, you are unable to come out with a cohesive, convincing argument to your theory. It then remains a novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation that you try to foist on others. What is the end desire of pushing that private interpretation when it is not even convincing?

 

[amazing grace]

Thank you for responding Runningman........

I know, I know! I jumped in and responded to a post addressed to RM.
I just had to --- we have a different style of response - I like detail, i.e. responding to every nuance whereas he likes to respond with a few lines.....but I'm sure he didn't mind.

Under what name? I told you the man called Jesus came about 4000 plus years after creation and several hundred billion years if you can think back that far... but the WORD who became flesh was there.... Or John, the disciple that Jesus loved... although you wont accept this either, lied, and should have his gospel removed from the bible, started out with Him. and verse 14 says he is the one who became flesh.

I just disagree with a physical preexistence of 'the second person of the Trinity'. It seems plausible that the misunderstanding is in the grammar used at John 1:1c -- some take it literally 'God was the Word' and 'God became flesh'......yet grammatically, in this verse, the Greek 'god' is used as an adjective, in a qualitative sense.

Oh, I don't believe that John lied AT ALL nor that his gospel should be removed from the Bible.
Yes, the word became flesh. I guess what it boils down to is 'How was the 'Word' God?' 'Was the Word literally God or was the Word qualitative of God, i.e. God's self expression, God's qualities'? Do we allow the grammar to lead us in our understanding?

And if the author of John meant that Jesus was God in his Gospel, why not just say it? Why? Why is it HID? Why is it just HINTED at?

Is that being hyperliteralist? I don't care - I know that God would not have inspired the author of John to contradict or not be in harmony with the synoptic Gospels. How do I know John didn't mean Jesus was God, or the second person of the Trinity? Mainly, because of his purpose statement. John 20:31 ...... Also, if you are God you do not call your Father the ONLY TRUE God. Something doesn't fit, doesn't harmonize.

How? How was he made manifest? Was the Father at His heavenly chemistry set or was it that it was by the Holy Spirit who got the Word into Mary to make her birth a baby with flesh?

HOW? NOT - the holy spirit got the word into Mary to make her birth a baby with flesh? I hope you were kidding.

Mary was told 'you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High and the LORD God will give to him the throne of his father, David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there will be end.' (2 Samuel 7:12-14a) Mary was chosen because she was a descendant of David and God did promise David a descendant who reign on his throne forever. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High - 'therefore, (because of this, for this reason) the child to be born will be called holy----the Son of God' and Mary gave birth to her Son.

What the ......code red weirdness situation... are you talking about.

<snip>
John 6:38 “I came down from heaven.”
You cannot “come down” from somewhere you never were. <snip>

What I said in response to the above was not weird or at least I didn't consider it weird - Let me see if I can word it differently:
You can be considered to 'come down from heaven' IF it is said you come from God, God sent you, etc. and this is how Jesus came down from heaven, he came from God (John 3:2; 8:42; 16:27,30), his Father sent him (John 5:36,37; 6:57; 8:16,18; 8:42; 12:49; 14:24; 17:21,25 and 20:21) and HOW did God send him --- through conception and birth.

First.... we have John 17:5 telling us that the man Jesus saying "“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

HOW.... HOW could He say this if He sis not come down from heaven but only was a twinkle in Gods foreknowledge eye when the Holy Spirit came to earth to do what ever he did to Mary to make a baby.

He was not in heaven this is another lie of Johns

Why did he say He was? And another lie of Johns

How did Jesus ask the Father to glorify him with the glory he had before the world existed? In the same manner as scripture says he was the 'lamb slain before the foundation of the world' --- just as Peter can say 'he was foreknown before the foundation of the world' and that he was crucified according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God'......Jesus would die and be raised in a glorified spiritual body.

See all the verses listed above which are synonymous with 'came down from heaven'. Manna came down from heaven --- God sent it ----- Jesus, the true bread, 'came down from heaven' - God sent him and scripture tells us how.

By disagreeing with the Trinitarian view - that of the Word literally being God and the Word, i.e. God becoming flesh, entering a fleshly body does not in turn mean that John lied.......I believe what John is saying -- just not in the manner you believe what John is saying.

And if the Word, who you never acknoledge as being Jesus (another lie of Johns) was not in the origin of the earth
who was with the Spirit and God in Genesis 1.... and do not dare say angels for I could bet if there were it was Lucifer and his groupies. But you know what.... That well could be that God said let us.... to Lucifer and company because with the upside down of people today Boys are girls, girls are boys, and mommy taping down their babies penises... that well could be.

I have acknowledged that the word became flesh as the only Son from the Father.......many, many times!
I don't acknowledge that God became flesh - God is not a man - better watch how you change the glory of the immortal God.
I can't harmonize Jesus creating with the scriptures that say God created - God alone created - God created by himself, etc.
I said nothing about God speaking to Lucifer and his company - IMHO, Lucifer had already fallen and presented in the Garden as the 'snake'.

I really can't understand your anger at me. I have a different view than you and as adults we should be able to discuss our differences but in this instance you have become vulgar.

Again you deny the Word. Want a razor knife to sever those pages from your book?

I have one final word for you and now I remember why I used it before..... IGNORE

Again, I have not denied the word and do not wish to sever any pages from my book nor do I want to add something that's not intended to my book.

I'm sorry that you feel such disgust for me that you have to put me on ignore.

 

[mikesw]

I know, I know! I jumped in and responded to a post addressed to RM.
I just had to --- we have a different style of response - I like detail, i.e. responding to every nuance whereas he likes to respond with a few lines.....but I'm sure he didn't mind.

I just disagree with a physical preexistence of 'the second person of the Trinity'. It seems plausible that the misunderstanding is in the grammar used at John 1:1c -- some take it literally 'God was the Word' and 'God became flesh'......yet grammatically, in this verse, the Greek 'god' is used as an adjective, in a qualitative sense.

No one that I have seen here has suggested a physical preexistence of the Word. Nor do people say God in totality became flesh, as if modalism and of God taking on a humanness as a shell. If the situation were exactly that, then the text would share this directly in the way you convey it.
We also know that theos is not able to be used as an adjective in the fashion you hoped it could be. For this to just happen in the verse that shows the preexistent Word, is desperation. Nor does the idea make sense.
Edited in: There also would be easier way to just say godly words were reflected in Jesus -- if that is what you are saying here. Even if John were purely sharing the godly words in Jesus' ministry usinga poetic sense, it would just lead to the confusion that you are reflecting

Oh, I don't believe that John lied AT ALL nor that his gospel should be removed from the Bible.
Yes, the word became flesh. I guess what it boils down to is 'How was the 'Word' God?' 'Was the Word literally God or was the Word qualitative of God, i.e. God's self expression, God's qualities'? Do we allow the grammar to lead us in our understanding?

haha. You stop the grammar from giving understanding. Since there is no figurative sense here, the direct sense is boiled down to being literally God. However, the clarifying way to see the phrase based on Daniel Wallace is -- What God was, the Word was. That is not adjectival. So hopefully you will let the grammar be a guide.

And if the author of John meant that Jesus was God in his Gospel, why not just say it? Why? Why is it HID? Why is it just HINTED at?

Is that being hyperliteralist? I don't care - I know that God would not have inspired the author of John to contradict or not be in harmony with the synoptic Gospels. How do I know John didn't mean Jesus was God, or the second person of the Trinity? Mainly, because of his purpose statement. John 20:31 ...... Also, if you are God you do not call your Father the ONLY TRUE God. Something doesn't fit, doesn't harmonize.

You speak against contradiction but you reject John 1:1-18 to avoid contradiction, as you see it. Ironically you also reject the literal sense of Jesus as the Son of God. You leave him only viewed as man.

HOW? NOT - the holy spirit got the word into Mary to make her birth a baby with flesh? I hope you were kidding.

Mary was told 'you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High and the LORD God will give to him the throne of his father, David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there will be end.' (2 Samuel 7:12-14a) Mary was chosen because she was a descendant of David and God did promise David a descendant who reign on his throne forever. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High - 'therefore, (because of this, for this reason) the child to be born will be called holy----the Son of God' and Mary gave birth to her Son.


What I said in response to the above was not weird or at least I didn't consider it weird - Let me see if I can word it differently:
You can be considered to 'come down from heaven' IF it is said you come from God, God sent you, etc. and this is how Jesus came down from heaven, he came from God (John 3:2; 8:42; 16:27,30), his Father sent him (John 5:36,37; 6:57; 8:16,18; 8:42; 12:49; 14:24; 17:21,25 and 20:21) and HOW did God send him --- through conception and birth.

uh. Maybe a paraphrased line from a silly movie would help "I was in London and now am here. So, I am from London." Jesus cannot come down from somewhere where he never was.

How did Jesus ask the Father to glorify him with the glory he had before the world existed?

Exactly! This hardly can deny that his glory is in being the preexistence as the Word who became flesh as Jesus.

In the same manner as scripture says he was the 'lamb slain before the foundation of the world' --- just as Peter can say 'he was foreknown before the foundation of the world' and that he was crucified according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God'......Jesus would die and be raised in a glorified spiritual body.

Your "logic" simply undoes the glory Jesus speaks of before the world existed.

See all the verses listed above which are synonymous with 'came down from heaven'. Manna came down from heaven --- God sent it ----- Jesus, the true bread, 'came down from heaven' - God sent him and scripture tells us how.

Totally missed any logic presumed to be shared by your earlier arguments.

By disagreeing with the Trinitarian view - that of the Word literally being God and the Word, i.e. God becoming flesh, entering a fleshly body does not in turn mean that John lied.......I believe what John is saying -- just not in the manner you believe what John is saying.

Now you blame your confusion on John.

I have acknowledged that the word became flesh as the only Son from the Father.......many, many times!
I don't acknowledge that God became flesh - God is not a man - better watch how you change the glory of the immortal God.

Uh. I see your confusion. It may be a limitation of the Trinitarian understanding at times. But really! No one says God turns solely into a man. I would disagree with that too. You are rejecting a straw man here.

I can't harmonize Jesus creating with the scriptures that say God created - God alone created - God created by himself, etc.
I said nothing about God speaking to Lucifer and his company - IMHO, Lucifer had already fallen and presented in the Garden as the 'snake'.

You miss that a plural sense appears in Genesis 1. If you can, accept that as a preview of that which would be clearer in the New Testament.

I really can't understand your anger at me. I have a different view than you and as adults we should be able to discuss our differences but in this instance you have become vulgar.

The problem is you are pushing novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation on people. Unless your view could be supported by sufficient, convincing argument, you are just presenting speculation.

Again, I have not denied the word and do not wish to sever any pages from my book nor do I want to add something that's not intended to my book.

I'm sorry that you feel such disgust for me that you have to put me on ignore.

 

[amazing grace]

You are lucky I gave some basis for making sense of what you said.

Thanks, I guess.

You do try hard to give a purpose of his gospel despite veering away from the meaning behind John 1.

John 1 is not a capsule verse for the entire Gospel of John nor is his purpose statement BUT his purpose statement is a summary statement of what was written - 'these are written so that' = purpose.

Wow. You consider the pre-existence One underlying Jesus' existence as diminishing his glory? You diminish God's love of sending the Word in the likeness of human flesh as diminishing God and his Son? I cannot go for that. You do try to say your interpretation fits the words but in reality you force the words into your interpretation.

You can't go for what? That I understand John 3:16 to be saying that God loved so much that he gave his only begotten Son sot that those who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life to mean just that God gave HIS Son and that I understand that God gave that Son, God sent that Son, that Son came from the Father via conception and birth, born of a human being and therefore a human being not a demigod (half man/half god) but a man, a second Adam, our brother.
That to me is SOLID scripture - not AMBIGUOUS at all.

Thanks but it's not me that forces the words into my understanding.

You get worse arguments as time goes on -- apparently out of desperation. Indeed John 1:6 says John was sent by God. However, Jesus came from heaven, e.g. John 6:38 and 50-51. Then John 3:17 says Jesus was sent into the world. That is distinct from John the Baptist who appears more as an ambassador who is sent. The equating of the two is stretched and superfluous.

I agree Jesus 'came down from heaven', i.e. came from God (John 3:2; 8:42; 16:27,30); God sent him (John 3:34; 4:34; 5:24, 30,36,37; 6:38,39,57; 7:16,28,29,33; 8:16,18,26,29,42; 9:4; 11:42; 12:44,45,49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:8,18,21,23,25; 20:21)
BTW, John 6:38 does say Jesus 'came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent me' --- self explanatory - he came from heaven in that the Father sent him. Yes, Jesus was sent into the world - not from another planet - but through birth.
John and Jesus both were sent by God - apostellō.

John 1 loses all sensibility if you miss that conscious participation of the Word in creation. You miss the bridge John creates from the culture of first-century Judaism and the Greek philosophy. Otherwise, when missing that context, John 1 has no cultural significance nor basis for recognizing why he speaks of the logos

Again, John 1 is not a capsule verse upon which the whole of scripture rest upon --- it is not the tell all of Christianity.

You assume a metaphysical sense of deity that has never been supported. You make it out that the John is no longer talking about the Word but is talking about the whole existence of God merely taking on the shell of a man. You essentially are arguing against modalism not against the essence of the Triune God with Jesus' incarnation. Such arguments never held water.

Talk about hyperliteralist!!! The Clark/Kent illustration was just that an illustration of someone being a mortal and an all powerful being at the same time probably. BUT - Trinitarianism has God taking on the shell of a man by becoming flesh because although Jesus is a man ..... he never quits being God, Right? I have heard others say this but maybe that not what you believe?
Jesus incarnation ---- the emodiment of deity --- God became flesh known as the man Jesus.
Isn't that what incarnation means?

There is no rejection by Christians that Jesus was human. It is perfectly acceptable to mention his humanity. However, scripture shows his pre-existence as the one given the designation as Logos. You have to now say the Word no longer preexisted. Too many forbidden points of John's testimony arise in your interpretation. Plus, you are unable to come out with a cohesive, convincing argument to your theory. It then remains a novel, new, gnostic, private interpretation that you try to foist on others. What is the end desire of pushing that private interpretation when it is not even convincing?

Of course, there is not rejection by Christians that Jesus was human, a man. They just add that to his being a human being the assumption that he was also God - 100%God/100%man.

As I said, I agree that Jesus preexisted just not in a literal sense but in the foreknowledge and plan of God. Scripture records his entrance into the world through his conception and birth.

Within the whole scope of scripture - scripture should interpret itself.

But a person's going to believe what a person believes.

 

[mikesw]

Thanks, I guess.

John 1 is not a capsule verse for the entire Gospel of John nor is his purpose statement BUT his purpose statement is a summary statement of what was written - 'these are written so that' = purpose.

You can't go for what? That I understand John 3:16 to be saying that God loved so much that he gave his only begotten Son sot that those who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life to mean just that God gave HIS Son and that I understand that God gave that Son, God sent that Son, that Son came from the Father via conception and birth, born of a human being and therefore a human being not a demigod (half man/half god) but a man, a second Adam, our brother.
That to me is SOLID scripture - not AMBIGUOUS at all.

You reduce Jesus to mere flesh. You deny John 1. You deny the significance of the designation Son of God. Everything is reduced to nothingness in your doctrines.

Thanks but it's not me that forces the words into my understanding.

I agree Jesus 'came down from heaven', i.e. came from God (John 3:2; 8:42; 16:27,30); God sent him (John 3:34; 4:34; 5:24, 30,36,37; 6:38,39,57; 7:16,28,29,33; 8:16,18,26,29,42; 9:4; 11:42; 12:44,45,49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:8,18,21,23,25; 20:21)
BTW, John 6:38 does say Jesus 'came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent me' --- self explanatory - he came from heaven in that the Father sent him. Yes, Jesus was sent into the world - not from another planet - but through birth.
John and Jesus both were sent by God - apostellō.

Uggh. You get more into Mormon doctrine that you might be overcoming. You seem again and again to assume that anyone has said the body of Jesus preexisted. There lies much of your confusion about Jesus.
The question is not about the birth aspect. It is about the being sent from heaven while being spiritual both with God and being God. Then you repeat the thwarted diversion of reducing Jesus down to John's normal birth. That is one of the most noticeable problem of the views held by unitarians.

Again, John 1 is not a capsule verse upon which the whole of scripture rest upon --- it is not the tell all of Christianity.

Duh. It tells us of the very essence of Jesus and what makes him the Son of God not only as a fanciful expression but rather as carrying the attributes of his Father.

Talk about hyperliteralist!!! The Clark/Kent illustration was just that an illustration of someone being a mortal and an all powerful being at the same time probably. BUT - Trinitarianism has God taking on the shell of a man by becoming flesh because although Jesus is a man ..... he never quits being God, Right? I have heard others say this but maybe that not what you believe?
Jesus incarnation ---- the emodiment of deity --- God became flesh known as the man Jesus.
Isn't that what incarnation means?

John could have just said Jesus was a godly man. You take John 1 and reduce it to that. You would take Kipler's poem about trees (https://poets.org/poem/trees) and just say he did not like smokestacks. You are far to reductionistic in what you propose against the text sharing the Word becoming incarnate in continued conscious existence.

Of course, there is not rejection by Christians that Jesus was human, a man. They just add that to his being a human being the assumption that he was also God - 100%God/100%man.

People are going to reject your modalist interpretation of the preexistence of the One who became Christ. I have some thought of looking deeper into existing Trinitarian theory and note there may be weaknesses in understanding how this incarnation works and what it means. However, it is stated better there than what unitarians offer.

As I said, I agree that Jesus preexisted just not in a literal sense but in the foreknowledge and plan of God. Scripture records his entrance into the world through his conception and birth.

That is such a weaseling away from the message of John 1. But you get closer to reality when you speak of his entrance into the world from his heavenly conscious existence.

Within the whole scope of scripture - scripture should interpret itself.

The problem is that it does not. As you see, you are interpreting it and thus add a third party into the analysis. That is where you have to provide something convincing to shift the idea away from a private interpretation into a generally acceptable one.

But a person's going to believe what a person believes.

Maybe people will believe what they will believe, but that does not justify pushing private doctrine on to others as you have done.

 

[Runningman]

I'm sorry you did not get God to write the scriptures so that a hyperliteralist unitarian would be convinced of who the Son is. We already have seen how the Angel of Yahweh has been note as Yahweh. The Jews noted this as in found in The Two Powers of Heaven. This was not just Jews who followed Christ understood how God is seen more than in singleness.

God isn't an angel. Literally no one agrees with you.

 

[Runningman]

Wow. You always are searching for ways to deny the obvious accounts by finding ones not as obvious. We have seen the obvious ones and we have seen where you try to deny the obvious ones and deny what rabbis had found too.

OH my then you try to bring in Jesus as an angel verging on JW doctrine. You might as well bring in Mormon doctrine as an argument. You are going way off topic on this just to deny the deity of Christ.

Once again, God is not an angel. Your argument fails on that point alone, but let's pretend you're right for a moment so we can examine that. You couldn't prove the angel is God instead of speaking representatively like all of the other angels do. You also couldn't prove that's Jesus.

This is more of an exercise for you to discover you cannot support your non-Biblical assertions. You cannot prove the angel is Jesus.

 

[Runningman]

Indeed the Angel of the Lord saying things and then explained in the passage as Yahweh speaking to the person is not exactly saying it is the One who becomes incarnate as Jesus but it does show the ambiguity that appears of along with God's oneness. Then we also see Jesus speaking how long he has sought to gather Jerusalem's children together (Matt 23:37-39). This is not what a man speaks. There are too many places showing the pre-existence of Christ to believe your novel interpretations.

You have learned a bunch about the Triune God. And you have a bunch of interpretations you think can deny who Jesus is. Write a book on it and let it stand or fall by those who read it.

Nothing about Jesus being an angel. So here we are you have not show even one dot of evidence of Jesus' pre-existence. Care to try again?

 

[mikesw]

God isn't an angel. Literally no one agrees with you.

Exactly. Literally no one, not even myself, says God is an angel. Duhhh.
That expression would mean that the essence of God is reduced to one meaning of "angel" in the sense of being a created servant or messenger able to appear among men and having consciousness and dependent existence.

But only a hyperliteralist will deny that the Angel of the Lord could refer to one who then is also called Yahweh. The unitarian must read only half of scripture rather than the full scripture.