• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Word Became Flesh

74x12

Well-Known Member
But does it have to mean that?
Yes, I believe so from the scriptures.

Where does it say God is the head of the body? I know that Col 1:18 says Jesus is the head (God made him so), but don't know any that says God is the head.
1 Corinthians 11:3 the head of every man is Christ and the head of Christ is God. So Jesus the Son of man is the head of the body(the church) and the head of the whole is God. Which is the Spirit within the church. The church is the temple of the holy Spirit so God is living in the church and flowing from the head of the body which is Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus claims He is the source of the holy Spirit. (John 15:5)

You bring up some good points, but I'm not sure how any of that proves a trinity.
I agree with that statement. Although I believe Jesus is God; I do not believe that God is three in one. Or three persons in one God as trinitarians say.

There are a few verse that speak of "your spirit" (Gal 6:18, Phil 1:25 for example). So we now have at least three different spirits, God, Jesus, and us mentioned in the Bible. There are other entities called spirits, but we'll just leave them out of the equation for now. The question we need to answer is, to which of those spirits does 1 Cor 12:13 refer?
1 Cor 12:13 is talking about the specific Spirit that when you drink of it; you are made into the body of Christ or in other words a child of God.
This is how we know it is the Spirit of Jesus Christ because Paul alluding to the same event (the drinking of the Spirit) has this to say:

(Galatians 4:6)
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

So it this is the Spirit of the Son of God that cries within those who receive Him "Abba Father" and thus, God recognizes them as His own children. However, we know this Spirit is also the Spirit of God from passages such as 1 Cor 12:6-13 as well as other ones. Here however, we see that it is God who works in all. Meaning the Spirit of the baptism is the Spirit of God and God is inside of all the body of Christ. The same idea is also in Ephesians 4:5-6. Couple that fact with the fact that there is only one Spirit for the body and you must come to the conclusion that the Father and the Son are the same Spirit.

But let's say those verses you mentioned in 1 Cor and Romans do prove a trinity and that Jesus is as much God as the Father is God. What do we do then with 1 Cor 8:6? How do we make it say that there is any other God besides God the Father?

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
How can we interpret that in a way that would make Jesus, so-called God the Son (which title of course is not actually mentioned in the scriptures) also God?

Either we need to see both what you said and 1 Cor 8:6 say Jesus is God or he is not God. We certainly can't have one say he is God and another say he is not God.
Well, I don't believe anything proves the trinity doctrine. However, as for 1 Corinthians 8:6. If we always keep in mind that the writers are speaking of the God who is a Spirit (John 4:24) and Jesus the Son of man(human) as He often referred to Himself. So, this "one Lord Jesus Christ" is the Son of man in glorified form having "all power in heaven and earth" (Matthew 28:18) given to Him and sitting on the "right hand" of God or of "the right hand of power" as Mark 14:62 puts it. This He will do in glorified human form until all His enemies are put under His (human) feet. This will fulfill the prophecy of Psalm 8:6 speaking of the Son of man whom God has put "all things under His feet" and of course Psalm 110:1 as well. Jesus does this for our sakes because we could not defeat our enemies without Him. It would be wrong of us to think that Jesus needed victory for His own sake. Because His enemies could have no power over Him unless it was given from above. (John 19:11) So He does all of this for us.

When He is finished with His great work and all humanity's enemies are subdued under Him; then He will deliver the kingdom up to the Father, restored, complete and whole. This is why Paul says God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

1 Corinthians 15:24-28
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
1 Corinthians 11:3 the head of every man is Christ and the head of Christ is God. So Jesus the Son of man is the head of the body(the church) and the head of the whole is God.

It doesn't say God is, "head of the whole." It says He is the head of Christ. That alone ought to indicate that Jesus is not God. How could one part of God be head over another?

The church is the temple of the holy Spirit so God is living in the church and flowing from the head of the body which is Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus claims He is the source of the holy Spirit. (John 15:5)
Most of the sounds good, but I'm not so sure about the "flowing" part. Just because we can't do anything apart from Jesus doesn't mean he is God. He is the mediator between God and man.

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
That is why Jesus is our connection to God and our source of power. If he were a god-man this would have been an excellent place for God to make it clear. But He didn't. God called him a man. It seems Christians should say what God says.

1 Cor 12:13 is talking about the specific Spirit that when you drink of it; you are made into the body of Christ or in other words a child of God.

Well said. Nonetheless, it can just as easily be said, and taken, without making Jesus God thereby causing contradictions with 1 Cor 8:6.

(Galatians 4:6)
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

So it this is the Spirit of the Son of God that cries within those who receive Him "Abba Father" and thus, God recognizes them as His own children. However, we know this Spirit is also the Spirit of God from passages such as 1 Cor 12:6-13 as well as other ones. Here however, we see that it is God who works in all. Meaning the Spirit of the baptism is the Spirit of God and God is inside of all the body of Christ.

Verse 6 actually says God worketh or energizes the spirit. Not hard to understand. We should just leave it at that without introducing extraneous ideas.

The same idea is also in Ephesians 4:5-6. Couple that fact with the fact that there is only one Spirit for the body and you must come to the conclusion that the Father and the Son are the same Spirit.

If we must come to that conclusion, then we must also read 1 Cor 8:6 in such a way that it doesn't mean there is, "one God, the Father." I don't know how that could be done. On the other hand, if we say that Eph 4:5-6 is speaking of 4 unique things, the problem is solved.

Eph 4:5-6,

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.​

This is just like 1 Cor 8:6 which clearly says that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. One plus one makes two.

Well, I don't believe anything proves the trinity doctrine. However, as for 1 Corinthians 8:6. If we always keep in mind that the writers are speaking of the God who is a Spirit (John 4:24) and Jesus the Son of man(human) as He often referred to Himself. So, this "one Lord Jesus Christ" is the Son of man in glorified form having "all power in heaven and earth" (Matthew 28:18) given to Him and sitting on the "right hand" of God or of "the right hand of power" as Mark 14:62 puts it. This He will do in glorified human form until all His enemies are put under His (human) feet. This will fulfill the prophecy of Psalm 8:6 speaking of the Son of man whom God has put "all things under His feet" and of course Psalm 110:1 as well. Jesus does this for our sakes because we could not defeat our enemies without Him. It would be wrong of us to think that Jesus needed victory for His own sake. Because His enemies could have no power over Him unless it was given from above. (John 19:11) So He does all of this for us.
In any other arena of life, nobody would ever say that someone who gives someone else something are actually one person. Clearly there are two folks involved here. Likewise, nobody would ever think that one person sitting on the right hand of another person are actually one person. What indication did God give us in the scriptures that we should abandon such simple logic when reading them?

1Cor 15:27-28,

27 For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus') feet. But when he (God) saith, all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God may be all in all.
One part of God is subject to another? That's gotta be pretty hard to explain!

When He is finished with His great work and all enemies are subdued under Him; then He will deliver the kingdom up to the Father, restored, complete and whole. This is why Paul says God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

As I've said over and over, there may be some verses that could be made to fit into Jesus being God. However, there is no clear cut declaration like, "I (Jesus) am God," or "Jesus is God," "I (Jesus) am my Father," "Jesus is part God and part man," or anything like that. There are however, many verses that clearly say Jesus was a man. He is called the second Adam. God said Jesus would be just like his brethren, that he could come from the tribe of Judah. It the the man Christ Jesus who is our mediator.

It's funny that the Gospel of John is one of the primary sources used by those who think Jesus is God. Do you know exactly why John was written to us?

John 20:30-31,

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Why didn't God say that He gave us John's gospel so that we might know that Jesus is God if that's what he wanted us to think? No. He gave us John so that we would understand that Jesus was the Christ (the anointed one) and that he is the Son of God. Again, I ask in what other arena of life would anybody ever think that a son and his father could possible be one person? What indication is there in the Bible that God changed the meaning of two simple, easy to understand words, "father" and "son?" There just isn't any. God uses the words in the exact same way we use them.

I still don't understand why Christians think it is even required that Jesus be God. It's as though the thinking is that if Jesus wasn't God there would be no redemption. I'm not sure where that idea is in the scriptures. On the other hand, I can think of at least one verse that declares our redeemer must be a man.

Rom 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Too me, the scriptural evidence is overwhelming. Jesus is not God, never was, and never will be. We have one God and that is the Father of our living Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. Incredibly simple concept. Why complicate thing? The one and only source one can use to say Jesus is God is tradition. I say, "nuts to tradition!"

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Making Jesus God does indeed strip the scriptures of virtually all the power they really have for those who dare believe the things God says in His word. At one time I thought Jesus was God, but not any more. Now that I've seen it from both sides, I know which is true and which is the counterfeit. I only hope that some day all Christians will see and understand the true greatness of God's plan, the logos, and the heroic effort that the man Jesus Christ exerted in carrying out that plan. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the believing level of the Christian church would go through the roof.

Take care...
 
Last edited:

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
It doesn't say God is, "head of the whole." It says He is the head of Christ. That alone ought to indicate that Jesus is not God. How could one part of God be head over another?


Most of the sounds good, but I'm not so sure about the "flowing" part. Just because we can't do anything apart from Jesus doesn't mean he is God. He is the mediator between God and man.

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
That is why Jesus is our connection to God and our source of power. If he were a god-man this would have been an excellent place for God to make it clear. But He didn't. God called him a man. It seems Christians should say what God says.



Well said. Nonetheless, it can just as easily be said, and taken, without making Jesus God thereby causing contradictions with 1 Cor 8:6.



Verse 6 actually says God worketh or energizes the spirit. Not hard to understand. We should just leave it at that without introducing extraneous ideas.



If we must come to that conclusion, then we must also read 1 Cor 8:6 in such a way that it doesn't mean there is, "one God, the Father." I don't know how that could be done. On the other hand, if we say that Eph 4:5-6 is speaking of 4 unique things, the problem is solved.

Eph 4:5-6,

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.​

This is just like 1 Cor 8:6 which clearly says that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. One plus one makes two.


In any other arena of life, nobody would ever say that someone who gives someone else something are actually one person. Clearly there are two folks involved here. Likewise, nobody would ever think that one person sitting on the right hand of another person are actually one person. What indication did God give us in the scriptures that we should abandon such simple logic when reading them?

1Cor 15:27-28,

27 For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus') feet. But when he (God) saith, all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God may be all in all.
One part of God is subject to another? That's gotta be pretty hard to explain!

When He is finished with His great work and all enemies are subdued under Him; then He will deliver the kingdom up to the Father, restored, complete and whole. This is why Paul says God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

As I've said over and over, there may be some verses that could be made to fit into Jesus being God. However, there is no clear cut declaration like, "I (Jesus) am God," or "Jesus is God," "I (Jesus) am my Father," "Jesus is part God and part man," or anything like that. There are however, many verses that clearly say Jesus was a man. He is called the second Adam. God said Jesus would be just like his brethren, that he could come from the tribe of Judah. It the the man Christ Jesus who is our mediator.

It's funny that the Gospel of John is one of the primary sources used by those who think Jesus is God. Do you know exactly why John was written to us?

John 20:30-31,

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Why didn't God say that He gave us John's gospel so that we might know that Jesus is God if that's what he wanted us to think? No. He gave us John so that we would understand that Jesus was the Christ (the anointed one) and that he is the Son of God. Again, I ask in what other arena of life would anybody ever think that a son and his father could possible be one person? What indication is there in the Bible that God changed the meaning of two simple, easy to understand words, "father" and "son?" There just isn't any. God uses the words in the exact same way we use them.

I still don't understand why Christians think it is even required that Jesus be God. It's as though the thinking is that if Jesus wasn't God there would be no redemption. I'm not sure where that idea is in the scriptures. On the other hand, I can think of at least one verse that declares our redeemer must be a man.

Rom 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Too me, the scriptural evidence is overwhelming. Jesus is not God, never was, and never will be. We have one God and that is the Father of our living Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. Incredibly simple concept. Why complicate thing? The one and only source one can use to say Jesus is God is tradition. I say, "nuts to tradition!"

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Making Jesus God does indeed strip the scriptures of virtually all the power they really have for those who dare believe the things God says in His word. At one time I thought Jesus was God, but not any more. Now that I've seen it from both sides, I know which is true and which is the counterfeit. I only hope that some day all Christians will see and understand the true greatness of God's plan, the logos, and the heroic effort that the man Jesus Christ exerted in carrying out that plan. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the believing level of the Christian church would go through the roof.

Take care...
You ask a very good queation. How can one part of God be head over another? The same way the husband is head of the family. God is like a family. There is a father and a son. Both make up the family called God. And the father is head over his son. Nobody is willing to see this simple explanation. The father has one son and wants to adopt more. All will be part of the God family. Father and many children all part of one family called "God".
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
You ask a very good queation. How can one part of God be head over another? The same way the husband is head of the family. God is like a family. There is a father and a son. Both make up the family called God. And the father is head over his son. Nobody is willing to see this simple explanation. The father has one son and wants to adopt more. All will be part of the God family. Father and many children all part of one family called "God".
I am completely with you except for the part that talks about a family being God. I don't know anywhere in the scriptures that a family is called God. In fact, such an idea goes completely against my oft quoted 1 Cor 8:6, which says that only the Father, not a family, is God.

But I don't think I know the scriptures from A to Z. I could easily me missing something. Do you know of any scriptures that plainly say there is such a thing as one family called God? Let me know.

Take care.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
It doesn't say God is, "head of the whole." It says He is the head of Christ. That alone ought to indicate that Jesus is not God. How could one part of God be head over another?
Well, first of all what we need to establish is that we're dealing with similes. God being the "head" of Christ means He is in charge of or leading Christ. In other words, Jesus the Son of man is always doing the will of God. As He said in John 8:29 He always does the things that please the Father and in Romans 8:14 Paul makes it really plain by saying that "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

So, Jesus the "Son of God" is led by the Spirit of God or in other words God is the head of Christ. Now, as for God being the "head of the whole" I stand by that statement because the whole body of Christ (which is the church) is led by the Spirit of God.
Most of the sounds good, but I'm not so sure about the "flowing" part. Just because we can't do anything apart from Jesus doesn't mean he is God. He is the mediator between God and man.

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
That is why Jesus is our connection to God and our source of power. If he were a god-man this would have been an excellent place for God to make it clear. But He didn't. God called him a man. It seems Christians should say what God says.
Well, let's think of how a branch is nourished by the main vine to bring forth fruit. It's because of the nutrients, water etc. that is flowing from the main vine into the branch. If the branch is cut off from the vine then it cannot bear fruit because it is cut off from the source of water and nutrients it needs. This is why I say that the holy Spirit flows from Jesus into the rest of the body and if we are cut off from Jesus we cannot bear the fruit of the holy Spirit which we read of in Galatians 5:22-23.
Well said. Nonetheless, it can just as easily be said, and taken, without making Jesus God thereby causing contradictions with 1 Cor 8:6.
There is no contradiction. 1 Corinthians 8:6 says there is one God the Father (I agree) and one Lord Jesus Christ. (again I agree) This is about the duality of Christ's nature. Both God and human. So we have God the Father and the Lord of all creation who is the Son of man.
Verse 6 actually says God worketh or energizes the spirit. Not hard to understand. We should just leave it at that without introducing extraneous ideas.
So you don't agree that the holy Spirit is indwelling the whole body of Christ? Why does Romans 8:9 say ask "if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you."? Of course the church is the temple of the holy Spirit as Peter says of the church they are "lively stones" and "a spiritual house". (1 Peter 2:5)
If we must come to that conclusion, then we must also read 1 Cor 8:6 in such a way that it doesn't mean there is, "one God, the Father." I don't know how that could be done. On the other hand, if we say that Eph 4:5-6 is speaking of 4 unique things, the problem is solved.

Eph 4:5-6,

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
This is just like 1 Cor 8:6 which clearly says that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. One plus one makes two.
There is no need to read 1 Corinthians any way than what it says. I believe that Jesus is God the Father manifest in human form. So it makes perfect sense that there is "one God the Father" and "one Lord" who is the Son of man Jesus Christ.

What doesn't make sense is when you have two gods in John 1:1 and then try to reconcile that with 1 Corinthians 8:6. How can you have two gods a greater and a lesser god and reconcile it with 1 Corinthians 8:6?

Therefore, if John 1:1 is not to contradict 1 Cor 8:6; Jesus must be the Father God.
In any other arena of life, nobody would ever say that someone who gives someone else something are actually one person. Clearly there are two folks involved here. Likewise, nobody would ever think that one person sitting on the right hand of another person are actually one person. What indication did God give us in the scriptures that we should abandon such simple logic when reading them?

1Cor 15:27-28,

27 For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus') feet. But when he (God) saith, all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God may be all in all.
One part of God is subject to another? That's gotta be pretty hard to explain!
As long as you realize that Jesus is God manifest in human form then you will see how God gave everything to a human being(Jesus Christ) in order to save all humanity who believes in Him. For God was in(inside of, indwelling) Christ reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

As Colossians 2:8-9 also makes clear. That the fullness of the Divine nature indwelled Him bodily. This is why Jesus is called the "Chief Cornerstone" because He is the beginning of God's temple made without hands. If we receive His Spirit then He makes us one with His own body.
When He is finished with His great work and all enemies are subdued under Him; then He will deliver the kingdom up to the Father, restored, complete and whole. This is why Paul says God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

As I've said over and over, there may be some verses that could be made to fit into Jesus being God. However, there is no clear cut declaration like, "I (Jesus) am God," or "Jesus is God," "I (Jesus) am my Father," "Jesus is part God and part man," or anything like that. There are however, many verses that clearly say Jesus was a man. He is called the second Adam. God said Jesus would be just like his brethren, that he could come from the tribe of Judah. It the the man Christ Jesus who is our mediator.
There are clear cut declarations but it's up to people if they believe or not. However, the scriptures emphasize the humanity of Jesus because it's so important and people at the time were denying it.
It's funny that the Gospel of John is one of the primary sources used by those who think Jesus is God. Do you know exactly why John was written to us?

John 20:30-31,

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
But we can easily prove Jesus is God without John. Of course Jesus is the Son of God and it's really important to know that.
Why didn't God say that He gave us John's gospel so that we might know that Jesus is God if that's what he wanted us to think? No. He gave us John so that we would understand that Jesus was the Christ (the anointed one) and that he is the Son of God. Again, I ask in what other arena of life would anybody ever think that a son and his father could possible be one person? What indication is there in the Bible that God changed the meaning of two simple, easy to understand words, "father" and "son?" There just isn't any. God uses the words in the exact same way we use them.
The fact that Jesus is God is meant by God to be a personal revelation revealed by the holy Spirit to individuals. Without that, no one will get it or receive it. This is why Jesus says that these things are "hidden" from the wise and prudent but revealed to babes. Jesus makes it clear that no one knows the Son or the Father unless the Son reveals Him to them. So people should seek from Jesus to know who the Father is. Unless He shows them they won't see it.

Matthew 11:25-27 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.


And when Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father what does Jesus respond?

(John 14:9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
I still don't understand why Christians think it is even required that Jesus be God. It's as though the thinking is that if Jesus wasn't God there would be no redemption. I'm not sure where that idea is in the scriptures. On the other hand, I can think of at least one verse that declares our redeemer must be a man.
Well, He is what He is isn't He? We can't change Him and He can't deny Himself. It's clear to me that Jesus is God manifest. And yes He must be a man otherwise there is no redemption for humanity.
Rom 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Too me, the scriptural evidence is overwhelming. Jesus is not God, never was, and never will be. We have one God and that is the Father of our living Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. Incredibly simple concept. Why complicate thing? The one and only source one can use to say Jesus is God is tradition. I say, "nuts to tradition!"

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Making Jesus God does indeed strip the scriptures of virtually all the power they really have for those who dare believe the things God says in His word. At one time I thought Jesus was God, but not any more. Now that I've seen it from both sides, I know which is true and which is the counterfeit. I only hope that some day all Christians will see and understand the true greatness of God's plan, the logos, and the heroic effort that the man Jesus Christ exerted in carrying out that plan. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the believing level of the Christian church would go through the roof.

Take care...
I don't agree at all. I think that if I were to think Jesus is not God then many scriptures would no longer make sense. I cannot accept that. Besides, I know from personal experience that Jesus is God.

I think you should understand that God is not separate from His own Word. How do you talk? With your breath. How does God talk? With His breath. So the Word of God is formed from the breath of God. And what is the breath of God? It's His eternal Spirit. So the Word of God is the holy Spirit sent forth with direction and purpose to create or in case of judgment; to destroy. And this is the Word that was with God and yet was God.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
I am completely with you except for the part that talks about a family being God. I don't know anywhere in the scriptures that a family is called God. In fact, such an idea goes completely against my oft quoted 1 Cor 8:6, which says that only the Father, not a family, is God.

But I don't think I know the scriptures from A to Z. I could easily me missing something. Do you know of any scriptures that plainly say there is such a thing as one family called God? Let me know.

Take care.
I agree that God is not a family by Himself or multiple persons. However, the scriptures do mention the "whole family in heaven and earth" (Ephesians 3:15) but I think this means God and His children. The saints.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
I am completely with you except for the part that talks about a family being God. I don't know anywhere in the scriptures that a family is called God. In fact, such an idea goes completely against my oft quoted 1 Cor 8:6, which says that only the Father, not a family, is God.

But I don't think I know the scriptures from A to Z. I could easily me missing something. Do you know of any scriptures that plainly say there is such a thing as one family called God? Let me know.

Take care.
Doesn't the very idea of a father and son sound like a family? Or if you do not like the word family try team or group. One ball team is made up of several players but it is still one team and there is usually a team captain or something who is the head of the team. This is the same with God. There is no one being called God. There is a groups, team, family of beings who are separate beings but all part of God.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Doesn't the very idea of a father and son sound like a family? Or if you do not like the word family try team or group. One ball team is made up of several players but it is still one team and there is usually a team captain or something who is the head of the team. This is the same with God. There is no one being called God. There is a groups, team, family of beings who are separate beings but all part of God.
I think it important to realize that we all get our ideas from somewhere. Maybe from a book, a teacher, a friend, or maybe an idea we dream up within ourselves. The question, is where did an idea come from? That is a very important question, particularly when it comes to matters of a spiritual nature.

I, and many others, have decided to get our ideas about God from the book He inspired, i.e. the Bible. Here is one of the things that it says:

Ps 119:160,

Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever.​

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Both verses offer a clear indication that God's word is the truth. There are many more that say the same thing. Would it not make sense therefore to go to the Bible as a source of truth instead of any other source? Jesus used the words, "it is written" some 80 times. He could say that because it was indeed written in the scriptures. He apparently felt that if it was written in the scriptures then it was true. On the flip side, if it wasn't written in the scriptures, it may or may not be true, probably more often than not, it isn't true. The sum of what people say about God is seemingly endless. There are more dreamed up ideas about God than there are stars, but the vast majority do not line up with the scriptures.

There is a record in the 17th chapter of the Book of Acts that says the Bereans would not necessarily believe everything the Apostle Paul told them. Instead it says,

Acts 17:11,

...they (the Bereans) received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Their standard for truth was clearly the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures. To them, if it wasn't in the scriptures, it wasn't true.

You said,

"there is no one being called God. There is a groups, team, family of beings who are separate beings but all part of God."​

The scriptures say,

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Clearly there is a difference between what you said and what the scriptures say. Both sentences are simple grammatical constructions. There is no need to "interpret" anything in either sentence. They both simply say what they mean and mean what they say. You have to decide which one is true and which one is not true.

The words you speak to someone in need can have a huge affect on their life. Knowing that the scriptures clearly say there is one God, wouldn't you want to think twice about telling someone there is no one being called God? Always keep in mind that the words you speak can make or break another person.

When we take our own thoughts and reasoning as truth, particularly when those thoughts and reasonings contradict God's word, it is really the same as making ourselves God, of determining what is truth and what is not truth instead of letting the real God make that determination. That is exactly the big lie the devil told Adam and Eve when he tempted them (Gen 3:5).

I'm not sure how you feel about the scriptures. Maybe you don't believe them. If that is the case, then at least ask yourself where your ideas do come from. But if you do believe them, I urge you to continue your study. I would suggest that if you can't come up with a clear cut chapter and verse about something, just acknowledge you don't know. There is no shame in not knowing. I'm sure I don't know much more about the scriptures than I do know. The real problem arises when we are convinced we know something that we really don't know at all. I try to avoid saying anything to someone concerning the truth unless I can quote chapter and verse, i.e. I can say, "it is written," just like Jesus used to say.

Take care...
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
And so, logically, Christ is God.
I find there is logic in the words ' beginning and before '.
Logically God was ' before ' anything else as per Psalms 90:2 ( everlasting )
Logically Jesus was Not ' before ' his God was because Jesus was ' in the beginning ' Not before the beginning.
So, it is No logical wonder that per-human Jesus was ' in the beginning ' ( start ) - Revelation 3:14; 1:5
Thus, logically it is No wonder that the ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3:12
Then, logically both Jesus and his God would both of them have their own separate thrones - Revelation 3:21.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Doesn't the very idea of a father and son sound like a family? Or if you do not like the word family try team or group. One ball team is made up of several players but it is still one team and there is usually a team captain or something who is the head of the team. This is the same with God. There is no one being called God. There is a groups, team, family of beings who are separate beings but all part of God.
Yes, good point ^ above ^ because father and son does sound like a family.
A family has one father, and that one father could have more then one son.
Those sons would not be the father, but they would be ' brothers ' in a family headed by one father.
In the family arrangement then it is the sons ( the brothers ) who are equals with the father being head over them.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
I think it important to realize that we all get our ideas from somewhere. Maybe from a book, a teacher, a friend, or maybe an idea we dream up within ourselves. The question, is where did an idea come from? That is a very important question, particularly when it comes to matters of a spiritual nature.

I, and many others, have decided to get our ideas about God from the book He inspired, i.e. the Bible. Here is one of the things that it says:

Ps 119:160,

Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever.​

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Both verses offer a clear indication that God's word is the truth. There are many more that say the same thing. Would it not make sense therefore to go to the Bible as a source of truth instead of any other source? Jesus used the words, "it is written" some 80 times. He could say that because it was indeed written in the scriptures. He apparently felt that if it was written in the scriptures then it was true. On the flip side, if it wasn't written in the scriptures, it may or may not be true, probably more often than not, it isn't true. The sum of what people say about God is seemingly endless. There are more dreamed up ideas about God than there are stars, but the vast majority do not line up with the scriptures.

There is a record in the 17th chapter of the Book of Acts that says the Bereans would not necessarily believe everything the Apostle Paul told them. Instead it says,

Acts 17:11,

...they (the Bereans) received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Their standard for truth was clearly the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures. To them, if it wasn't in the scriptures, it wasn't true.

You said,

"there is no one being called God. There is a groups, team, family of beings who are separate beings but all part of God."​

The scriptures say,

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Clearly there is a difference between what you said and what the scriptures say. Both sentences are simple grammatical constructions. There is no need to "interpret" anything in either sentence. They both simply say what they mean and mean what they say. You have to decide which one is true and which one is not true.

The words you speak to someone in need can have a huge affect on their life. Knowing that the scriptures clearly say there is one God, wouldn't you want to think twice about telling someone there is no one being called God? Always keep in mind that the words you speak can make or break another person.

When we take our own thoughts and reasoning as truth, particularly when those thoughts and reasonings contradict God's word, it is really the same as making ourselves God, of determining what is truth and what is not truth instead of letting the real God make that determination. That is exactly the big lie the devil told Adam and Eve when he tempted them (Gen 3:5).

I'm not sure how you feel about the scriptures. Maybe you don't believe them. If that is the case, then at least ask yourself where your ideas do come from. But if you do believe them, I urge you to continue your study. I would suggest that if you can't come up with a clear cut chapter and verse about something, just acknowledge you don't know. There is no shame in not knowing. I'm sure I don't know much more about the scriptures than I do know. The real problem arises when we are convinced we know something that we really don't know at all. I try to avoid saying anything to someone concerning the truth unless I can quote chapter and verse, i.e. I can say, "it is written," just like Jesus used to say.

Take care...
The Bible also says " the Word was with God and the Word was God. So if the Father is the only God then the Word could not also be God but the Bible says the Word was God. So which is true? There is a lot in the Bible that can be interpreted different ways. If not, everyone would agree on everything and there would be one religion.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
The Bible also says " the Word was with God and the Word was God. So if the Father is the only God then the Word could not also be God but the Bible says the Word was God. So which is true? There is a lot in the Bible that can be interpreted different ways. If not, everyone would agree on everything and there would be one religion.
I think you are right in the idea that all scripture must say one thing of another. Otherwise there would be contradictions and that's not a good thing.

Whenever I see what appears to be a contradiction, I try to see if maybe there was an error in translating from Greek to English. Or maybe it's just my misunderstanding what was written. I know of places where a simple comma creates a contradiction. The original Greek text had no commas at all. They were added by the English translators. So if they added it I can take it away and if that makes the apparent contradiction disappear, I know I solved the problem.

Here is something I wrote a while ago concerning the last phrase in John 1:1, "...the word was God."

The words in the Greek texts do not always follow the same order as they do in our English translations. In particular, the last phrase in John 1:1, “and the Word was God” is written as “and God was the Word” (και θεος ην ο λογος) in the Greek texts. The reader should note that while the English translation of this phrase begins with the “Word,” the Greek original texts begins with the word “God.” Also noteworthy is the fact that both translations use the definite article associated with the word “Word” while there is no definite article used with the word “God.” With that in mind, I submit the following:

"...the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’."

So instead of saying the word was actually God, John 1:1 says it was godlike or divine. John was trying to tell us that God's word is perfect, that we could completely trust in it.

There is another angle to consider here. A figure of speech is used to draw the reader's attention to something the author or speaker wants to emphasize, to make the reader stop and consider what was just said. A figure of speech is not necessarily true to fact as is ordinary writing. For example, I could say, "the ground is dry." That is true to fact, and therefor not a figure of speech. But if I really wanted to paint a picture in your mind about the ground being really really dry, I might say, "the ground is thirsty." Does the ground actually experience thirst? Of course not. Only living creatures actually get thirsty. But by saying the ground was thirsty, I would cause you to stop and consider just how dry it really is. We use figures of speech many times throughout the day.

Can a "word" actually be any kind of being at all? No. I would be considered crazy, or completely ignorant as to the meaning of simple words, if I said that you were a "word." We use words to communicate and they all have precise meanings we all understand. I can't just go changing the meaning of words to suit my own taste. Well, I guess I could, but if I said I wanted a house and car for lunch nobody would understand. It wouldn't matter that I thought a house was roast beef and a car was mashed potatoes and gravy. We all have to agree on the meaning of words. That's why I don't understand how someone can really think a father can be his own son. We all know what a father is and what a son is and that there is no way they can be one person.

Anyway, by understand that John 1:1 was not saying the "word" was literally God, but that it was saying it was God like, it no longer contradicts 1 Cor 8:6. Problem solved. God's word fits like a hand in a glove!
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
I think you are right in the idea that all scripture must say one thing of another. Otherwise there would be contradictions and that's not a good thing.

Whenever I see what appears to be a contradiction, I try to see if maybe there was an error in translating from Greek to English. Or maybe it's just my misunderstanding what was written. I know of places where a simple comma creates a contradiction. The original Greek text had no commas at all. They were added by the English translators. So if they added it I can take it away and if that makes the apparent contradiction disappear, I know I solved the problem.

Here is something I wrote a while ago concerning the last phrase in John 1:1, "...the word was God."

The words in the Greek texts do not always follow the same order as they do in our English translations. In particular, the last phrase in John 1:1, “and the Word was God” is written as “and God was the Word” (και θεος ην ο λογος) in the Greek texts. The reader should note that while the English translation of this phrase begins with the “Word,” the Greek original texts begins with the word “God.” Also noteworthy is the fact that both translations use the definite article associated with the word “Word” while there is no definite article used with the word “God.” With that in mind, I submit the following:

"...the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’."

So instead of saying the word was actually God, John 1:1 says it was godlike or divine. John was trying to tell us that God's word is perfect, that we could completely trust in it.

There is another angle to consider here. A figure of speech is used to draw the reader's attention to something the author or speaker wants to emphasize, to make the reader stop and consider what was just said. A figure of speech is not necessarily true to fact as is ordinary writing. For example, I could say, "the ground is dry." That is true to fact, and therefor not a figure of speech. But if I really wanted to paint a picture in your mind about the ground being really really dry, I might say, "the ground is thirsty." Does the ground actually experience thirst? Of course not. Only living creatures actually get thirsty. But by saying the ground was thirsty, I would cause you to stop and consider just how dry it really is. We use figures of speech many times throughout the day.

Can a "word" actually be any kind of being at all? No. I would be considered crazy, or completely ignorant as to the meaning of simple words, if I said that you were a "word." We use words to communicate and they all have precise meanings we all understand. I can't just go changing the meaning of words to suit my own taste. Well, I guess I could, but if I said I wanted a house and car for lunch nobody would understand. It wouldn't matter that I thought a house was roast beef and a car was mashed potatoes and gravy. We all have to agree on the meaning of words. That's why I don't understand how someone can really think a father can be his own son. We all know what a father is and what a son is and that there is no way they can be one person.

Anyway, by understand that John 1:1 was not saying the "word" was literally God, but that it was saying it was God like, it no longer contradicts 1 Cor 8:6. Problem solved. God's word fits like a hand in a glove!
I think you are right in the idea that all scripture must say one thing of another. Otherwise there would be contradictions and that's not a good thing.

Whenever I see what appears to be a contradiction, I try to see if maybe there was an error in translating from Greek to English. Or maybe it's just my misunderstanding what was written. I know of places where a simple comma creates a contradiction. The original Greek text had no commas at all. They were added by the English translators. So if they added it I can take it away and if that makes the apparent contradiction disappear, I know I solved the problem.

Here is something I wrote a while ago concerning the last phrase in John 1:1, "...the word was God."

The words in the Greek texts do not always follow the same order as they do in our English translations. In particular, the last phrase in John 1:1, “and the Word was God” is written as “and God was the Word” (και θεος ην ο λογος) in the Greek texts. The reader should note that while the English translation of this phrase begins with the “Word,” the Greek original texts begins with the word “God.” Also noteworthy is the fact that both translations use the definite article associated with the word “Word” while there is no definite article used with the word “God.” With that in mind, I submit the following:

"...the fact that the word ‘God’ is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it does not have the definite article, it does indicate that this Word was not the same ‘person’ as the Father God, but has the same ‘essence’ and ‘nature’."

So instead of saying the word was actually God, John 1:1 says it was godlike or divine. John was trying to tell us that God's word is perfect, that we could completely trust in it.

There is another angle to consider here. A figure of speech is used to draw the reader's attention to something the author or speaker wants to emphasize, to make the reader stop and consider what was just said. A figure of speech is not necessarily true to fact as is ordinary writing. For example, I could say, "the ground is dry." That is true to fact, and therefor not a figure of speech. But if I really wanted to paint a picture in your mind about the ground being really really dry, I might say, "the ground is thirsty." Does the ground actually experience thirst? Of course not. Only living creatures actually get thirsty. But by saying the ground was thirsty, I would cause you to stop and consider just how dry it really is. We use figures of speech many times throughout the day.

Can a "word" actually be any kind of being at all? No. I would be considered crazy, or completely ignorant as to the meaning of simple words, if I said that you were a "word." We use words to communicate and they all have precise meanings we all understand. I can't just go changing the meaning of words to suit my own taste. Well, I guess I could, but if I said I wanted a house and car for lunch nobody would understand. It wouldn't matter that I thought a house was roast beef and a car was mashed potatoes and gravy. We all have to agree on the meaning of words. That's why I don't understand how someone can really think a father can be his own son. We all know what a father is and what a son is and that there is no way they can be one person.

Anyway, by understand that John 1:1 was not saying the "word" was literally God, but that it was saying it was God like, it no longer contradicts 1 Cor 8:6. Problem solved. God's word fits like a hand in a glove!
You do indeed make a lot of sense. However, what about the part about "the Word becamr flesh". If it is only talking about some words that God spokem then it does not seem like words can become flesh. But Jesus became flesh. So there is reason to believe that Jesus existed in spirit form, as the Word, before he was born into a human body. Jesus wa s with his future father and they made up the family called God.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
You do indeed make a lot of sense. However, what about the part about "the Word becamr flesh". If it is only talking about some words that God spokem then it does not seem like words can become flesh. But Jesus became flesh. So there is reason to believe that Jesus existed in spirit form, as the Word, before he was born into a human body. Jesus wa s with his future father and they made up the family called God.
Be careful my friend. You said that Jesus became flesh. The scriptures say the word became flesh. There is a difference.

If you accept, as I showed in the OP, that the word was in the beginning and that it refers to a plan or an idea God had in mind to redeem mankind, you must ask yourself, can an idea or plan really be an actual person? I think not. Therefore, if a the plan didn't literally become a person (Jesus), then God must be using a figure of speech. I'm pretty sure I tried to explain to you that a figure of speech is used to emphasize something. In this case God was simply trying to tell us that Jesus was an exact replica of the plan, that he followed it to perfection.

We use a phrase similar to this all the time, "make your dreams a reality" or "the plan became reality." We all know exactly what that means. There is no reason to take John 1:14 any differently.

The plan is a blueprint. The house is a result of following the blueprint. God had a blueprint. Jesus built the house according to that blueprint. It's no more complicated than that.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Redeem or to be in solitude with, big difference.
There certainly is a big difference between the two.

I know the scriptures say God wanted to redeem us (the first indication of that was Genesis 3:15, which began the rest of the story), but what makes you say solitude?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
but what makes you say solitude?


My error, I intended to right 'solidarity' with us.

Only God can bestow this solidarity upon us. This gift of solidarity is the meaning of the Incarnation and the meaning of Jesus Christ. For this solidarity, Christ brought the elimination of sin to completion through his suffering in his life, passion, death and Resurrection. This union with us on the part of Jesus Christ, true man, is the fundamental expression of his solidarity with every human person.
 
Top