• 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!

Did you know Jesus is considered as a different god according to scripture?

Brian2

Veteran Member
While we wait for @Eli G to respond, I will post my beliefs...

The two verses speak of the same thing.

A Soul is a Lifeform's Genome. It is the information required to create/re-create an individual.

I would say that Isa 53:12 says that he poured out his "life" unto death.
I would say that Matt 10:28 speaks of something of a person that remains alive after the death of the body. This goes beyond the genome to a spiritual reality in us.
IMO this spiritual reality has to be present in us so that we can be resurrected. Once it is destroyed we are destroyed forever.
If God wanted to He could copy my genome precisely and make a copy of me right now, and that copy would not be me, because I am already here.
This would be the case also if we died and all God had was our genome and had to make a copy of us. It would not be us.
So a re-creation is not a resurrection of the same person.
 

Yokefellow

Active Member
I would say that Isa 53:12 says that he poured out his "life" unto death.

Indeed. Here are my thoughts.

The Life is in the Blood...

Leviticus 17:11
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."


The reason the Life is in the Blood is because Blood contains both Soul and Spirit.

I would say that Matt 10:28 speaks of something of a person that remains alive after the death of the body. This goes beyond the genome to a spiritual reality in us.

Agreed, however I believe it is both Soul and Spirit that remains after death.

When the Body dies, the Soul (Genome/Word of God) and Spirit (Energy) is still alive.

Since Soul is Genetic information, it cannot be destroyed except by a special mechanism. i.e., by the Lake of Fire. This leaves us with Spirit and perhaps a bit of 'purified' Genetics left over.

IMO this spiritual reality has to be present in us so that we can be resurrected.

Agreed, however the Soul must be present as well.

Once it is destroyed we are destroyed forever.

Since Spirit is energy, it cannot be destroyed but transferred. Spirit goes back to God who gave it.

If God wanted to He could copy my genome precisely and make a copy of me right now, and that copy would not be me, because I am already here.

Since your Spirit is already occupying your current Soul and Body, God would most likely have to place a new/different Spirit in your Clone. There is an alternative way of dividing your Spirit between the two, but that is too complicated to easily explain.

This would be the case also if we died and all God had was our genome and had to make a copy of us.

Thankfully God has both Soul (Genome) and Spirit (Energy) preserved in order to resurrect into a new Body.

Note that most people tend to view 'Soul' as One's character, memories, emotions, etc., however the Bible teaches us that it is our Spirit that carries those traits.

As a side note...

I am a Christian that believes that the Bible teaches Reincarnation. Thus, the when the Soul is purified of 'bad Genes' in the Lake of Fire, the Spirit and whatever is left of the Soul goes back into a new Body. Generally, that is something that happens to the Unsaved.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
The following inspired words show that there is no reincarnation:

Rom. 9:10 (...) also when Rebekah conceived twins from the one man, Isaac our forefather; 11 for when they had not yet been born and had not practiced anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not on works, but on the One who calls, 12 it was said to her: “The older will be the slave of the younger.”

Paul says that God chose Jacob instead of Esau without any of them having existed or performed something good or bad before their birth, but because He decided so by himself "so that God’s purpose respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not on works, but on the One who calls". Therefore, there is no something that someone has done before birth.
 

DNB

Christian
Before you reply back with John 1:1
No matter how you interpret it, John 1:1 does not support trinitarian dogma.
Substitute whatever word that you believe to endorse trinitarianism, and it fails.

In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God. - he cannot be God and with God at the same time
In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God - pointless and meaningless nonsense

Proper rendering:
In the beginning was God's word/will/plan, and the word/will/plan was with God (as wisdom was with God before all time), and the word/will/plan was Godlike (divine, sublime)
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
No matter how you interpret it, John 1:1 does not support trinitarian dogma.
Substitute whatever word that you believe to endorse trinitarianism, and it fails.

In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God. - he cannot be God and with God at the same time
In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God - pointless and meaningless nonsense

Proper rendering:
In the beginning was God's word/will/plan, and the word/will/plan was with God (as wisdom was with God before all time), and the word/will/plan was Godlike (divine, sublime)
Thank you, DNB… I have been saying the same for years!! Unfortunately not many ever realised the truth that is in what you just says and I said because they are truth from the scriptures (and logical sense!)

There is no ‘capitalisation’ nor combining of words to make a title (‘The Word of God’) as in a personification. In the book of Revelation Jesus is seen IN VISION as a man on a white horse and on Jesus’ thigh are the words ‘word of God’… notice that the translator does not use a personification but only ‘word of God’… not ‘The Word of God’.

Moreover, there are MANY MANY times elsewhere in scriptures where the term ‘[the] word of God’ or ‘the word’ are used… are these referring to Jesus? Absolutely not!!

Is it referring to Ezekiel being a pre-existent ‘Jesus’? Totally ‘No’..!

‘In the beginning … GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS and THE EARTH…

Q: How do Trinitarians SEPARATE ‘Jesus’ from their completely United inseparable immutable one ‘GOD’??

Answer: By creating a completely untenable and illogical three person Being who combines the true belief of a ONE GOD with the pagan belief of MULTIPLE DEITIES AS ‘GODS’… rulers, creators, lawgivers, Sacred ones… e.g. Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon; Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer; and many more.

Each trinitarian is allowed to invent their way out of how these are supposed to exist separately and yet be completely THE SAME or WHY there would ever be a need for THREE EQUAL POWERED ALMIGHTY individuals would ever be required … And how an immutable GOD would ever say: ‘I don’t want to be GOD… I want to be my own limited weak creation - even lower than the spirit servants I created - and be separated from the OTHER TWO INSEPARABLE GOD PERSONS whom I USED TO BELONG TO…’ (or any such nonsense - make it up, which is what they do!!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DNB

DNB

Christian
Thank you, DNB… I have been saying the same for years!! Unfortunately not many ever realised the truth that is in what you just says and I said because they are truth from the scriptures (and logical sense!)

There is no ‘capitalisation’ nor combining of words to make a title (‘The Word of God’) as in a personification. In the book of Revelation Jesus is seen IN VISION as a man on a white horse and on Jesus’ thigh are the words ‘word of God’… notice that the translator does not use a personification but only ‘word of God’… not ‘The Word of God’.

Moreover, there are MANY MANY times elsewhere in scriptures where the term ‘[the] word of God’ or ‘the word’ are used… are these referring to Jesus? Absolutely not!!

Is it referring to Ezekiel being a pre-existent ‘Jesus’? Totally ‘No’..!

‘In the beginning … GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS and THE EARTH…

Q: How do Trinitarians SEPARATE ‘Jesus’ from their completely United inseparable immutable one ‘GOD’??

Answer: By creating a completely untenable and illogical three person Being who combines the true belief of a ONE GOD with the pagan belief of MULTIPLE DEITIES AS ‘GODS’… rulers, creators, lawgivers, Sacred ones… e.g. Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon; Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer; and many more.

Each trinitarian is allowed to invent their way out of how these are supposed to exist separately and yet be completely THE SAME or WHY there would ever be a need for THREE EQUAL POWERED ALMIGHTY individuals would ever be required … And how an immutable GOD would ever say: ‘I don’t want to be GOD… I want to be my own limited weak creation - even lower than the spirit servants I created - and be separated from the OTHER TWO INSEPARABLE GOD PERSONS whom I USED TO BELONG TO…’ (or any such nonsense - make it up, which is what they do!!)
Yes, I agree - it's one non sensical statement after another, right from the start until finish. And worse, not a single ounce of glory to God, but on the contrary, absolute defamation and blasphemy.
Trinitarianism is the worst doctrine in all of Christendom.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Before you reply back with John 1:1 in an English version(which will be addressed below) that capitalized "god" when referring to Jesus know that all punctuation, including what to capitalize or lower case was in the hands of the translator. Its best to let scripture explain scripture. Know that the bible says there is only one Almighty God(Jesus' God and Father). Notice other things IN SCRIPTURE (I didnt write it) are called god- again capital and lower case were up to the translator thats why its important to let the bible translate itself.



1. Yhwh is the only one refered to as Almighty God.
" And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but with regard to my name Yhwh I did not make myself known to them." Ex 6:3

2. "No God but me"?
"This is what Yhwh says, The King of Israel and his Repurchaser, Yhwh of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me.'" Isa 44:6

In the overall context of the bible He is saying he has no equal. There are obviously other gods as we will see. He even says, "Have no other gods besides me" Ex 20:3

3. Other gods but not Yhwh
Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified—" John 10:34-35

"God(Yhwh) takes his place in the divine assembly; In the middle of the gods he judges" Ps 82:1

Jesus and Satan are both gods according to scripure but are not Yhwh
"among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through." 2 Cor 4:4

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1



We can see through the scriptures that other living things can be refered to as god, but there is only 1 Almighty God which is Yhwh(Jehovah is some bibles LORD in some bibles)
Another god? How many gods do you have? If you are reverting to polytheism, I feel sorry for you. It's a step backwards.

Elohim has a number of meanings. It can be singular and refer to the One True God. It can be plural, and refer to the many gods of pagans, to angels, and even to human judges.

I believe it is a bad translation to say the Psalm 82:6 says "ye are gods." A Jewish translation that I have says "You are like angels."

Satan is not a god, at least, not in Judaism. For most Jews, Satan is simply a metaphor for our own evil inclination. For Jews that believe Satan is a literal entity, he is an angel. He has a difficult job, but he is basically God's employee.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
1) Regarding the actual Greek text of John 1:1c meaning “God” or “a God” or “a god”.

Seek and Find said in the O.P. regarding Jesus being “a God”. : "Before you reply back with John 1:1 in an English version(which will be addressed below) that capitalized "god" when referring to Jesus know that all punctuation, including what to capitalize or lower case was in the hands of the translator. Its best to let scripture explain scripture. …" (O.P.)

DNB said : “Proper rendering : In the beginning was God's word/will/plan, and the word/will/plan was with God (as wisdom was with God before all time), and the word/will/plan was Godlike (divine, sublime)” (post #124)


Hi @seekandfind and other readers :

Speaking specifically to the greek GRAMMAR of John 1:1c (and not to the theology or meaning), both of these points seem a bit Silly, especially the bizarre attempt at “proper rendering” by DNB and agreed to by Soapy who (obviously do not read greek or offer the "rendering" for some other reason)

While I disagree with much of the theology of the Jehovahs Witnesses, they are perfectly correct that John 1:1c reads “…and the Word was a God” GRAMMATICALLY (capitalization of God is irrelevant to my point)

My point is that GRAMMATICALLY, the sentence does read “and the Word was a God” and not “and the Word was God”.

HOWEVER, context is king and ALWAYS overrides grammar in determining what the author meant.

IF the author simply left out the article because of an assumed context, then it can be correct to render the phrase “and the Word was God”.

Grammar and context are two different issues.

In ANY CASE, DNBs “proper rendering” is bizarre. Perhaps it is a commentary but it is certainly not a correct translation of the actual Greek which reads “Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογoς”

Greek readers will see that there is NO article applied to the second “θεος”, therefore, grammatically it is “a God”. However, context of the author always determines the authors intent and meaning regardless of grammar.

IF debaters are going to come to some conclusion as to the correct meaning of the phrase, you will have to argue context and not grammar since the J.W.s are correct regarding grammar.

This point is discussed endlessly in the forums in the following link :
Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

Clear
 
Last edited:

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
1) Regarding the actual Greek text of John 1:1c meaning “God” or “a God” or “a god”.

Seek and Find said in the O.P. regarding Jesus being “a God”. : "Before you reply back with John 1:1 in an English version(which will be addressed below) that capitalized "god" when referring to Jesus know that all punctuation, including what to capitalize or lower case was in the hands of the translator. Its best to let scripture explain scripture. …" (O.P.)

DNB said : “Proper rendering : In the beginning was God's word/will/plan, and the word/will/plan was with God (as wisdom was with God before all time), and the word/will/plan was Godlike (divine, sublime)” (post #124)


Hi @seekandfind and other readers :

Speaking specifically to the greek GRAMMAR of John 1:1c (and not to the theology or meaning), both of these points seem a bit Silly, especially the bizarre attempt at “proper rendering” by DNB and agreed to by Soapy who (obviously do not read greek or offer the "rendering" for some other reason)

While I disagree with much of the theology of the Jehovahs Witnesses, they are perfectly correct that John 1:1c reads “…and the Word was a God” GRAMMATICALLY (capitalization of God is irrelevant to my point)

My point is that GRAMMATICALLY, the sentence does read “and the Word was a God” and not “and the Word was God”.

HOWEVER, context is king and ALWAYS overrides grammar in determining what the author meant.

IF the author simply left out the article because of an assumed context, then it can be correct to render the phrase “and the Word was God”.

Grammar and context are two different issues.

In ANY CASE, DNBs “proper rendering” is bizarre. Perhaps it is a commentary but it is certainly not a correct translation of the actual Greek which reads “Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογoς”

Greek readers will see that there is NO article applied to the second “θεος”, therefore, grammatically it is “a God”. However, context of the author always determines the authors intent and meaning regardless of grammar.

IF debaters are going to come to some conclusion as to the correct meaning of the phrase, you will have to argue context and not grammar since the J.W.s are correct regarding grammar.

This point is discussed endlessly in the forums in the following link :
Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

Clear
I don’t know what it is that you just said but anything to do with agreement with JW, please leave my name out.

The use of the word, ‘God’, is two fold:
  1. The TITLE of someone who is regarded as the ultimate Being in a contextual setting… which means that even Satan can be called ‘God’… ‘The God of … the lie, evil, deception…’ In the wording, ‘Ye are Gods’, it means that those spoken of, ‘Ye’, who are the ultimate of beings in humanity, and/or in the angelic realm. There is always a context to the usage.
  2. As an Adjective, and a Superlative Adjective, specifically: ‘The God of all explosions’, ‘The greatest’, ‘The most powerful’, ‘The most majestic’, ‘The most glorious’, ‘The Ruling act’…
Thus it can be said that ‘God [the title for a deity] is GOD [The ruling entity, the highest of all Beings]’. Where the title is expanded, it becomes:
  • The God ‘OF… a context’
In the Bible, we have, ‘God of the Jews’, ‘God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’. It must be noticed that in the context of PAGAN Gods (Deities), a NAME or designation is always used, E.g. The Philistine God, Dagon. And in the beginning (O.T., TANAHK, Torah), ‘Yahweh, the God of the Israelites’. However, by the New Testament, since everything is seen from the perspective of the Jew, the NAME is dropped, fore-given, and only the title is used, ‘God’, with the absolute assumption that it refers to the JEWISH GOD (God of the Jews)… There was no need to define the NAME of ‘The God’ to which the title ‘God’ referred.

Thus, in John 1:1, we see that ‘In the beginning the word was God’… which marries with ‘Let there be light!’, the ultimate and most glorious utterance of God… the creation of the universe!!!
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi Soapy

Soapy said : "I don’t know what it is that you just said ..." (post #129)

I agree with your admission.
The rest of your post was irrelevant to the grammar of John 1:1c.

Clear
 

Betho_br

Member
Podemos ver através das escrituras que outras coisas vivas podem ser chamadas de deus, mas existe apenas um Deus Todo-Poderoso que é Yhwh (Jeová é algumas Bíblias, SENHOR em algumas Bíblias)

Analysis of John 10:30 – The Unity and Name of God​


The Joanne context 1:

Jesus answered, “I have already told you, and you did not believe me. The proof is the works I do in the name of my Father. But you do not believe me because you are not my sheep. My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them from my hand, for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than all. No one can snatch them from my Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.” Once again, the Jewish leaders picked up stones to stone him. Jesus said, “By my Father’s direction, I have done many good works. For which of these works do you want to stone me?” They replied, “We are not going to stone you for any good work, but for blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be God!” New Transforming Version (NVT) © Mundo Cristão – All rights reserved.

If we consider the existence of an ellipsis, the omission of a term in the sentence that is easily understood after the phrase “we are one,” this term must be in accordance with the basic grammatical rules of the Greek language, that is, it will be in the singular and in the neuter gender, and the word “name” is the only word in the context in question that satisfies the concordance requirements.

It will be considered that when analyzing the words of the Lord Jesus in parallel, all other theologies are secondary; the Pauline theology should complement, but without distorting the meaning of Jesus’ words. Thus, the phrase “The Father and I are one” in the Joanne context, the apostolic autograph 2, is crucial for the understanding of the Doctrine of Unity, as already explained. The word “one” in the phrase in question in Greek is in the neuter gender, so they are not one person, and indeed, Jesus did not claim to be the Father, nor are they a “thing.” On this, we will focus on what is already effectively revealed, not on what they may be.

When he says that the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father 3, as the Son of God 4 in particular 5, in particular, He is God 6, so He is prevented from doing something different from the Father 7, nor can He be less honored 8 and loved 9 than the Father, as well as being fully on the Father’s throne 10. Jesus was the only one, and also the first, who, living in the flesh, was uniquely inside the Father 11; here those who sought 12 and did not achieve being 13 inside the first condition of humanity are excluded. Created within the image of God without corruption 14, including even those who were according to God’s heart, like Kings David and Ezekiel, who had a greater permanence within God 15. A continuation of staying in God was necessary 16, which reached the whole nation 17. The prophetic project was consummated in the Name given to Jesus 18, for when He prophesied that as a Father 19, He would come in the quality of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, without losing the previous quality of Father in relation to the children, He revealed the Unity20 in the church, and it is through the Name of Jesus that we have Unity with God 21. Therefore, God also exalted Jesus, the one called the Logos of God 22, sovereignly, and gave Him a Name that is above every name, which no one knows except Himself 23, and by this Name of the Father, Jesus and the Father are one 24. So that at the Name given to Jesus, every knee should bow, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father 25.

The interpretation of a union of purposes for the prayer “we are one” is a forced understanding of the Words of Jesus. He literally said, “I am inside God, and I and the Father are one, we are relatives in particular!” 26 The Jews had no doubt that He was claiming to be God 27. Another similar and significant case is Pharaoh’s dreams 28, which are two, but their substance is one, one metaphysical essence. “One” does not necessarily mean in this context one dream, as indeed two dream manifestations are understood. This extends to the argument that it is not one person, but two or more, with substantial unity. It is necessary to observe that the prayer “we are one” in the Joanne context, in Aramaic, is also found in the text that narrates Pharaoh’s dreams, as well as in the Greek and Hebrew prayers, being the golden text of the article. Another example is that of Adam and Eve, both were one flesh, whether they had a son or more, they were husband and wife, male and female, one flesh. Now, in the case of the pastoral prophecy, in which David represents pastoral unity 29 together with the Father. 30 Following this line of thought, we come to the Church, which is made up of many members, who are one body. The Father and I are one Name, Jesus said without a doubt. Similarly, initially the three persons were one God. In the Scriptures, God is complex, the manifestation of the one in Flesh is truly a mystery.31 As the tabernacled Logos, He is also in the heavens. 32

References in order of appearance

1) John 10:25-33
2) John 21:20,24
3) John 10:38
4) John 10:36
5) 2 Samuel 7:14 LXX, John 5:18
6) Philippians 2:6
7) John 5:19
8 ) John 5:23
9) 1 John 5:1
10) Acts 2:30
11) John 10:38; 14:10
12) 2 Samuel 19:08 LXX, 1 Kings 1:17,30; 2:30, Psalms 17:30 LXX, 18:29 HEB; 44:9 HEB, 55:5 LXX, 56:5 HEB; 107:14 LXX, 108:13 HEB; Hosea 1:7; Habakkuk 3:18, Zechariah 12:5
13) Romans 11:7
14) Genesis 9:6
15) 1 Samuel 30:6, 2 Kings 18:4,5
16) 1 Samuel 25:9; Psalms 32:21 LXX, 33:21 HEB; 43:6, 44:5 HEB; 43:9 LXX, 44:8 HEB; 53:3 LXX, 54:4 HEB; 62:5 LXX HEB; 88:13 LXX, 89:12 HEB; 88:17 LXX, 89:16 HEB; 104:3 LXX, 106:3 HEB; Zechariah 10:12; Daniel 9:6; Mark 9:38; 16:17; Luke 9:49; 10:17; John 5:43; 10:25; 14:13; 14:14; 13:26; 14:14; 14:26; 15:16; 16:23; 16:24; 16:26; 17:12; 20:31; Atos 3:6; 4:10; 9:27,28; 10:48; 1 Coríntios 6:11; Tiago 5:10,14
Here are the literal translations of the provided verses and passages in American English:
17) Zechariah 10:12, Psalms 44:8, Micah 5:4
18) John 20:31
19) John 14:18
20) 1 Corinthians 3:8, 5:4, 12:12, Galatians 3:20, 3:28; 1 John 5:18
21) 1 John 5:20, Romans 5:11, Colossians 3:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 John 4:15, 4:16
22) Revelation 19:13
23) Revelation 19:12
24) John 17:11
25) Philippians 2:9-11
26) Luke 1:61
27) John 10:33
28) Genesis 41:26, 41:27
29) Ezekiel 37:24
30) Psalms 23:1; 80:1 HEB
31) Ephesians 3:9
32) John 3:13.
 

Betho_br

Member
In the above context, as seen before, “The Name” is in the neuter, so Jesus said, it is within the “Name”: “in (within) the name of my Father” (John 10:25).

It fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 14:9: “The LORD will be King over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be one, and His name one.” Therefore, there is one Lord, because there is one Name (John 10:30). As the Son of the Father, eternally begotten within righteousness and truth, “…τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ…” (John 13:31, 32; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 John 1:3, Romans 3:21, Romans 1:19, 1 John 4:9), He will establish Himself and shepherd us in the power of Yahweh, in the majesty of the Name of the LORD. This is His Elohim, the God! And we will live in peace and security, for His greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. Micah 5:4, also Zechariah 10:12; 12:5.

Therefore, the Son and the Father are united in equality (John 5:18, Philippians 2:6, John 13:31). All these prophecies and signs have been fulfilled and recorded so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, we may have life in His Name, the Name of the Father (John 20:31).

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the True One; and we are in the True One, that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and Eternal Life. 1 John 5:20.

So, Jesus is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son (Matthew 1:23, John 10:38; 14:10-11, 18; and 1 Cor 8:6), and there is one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:6 Pad. G.J. Therefore, this True God is the Father only when the Person of the Son emerges within Him (Hebrews 1:13), and we are only in God when we are in His Son, who, generated within God, transported us to God through His blood. It is not surprising that:

By which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. Acf 2 Peter 1:4.

We partake of the divine nature of the Father!

NOTE: I am not using the following text as inspired or adulterated; it is not the focus. However, it is certainly a text from the early church, hence its exegetical value: “baptizing them IN the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:19. It is not “BY,” nor “WITH,” but WITHIN the NAME of the FATHER, WITHIN the NAME of the SON, and WITHIN the Name of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, these three have ONE NAME through this early exegesis and agreement with the article.

To understand the force of the use of the preposition εν in John 14:20 and determine if it suggests a full indwelling, we need to consider various arguments, including the analysis of other verses and the provided context.

The verse in question is John 14:20, which says: “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” (NIV)

**Meaning of the preposition εν + dative in biblical contexts**
The use of the preposition εν + dative in John 14:20 is crucial. This construction is used in a static sense, and the preposition εν is often associated with the idea of a sphere. Analyzing the contexts of other verses, such as 1 Samuel 23:2, 1 Samuel 28:6, and others, reveals the intimacy of consulting God or walking under His sovereignty. This suggests that the preposition εν in John 14:20 also implies a deep connection and relationship. Judges (A) 20:23; Judges (A) 21:7; 1 Samuel 2:1; 1 Samuel 10:22; 1 Samuel 24:22; 1 Samuel 30:6; 2 Samuel 2:1; 2 Samuel 19:8; 1 Kings 1:17; 1 Kings 1:30; 2 Kings 18:5; 2 Chronicles 20:20; 2 Chronicles 26:16; Psalm 20:8; Psalm 32:1; Isaiah 45:25; Hosea 1:7; Habakkuk 3:18; Zechariah 10:12; Zechariah 12:5;

**Correlations with other verses**
The text refers to other verses that emphasize the unity between the Father, the Son, and the disciples. In John 10:15, Jesus speaks of mutual knowledge between him and the Father, which is related to the idea of being “in” each other. Furthermore, John 14:17 mentions the Spirit of Truth dwelling in the disciples, indicating that mutual knowledge is linked to the divine presence. John 1:18, John 14:10-11, and 1 John 2:5; 1 John 2:24; 1 John 4:13; 1 John 4:16

“ginōskein” and “ginōskousin”
The apparent redundancy in the passage concerns the use of the words “know” and “understand” in the context. The phrase in question, “Knowing and understanding” in English, uses two verbs with similar meanings. In the original Greek context, the verbs used are “ginōskein,” which is in the aorist form (know), and “ginōskousin,” which is in the present form (understand) of the same verb. This choice can be interpreted in two ways: Emphasis: The use of both forms of the verb can emphasize the importance of comprehensive understanding and is not just about having knowledge but also deeply comprehending what is being conveyed.

Saint Basil’s Perspective

BOOK OF SAINT BASIL ON THE SPIRIT.
ON THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/On the Holy Spirit/Chapter 18 Philip Schaff et al.

In what manner, in the confession of the three hypostases, we preserve the pious dogma of Monarchy. Where is also the refutation of those who claim that the Spirit is subnumbered.

45. “… And until now we have never heard, not even in the present, of a second God. In worshipping God from God, we confess the distinction of Persons and at the same time remain in the Monarchy. We do not dismember theology into a divided plurality because a Form, as it were, united in the immutability of Divinity, is seen in God the Father and in God the Only-begotten. For the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son; for as this is, so is that, and as that is, so is this; and here is the Unity. Thus, according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of Nature, one.”

Saint Basil emphasizes the unity of the Trinity and how the presence of each divine Person is inseparable. He asserts that the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son, and this unity is based on the community of nature and the distinction of persons. This supports the idea that the preposition εν in John 14:20 denotes a deep and unbreakable connection that goes beyond mere physical presence.

“In response to the Key Question.”
Based on the arguments presented, the use of the preposition εν in John 14:20 suggests an intimate and profound connection between the Father, the Son, and the disciples. This connection goes beyond physical presence and implies a deep spiritual union. The use of εν (+ dative) in this context indeed suggests a “full dwelling,” indicating that the divine presence is not just superficial but involves a deep and inseparable spiritual communion between God, Jesus, and believers. Therefore, the strength of the preposition εν in John 14:20 denotes a complete spiritual union.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
This is what the Scripture says:

Is. 53:12 ... he poured out his soul to the very death ...
I believe that depends on how one defines soul. If it is defined as body and emotions then the statement is correct. If it is defined as Spirit it contradicts NT scripture.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The following inspired words show that there is no reincarnation:

Rom. 9:10 (...) also when Rebekah conceived twins from the one man, Isaac our forefather; 11 for when they had not yet been born and had not practiced anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not on works, but on the One who calls, 12 it was said to her: “The older will be the slave of the younger.”

Paul says that God chose Jacob instead of Esau without any of them having existed or performed something good or bad before their birth, but because He decided so by himself "so that God’s purpose respecting the choosing might continue dependent, not on works, but on the One who calls". Therefore, there is no something that someone has done before birth.
I do not believe existence and birth are the same thing.
 

Betho_br

Member
Before you reply back with John 1:1 in an English version(which will be addressed below) that capitalized "god" when referring to Jesus know that all punctuation, including what to capitalize or lower case was in the hands of the translator. Its best to let scripture explain scripture. Know that the bible says there is only one Almighty God(Jesus' God and Father). Notice other things IN SCRIPTURE (I didnt write it) are called god- again capital and lower case were up to the translator thats why its important to let the bible translate itself.



1. Yhwh is the only one refered to as Almighty God.
" And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but with regard to my name Yhwh I did not make myself known to them." Ex 6:3

2. "No God but me"?
"This is what Yhwh says, The King of Israel and his Repurchaser, Yhwh of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me.'" Isa 44:6

In the overall context of the bible He is saying he has no equal. There are obviously other gods as we will see. He even says, "Have no other gods besides me" Ex 20:3

3. Other gods but not Yhwh
Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified—" John 10:34-35

"God(Yhwh) takes his place in the divine assembly; In the middle of the gods he judges" Ps 82:1

Jesus and Satan are both gods according to scripure but are not Yhwh
"among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through." 2 Cor 4:4

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1



We can see through the scriptures that other living things can be refered to as god, but there is only 1 Almighty God which is Yhwh(Jehovah is some bibles LORD in some bibles)

Jesus is a permanent tabernacle of the Logos of the Father. Mary was made with full grace to be a temporary tabernacle of Jesus. In Revelation 21:22, it is said that the Almighty God and the Lamb are one Temple.
 

freelight

Soul Pioneer
Premium Member
Before you reply back with John 1:1 in an English version(which will be addressed below) that capitalized "god" when referring to Jesus know that all punctuation, including what to capitalize or lower case was in the hands of the translator. Its best to let scripture explain scripture. Know that the bible says there is only one Almighty God(Jesus' God and Father). Notice other things IN SCRIPTURE (I didnt write it) are called god- again capital and lower case were up to the translator thats why its important to let the bible translate itself.



1. Yhwh is the only one refered to as Almighty God.
" And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but with regard to my name Yhwh I did not make myself known to them." Ex 6:3

2. "No God but me"?
"This is what Yhwh says, The King of Israel and his Repurchaser, Yhwh of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me.'" Isa 44:6

In the overall context of the bible He is saying he has no equal. There are obviously other gods as we will see. He even says, "Have no other gods besides me" Ex 20:3

3. Other gods but not Yhwh
Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified—" John 10:34-35

"God(Yhwh) takes his place in the divine assembly; In the middle of the gods he judges" Ps 82:1

Jesus and Satan are both gods according to scripure but are not Yhwh
"among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through." 2 Cor 4:4

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1



We can see through the scriptures that other living things can be refered to as god, but there is only 1 Almighty God which is Yhwh(Jehovah is some bibles LORD in some bibles)

There are many different forms, versions and personifications of 'God', as well as 'gods' and 'goddesses',....welcome to the cosmos! (infinity).

The generations-old debate between Unitarians & Trintarians is old hat (rather crusty too),....but frankly a Unit-Arian view is most logical and practical for most common people, as Jesus is a person 'God' anointed and sent, to be his AGENT of salvation, - the one whom 'God' sends is the one who speaks for and REPRESENTS him. - the finer details and metaphysical assumptions of Jesus divinity or what 'ratio' of him is human/divine :rolleyes: and other such complications were the projects of church councils vying for socio-political power in the first 5 centuries as we see in the Arian Controversy, to which Arians did hold their ground often in popularity until circumstances enabled the 'Trinity-concept' to be made 'dogma' in official 'creeds' in the 4th century. This does not prove its 'truth' necessarily as it became the 'convention' accepted by those controlling the state of affairs, that is, that 'state' within their power to dictate anything. Unitarians who were the earliest followers of Jesus and those after the Trinitarians won their official 'debates' still continued on, and were just as well if not better followers of Jesus :) (I dont assume that one group is better than the other but just to note different viewpoints).

Jesus is whatever or whoever you assume he is; - one can interpret scriptures in various ways to support any particular view, cherry-pick as you please,....but a Unitarian view is predominant and revealed in scripture no matter how one wants to morph Jesus into 'God', - the clear association of persons is evident, no matter how mundane or metaphysical you choose to 'interpret' such relationship (uni, tri, modalism, etc.), but the original unitarian view and traditional Jewish concept of the messiah still holds, as a MAN that is God's AGENT, but dont forget, the one universal infinite omnipresent prime Creator, the Universal Father of all, also uses us as his 'agents' as we are also tabernacles of his spirit. - from within this context we can interpret and contextualize our relationship with 'God' and his 'Messiah' in so many ways, choose whatever 'Christology' that makes sense to you, but also know that points of view, opinions and perspectives maybe subject to CHANGE. On a pure metaphysical level, there is only 'God' and the many different expressions of 'God', as the omnipresent ONE who is ALL that IS.

John 1:1 is best interpreted in its full spectrum, but that the logos was 'divine' (i.e. a god, and not necessarily 'God' proper) because it originates FROM 'God' and was WITH 'God', is in clear relational distinction...no matter how you interpret this metaphysically or 'personally', while interpretions from a greek philosophical perspective can argue this more on a non-personal level regarding the meaning or identity of 'logos', and rightly so, although the writer of John is interjecting this 'logos concept' within his own gospel narrative which superimposes new elements into the strata.

We will note that John's gospel in toto goes on to clearly differentiate Jesus from 'God' as the 'Son' of 'God' in clear terms in the majority of cases, no matter what metaphysical association is assumed in such relations (again, spin whatever 'Christology' floats your boat). 'God' may reveal himself and operate thru any particular AGENT and/or many different 'agencies'....as 'God' is forever doing, because you cannot put 'God' (who is infinite) in a 'box' :)


~*~*~
 
Last edited:

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
In the above context, as seen before, “The Name” is in the neuter, so Jesus said, it is within the “Name”: “in (within) the name of my Father” (John 10:25).

It fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 14:9: “The LORD will be King over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be one, and His name one.” Therefore, there is one Lord, because there is one Name (John 10:30). As the Son of the Father, eternally begotten within righteousness and truth, “…τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ…” (John 13:31, 32; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 John 1:3, Romans 3:21, Romans 1:19, 1 John 4:9), He will establish Himself and shepherd us in the power of Yahweh, in the majesty of the Name of the LORD. This is His Elohim, the God! And we will live in peace and security, for His greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. Micah 5:4, also Zechariah 10:12; 12:5.

Therefore, the Son and the Father are united in equality (John 5:18, Philippians 2:6, John 13:31). All these prophecies and signs have been fulfilled and recorded so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, we may have life in His Name, the Name of the Father (John 20:31).

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the True One; and we are in the True One, that is, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and Eternal Life. 1 John 5:20.

So, Jesus is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son (Matthew 1:23, John 10:38; 14:10-11, 18; and 1 Cor 8:6), and there is one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:6 Pad. G.J. Therefore, this True God is the Father only when the Person of the Son emerges within Him (Hebrews 1:13), and we are only in God when we are in His Son, who, generated within God, transported us to God through His blood. It is not surprising that:

By which He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. Acf 2 Peter 1:4.

We partake of the divine nature of the Father!

NOTE: I am not using the following text as inspired or adulterated; it is not the focus. However, it is certainly a text from the early church, hence its exegetical value: “baptizing them IN the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:19. It is not “BY,” nor “WITH,” but WITHIN the NAME of the FATHER, WITHIN the NAME of the SON, and WITHIN the Name of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, these three have ONE NAME through this early exegesis and agreement with the article.

To understand the force of the use of the preposition εν in John 14:20 and determine if it suggests a full indwelling, we need to consider various arguments, including the analysis of other verses and the provided context.

The verse in question is John 14:20, which says: “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” (NIV)

**Meaning of the preposition εν + dative in biblical contexts**
The use of the preposition εν + dative in John 14:20 is crucial. This construction is used in a static sense, and the preposition εν is often associated with the idea of a sphere. Analyzing the contexts of other verses, such as 1 Samuel 23:2, 1 Samuel 28:6, and others, reveals the intimacy of consulting God or walking under His sovereignty. This suggests that the preposition εν in John 14:20 also implies a deep connection and relationship. Judges (A) 20:23; Judges (A) 21:7; 1 Samuel 2:1; 1 Samuel 10:22; 1 Samuel 24:22; 1 Samuel 30:6; 2 Samuel 2:1; 2 Samuel 19:8; 1 Kings 1:17; 1 Kings 1:30; 2 Kings 18:5; 2 Chronicles 20:20; 2 Chronicles 26:16; Psalm 20:8; Psalm 32:1; Isaiah 45:25; Hosea 1:7; Habakkuk 3:18; Zechariah 10:12; Zechariah 12:5;

**Correlations with other verses**
The text refers to other verses that emphasize the unity between the Father, the Son, and the disciples. In John 10:15, Jesus speaks of mutual knowledge between him and the Father, which is related to the idea of being “in” each other. Furthermore, John 14:17 mentions the Spirit of Truth dwelling in the disciples, indicating that mutual knowledge is linked to the divine presence. John 1:18, John 14:10-11, and 1 John 2:5; 1 John 2:24; 1 John 4:13; 1 John 4:16

“ginōskein” and “ginōskousin”
The apparent redundancy in the passage concerns the use of the words “know” and “understand” in the context. The phrase in question, “Knowing and understanding” in English, uses two verbs with similar meanings. In the original Greek context, the verbs used are “ginōskein,” which is in the aorist form (know), and “ginōskousin,” which is in the present form (understand) of the same verb. This choice can be interpreted in two ways: Emphasis: The use of both forms of the verb can emphasize the importance of comprehensive understanding and is not just about having knowledge but also deeply comprehending what is being conveyed.

Saint Basil’s Perspective

BOOK OF SAINT BASIL ON THE SPIRIT.
ON THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/On the Holy Spirit/Chapter 18 Philip Schaff et al.

In what manner, in the confession of the three hypostases, we preserve the pious dogma of Monarchy. Where is also the refutation of those who claim that the Spirit is subnumbered.

45. “… And until now we have never heard, not even in the present, of a second God. In worshipping God from God, we confess the distinction of Persons and at the same time remain in the Monarchy. We do not dismember theology into a divided plurality because a Form, as it were, united in the immutability of Divinity, is seen in God the Father and in God the Only-begotten. For the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son; for as this is, so is that, and as that is, so is this; and here is the Unity. Thus, according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of Nature, one.”

Saint Basil emphasizes the unity of the Trinity and how the presence of each divine Person is inseparable. He asserts that the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son, and this unity is based on the community of nature and the distinction of persons. This supports the idea that the preposition εν in John 14:20 denotes a deep and unbreakable connection that goes beyond mere physical presence.

“In response to the Key Question.”
Based on the arguments presented, the use of the preposition εν in John 14:20 suggests an intimate and profound connection between the Father, the Son, and the disciples. This connection goes beyond physical presence and implies a deep spiritual union. The use of εν (+ dative) in this context indeed suggests a “full dwelling,” indicating that the divine presence is not just superficial but involves a deep and inseparable spiritual communion between God, Jesus, and believers. Therefore, the strength of the preposition εν in John 14:20 denotes a complete spiritual union.
It’s funny and strange how you profess a unity of God and Son of God as a TRINITY (an invented word in regards to a ONE GOD!) yet EXCLUDE the claimed THIRD ENTITY… a Holy Spirit!!

You use, ‘Baptise [people of God?] in the name of … the unity … the trinity’ since you claim all three NAMES are ONE NAME, though if I were to ask, ‘What is the name of the Holy Spirit?’ I would warrant you could not produce even a single scripture verse to validate your claim!

How do you justify ‘The Father being equal to the Son’ or ‘The son being equal to the Holy Spirit’ given that ‘Holy Spirit’ is the PROPERTY of the Father … The Spirit of the Father… the Father’s Spirit?
 

Betho_br

Member
When did the Spirit, possession of God, come to be understood as God Himself?

The use of the definite article with genitive declension τοῦ and τῆς:

ἡ the γὰρ for σὰρξ flesh ἐπιθυμεῖ desires κατὰ down (discredit) τοῦ of the πνεύματος Spirit, τὸ the δὲ but πνεῦμα Spirit κατὰ down (discredit) τῆς of the σαρκός flesh, ταῦτα these γὰρ for ἀλλήλοις to one another ἀντίκειται opposes, ἵνα so that μὴ not ἃ what ἐὰν if θέλητε you may want ταῦτα these ποιῆτε do. Galatians 5:17 Interlinear

For the flesh desires to discredit " " of the Spirit, but the Spirit discredits " " of the flesh. Thus, they oppose each other so that, probably, they are not doing the things they want. Galatians 5:17

For the flesh desires to discredit " " of the Spirit, but the Spirit discredits " " of the flesh. Thus, they, opposing each other, probably, are not doing the things they want. Galatians 5:17

The definite articles τοῦ and τῆς, declined in the genitive, refer to what belongs to the Spirit and the flesh and suggest to readers an interpretation that the discrediting action practiced by them, by the Spirit and by the flesh, is opposing, not leading to any desired result for both.

Analyzing the discourse of the Lord Jesus in the chapter of Matthew 12.

"... but if by the spirit of God, I am casting out demons..." Matthew 12:28

"...ὃς δ᾽ ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου..." Matthew 12:32

"...But whoever speaks against the spirit of the Holy One..." Matthew 12:32
"...But whoever speaks discrediting the " " of the Spirit of the Holy One..." Matthew 12:32

The definite article τοῦ declined in the genitive, referring to the possession of the Spirit of the Holy One, suggests to listeners an interpretation that the supposed discrediting speech practiced by those Pharisees and not forgiven is quite broad in relation to the possession of the Spirit and not only to the Holy Spirit called by them the Spirit of Beelzebub. This possession is being represented by an indefinite elliptical word " " in the verse by the construction τοῦ πνεύματος. Jesus asserts that this possession of the Spirit of the Holy One is more than those listeners and Pharisees thought, from that action, any work, conviction, fruit, etc., until the testimony of the Spirit of the Holy One (or of God), all possession of the Spirit of God, could not be more discredited, to avoid incurring the eternal sin of blasphemy, only associated with Almighty God, the Father.

The disciples put this teaching into practice in Acts 5:3-4:

Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God." New International Version.
 

Betho_br

Member
It’s funny and strange how you profess a unity of God and Son of God as a TRINITY (an invented word in regards to a ONE GOD!) yet EXCLUDE the claimed THIRD ENTITY… a Holy Spirit!!
The "correct" definition of the Trinity:

(a) God is the One who is, at the same time, Three Persons. The word "Persons" does not mean what we usually think it means. See point "e."

(b) That means a nature, essence, or being that is essentially the Father.

(c) God and His nature are synonymous.

(d) Unity is not generic based on similarity but numerical based on sameness.

(e) "Three persons" do not mean "persons" in the way we normally understand the word, but rather three expressions, extensions, manifestations, or modes, otherwise called hypostases in theology.

(f) The Person of the Son proceeds from the Father by an eternal generation, without an end process. This is comparable to the rays of the sun, which never separate from the sun itself.

(g) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son by a mediate procession.

(h) The Three Persons are truly distinct from each other by virtue of the processes of filiation and spiration. However, this does not make them separate entities with independent consciousness.

(i) The Father does not beget or proceed from anyone, as He is the Source from which everything else flows.

(j) Although the Son and the Spirit proceed from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are coeternal and equal to the Father. (Note: these "co-words" are code terms for the Trinity.)

(k) The theological term that explains the Trinity is consubstantiality (homoousios), which means that more than one person inhabits the same substance without division or separation.
 
Top