Who created all things: God or the Son?

[Trailblazer]

"Jesus made God visible. That means that Jesus and God were TWO separate entities." That is very poor reasoning. When people saw Jesus they saw God!

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Jesus was a Manifestation of God, not God incarnate, so what people saw when they saw Jesus was a Manifestation of God, who was also a Prophet and a Messenger of God.

The Holy Spirit is God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different manifestations of the one triune God.

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is the central doctrine concerning the nature of God in most Christian churches, which defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons sharing one essence/substance/nature."

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, as am I, that is why God gave us all free will.
What you believe is like water off a duck's back to me since I have the latest update from God that I believe is the truth, and that is HOW I how that the Trinity doctrine is false.

The Trinity is false to you because you do not understand it! Your subjective opinion is just that.

No, the Trinity doctrine is false because it is false, and lots of Christians who are reading the same Bible you are reading know that.

Now, read this carefully, as many times as is necessary, until you understand it.: "I and the Father are one."

“I and my Father are one” does not mean that Jesus is God.

You can keep repeating yourself and I will keep repeating myself so all you are doing is providing ad space for my beliefs.
It is a simple copy/paste for me, no typing needed, since I have all these things saved in Word documents.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings, are identical with the Will of the Father. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one. Jesus also shares some (but not all) the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one.

When you stop choosing words out of context from the Old Testament and the New Testament, then conflating them to derive some false doctrine, perhaps we can continue this discussion.

If you want to throw out the Old Testament, you just threw out Adam and Eve and original sin, which is the entire basis for the Christian belief that Jesus had to die on the cross to remove our sins. You will also have to throw out all the prophecies that mean that Jesus was a messiah.

Are you sure you want to do that?

 

[Sargonski]

Are you actually saying that Jesus was/is not God??? " is one of the most absurd things I have read in a long time. Didn't they ever read John's gospel? John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Or if you prefer the KJV, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The same wording!)

None of the Early Church Fathers believed that Jesus was God??? Didn't they ever read these words???

Finally, re-read your own words: "Those squabbles put to an end by Emperor Constantine who around 325 AD settled the issue declaring that Jesus was "Homoousios" .. which meant "Same Substance as the Father"

In Greek Philosophy there were two kinds of substances .. that which God was made of .. and that which everything else was made of ... so in declaring Jesus was Homoousios Constantine was declaring that Jesus was God"

Sorry mate .. the Early Church Fathers did not read "These Words" -- "The Word was God" - the same way you are reading them. First off .. the words in the passage are not the same .. as explained to you. Did you not understand the Word .. Mistranslation ? followed by explanation that the actual term .. in all three instances is not "WORD" .. but Logos .

The modern reader does not read .. In the beginnning was the Logos.. and so they do not understand the passage in terms of the meaing of the Logos .. unless of course they have schooled themselves in such things .. which you clearly have not done.

The term Logos has different meanings depending on context --- but in a religious context .. means emmisary between man and God .. which is how a reader in the first century would have read the term.

In the beginning was the Logos -- what does a first century reader think upon reading this ? .. a very familiar concept to all .. Christian and Jew and Pagan alike .. in a world where the divinity of Christ was completely fluid .. was he fully man .. fully God .. somwhere in between .. ask a different sect .. get a different answer .. and different answers among the same sects ..

Do you understand ? --- not about your perspective -- but that of the reader... it is about what they think .. not what you .. or Constantine or anyone else living hundreds of years later thought.

Tell me .. baby steps .. your turn to the podium .. Explain to me how the Early Church Fathers .. ~ 100-120 AD .. when John was hot off the press .. read "In the beginning was the Logos" - what did they think that meant ? .. keeping in mind they were subordinantists to a person .. the idea that Jesus was "GOD - The Father" .. the primordial uncreated God of Judaism..perposterous nonsense and heresy x 10.

then .. to an average Joe on the Street with basic knowledge of Christianity - far less than yourself of course .. what means "In the beginning was the Word"

 

[Sargonski]

I read the Bible extensively -- every day.

People knew that God existed but nobody ever saw God until Jesus appeared on Earth, so how did anyone know who God actually was before then?

Cherry picked parts no doubt .. and with little to no effort to understand what is going on in a broader context.. but, hey .. I read the Bible more that 5 times a day on an average day just posting on here .. refuting nonsense with scripture .. helping the blind to see .. but is still appeal to authority fallacy to blurt his out as if it proves that something is true.

"nobody ever saw God" = assumed premise fallacy -- as you do not support this claim with non fallacious explanation, evidence, proof which shows this claim is true. your support is actually more assumed premise fallacy.

You fallacy 1 is that Jesus was God - we simply don't know this. fallacy 2 (non sequitur) is that even if Jesus was God - this does not mean people would recognize or know him. Presumably the most high God would be able to go among folks unreckognized.

Fallacy 3 - assumed premise that folks knew who God was after Jesus .. and that there is some reason to believe that folks didn't know God prior to Jesus.

Your "argument" .. which is not really an argument lacking support for claim .. is full of really big holes.

 

[Sargonski]

I believe what the Bible says. You believe Christian dogma.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

No, there is no point continuing this discussion because you have been thoroughly indoctrinated, so you cannot think for yourself.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus is God. That is only Christian dogma that came about by a misinterpretation of Bible verses.

Jesus is not God Bible verses

Yes ..but not only misinterpretation ... "I am one with the Father" being a classic - but that even if we accept "Jesus is God" as a Possible interpretation .. we have to place this one cherry picked sentence .. sorry .. not even a sentence .. this one cherry picked phrase .. and in fact colloquialism .. (a big ouchi)

Against a backdrop of literally hundreds of instances in scripture where Jesus describes his God - "The Father" as someone other than himself .. clearly in the third person .. with no ambiguity in interpretation..

"My God - My God - Why have you forsaken me.

Some of our Trinity loving friends expect us to believe that Jesus is calling out to himself .. that he has forgotten who he is .. having no ability to get himself out of the situation he clearly does not want to be in .. blaming his God for forsaking him .. something foreshadowed earlier when Jesus - again in the third person ... asks his God --- "take this cup from my hand" .. "let it be your will, not mine"

That is two separate wills in the picture .. "I and the Father are no longer one in purpose" now are we.. even if one in spirit.. one in the spirit of God .. and how many more alternate interpretations did we need. against a backdrop of hundreds of times Jesus clearly identifying the Father as someone other than himself.

The final nail is that John itself is a gospel written by an anonymous author .. who is coming from a completely different perspective of the divinity of Jesus than to be found in the synoptics .. where Jesus is clearly depicted as someone other than the father .. and even the question of his divinity is under question. .. In the first version of the story .. Jesus is made divine at his baptism .. as a man of 30 .. Adopted by God .. and called "annointed one of God" -- Messiah.

OK ? -- we can stop right there on the first page of the New Testement .. The Messiah is not God .. this is not a term used describe a God .. Annointed one David .. and annointed one Cyrus .. were not Gods .

The original version of the story does not even have an immaculate conception .. Jesus does not recieve the divine spark until a man of 30 .. at his baptism .. and even then he first has to go through a grueling ritual trial ( the same as the Pharaohs) prior to becoming part divine.

That is the first page of the book friends.. Jesus is not God

Version 2 .. the edited and updated version of the story .. the author of Matt using all of Mark sans a few passages he finds derogatory to Jesus and/or the disciples (pious fraud, artistic license, and sin of ommission but such was no big deal back in the day if for a greater purpose)

In Matt Jesus divinity increases .. now divine at Birth as opposed to baptism .. a little update to the story.. we also get the first proof of resurrection .. smoking gun .. tales of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. solving the mystery left in the original version of the story .. which ends with an empty tomb .. the reader left to wonder what happened to Jesus.

Version 3 -- the last of the the synoptics (and called synoptics for a reason friends -- John not being included) we have more stories of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death .. bolstering the raised divinity .. divine at birth .. now resurrected ... but never the idea that Jesus was God .. or pre-existent with God.. this does not come until much later .. and John is clearly not written by the disciple who by tradition was martred 50 years prior. ..

Only now .. 110-120 AD is the status of Jesus divinity raised to pre-existent .. but yet it still takes 200 more years to be granted = to God status.

 

[cataway]

John 17:20-23, " “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

"that all of them may be one ." 12 people being one person ?

 

[Trailblazer]

The final nail is that John itself is a gospel written by an anonymous author .. who is coming from a completely different perspective of the divinity of Jesus than to be found in the synoptics .. where Jesus is clearly depicted as someone other than the father .. and even the question of his divinity is under question. .. In the first version of the story .. Jesus is made divine at his baptism .. as a man of 30 .. Adopted by God .. and called "annointed one of God" -- Messiah.

John itself is a gospel written by an anonymous author? That's news to me, but thanks.
So Christians will claim John is the actual words Jesus spoke. How is that even possible?

 

[jimb]

You are wrong about that. People knew that God existed long before Jesus showed up on earth.
Ever heard of Zoroastrianism or Hinduism?

What came first Christianity or Zoroastrianism?

Founded more than 3,000 years ago, Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions still in existence, predating Christianity and Islam by many centuries. Jul 1, 2022

Ancient but small in number, Zoroastrians confront depletion of ...​

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

In fact, according to the facts of the history of Sanskrit and many ancient languages, the history of Sanatan Dharma in ancient India started about 13 thousand years before Christ, that is, 15 thousand years before today. Feb 3, 2023

What is Hinduism? How old is it? And what is its real History?​

Why didn't you read my post before you posted you reply? Again, people knew that God existed but nobody ever saw God until Jesus appeared on Earth, so how did anyone know who God actually was before then?

Founded more than 3,000 years ago, Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, but it is not as old as Judaism, which is at least 4,000 years old, so your claim is wrong.

Your claim about Sanatan Dharma is also wrong. The origins of Sanatan Dharma can be traced back to the Indus Valley Civilization (around 3300-1300 BCE), where archeological findings suggest the presence of early religious practices and symbols. So it started at the earliest around 3,000 years before Christ, and is 1,000 years younger than Judaism.

 

[jimb]

"that all of them may be one ." 12 people being one person ?

Not just 12 people, but many, many more, i.e., "my prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message". So how many people do you estimate have believed Christ's message over the years? Many millions?

Try understanding what "all of them may be one" means. It doesn't mean "one person"; that is your addition to what was spoken.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why didn't you read my post before you posted you reply? Again, people knew that God existed but nobody ever saw God until Jesus appeared on Earth, so how did anyone know who God actually was before then?

Nobody SAW GOD when Jesus appeared on Earth, because Jesus was not God.

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

 

[Trailblazer]

Founded more than 3,000 years ago, Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, but it is not as old as Judaism, which is at least 4,000 years old, so your claim is wrong.

Your claim about Sanatan Dharma is also wrong. The origins of Sanatan Dharma can be traced back to the Indus Valley Civilization (around 3300-1300 BCE), where archeological findings suggest the presence of early religious practices and symbols. So it started at the earliest around 3,000 years before Christ, and is 1,000 years younger than Judaism.

I was not referring to Judaism, I was referring to Christianity.

 

[jimb]

Nobody SAW GOD when Jesus appeared on Earth, because Jesus was not God.

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

John 14:7-9, "If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content.” Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

You need to keep reading John's gospel!

 

[jimb]

I was not referring to Judaism, I was referring to Christianity.

Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. [the first covenant] I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. [the second covenant]

Jesus was a Jew, as were all the authors of the "books" of the Bible (except Luke). Judaism and Christianity are labels that refer to God's Old Covenant and His New Covenant. They are different forms of the same religion, i.e., they refer to the same God: Yahweh.

 

[Trailblazer]

John 14:7-9, "If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content.” Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

You need to keep reading John's gospel!

Please note that Colossians 1:15 says that God is invisible.
Jesus was visible so that is one way we know that Jesus was not God.

God became visible in Jesus and then Jesus manifested God.
Jesus was a perfect reflection of God, a mirror image of God, but not God incarnate.

Colossians 1

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John 14

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
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?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God was visible and manifest in Jesus, and that is why Jesus was a Manifestation of God.

John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

 

[Sargonski]

John itself is a gospel written by an anonymous author? That's news to me, but thanks.
So Christians will claim John is the actual words Jesus spoke. How is that even possible?

Oh .. this is Key -- I will just post a little of the scholarship from ECW.

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

"There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." Gospel of John

My argument -- and that of others -- is one from absence .. but a particularly good one. None of the Synoptics is first person (and of course neither is John ..) The closest we get is Mark .. written by a fellow who by Tradition was a pupil / interpreter for Peter. ,, and I am sorry but, if that is all an early Christian had to go on .. there is no Jesus is the Primordial Uncreated one .. in that story .. and in fact direct contradiction to such claim .. everywhere.

Now Perhaps Mark was written early enough that mentioning John was still alive was perhaps no big deal .. but even this I find highly unlikely... no chance that the Author of the second edition .. complete with edits and updates .. writing after the destruction of the temple .. when all the disciples have been martyred .. is not going to mention that John is still alive .. and that some of his teachings are not captured... this is going on 50 years after christs death .. John will have had countless interactions with people .. History should be recording such a famous guy at this point .. but we get nothing .. no mention in Luke Acts -- which now we are getting completely crazy .. the book detailing the acts of the apostles is not going to tell us .. while all these others are dead long ago .. Good old John takes a licken but keeps on ticking .. getting to 100 AD at this point .. Christianity is evolving ... the Divinity of Jesus is evolving ... doctrine is starting to be created and written down .. we have Ignatius ands the first Pope .. Clement ... from whome we have extensive writing .. around the time when Brother John is supposed to be still alive and kicking .. pening the Gospel of John .. an actual Disciple of Jesus .. still alive as Clement writes a letter trying to convince one of the churches of the reality of the resurrection .. using all kinds of strange examples .. the changing of the seasons ... cycle of death and rebirth as proof in nature of the resurrection .. talks about the Pheonix .. a mythical bird in Egypt that resurrects .. the Pope in 97 AD not thinking it mythical .. just to be clear .. using as an example .. Clement does not seem to know about the resurrection stories in Matt or Luke which is strange .. think at least Matt should be in circulation at this point .. but perhps these stories were not part of Matt at that time.

but I digress - the point here is that in all Clements Writing ~ 100 AD .. never manages to mention that Brother John still lives .. and surely these question and issues would have been resolved by John .. preaching the gospel for over 70 years at this point.. This guy that none of the earliest Church fathers have ever heard of .. wandering around preaching .. the last living disciple and eye witness to Jesus ..

NO .. sorry John was martyred -- way back when .. and even if he wasn't the whole story in John is vastly different than that of the synoptic Gospels .. John is a Hellenic Pauline Fusion work .. fusing greek mysticism and platonic philosophy with Pauline influence - ideas completely different than before .. and of course in a language that illiterate John the fisherman did not speak or write.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are different forms of the same religion, i.e., they refer to the same God: Yahweh.

That's true, because there is only one God and one eternal religion of God that is revealed throughout time in various chapters.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Please note that Colossians 1:15 says that God is invisible.
Jesus was visible so that is one way we know that Jesus was not God.

God became visible in Jesus and then Jesus manifested God.
Jesus was a perfect reflection of God, a mirror image of God, but not God incarnate.

Colossians 1

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John 14

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
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?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God was visible and manifest in Jesus, and that is why Jesus was a Manifestation of God.

John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And as you mentioned in the following thread yesterday, the Bible states that God is spirit.

Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

 

[Trailblazer]

the Bible states that God is spirit.

which is why God is invisible.
Jesus was visible, so Jesus was not God.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

which is why God is invisible.
Jesus was visible, so Jesus was not God.

Trinitarian Christians believe in the hypostatic union, which is the theological belief that Jesus took on human nature yet remained fully God when he lived as a man. It encapsulates the belief regarding his humanity and divinity (two natures) in a single hypostasis and is in conjunction with the Trinity doctrine.

 

[jimb]

Please note that Colossians 1:15 says that God is invisible.
Jesus was visible so that is one way we know that Jesus was not God.

God became visible in Jesus and then Jesus manifested God.
Jesus was a perfect reflection of God, a mirror image of God, but not God incarnate.

Colossians 1

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John 14

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
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?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God was visible and manifest in Jesus, and that is why Jesus was a Manifestation of God.

John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

This is a roundabout way of claiming that Jesus is not God. God exists in three forms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One of these is visible: Jesus Christ; the other two are not.

That is why Jesus said this: "If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him."
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content.” Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?” John 14:7-10a

You yourself wrote this: "Jesus was visible so that is one way we know that Jesus was not God", which is partially correct but logically wrong.

Jesus was/is the visible form of God. That is why Jesus said, if you have seen me you have seen the Father.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trinitarian Christians believe in the hypostatic union, which is the theological belief that Jesus took on human nature yet remained fully God when he lived as a man. It encapsulates the belief regarding his humanity and divinity (two natures) in a single hypostasis and is in conjunction with the Trinity doctrine.

Yes, I know what the Trinitarians believe, but I don't believe it, nor is it supported by the Bible.
I believe that Jesus had a twofold nature, one nature divine, the other human, but I don't believe that Jesus was fully God.