Do you believe that Jesus is the Word?

[Trackdayguy]

Jesus is an intermediary to the Father. God is not a single aspect,

Genesis 1:26

God says, let us make man in our image

Quoting the bible because you've been told its true, doesn't make it true.

 

[blü 2]

The fact that that is a mystery to that group, or church, might be a clue, that they didn't invent the trinity.

They certainly didn't get it from the NT.

In fact they got it from solving a problem that had been around for a while ─ to promote Jesus to god status while avoiding the Jewish taunts that they were polytheists just like the pagans.

Unfortunately (a) the words of Jesus in the NT repeatedly contradict that notion, as you've seen, and (b) no matter how much the Trinity doctrine would wish things otherwise, 1+1+1=3 and 3≠1.

 

[Desert Snake]

They certainly didn't get it from the NT.

In fact they got it from solving a problem that had been around for a while ─ to promote Jesus to god status while avoiding the Jewish taunts that they were polytheists just like the pagans.

Unfortunately (a) the words of Jesus in the NT repeatedly contradict that notion, as you've seen, and (b) no matter how much the Trinity doctrine would wish things otherwise, 1+1+1=3 and 3≠1.

I have to disagree, here. The entire bible is pluralistic deity, even moses revelation is pluralistic, and many inferences to this in the ot.

The christians were , the ones who wrote the nt, if anything, more accurate to direct representation of this. The fact is, its clearly considered one deity, whether you believe that, or not.

The trinity problem is a self created problem by the later church.

Study this material academically, if you want a more accurate perspective, on this.

 

[blü 2]

I have to disagree, here. The entire bible is pluralistic deity, even moses revelation is pluralistic, and many inferences to this in the ot.

That's not right.

Ask any Jew. It's their book.

The christians were , the ones who wrote the nt, if anything, more accurate to direct representation of this. The fact is, its clearly considered one deity, whether you believe that, or not.

And as the quotes I've set out for you show unequivocally, the one god is Yahweh and Jesus is a worshiper of Yahweh, not another face of Yahweh.

The trinity problem is a self created problem by the later church.

Are you referring to Jesus' statements that he's not God, or to the fact that 1+1+1=3, or both, when you mention 'the trinity problem'?

Study this material academically, if you want a more accurate perspective, on this.

If anyone should know whether there's a Trinity or not, Jesus is the boy. I've given you multiple quotes attributed directly to him and denying any Trinity at all.

And in case you haven't guessed, I've given the Trinity doctrine some academic study. I should also underline that I have only one dog in this fight, the question Is there biblical authority for the Trinity doctrine? No there isn't and no such doctrine existed when the gospels were written. The grouping of the Father, Son and Ghost happens quite early, the wish to promote Jesus to god status happens quite early, but the Trinity doctrine is centuries later.

 

[Desert Snake]

And as the quotes I've set out for you show unequivocally, the one god is Yahweh and Jesus is a worshiper of Yahweh, not another face of Yahweh.

This actually doesn't make sense. Jesus at any time, could have simply said, 'Im not god', etc. He doesn't do that. Not once. You are instead interpreting His comments that do not directly say that, as vague inference to not being god. Vague inference? Obscure, arguable inference? To whether He is God?

You find this logical?

Are you referring to Jesus' statements that he's not God, or to the fact that 1+1+1=3, or both, when you mention 'the trinity problem'?

If anyone should know whether there's a Trinity or not, Jesus is the boy. I've given you multiple quotes attributed directly to him and denying any Trinity at all.

And in case you haven't guessed, I've given the Trinity doctrine some academic study. I should also underline that I have only one dog in this fight, the question Is there biblical authority for the Trinity doctrine? No there isn't and no such doctrine existed when the gospels were written. The grouping of the Father, Son and Ghost happens quite early, the wish to promote Jesus to god status happens quite early, but the Trinity doctrine is centuries later.

Not the doctrine, the concept, or what I consider a deific notation. And the fact that the church that is often credited with creating the concept, doesn't even know how to explain it, certainly means something.

 

[Cacotopia]

I believe that the Bird is the Word.

 

[Kenny]

Show me where in the 1st and 2nd century it says that Yahweh, Jesus and Ghost are distinct entities and each of them is simultaneously 100% of God.

John 1:1, Phil 2, Is 48:16-17 Is 9:6

It isn't there. It comes later.

Nope:

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

John 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

That is as black and white as you can make it ─ Jesus telling you again and again (and there are many more quotes where those came from) that he ain't God.

I understand why you believe that, but I have found that this mistake happens when one equates The Word as flesh, having emptied himself of His glory, as when He was The Word or was glorified again with the glory He once had.

And surely you agree that it's nonsense to claim that 1+1+1=1 (which is exactly what the Trinity doctrine says)?

Body 1 +
Soul 1 +
Spirit 1 =
One man

 

[Kenny]

Can I ask. Why is it different to believe jesus shares his fathers divinity and does he will of his father as an intermediary without calling jesus god? I mean, thats like Moses calling himself god because he holds the laws and salvation to god's chosen people.

That is a good question.

If he wasn't God we would encounter the following problems..

1. If not God, then who/what? An angel?
   1. Hebrews says it can't be an angel Hebrews 1
   2. Angels are going to be judged by mankind 1 Cor 6:3 and are created to serve mankind Heb 1:7
   3. Angels will worship Jesus Heb 1:6
2. Just another man?
   1. Can one man absorb bankrupt mankind? (a multitude over the milleniums)
   2. Isn't God the redeemer and not man? Isaiah 48:17

Why God? Man was made just a little lower than God. There is no other entity that can absorb a bankrupt mankind and still remain solvent. Like one company absorbing a bankrupt company, it must be strong enough to remain solvent while absorbing the debt of the bankrupt company. An angel, though sinless, would not be able to absorb the debt and remain solvent. Not enough power and also for the above reasons.

As The Word made flesh, God has accomplished various requirements.

1. Entered into the world legally by fulfilling Gen 1 - The way to excersize dominion is by being human
2. As the risen Lord, He now has dominion as God and as man without violating His word.
3. As one who was incarnate, He had the ability to save mankind as only He was solvent, without sin, and with the power to absorb our sins.

The differnce is you say jesus is god. However, when you say spirit and body, you're acknowledging two things regardless of how they relate to each other.

If you said the spirit of god is In jesus as the spirit in god is in believers, that would be biblically true. Using the word "is" does not seperate two things (body and spirit; flesh and divinity). Its literally saying one is the other. If humans can be seperate by body and spirit, why cant christ?

Didn't he? You have the Holy Spirit and you have Christ.

Does he need to be the father in order to be christ?

The question would be, is our spirit the same as our soul and the same as our body? Or, are we one yet each part different, different purpose and different materiality?

Gotta be blunt. If its both, its paganism. Greek and Roman deify humans. Those they do are usually kings and people of religious honor. They deified the dead not the living. Those that did were human except for their eternal nature; thats what made them gods. They lived forever. Other than that, they were just like us.

I wouldnt be surprised as why The Church deified christ. Since christ followed jewish teachings, his view of worship (god only) is different than the apostles (through christ to god) and extremely different from christian views (jesus as god)

Blunt is fine. I would prefer it being said "I am honest". There is a difference between blunt and offensive. I like your blunt.

All rock is music but not all music is rock.

Yes, man like Greeks, Romans and whosoever may deify humans. But that doesn't negate what I have said. I haven't diefied humans (like the Greeks and Romans) but rather said God became a human and now can relate to the trials, temptations and difficulties that mankind goes through.

IF, and I say if, Satan is real, the best counterfeit is the one that looks like the real thing. I wouldn't be surprised if he created religions that look like the real thing (Greeks and Romans) to pass the counterfeit.

Have a good day.

 

[Kenny]

There is no point trying to have a logical, rational, scientific and intellectual conversation with a fundamentalist. they cant hear you. As far as they are concerned they are right and you are wrong, because that's what they've been told to believe. Its a deception on a grand scale.

believe me I KNOW I was one of them for 30 years.

I think the fundamentalist say the same thing about your position. After all, I was one of you for 28 years.

 

[Kenny]

Is it?

Acclaimed Bible scholar and Roman Catholic priest John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317. (Bold type is mine.)


— Excerpt from “Reasoning on the Scriptures”; Trinity — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Accalimed by who? Perhaps also by the Watchtower?

There are a host of "acclaimed Bible scholar" who will attest that Jesus is God including the Pope. Finding someone of opposing view isn't difficult. They had those of opposing viewpoints and they crucified Jesus and then the Christians.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Jesus is an intermediary to the Father. God is not a single aspect,

Genesis 1:26

God says, let us make man in our image

Jesus is the living "image" of an invisible god.

Image is a likeness of something else. When you are an image of something else, you share in its likeness. You are not the peson who made the image, but the result and seperate person apart from it.

Intermediary means a person (or so have you) being in the middle of and spokes person to represent the messsge of the source to the recepient. So, if you wanted to send a message to me, and didnt want to send it yourself, you can send an intermediary in your behalf.

Better example

If you are a language interpreter, you do not add your own opinions when interpreting the source message into the target language. Its an exact replica. Not in langauge, as there are two, but in message. The interpreter doesnt add his own views. He is strictly an intermediary between two parties.

God/father is the source

Jesus is the interpreter/his Father's message as the flesh Between himself and christians

Christians are the target to their father's message

The holy spirit is the language to which the message itself (laws of moses) in translated to.

Father: source
Jesus: interpreter (he is the father's message in the flesh)
Holy spirit: language

A christian gets their salvation directly from the source (father)

To which they cant understand the message directly, so they need an intermediary. Jesus christ

As an intermediary/interpeter, he cannot and does not add opinions of his own when relaying the source message to the target.

But he is an interpreter. Not the source. Not the target.

Thats like if Im Deaf and need an interpreter/intermediary, whatever message I get from the source what the interpreter says to. Youre confusing interpreter with the source. Jesus only transmits his fathers message to people.

You and I use paper and pen and maybe a stamp to send messages

God has continuously sent messages to his people; they die not listen.

So, instead of paper, pen, and stamp:

He made his MESSAGE flesh.

That message consuit is the holy spirit

The interpreter is christ

Thr father the source; the message itself (message and source are one and the same)

Christian is the target

How am I wrong?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is a good question.

If he wasn't God we would encounter the following problems..

1. If not God, then who/what? An angel?
   1. Hebrews says it can't be an angel Hebrews 1
   2. Angels are going to be judged by mankind 1 Cor 6:3 and are created to serve mankind Heb 1:7
   3. Angels will worship Jesus Heb 1:6
2. Just another man?
   1. Can one man absorb bankrupt mankind? (a multitude over the milleniums)
   2. Isn't God the redeemer and not man? Isaiah 48:17

Why God? Man was made just a little lower than God. There is no other entity that can absorb a bankrupt mankind and still remain solvent. Like one company absorbing a bankrupt company, it must be strong enough to remain solvent while absorbing the debt of the bankrupt company. An angel, though sinless, would not be able to absorb the debt and remain solvent. Not enough power and also for the above reasons.

As The Word made flesh, God has accomplished various requirements.

1. Entered into the world legally by fulfilling Gen 1 - The way to excersize dominion is by being human
2. As the risen Lord, He now has dominion as God and as man without violating His word.
3. As one who was incarnate, He had the ability to save mankind as only He was solvent, without sin, and with the power to absorb our sins.

Didn't he? You have the Holy Spirit and you have Christ.



The question would be, is our spirit the same as our soul and the same as our body? Or, are we one yet each part different, different purpose and different materiality?



Blunt is fine. I would prefer it being said "I am honest". There is a difference between blunt and offensive. I like your blunt.

All rock is music but not all music is rock.

Yes, man like Greeks, Romans and whosoever may deify humans. But that doesn't negate what I have said. I haven't diefied humans (like the Greeks and Romans) but rather said God became a human and now can relate to the trials, temptations and difficulties that mankind goes through.

IF, and I say if, Satan is real, the best counterfeit is the one that looks like the real thing. I wouldn't be surprised if he created religions that look like the real thing (Greeks and Romans) to pass the counterfeit.

Have a good day.

Ima come back a bit later. Just sayin'...

If you call jesus god, you are saying the flesh is the same as the message which is the same as the source.

I understand why you do that. It makes it personal to say they are one because they have an interconnected relationshionship to each other and you.

Literally, apart from persons views, the source, message, conduit, and target are three different people in nature.

Gods nature is a divine being
Jesus nature is flesh/sin
Holy spirit, is well, spirit
Christians, human

Their roles:

Father: creator and source of message
Son: message incarnated and walking (message with feet )
Holy spirit: conduit of message

The message is always from the creator not christ

I understand why you'd put the source and message as christ; but, literally, that does not make sense.

So you wont confuse people, instead of saying jesus is god, say he is an image of him (walking image), or more literal, intermediary. Using IS doesnt seperate both parties. Once there is an incarnation, it is no longer literally an Is. Is is not an image of but the thing itself. Two is two is not an incarnation of itself; thats redundant. Just say two.

Is-does not discribe likeness/incarnation/image:

It is what it is.

Thats why there is a confusing over calling jesus god. Its language use and history. Jews would never call any person god.

 

[blü 2]

This actually doesn't make sense. Jesus at any time, could have simply said, 'Im not god', etc. He doesn't do that. Not once.

He says it again and again. Did you read those quotes I set out, all attributed to Jesus in direct speech?

Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”​

How can that be anything but Jesus' own emphatic denial that he's God?

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”​

How can that be anything but Jesus' own emphatic denial that he's God?

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.​

How can that be anything but Jesus' own emphatic denial that he's God?

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

How can that be anything but Jesus' own very emphatic denial that he's God?

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

Are you seriously saying that Jesus worships himself? Really? Honestly, are you saying that?

You are instead interpreting His comments that do not directly say that, as vague inference to not being god. Vague inference? Obscure, arguable inference? To whether He is God?

Did you even read those quotes? Even once, very quickly? They're all totally irreconcilable with the notion that Jesus is God. Nothing vague. Nothing inferential. Nothing obscure. And despite what you say, no sign of a reasoned argument to the contrary.

And using your argument against you, if Jesus were God, why did he not once say "I AM GOD" instead of "the Son can do nothing of his own accord" and "that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (and so on through the list)?

Not the doctrine, the concept, or what I consider a deific notation. And the fact that the church that is often credited with creating the concept, doesn't even know how to explain it, certainly means something.

It means that the concept of the Trinity is incoherent, that 1+1+1=3, not 1, and that this is so expletive obvious that even the RCC and the Anglos / Piscos admit it, using the phrase 'mystery in the strict sense' rather than 'nonsense'.

If you agree that 1+1+1= 3 then the Trinity can either be like a committee of three, meeting and voting; or they can be like three shareholders in a corporation, electing one of their number as CEO (or more than one, getting back to the committee model, or dividing the total jurisdiction into three. But the Trinity doctrine expressly denies these, and if we attribute divinity to Jesus and to the Ghost then we have three gods, not one.

 

[blü 2]

I understand why you believe that, but I have found that this mistake happens when one equates The Word as flesh, having emptied himself of His glory, as when He was The Word or was glorified again with the glory He once had.

That proposition can't be reconciled with Jesus' very clear statements, not least the utterly unambiguous statement

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

which if we credit Paul's reference to a kenosis fully acknowledges it but declares Jesus to be subservient to God anyway.

Likewise

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”​

is another example that Jesus is fully aware of his pre-earthly status, and that status was subservient to God (the same 'only true God' he mentioned above).

And so on.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm

That is a good question

Thank you

If he wasn't God we would encounter the following problems..

If not God, then who/what? An angel?

1. Hebrews says it can't be an angel Hebrews 1
2. Angels are going to be judged by mankind 1 Cor 6:3 and are created to serve mankind Heb 1:7
3. Angels will worship Jesus Heb 1:6

1In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.​

If jesus is god, then he wouldn't be the radiance of anything. He would be radiance. He wouldn't be a representation of god's being. He would be god's being. He wouldn't become superior because he would already be superior. He wouldn't inherit anything because he already has what he would have inherited if he were god.

5For to which of the angels did God ever say,

If he were god, he would be talking to himself as an angel. Since he is referring to christ as an angel not as himself, he can't be god.

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”1:5 Psalm 2:7?

Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”1:5 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13?

If he were god, he can't be in the future something he already is already.

If he were god, he would not become anything. He would already be.

6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”1:6 Deut. 32:43 (see Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint)

If jesus were god, god wouldn't make a declaration to worship his son. If anything, he said: worship me/god/your father through my son. (That's the whole gospel) If jesus were god, jesus would always refer to himself. He is the incarnation of god's message (Word) not god himself.

7In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”1:7 Psalm 104:4
8But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”1:9 Psalm 45:6,7
10He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”1:12 Psalm 102:25-27
13To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”1:13 Psalm 110:1?
14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

God speaks of christ as if he/christ were an angel. He puts christ (not himself) over the angels and speaks of christ as a separate person (a son) in relationship with himself. That relation-ship relates to separate people as one: say one friendship, one companionship, one marriage. We'd never say the husband and husband are the same people just because they are one in marriage.

1. Just another man?
   1. Can one man absorb bankrupt mankind? (a multitude over the milleniums)
   2. Isn't God the redeemer and not man? Isaiah 48:17

No. Not just another man. He is only man because he is in the flesh. He is an incarnation of his father's words (the father's Word; play on words ). Christianity makes him equal to his father. The religion jesus speaks of does not; he never puts himself equal to god.

2. Redeemer has to be a man in order to become the sins of the world. God, by his nature, can't be sin nor be around sin. If he were jesus rather than jesus being his son, he would probably shrivel up. Even moses wasn't allowed to look in god's face. So, he made the message he gave to moses a "walking flesh" who dwelt among the people so that he can teach his father's message and through himself/jesus, they can come to god/father.

Why God? Man was made just a little lower than God. There is no other entity that can absorb a bankrupt mankind and still remain solvent. Like one company absorbing a bankrupt company, it must be strong enough to remain solvent while absorbing the debt of the bankrupt company. An angel, though sinless, would not be able to absorb the debt and remain solvent. Not enough power and also for the above reasons.

That's why christ/human/person when he died sat at god's right hand (not his own) and put over the angles (as your other scripture above). If he were god, he wouldn't need to be put anywhere because he would be already above the angels. He would be the creator himself.

As The Word made flesh, God has accomplished various requirements.

1. Entered into the world legally by fulfilling Gen 1 - The way to excersize dominion is by being human

Think about it. The word word in English can mean message (I send my word), a promise (I gave you my word), and, of course, a word itself (a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others),

or, Microsoft Word: A software program.

In the biblical sense, Word is Message of God made flesh.

As the risen Lord, He now has dominion as God and as man without violating His word/promise.

1. As one who was incarnate, He had the ability to save mankind as only He was solvent, without sin, and with the power to absorb our sins.

God/father made his son/jesus without sin; as so, making jesus equal to himself. While jesus is equal, he isn't the person he is equal to. It's really a play on language. The logic is that two things can be equal to each other, but they still remain to things separate in their own accord. Religion isn't an exception, unless, well, its a supernatural thing which, like Hinduism, kinda confuses the heck out of me with incarnations, gods, and so forth.

Didn't he? You have the Holy Spirit and you have Christ.

Yes

Creator
Holy Spirit
and Christ

They do work together; but, it would be less confusing if you said that or stick with describing it by relationships. The word is really messes things up. No pun.

The question would be, is our spirit the same as our soul and the same as our body? Or, are we one yet each part different, different purpose and different materiality?

Separate (biblically speaking).

Spirit: Breathe of life
Soul: Life of the person (what's being "saved")
Body: Flesh and sin (to which the soul is being cleansed of)

When you use and; equal and relate two things with of, by, and image, there is no different purposes. They are all the same purpose. The only difference is you're using the word is where the bible doesn't use that word to refer to the relationship between spirit, soul, and flesh.

Blunt is fine. I would prefer it being said "I am honest". There is a difference between blunt and offensive. I like your blunt.

Why thank you I learned a lot during Art history that made me god "hmm"

All rock is music but not all music is rock.

Hmm. Each person of the trinity is god, but god is not all people of the trinity?

Clarification??

Yes, man like Greeks, Romans and whosoever may deify humans. But that doesn't negate what I have said. I haven't diefied humans (like the Greeks and Romans) but rather said God became a human and now can relate to the trials, temptations and difficulties that mankind goes through.

Actually, this is more history than spiritual. The Christian faith is in part Roman (little later in time) but definitely Catholic not protestant. As such, they still have traditions such as venerating those who died and treating those who have died no different than those physically living in heaven. What's interesting is non-liturgical protestants stepped away from the historical part that makes up christianity and just keep the spiritual part. They both go together. If I want to know about the bible and who christ is, I'd go to protestants. If I want the full shabang, history, personal understanding, devotion, and all, I'd go to the Catholic Church. None are bad in itself just they do have histories of confrontation.

IF, and I say if, Satan is real, the best counterfeit is the one that looks like the real thing. I wouldn't be surprised if he created religions that look like the real thing (Greeks and Romans) to pass the counterfeit.

Actually, biblically, it does say satan could mask himself as an angel of light.

Which could be making christians see one thing but in truth its something else. Never liked the word counterfeit and separating other religions as false from one's own truth. But I get what you're sayin'

Have a good day.

Thanks! You too.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus, Doesn't have a human Father, is around after the crucifixion, ie He is immortal, ascends into the air, and leaves earth, or at least that region.

Mary is hardly the only "weird" pregnancy in the bible. There are medical reasons Jesus might have survived the crucifixion. Going up to "heaven" might just be metaphor for hiking into the mountains. Besides, Elijah left Earth in a fiery chariot. He wins.

The fact that that is a mystery to that group, or church, might be a clue, that they didn't invent the trinity.

People make up stuff they haven't thought through all the time.

 

[Desert Snake]

He says it again and again. Did you read those quotes I set out, all attributed to Jesus in direct speech?

Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”​

How can that be anything but Jesus' own emphatic denial that he's God?

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”​

How can that be anything but Jesus' own emphatic denial that he's God?

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.​

How can that be anything but Jesus' own emphatic denial that he's God?

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

How can that be anything but Jesus' own very emphatic denial that he's God?

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

Are you seriously saying that Jesus worships himself? Really? Honestly, are you saying that?
Did you even read those quotes? Even once, very quickly? They're all totally irreconcilable with the notion that Jesus is God. Nothing vague. Nothing inferential. Nothing obscure. And despite what you say, no sign of a reasoned argument to the contrary.

And using your argument against you, if Jesus were God, why did he not once say "I AM GOD" instead of "the Son can do nothing of his own accord" and "that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (and so on through the list)?
It means that the concept of the Trinity is incoherent, that 1+1+1=3, not 1, and that this is so expletive obvious that even the RCC and the Anglos / Piscos admit it, using the phrase 'mystery in the strict sense' rather than 'nonsense'.

If you agree that 1+1+1= 3 then the Trinity can either be like a committee of three, meeting and voting; or they can be like three shareholders in a corporation, electing one of their number as CEO (or more than one, getting back to the committee model, or dividing the total jurisdiction into three. But the Trinity doctrine expressly denies these, and if we attribute divinity to Jesus and to the Ghost then we have three gods, not one.

First off, Jesus 's name literally means JHVH with us. The verses that you have presented do not demonstrate that Jesus is not God, they illustrate, at least some of them, the nature of the Godhood, Elohim.

Because Jesus does call Himself God, as in

John 8:58
He here literally calls Himself God, and why some do not notice that, is because in Greek, or English, this is either not noted as the name of God, or not expressly understood, by some of those reading. The statement, and the context, makes no sense, otherwise. You don't choose a nonsensical, or non meaning interpretation, of something that Jesus said, over a clear meaning.
This also informs the other statements, which, knowing that Jesus does call Himself God, have to be teachings of the nature of the Godhood.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up the trinity doctrine, instead of explaining, or refuting, my statements regarding the Godhood, and how it is understood. You can't use ignorance as an argument, whether on the part of someone else, or the fact that you don't have any concept of the "trinity", outside some church musings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question is, do you believe that Jesus is the Word?

Of course not!

Don't you know about the Bird?
Everybody knows that the Bird is the Word.

 

[Yohanan ben Yaaqov]

I believe that j-e-s-u-s is A word. In very modern English it is pronounced [DG]EE zuhs; in Spanish it is pronounced ḥay SOOS, etc. and so on.

The Latin character – J/j – is actually the one of the newest developments in the Latin alphabet. Originally it was simply the final form of the character – I/i – used nearly exclusively in Roman Numerals – 1, 2, 3 = I, II, III = I, IJ, IIJ. It did not become an independent consonant until the Seventeenth Century CE. Even then it was only used to distinguish between the two sounds of I – EE and Y as in yet. If a word began with I, it would begin with the EE sound; if it began with a J it would begin with the Y as in yet sound. The [dg] phoneme as a sound for the letter J did not come into existence until the late Seventeenth/early Eighteenth Century CE. It did not really catch on until the late Eighteenth/early Nineteenth Century CE.

Therefore if someone were to go back in time and ask George Washington what he thought about “JEE zus,” he would more than likely have had no idea what you were talking about. If you went even further back in time and asked King James I of England what he thought about “JEE zus,” he would definitely have had no idea what you were talking about. This word was spelt – Iesus – in the bible that bears his name.

There are some very considerable problems associated with this particular name. The Early Modern English – Iesus – is derived from the Latin – Iesvs – pronounced – EE soos. In turn, the Latin – Iesvs – is derived from the Greek Nominative Case – ιησους – iésous (pronounced AY soos) – of the Greek Proper Noun – ιησου – iésou (pronounced AY soo). Unfortunately, the manuscript history of the word – ιησους – only dates back as far as the Twelfth Century CE. Prior to that only Nomina Sacra was used. So even the Greek name is based only upon hearsay and speculation.

According to chr-stian folklore their hero was allegedly a Jewish fellow; who was allegedly born in Bethlehem of Judah; but grew up in Nazareth of the Galilee. Therefore there is a whole wide world of speculation as to what his Hebrew/Aramaic name may have been. However, there is no way to really know. Based upon the Greek words most commonly associated with this person the reverse transliteration would indicate that his name must have been – יֵשׁוּ – yéshu (pronounced YAY shoo).

The Hebrew name yéshu was quite common from the Second Century BCE until approximately the Third – Fourth Centuries CE. The Hebrew name yéshu was a contracted form of the name – יֵשׁוּעַ – yéshuaʿ (pronounced yay SHOO uh), which was in common usage between the Sixth through Second Centuries BCE. The Hebrew name yéshuaʿ was in turn a contracted form of the Hebrew name – יְהֹשׁוּעַ – y’hoshuaʿ (pronounced ee HOE shoo uh), which is Anglicized as “Joshua.” Ergo – Joshua, Joshy, Josh.

Since prior to about 380 CE chr-stianity is simply a historical vacuum, logic dictates that chr-stianity did not exist before it was created by the Roman Emperor Theososius I and his advisors in 380 CE. Regardless of the lengths chr-stians go to in order to suggest that anything similar to chr-stianity existed prior to Theodosius inventing it, it is all based upon hearsay and legends from centuries after the alleged events were supposed to have taken place. Even the “history” of the “almighty” council of Nicea only exists from documents dating to more than 120 years after the alleged event. Where are the contemporaneous records? There is absolutely no tangible, physical contemporaneous evidence of anything similar to “early chr-stianity.”

So the bottom line is this: j-e-s-u-s is A word, but it has only been A word for a couple of hundred years, and even its existence as A word is speculative at best.

The concept of THE – λογος – logos – “word” comes from pagan Platonic and Neo-Platonic Greek philosophy, and has no existence within Judaism past, present or future. There is NO “word” that is God.

Summary: j-e-s-u-s is a very modern “word;” absolutely NO “word” is God; j-e-s-u-s is NOT God.

 

[syo]

The question is, do you believe that Jesus is the Word?


If so, how is Jesus not God?

the Father gave birth to the Son. the Son is the word/everything. so the Son, who walked the earth as Jesus, is God.