Trinity.

[Paidion]

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

The pronouns in red are MASCULINE, not only in English, but also in Greek. If the Word is "the expression of God's plan, purposes, reason and wisdom", then the pronouns in red would be neuter and not masculine.

I agree that the Word is the expression of God. Jesus IS the expression of God, and He is personal. Indeed the article which you quoted, Darin, also states:
"This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan." This seems to contradict the previous statements that the word is merely "the expression of God's plan, purposes, reason and wisdom", and it also concurs with what I believe, and most other Christians believe—that Jesus is the living Word!

[Homer]

Hi Darin,

Well, that was interesting. Are the authors oneness pentecostal? They wrote:

The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we call revelation “a word from God” and the Bible “the Word of God.”

I think they believe Jesus was not personal prior to His birth, is that your understanding?

They also wrote:

In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs.

Considering John 17:3, (NASB):

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Here there is also no article before "God", which, according to their idea, would mean "the only true divinity" and thus contradict John's statement in v. 1 which they (I think) say the Word was not God but was divine. Seems theos would be a qualitative noun in both places or neither.

[Paidion]

Actually there IS an article before God in John 17:3—not immediately before, but nonetheless modifying "God".

τον μονον αληθινον θεος
the only---true------God

[darinhouston]

Hi Darin,

Well, that was interesting. Are the authors oneness pentecostal?

I don't think so

I think they believe Jesus was not personal prior to His birth, is that your understanding?.

There was no Jesus before His birth, so no. But, he had the Spirit of God which preexisted and was personal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jriccitelli]

I have been busy, but I took some time to read through Paidion’s old posts that describe his position. And although you do not call Jesus an Angel as in a species, you do accept that Jesus was not only a man. So you have Jesus in His own unique spices, yet begotten from God (And I have never heard of someone saying there was two YWEHs). Anyone who does not believe Jesus is God, yet neither believes Jesus is only a man, must believe Jesus is an angel, or a unique being of some other sort. Thus a being that is not God, or a god. So, Is Jesus God to you, is he half God, is he a god, or as you said; “… in some sense God”?

Jesus was called the Son of God. I would think those of that time would have understood that son of God would imply the sons Deity, and make him a god himself. I don’t have to think this, it seems well understood by Greek and Jew that such a term as son of god would immediately imply godhood.

No I don't agree that Jesus and the Father are one God, although it is true that Jesus and the Father share the name "Yahweh", and that there is a sense in which Jesus can be called "God", though not in the proper sense (Paidion, Wed Aug 13)

They both have the same name, they share everything alike, if you have seen one you have seen the other, they are One, there are NO other Gods, there is Only One God, there is Only One Lord, there is Only One Savior, God will not share His glory with another, there is Only One King, One Judge, One Rock, One Creator of all things, God has no equal, and still you insist the Father and Son cannot be One ‘in’ the same God.

You say; there is a sense in which Jesus can be called "God", but there is no biblical sense in calling ‘anything’ God but God. God has made it clear He is Holy and separate from all creation and all other things, there is all created matter, and there is God, there is nothing else.

I understand you are saying begotten means Jesus came out of God, maybe not in an anthromorphic way, but came from God as if God duplicated Himself (itself).
God does not literally begot, but does He duplicate? If you are going to take this in literal terms (as Mormons do) then you still complicate matters (besides the word saying God is One, etc.). Did our God come from a previous God? Will God duplicate again? You say it is hard to understand how two persons can be One God, are you thinking One person producing another person is any easier to do? If Jesus is a begotten offspring, then does God duplicate without creating, or are you saying God created Jesus?

[jriccitelli]

There was no Jesus before His birth, so no. But, he had the Spirit of God which preexisted and was personal (Darin, above)

Darin, then was Jesus only a man indwelt by God? Or, what was his nature angel, man, or what? Was he created?

[Paidion]

I am not going to go through all your questions, JR, because I have already articulated my position as clearly as I know how. To do so again would be mere repetition. However, I will address your first paragraph.

I have been busy, but I took some time to read through Paidion’s old posts that describe his position. And although you do not call Jesus an Angel as in a species, you do accept that Jesus was not only a man. So you have Jesus in His own unique spices...

No, He is of the God-species, the same as his Father.

(And I have never heard of someone saying there was two YWEHs)

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) said so in his dialogue with Trypho. And Gen 19:24 speaks of the Yahweh on earth (whom Abraham addressed as "Yahweh") raining sulphur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah "FROM Yahweh out of heaven".

Anyone who does not believe Jesus is God ...

What do you mean by "God"? Do you mean God the Father, the Creator of all things? Do you yourself believe Jesus is God the Father?

.

.. yet neither believes Jesus is only a man, must believe Jesus is an angel, or a unique being of some other sort.

Jesus IS a unique Being. He is the only-begotten Son of God.

Thus a being that is not God, or a god.

No, Jesus is not the Father, nor is He some secondary god.

So, Is Jesus God to you?

If by "God" you mean the Father, then no. If by God you mean a divine Individual, then yes.

Is he half God?

No.

Is he a god?

No.

... or as you said; “… in some sense God”?

Yes, he is in some sense "God"— in the sense that He is fully divine, and is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3)

[darinhouston]

I think it's a red herring to speak of Jesus as a "mere man." No evangelical, Trinitarian or not believes that to my knowledge. At the least, the biblical Unitarian would believe he was a man in the perfect way God intended a man to be and unlike what we have come to think of man being, unlike fallen man; He was capable of perfect communion with the Father and truly living in and through His Spirit. In that sense He was truly the second Adam. But unique even from Adam, He wasn't created (as Adam was) but uniquely begotten.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

Darin, is there anyone here who is representing Jesus as a mere man?

Even my own position that while He walked this earth He was fully human, doesn't make Him a "mere man". For even then, his identity was that of the Son of God.

[Homer]

Hi Darin,

I'm confused (that's nothing new ):

There was no Jesus before His birth, so no. But, he had the Spirit of God which preexisted and was personal.

Are you saying "He" preexisted and was personal or the Spirit preexisted and was personal?

Thanks