JW's mistaken claim...

TrueTomHarley · February 2, 2018

31 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

you should see the madness I and several others get from Atheist or anti-Christians. It is far worse there than here Â

It is true. I bask in the love here. I am scared to go anywhere else.

Cos · February 3, 2018

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:56 PM, Space Merchant said:

Lucky for you, I know the Shema quite well, ironically enough you never mentioned ANYTHING regarding Jesus and the Shema, allow me to show you:

"The LORD our God, the LORD is One." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Before we start, let's talk about Paul:

Paul would be a sinner if he had altered the Shema at all. It's against the Shema to alter or change the Torah, Deuteronomy 4:2 It's clear in the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul is only using Psalm 110:1 and contrasting the Christian view against that of the world/pagan/Gentiles. The Gentiles have many gods, the Christians have one God, the Father. The Gentiles have many lords, the Christians have one lord, Jesus Christ.

Paul affirms the Shema in 1 Cor 8.4-6.

Now then,

Shema requires what of God’s people?

To love God to the fullest, with all of one’s being (Deuteronomy 6:5)

To take to heart the Word of God and His commandments (Deuteronomy 6:6)

To teach the Word of God, and speak about His commandments to one’s children during daily affairs (Deuteronomy 6:7)

To bind the Word of God as a sign upon the arm and between the eyes (Deuteronomy 6:8)

To affix the Word of God to the doorposts of the house and upon the gates (Deuteronomy 6:9)

We, us Unitarians as do ALL Christians, believe that God is one and true (YHWH alone), and to what you said it isn’t just us Unitarians only who believe this, clearly we have others who will say the exact same thing, and so there is no question about that, but obviously some will try to go around as to what the Sehma met to the Jews and what it met to Jesus. We understand exactly what Deuteronomy 6:4 (also 5-9), the Law of the Jews at the time, and how Jesus observed, recited and understood the Law of the Jews, The Shema (Sh’ma/Shema Yisrael) included, for he was born a Jew under the Law, for he himself was a born Jew.

The core of the Shema is based off Deuteronomy 6:4-9, but we will just focus verses 4 and 5, as to what Jesus said to the Scribe in the gospel of Mark.

Deuteronomy 6:4 - “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (5) “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” - ESV

We see in verse 4 the simplest form of the Shema/Shema Yisrael, in addition, the Hebraic form of this verse, literally says, "YHWH our God YHWH is one" (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד | "Hear O Israel, YHWH our God YHWH is one.") In English, mainly in the NKJV and KJV “LORD”

In some translations as well as to other scholars and or those who study the scriptures, they translate the Hebraic word “YHWH” to what we normally see in pronouncing the name, Yahweh (YHWH), Yahveh (YHVH), Jehovah, (JHVH), Jahweh (JHWH), usually depends on the translation as well as the language used.

We know Jesus was a Jew, born of a woman, born under the law, because of what Paul says in Galatians 4:4 – “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,” - ESV

Even the Jews acknowledged clearly that they have one Father, God, who is one (in addition to them claiming to be children of God, as well as children of Abraham, whose God and Father is the same God as the Jews) when they were speaking to Jesus in John 8:41, we also see that Jesus validates this in John 8, going on to even telling them “It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God”. So we know from the Jewish prospective we, as do others today, know that the Father was their God, that He alone is One, the God of Israel, who is also our God .

It's obvious that Jesus' Father, his God, wasn’t any different than the God of Israel, the God of every Israelite because the God of Israel is the one God, as well as the Father of Lord Jesus Christ. As a Jew under the Law, he was obligated to obey the Law and Jesus' God and Father could not be any different than the God of Israel who is identified at Deuteronomy 6:4 as "Our God." Jesus' God and Father “was one person, one person alone”, his Father alone, and nobody else but the Father. If his God was one person then so was the God of Israel, one person.

When Jesus was young he read the Old Testament scriptures and he read about all the things God had done, his God. Who did Jesus have in mind with this he read these things? Was the young Jesus thinking about the days when he himself led Israel out of Egypt or did he suppose that his God and Father, the one who is the God of Israel, was he, Jesus, himself? The answer is quite obvious. I don’t think he was, as do many and it wouldn’t make any sense either. What makes sense is that the young Jesus thinking about his Father and his Father alone, his God, the God of Israel and knowing this information by reading of it.

Jesus declared that the Jews worshiped what they knew, we see this in John 4:20-22.

(20)Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” (21) Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. (22) You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. - English Standard Version (ESV)

Some people tend to nullifying Jesus' words for the sake of “their” tradition or teachings, which is evident. Not only so, they fail to see the meaning of Jesus' words, “WE worship what WE know”. Jesus is including himself among all Jews and saying that all the nation of Israel knew exactly what they worshiped just as he himself knew what he worshiped. Jesus knew who he worshiped, as it was said before, the God of Israel, his Father alone and Jesus used the word "We" indicating that ALL Jews also knew this and not just Jesus himself.

Jesus also taught that “the foremost command of the Law was The Shema (Sh’ma/Shema Yisrael) command”, that is, Deuteronomy 6:4-5.

Since we already know what verse 4 in Deuteronomy says, we now look to verse 5, which reads: “You should love Him, your True God, with all your heart and soul, with every ounce of your strength.” - ESV

We see this in Mark 12:28-34 when Jesus and the Jewish Scribe were talking to each other:

(28) And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” (29) Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (30) And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (31) The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (32) And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. (33) And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (34) And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. - English Standard Version (ESV)

As a born Jew under the Law, Jesus was “required” to keep this command just like every other Jew who also keeps this command. Something that is very important that we must always keep in mind and appreciate, rather than ignore.

Jesus and the scribe (still on Mark 12:28-34) agreed that the Shema is the foremost command, they also agreed that the words "the Lord is one" (YHWH is One in Hebraic) meaning "He is one and there is no other but He”. Jesus makes it very clear and shows us that the Shema means "the Lord is one He/Him." So we know for certain that Shema means that “the Lord is one He”, one “who”, while most people today commonly read the notion, "the LORD is one what" in terms of divine nature into the text ignoring and nullifying the words of Jesus concerning the meaning of the Shema. To Jesus and the scribe, YHWH (Yahweh) is only and one single He and or Him and there is no other but He for He is the only one alone that is God. Jesus and the scribe accepts that the words "the Lord is one" mean exactly what is means, that their God is one single He. Jesus shows us that the Shema is referring to one person, evident that Jesus obeyed the Shema as well as recognizing and serving his Father alone who is the one God of Israel. He observed the Shema command by recognizing and serving only one person, the God of Israel, who is also his Father alone, the He or Him that is mentioned, hence Jesus’ interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4.

The God of Jesus = the God of Israel: "OUR God"

Throughout entirety of the New Testament, we find that the God of Lord Jesus Christ is one God and one alone, who is also his Father. The God and Father of Jesus is one person, the one true God.

With what has been presented in regards to The Shema Yisrael we know that:

(A) Jesus taught the Shema was the foremost command of the Law.

(B) Jesus clearly agrees, as well as the Scribe and the Jews, with the Shema command "the Lord (YHWH) is one" meant that God is one single He and that single He is the True God, the God of Israel.

(C) Jesus was a Jew, as just like every other Jew, he born under the Law. Examples being that he, like every other Jew, was circumcised into the Law and not only instructed, but also required to keep this command of the Law.

(D) Not only we know that Jesus (Luke 2:21), as well as the Jews (Genesis 17:10, 12; Leviticus 12:2, 3), were circumcised after the 8^th day (some translations will say on the 8^th day), in verse 22 of Luke 2, after purification, Jesus was brought up to Jerusalem to be presented to YHWH (Yahweh), the one True God of Israel, according to the Law of Moses (Leviticus 12:2, 4) as well as to what the God of Israel’s Law stated (Luke 2:23-24).

(E) The command was a command to ALL of Israel’s inhabitants to serve Our God, Israel's God, the True God.

(F) Jesus not only observed, but he also obeyed the command to serve the True God, our God, therefore, by recognizing and serving only Him who is one person, He who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in addition, Jesus himself clearly shows us, even proving to us what the Shema means by not only reciting, but by his actions as a Jew born under the law.

(G) Jesus shows us that his God and Father is also Our God and Father and that one must love the God and Father of Jesus with all his heart, soul, and strength. We see this clearly in the NT as well in Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27.

(H) Jesus' obedience to the Law he was born under, and his obedience to observe the Shema command to serve the one True God, Our God, demonstrates that the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed the God of Israel, The same God of whom Jesus and the Jews have known about.

(I) Jesus, in scripture, The New Testament, makes it even clearer that he indeed has a God, the one he, by Law as a born Jew, serves, the one who is his God and His Father, the same God the Jews served, the same God we today serve, Our God, the One True God. Examples being John 20:17, which reads: Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” – ESV.

In addition, early followers have acknowledged that Jesus has a God, as we see in Ephesians 1:17 and Colossians 1:3, Paul included, based on Galatians 1:1 acknowledging both Lord Jesus and God, who raised him (Jesus) from the dead, in verse 3 he acknowledges them both again for we are to take example from both God and Jesus in regards of Grace (undeserved kindness) and peace.

(J) When Jesus was tempted by The Deceiver (Satan the Devil) in the Wilderness. Satan came and had taken Jesus to a very high mountain and said to Jesus that he will give Jesus all the Kingdoms of the world, only if he do an act of worship to him (Mathew 4:8, 9/Luke 4:6, 7), in response, Mathew 4:10/Luke 4:8, Jesus answered him by saying, “It is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.”

For what Jesus have said in response to Satan is actually “written”, just a few verses from the Shema and first foremost commandant, is also something the Jews follow. For what he has said is from Deuteronomy 6:13 (also in 10:20), in addition to that Jesus has acknowledge, once again the God and Father, who is YHWH is but one and it shows us just exactly of “who” Jesus is talking about. Aside from that, with each temptation The Deceiver tempts Jesus with, the response is the same, for Jesus speaks of what is written, pretty much says that he will not do what the he (The Deceiver) tells him to do, but he will do what his God and his Father tells him to do. Everything written is under Law, the Law of the Jews.

So one would have to question who do you think the LORD is to Jesus in Det. 6:4? The answer is pretty evident, don’t you agree? It is the Father. In Matthew 11:25: “At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;” - ESV

In some Translations it is “I praise you” or “”I thank thee”, regardless, of whom Jesus is referring to, just like the Jews who recognize YHWH has the one and true God. The Shema to Jesus, as a Jew, those words met something to him.

As Christians we follow and walk in the footsteps of Jesus, and by doing so we take into account of the things he says, and what he speaks of, including this and if such means something to Jesus, it should mean something to us as well, this including understanding what The Shema Yisrael is all about. If you want to consider Jesus’ understanding of the Shema and how he followed it, considering that ii is unfounded, hence my understanding of Jesus and the Shema, then I ask you, what kind of Christian are you?

One of the reasons I ask this question to some people is to see if they even mention Jesus’ understanding of Jew Law, The Shema Yisrael, etc. Not one of them speaks this, only “few” who tend to have a bit of an understanding of it when they bring up Jesus and the Jewish Scribe.

But I guess it is too “Arian” for you, as well as the fact that I, Unitarian, a Christian who is always learning something and maintaining what I have learned even from my mistakes, and always trying to do what is right no matter what, as well as following in the steps of The Son, conforming to his image, so that I, as well as others Christians who are on this same path, may be close with the Father, who is God. Our Jehovah's Witness counterparts would defiantly agree to this, as well as others. But people who twist what the Shema is don't know anything about what it means to those who follow Jesus.

You assume I wouldn’t have known exactly of what the Shema or the Law of Jews is about, even though I was the only one to have mentioned it, perhaps the only one in this thread who has brought it up. That being said, now you know my understanding of the Shema in regards to Jesus Christ, for it is based of scripture with a Hebraic prospective, not from how some Christians tend to view it without even really trying to study of what it is about, therefore, it isn’t unfounded nor is it an Arian/Unitarian concept, of which you claim.

In the end, one would have to really think and question exactly “Who” to Jesus is that one “LORD”, that is mentioned in Deuteronomy 6:4, and eventually those who actually took the time to listen, to research, and having an understanding, they’ll come to one simple conclusion: “Our God”, “The God of Israel” who is “The Father alone” (The LORD Our God, YHWH, of the Shema).

Compound Unity

Quote: The very last word in the Shema is the Hebrew word Ehhad/Echad. That word is rendered as “one” in most English translations of the Bible; some translations use “alone” instead. In either case, the straightforward, common-sense understanding of Ehhad/Echad in the Shema tells us that only one person is Almighty God – and that one person is our Heavenly Father, Yahweh. - B.K.

There are a lot of people who bring up things in regard to Deuteronomy 6:4, especially when it comes to the word “One” in Hebrew referring to “compound unity”, in a different context it also seen as “Composite Unity”. To make it short and sweet, it just means “One”, it is the same as English word “One”. For instance if I were to say “one” Horse, it just means “one” Horse. What if I were to say “one” herd of Horses? It is still “one” herd, even though it is a “compound unity”, a group of Horses.

The word "one" in any language is used for compound unities. Compound unities reflect that of "categories" or "groups" of multiple things and when we refer to a group of multiple things we all recognize it is "one" group of "many" things. For instance, kind of like the example I gave seconds ago from this point in my message; one herd, one flock, one team, one cluster, one constellation, one family, one company, all refer to groups of things which can be said to be "compound unities" not because they are qualified by the word "one", or אֶחָד (Ehhad/Echad Strong’s #259), but because we have these words in our many languages to identify "one" group of these things. The Hebrew word Ehhad/Echad does not itself ever imply anything but the numeral "1." That being said, both Biblically and Scripturally, Ehhad/Echad points to simply "one". You can ask a Jew in our modern day and age about it, or perhaps a Muslim, you'd get the same answer for they know the Shema very well, but Muslims don't take kindly to (A) People who don't know their bible and (B) Any Christian who thinks God is a 3-in-1, Trinity (May be the same with Jews, the way I see them talking on other forums).

Of course, the reason why this alternate understanding of Ehhad/Echad is important is because it, sadly, allows some groups to “spin” the Shema – into an endorsement or to push a certain Doctrine. In other words, some groups state “The Shema tells us that God is one, which is indeed true, but that “one” refers to a “compound/composite unity”. So, the Shema is telling us that there is only one God, but this one God, that is He, is comprised of multiple persons.” I can say with confidence those who bring these claims are false.

This concept is usually expressed in English translations with the word “one”; but the words “single”, “unique” and “first” are used as well, depending on the context itself. Here are some examples of Ehhad/Echad (not using the feminine version of it, therefore pushing evidence) meaning a simple, unitary one can be seen based off several biblical verses (ESV):

We can clearly see, all of the above examples refer to “one” single person, a place or a thing, and you can clearly see what is seen is not subjected to one group of item(s).

Modern day expositors make blunt assertions, whenever they discuss the Shema, they will jump to say that Ehhad/Echad means a compound unity, and nothing more, being ignorant of the facts and what it truly means regarding one person, one place, or one thing. The suggestion of such assertions, of course, is that ehhad/echad only means a compound unity. In other words, that assertion implies that in every case where ehhad/echad is used, it always refers to one group of items as oppose to one single item. However, in various cases, ehhad/echad actually refers to just one single item, in short, “one”, therefore, the implication that ehhad/echad always refers to a “compound unity” is demonstrably false, and there is a load of examples in scripture.

In addition, even in the minority of cases where ehhad/echad does refer to a compound unity, the meaning still doesn’t conform to any supposed doctrine or special belief. Cases where ehhad/echad refers to one group of items, it is clear that each member of the group is only a subset of the listed “compound unity”. Examples being scripture stating that a husband and a wife, together, become “one flesh”, the verse can be found in ANY bible Translation (Genesis 2:24), even the NWT, despite that phrase making your head spin every time you hear or see it.

This indicates that the husband and wife are each “subsets” of the “one” (ehhad/echad) flesh, but that together they comprise in “completion” “one” flesh.

In that same sense, The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit, but out of the 3, there is still just “one” God.

In many other passages in scripture state that only our Heavenly Father is Almighty God and that it is “ridiculously” an obvious find, if you are familiar with the scriptures, that is.

That tells us that ehhad/echad in the Shema refers to just one person: our Heavenly Father, Our God, He who is one and alone. Note that “God the Father” does appear in Scripture, many, many times in many places, but the phrase “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” doesn’t even appear anywhere in scripture, perhaps not even there at all for that matter. What actually appear in scripture are phrases like “Son of God” and the “Spirit of God”.

Let’s look at 3 passages in scripture.

1st, we have the Son of God, he, Jesus himself states that at John 17:3 that our Heavenly Father is “the only true God”, in addition to Jesus making acknowledgement, verbally, that he was “sent by God”.

Similarly as the 1st, the 2nd passage we will look at what Paul said, for Paul informs us that there is “one God, the Father” and that there is” one Lord, Jesus Christ” (like bosses, masters, etc). We see this in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

3rd, Jesus explicitly denied that he was/is God the Father, informing the man “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18) and he stated that his Heavenly Father was his God, for our Father is also Our God (John 20:17).

So, to understand The Shema, you have to understand Deuteronomy 6:4 as well as the laws of the jews, which also applies to Jesus, since he observed, recited, etc. Ehhad/Echad (Compound/Composite Unity) applies to one person, one place, and one thing. Finally, scripture alone teaches us that the one who is HE Himself is the one who is alone, this one, is Our God.

And if that isn’t enough, I got some information of my own that supports such.

Also, JPS is correct The Shema as Declaration of Allegiance. Because it is, by law, something the Jews have done, and even to this day, as they say it, they recite it from when they are a child and continue to say it until their death. This declaration are like legal terms used validate agreements, legally: We solemnly affirm that the obligation we have just recited is valid and binding on us in every way. This makes of the Shema a daily affirmation of allegiance to God and to the covenant obligations that allegiance entails.

That is half correct. The Hebrew word for 'one' in the Shema is אֶחָד (Ehhad/Echad Strong’s #259), the word Ehhad/Echad (noun) comes from the verbal root אָחַד (Ahhad/ Achad) meaning "to unite". Ehhad/Echad is commonly translated to or with the word “Unit”, something that is part of the whole, a unit within a community or just one thing by itself (compound unity). In a Hebraic prospective everything is, or should be, a part of a unity. For instance, like my other example from many, many words ago: there is not one bush but a bush composed of units within the unity. Having berries, small branches, roots, and vegetation, and leaves. A bush is also in unity with the other bushes.

Another example: a daughter/son is a unit within the family and or household.

From this we can conclude that the Shema is not speaking of Yahweh as a “one and only” but as a unit of the whole.

In regards to Psalm 133:1, אֶחָד Ehhad/Echad Strong’s #259 isn’t being used in that verse. In fact, it is יַחַד (ya-hhad/ yakh'-ad Strong’s #3162). Anyone can find the strong’s to that verse quite easily. If I may add, you also have to take into account the parts of speech of said words, despite if the word looks the same in a different verse (masculine, feminine, neuter).

Anyways,

"One ([is] One)", the word used in this verse in interpreted to mean, even show us that there is only "One" God, for YHWH/YHVH is “One”. That word also to pertains to the scriptures in general to the word “ehhad/echhad. The Hebrew word, with a Hebraic prospective, (אחד /ehhad/echad, Strong's #259) can mean a "unit" within a unity. This verse is stating that YHWH (Yahweh) is in unity with himself and He himself alone. An example of this is the “pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night”. A cloud and fire are opposites, one, being the cloud provides shade and coolness. The other, fire, being both light and heat. Yet, they work together to preserve the people during the day and during the night. Both the cloud and fire also helps the people to travel, by day and by night, Exodus 13:21-22.

Love, the Hebrew verb אהב (Aheb/A.H.B) it is no emotion, but rather it is an action. The context of this word in the text tells us that we are to "love" God with our “actions”, not with our emotions.

Our Heart, לבב (Levav). The thoughts in of our mind. The passage in that verse, we are informed how to "love" Yahweh, by keeping our thoughts on him.

The Soul, for the Hebrew word נפש (nephesh) is literally the person (whole of the person). First we are told to love Yahweh, our God with our minds, now with all of our own selves.

Might. The Hebrew word used here is מאד (me'od, Strong's #3966) and is a very interesting word, especially in the way that it is used in this context. This word is used throughout the Hebrew text as an adverb, intensifying a verb, and is usually translated as very, greatly, or much. This is the only time this word appears as a noun and is best translated as "muchness." This idea of muchness is expanding on the previous two ways we are to love Yahweh, first with our mind, then with our body, and now with everything we have.

Re-Translation, the meaning:

Israel, pay careful attention and respond: Yahweh works in unity with himself: and you shall act upon your love to YHWH with your thoughts and mind, with your entire body and with everything that you possess.

And in regards to both Jesus and the scribe, they agreed that the Father is one He and there is no other than He Himself (The Father) for there is no other but the Father.

And as to what Jesus and the Jewish scribe conversed, as well as their agreement with each other. I can 110% agree with them, no question, no hesitation, for I am all for what they said.

Don't you agree with the saviour, King of Israel, as well as The Jewish Scribe?

Also if you want to bring Irenaeus into the fold, here is one of his other quotes (At least he had some understanding of Compound Unity):

Space merchant,

I will keep this response short because a long post is difficult for some to read.

I only touched on the Hebrew word echad in my other post and how the basic meaning is “united” from the root “to unify”, which apparently is only “half correct”.

Consider this, if the Bible writers, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that God is multi-personal, as is claimed by most Bible believing Christians, then we would expect to find that these authors would write about God in such a way as to indicate this to their readers, right?

There are some nine different Hebrew words, which at times are translated as the word “one” (also there are many variants of these nine).

Now, the question that comes to mind if the Unitarian claims are correct, is which of these nine words would they apply to God to indicate that God is a moneity, not a plurality?

Out of the nine Hebrew words only one would indicate that God is one solitary person. And if that word is applied to God in the Bible, then I and all Bible believing Christians would not have a leg to stand on.

The word is yachiyd (Strong’s #3173), and means an absolute or solitary one. It is even translated “solitary” in Psalm 68:6, and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture (see Ps. 25:16; 68:6; Prov. 4:3; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; etc.).

A Arian/Unitarian should naturally expect to find that the word yachiyd be applied to God in the Bible, at least once...

On the other hand, Bible believing Christians would not expect to find yachiyd applied to God because we believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead.

And so, when we turn to the Bible, what do we find? Scripture never applies yachiyd to God, and never describes God as a solitary person.

On the other hand, if the writers of Scripture under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed God to be multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would apply the word echad to God because this would mean that God is “one” in a composite sense.

And as a matter of fact, echad is the only available Hebrew word they could use to express this reality.

So when we open the Bible, what do we find?

We find that echad is applied to God.

He is “one” in the sense of a composite unity. This is central to the Biblical concept of God.

The use of echad in Duet. 6:4 is exactly what Bible believing Christians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of Persons and not just a solitary person (for confirmation see Zech 2:5-11 which is an example of this).

Like it or not, there are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such a thought could be expressed.

It is interesting to note also that the Greek word heis performs the same function as the Hebrew echad.

Bible believing Christians everywhere, following the teachings of Jesus (John 10:30, Matt. 28:19) believe, without a doubt, that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity.

I want to look at John 17: 3 as this seems to be the preferred go to verse of Arian/Unitarians in an attempt to deny the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

Look, similar language to John 17:3 appears in Jude 4, where the more reliable Greek texts read that Jesus is “our only Master and Lord”. Here the same adjective “only” appears in the same grammatical position (attributive).

So if we were to use the line of interpretation that you do for John 17:3, then Jude 4 restricts the Master and Lord to one person, Jesus Christ.

How can Jesus be our only Master and Lord when the Father is also our Lord and Master?

Or put another way, how can the Father be our Master and Lord if Jesus is, as Jude 4 says, our ONLY Master and Lord?

The same reasoning being applied by you to John 17:3 would deny that any other Person other than Jesus Christ could be our “Master and Lord” according to Jude 4!

Do you apply the same exegetical principles to Jude 4 as you demand in John 17:3? If not why not?

Now, what then is the correct understanding of the language in John 17:3?

Jesus says, that they might know you…and me.

Imagine that… we might know a creature and that our eternal life depends on it!

We need to know God to have life and that includes our knowing Jesus Christ, the one who had made Himself to occupy a lower POSITION than the angels in order to pay the toll. And by looking at Jude 4 might help you to see how superficial some are when reading John 17:3.

Only by understanding Jesus Christ as an ultimate and equal member of the eternal Godhead can we rightfully say that He's our ONLY Master and Lord.

See how easily the Trinity accommodates this? Without the Trinity the passage appears to be an outright contradiction to Scripture elsewhere.

Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this: Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His Son.

Salvation depends on knowing both! The Son is one with the Father.

The Son is God in every sense the Father is (John 1:1) and is confessed as Lord and God (John 20:28).

It would be strange, indeed, a created being, sent to reveal the Father, would equate knowing Himself with knowing the Father, in the context of salvation. Unless, of course, He is essentially equal as the one true God, who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him.

I will look at and respond to your other long post at a later date. <><

Space Merchant · February 3, 2018

Quote

I will keep this response short because a long post is difficult for some to read.

I only touched on the Hebrew wordÂ echadÂ in my other post and how the basic meaning is Â“unitedÂ” from the root Â“to unifyÂ”, which apparently is only Â“half correctÂ”.

I considered it half correct because you stated the root word is Â“unifyÂ” for echad, when you go to the strongÂ’s for echad it points back to Â“unitÂ” or Â“unitedÂ” while achad points back to Â“unifyÂ”. You have to show respect to the Hebraic meaning, it can easily be a Hebraic violation if you donÂ’t. In regards to Deuteronomy 6:4, Â“oneÂ” points back to echad; for from the beginning the only thing that was mentioned was the Shema and nothing but the Shema only until you brought up odd assumptions of it which differs fromÂ those who recite it twice a day and those who know what it truly means.

Echad - a numeral from 258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:--a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

Achad - perhaps a primitive root; to unify, i.e. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts):--go one way or other.

Quote

Consider this, if the Bible writers, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that God is multi-personal, as is claimed by most Bible believing Christians, then we would expect to find that these authors would writeÂ aboutÂ God in such a way as to indicate this to their readers, right?

Not all Bible readers think the same way as you (or those not affected by the "James White Effect"), especially with what I have been seeing elsewhere. To change or break what the Shema wonÂ’t fair well for those who try to make it into something that it is not.

Quote

There are some nine different Hebrew words, which at times are translated as the word Â“oneÂ” (also there are many variants of these nine).

I already know this, but there is only one of such word used for Deuteronomy 6:4, which is Â“echadÂ”.

Quote

Now, the question that comes to mind if the Unitarian claims are correct, is which of these nine words would they apply to God to indicate that God is a moneity, not a plurality?

It isnÂ’t a Unitarian claim lol (you are cracking me up when you keep saying that ), I canÂ’t help but chuckle every now and then when you say as such. What I state were from what the Jews today still know, from the day of their birth, to the day of their death they know this, they know what the Shema is, as well as what those who understand Hebrew and study it. Even the Muslims know because the Tawhid (Monotheistic view of God in the eyes of Islam).

I have watched and read about pronunciation of words in Hebrew as well as Greek, but if you want to keep saying Arian/Unitarian claims then I can play that game too. And regarding Jewish Law and the laws in those ancient days and whom it started with, I understand clearly what the Shema.

For me, I hold the utmostÂ respect to what these words mean by its root, and take into account when it is used, where it is used, and how it is used.

Quote

Out of the nine Hebrew words only one would indicate that God is one solitary person. And ifthat wordÂ is applied to God in the Bible, then I and all Bible believing Christians would not have a leg to stand on.

I know the other words, this isnÂ’t the first time I read about it or know of any of such words in Hebrew, remember, I was the one who brought up the Shema to begin with, so of course I know things like that. That being said each of these words is used in the bible a bunch of times, regarding persons, places, or things, similar to what I have brought up previously, examples being echad, which appears about 970 times in the Tanakh, Its feminine Hebraic form, achat, is included in this total.

Quote

The word isÂ yachiydÂ (StrongÂ’s #3173), and means an absolute or solitary one. It is even translated Â“solitaryÂ” in Psalm 68:6, and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture (see Ps. 25:16; 68:6; Prov. 4:3; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; etc.).

This is already known, but ok. Also its short definition points to Â“onlyÂ”.

Quote

AÂ Â Arian/Unitarian should naturally expect to find that the wordÂ yachiydÂ be applied to God in the Bible, at least once...

Why wouldnÂ’t I know? I know a bit of Hebrew and Greek, this isnÂ’t my first rodeo, bud.

Quote

On the other hand, Bible believing Christians wouldÂ notÂ expect to findÂ yachiydÂ applied to God because we believe that there areÂ threeÂ Persons within the Godhead.

So suddenly solitary, only, alone, lonely, only one, etc points back to 3 persons now? You just said what the word means regarding the bible verses you pointed out.

Quote

And so, when we turn to the Bible, what do we find? ScriptureÂ neverÂ appliesÂ yachiydÂ to God, andÂ neverÂ describes God as a solitary person.Â

But Echad does. Any Hebrew reading Christian, any Muslim, any Jew will say the same thing. Plus echad is no mystery, just means Â“oneÂ”.

Quote

Â On the other hand, if the writers of Scripture under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed God to be multi-personal, then we would expect to find that theyÂ would applyÂ the wordÂ echadÂ to God because this would mean that God is Â“oneÂ” in a composite sense.

I donÂ’t think they believed God was multi-personal, especially in MosesÂ’ case. But echad, regardless of what you think of it is just Â“oneÂ”, like the English word Â“oneÂ”.

How many times does this need to be said?

If I didn't any Hebrew at all, then maybe you would have gotten me with that one lolÂ

Quote

And as a matter of fact,Â echadÂ is theÂ onlyÂ available Hebrew word they could use toÂ expressÂ this reality.

Echad was used for a person, a place and or a thing. Regarding the Sehma it just tells us there is one God.

Quote

Â

So when we open the Bible, what do we find?

We find thatÂ echadÂ is applied to God.

He is Â“oneÂ” in the sense of a composite unity. This is central to the Biblical concept of God.

The use ofÂ echadÂ in Duet. 6:4Â isÂ exactly what Bible believing Christians expect to find in the BibleÂ because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of PersonsÂ and not just a solitary person (for confirmation see Zech 2:5-11 which is an example of this).

Â

As for Zechariah 2:5-11 (Vision), you may want to re-read it and understand it. The Scriptural facts show us that the one sent in this passage, specifically verses 8-11, and is the angel identified in the immediately preceding context. We see clear clarifications of what is happening in verses 8-9. This angel (messenger) was sent to deliver Yahweh's message. The angel delivers the message of God the Father to Zechariah, hence what is seen Â“For thus said the Lord of hostsÂ”. The honest bible reader will already see the truth when they read it, so there is no compound unity here as you claim. You can check it out for yourself: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2302.htm

FYI, echad, which is an adjective, is used for person(s), place(s) or thing(s). I posted a response from a Jewish Rabbi, who even says the word echad just means "one" and nothing more, I take his side, along others who know Hebrew very well.

In Hebrew it is quite evident it is an Angel in that vision, because Angel means messenger and it points back to ???????? (Mal-akh/Malak StrongÂ’s 4397).

Echad isnÂ’t used at all in those verses, let alone the entirety of Zechariah chapter 2. Unless, you met Zechariah 12:10 and 14:9.

For Zech 12:10 refers to/prophesying of the Christ, and the only word used there is Yachid and 14:9 uses Echad (twice in a single verse).

Also Deuteronomy 6:4 doesnÂ’t speak of 3 persons, if you read my Shema post, I made that clear, speaks of One God. For Echad means, and IÂ’ll say it again, just Â“oneÂ”, there isnÂ’t no mumbo jumbo stuff of mystery or rocket science, is it very simple and not complex as you make it out to be.
Â

Quote

Â

Like it or not, there areÂ noÂ other words in the Hebrew language by which such a thought could be expressed.

It is interesting to note also that the Greek wordÂ heisÂ performs the same function as the HebrewÂ echad.

Â

It would have been a surprised if I didnÂ’t know Greek either. But yes, ??? (Heis StrongÂ’s G #1520) and it is also an adjective, just like its Hebraic counterpart.

Quote

Bible believing Christians everywhere,Â followingÂ the teachings of JesusÂ (John 10:30, Matt. 28:19) believe, without a doubt, that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity.

Yes everyone knows those verses, as well as the context of said verses, compared and connections to other verses. As for John 10:30, Christians also know about John (10:16, 10:38), John (17:11, 17:21-23) Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 1:10, Galatians 3:28, etc. Just like Jesus and his Father, we, just like the Disciples and those that believe, will also be Â“oneÂ” as well, in turn we too become one with not just the Christ, but with God as well. For as Christians, we are one with Christ, in turn, we are one with God as well; taking in knowledge of both the Father, and of the Son.

Quote

Â

I want to look at John 17: 3 as this seems to be the preferred go to verse of Arian/Unitarians in an attempt to deny the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

Look, similar language to John 17:3 appears in Jude 4, where the more reliable Greek texts read that Jesus is Â“our only Master and LordÂ”. Here the same adjective Â“onlyÂ” appears in the same grammatical position (attributive).

So if we were to use the line of interpretation that you do for John 17:3, then Jude 4 restricts the Master and Lord to one person, Jesus Christ.

Â

John 17:3 isnÂ’t my Â“preferredÂ” verse, as you claim, nor is it for the majority of Christians, for that verse simply says, in JesusÂ’ words, in order to gain eternal life, we must know about the true God and the one whom he sent. To say that is a verse that Unitarians, let alone any Christian used to prove something is pretty vague.

John 17:3 and Jude 4 are not similar in language as you claim, and just to enforce that, I will post both verses before I explain it.

John 17:3 Â– And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

My preferredÂ verse(s), by the way, are John 3:16, Romans 10:9-13, Galatians 1:1-8, 5:22-23, and a couple more.

Jude 4 (Jude 1:4) - For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Also Jude 4 uses 3441.

Quote

How can Jesus be our only Master and Lord when the Father is also our Lord and Master?

Perhaps because it is in the scriptures, have you even bothered to check? Lord/Master has been used several times to both God the Father and Jesus Christ or any who in scripture who has authority, which can be rendered to words like Sir, Owner, Master, etc.

Quote

Or put another way, how can the Father be our Master and LordÂ ifÂ Jesus is, as Jude 4 says, our ONLY Master and Lord?

I like how you make ONLY in all caps lol, just makes it obvious to me you accept verses Â“as isÂ” like some so called Christians who donÂ’t take the time to read.

Remember who Jude is: a slave of Christ, a brother to James, and each and everyone one of us here knows what, in terms of the bible, a slave/servant to a master/lord is and a master/lord to a slave/servant, vice versa.

Quote

The same reasoning being applied by you to John 17:3 would deny that any other Person other than Jesus Christ could be our Â“Master and LordÂ” according to Jude 4!

John 17:3 connects to Luke 10:25-28, 1 John 5:20, Ephesians 4:11, 4:13 and last, but not least, 2 Peter 3:18 (Simon PeterÂ’s epistle). As for Lord/Master is does apply to God as well, for the head of the Christ is God after all, who is above everyone in the heavens and on the earth, for it is He who put all things in subjection to his chosen one, the Christ, hence why Jesus himself, of whom we are a subordinate to, is Lord/Master.

Plus Jude speaks of himself as a Â“slave/servantÂ” to Jesus Christ, not as an apostle, Jude 1:1, 17,18.

Quote

Do you apply the same exegetical principles to Jude 4 as you demand in John 17:3? If not why not?

As I demanded? What now? I brought up John 17:3 regarding JesusÂ’ clear subordination to the Father and nothing more, where have I demanded something regarding John 17:3, as you said? Anyways, I will just say that God the Father is Lord/Master, and his Christ, Jesus, is Lord/Master, and there are clear reasons in scripture as to why this is. As for Jude, as I said before, he considers himself a slave to Christ, in his epistle anyone who is reader with great awareness will see what Jude is telling us, for he knows who God the Father is since he delivered his people out of Egypt and that he was present to his saints, and obviously he knows who the Son is, hence why he speaks of false teachers who will try to mangle or twist what is true, teaching falsehood. JudeÂ’s epistle also bears somewhat of a connection to 2 Peter.

Quote

Â

Now, what then is the correct understanding of the language in John 17:3?

Jesus says, that they might know youÂ…and me.

Imagine thatÂ… we might know a creature and that our eternal life depends on it!

We need toÂ know GodÂ to have life andÂ that includesÂ ourÂ knowingÂ Jesus Christ, the one who had made Himself to occupy a lower POSITION than the angels in order to pay the toll. And by looking at Jude 4 might help you to see how superficial some are when reading John 17:3.

Â

Not quite. Everyone, even a child knows that the head of a man is the Christ (1 Corinthians 1:11a). We are [obviously] subordinate to Jesus because he has a status and authority (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20, 21, Philippians 2:9) that exceeds each and every one of us on earth, including the angels in heaven (Hebrews 1). God has exalted him in Hebrews 1, and I said this time and time again to you, but you just ignore it. Therefore Jesus is Lord and Master for he is the Â“chosen Christ of GodÂ” to be King, reasons why JesusÂ’ genealogy points to King David, or that of what David himself said, as well as what Gabriel had told Mary and so forth.

What we see in Jude 4 (Judgment on False Teachers) is that Jude is telling us that there were many false prophets to teach a false doctrine that is spreading about among the people, for such men take and change (accursed) scripture and go about taking excuses for their brazen conduct. And Jude did say the following in his epistle that our only owner, lord and master is indeed Jesus Christ. What he also makes us aware in the epistle is God the Father, who is also not just the Lord and Master of us too, but of the Christ as well, for God is the one who subjected all things to the anointed Christ.

As for Jude, he mentions God the Father about 7 times.

Quote

Only by understanding Jesus Christ as an ultimate and equal member of the eternal Godhead can we rightfully say that He's ourÂ ONLYÂ Master and Lord.

Â See how easily the Trinity accommodates this? Without the Trinity the passage appears to be an outright contradiction to Scripture elsewhere.

Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this:Â Â Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His Son.

Yet the early Christians who followed Jesus declare taking in knowledge and building faith of both God the Father and of Jesus, several times this has been stated in scripture in the New Testament. Plus all of John 17 was pretty much Jesus praying, while his disciples were present.

The High Priestly Prayer (John 17)

1-26 Â– (JesusÂ’ last prayer with his apostles/disciples)

3-Coming to know God means eternal life that is everlasting

14-16- Christians no part of the world

17- Â“Your word is truthÂ”

26- Â“I have made your name known

Not many visual adaptations of it is not as accurate, but this one fits the bill for John 17:

Â

Quote

Salvation depends on knowing both! The Son is one with the Father.

So are the Disciples and the Christians, one/in union with Christ, and one/in union with the Father, John 17:20, 21 and 1 John 5:20.

True Christians are one with Christ and are one with God the Father.

Knowing both you say? What happen to the Holy Spirit, since you state the Holy Spirit is God where is it? You also said Jesus is God so why mention the Father in terms of knowing both, when you already got a God right here, you should have said knowing all 3 or something along those lines, but hey, Â“The TrinityÂ”. All jokes aside, in order to gain salvation, is as Christians must exercise faith in Jesus and demonstrate that faith by obeying his commands and exercising in knowing the one who raised Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, God the Father, Yahweh

(Acts 4:10, 12; Romans 10:9-13; Hebrews 5:9 (con. John 3:16)).

The scriptures inform us that we must have works (acts of obedience), to prove that our faith is alive (James 2:24, 26).Â Salvation isnÂ’t earn, but it is a Â“gift from God the FatherÂ” based on his grace or undeserved kindness (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Quote

The Son is God in every sense the Father is (John 1:1) and is confessed as Lord and God (John 20:28).

Yet Jesus wasnÂ’t all-knowing or all-powerful and he was corruptible (mortal man) who tasted death and only after his resurrection, he was made immortal like his Father. I described in my last post. John 1 in its entirety revolves around the Genesis Creation (Time Frame), as for you Trinitarians/Semi-Binitarians/Arians, you ignore several parts of John 1 to fit what you believe, Â“James WhitingÂ” the verses.

Ah, John 20:28, I played this game before with Trinitarians, anyways:

Â

I will just let brother Kel's information be seen by everyone here because I have already said something, but you ignored it.

Â John 20:28

Quote

John 20:28
Â

Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and My God."

Â
The Trinitarian Claim

Trinitarians claim that Thomas himself is identifying Jesus as "God."
Â
The Claim vs. The Facts

The Scriptural facts show us that Thomas was confessing what Jesus had taught him - to see Jesus is to see the Father (14:10-11; 12:44-45). That human flesh named Jesus declares the Father (1:18).
Â
The Problems with the Claim

1.Â What Thomas finally believed

The Trinitarian interpretation is based on the notion that Thomas took this opportunity to declare Jesus is his God. However, this interpretation defies the context. Thomas had doubted his Lord'sÂ resurrectionÂ and declared he would not believe he had risen until he had seen Jesus for himself. In verse 27, Jesus tells Thomas to see the wounds in his hand and side proving that he was indeed risen from the dead. Thomas' response to Jesus in verse 28 is based on finally believing that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead. Jesus then responds to Thomas in verse 29 saying that he was blessed to finally believe because he had seen him. Jesus' response refers to the fact that Thomas had finally believed he had risen from the dead. Trinitarians read verse 29 as if Jesus is blessing Thomas for believing he is his God. However, the entire point of the passage is that Thomas had finally believed Jesus had risen from the dead.
Â
2.Â An Understandable but Seriously Flawed Assumption

The Trinitarian interpretation is also based upon a very defective assumption. Trinitarians suppose that since Thomas said these words TO Jesus, then he must have taken this opportunity to declare that Jesus is his God. However, as the following passage demonstrates, this assumption is highly flawed.

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you." But Jesus turnedÂ and saidÂ to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan!Â You are a stumbling block to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God but upon the things of men."
Matthew 16:21-23

If we interpreted the above passage in the very same manner as Trinitarians interpret John 20:28, we would then be required to conclude Peter is Satan himself. But this is obviously incorrect. Even though Jesus said these words directly TO Peter, we know it does not mean Peter is Satan himself. Hence, we must inquire whether a similar situation may be taking place at John 20:28.
Â
3.Â The Surrounding Context

The immediate context militates against the Trinitarian claim. In the preceding context, Jesus describes his Father as his God and Mary's God rather than identifying himself as her God. In the following context, John indicates that he wrote this Gospel, including the account of Jesus and Thomas, not to tell us that Jesus is himself God but so that we might believe that Jesus is God's son:

Â

We have seenÂ the Lord. (20:25).

I ascend to my Father and your Father, andÂ my GodÂ andÂ your God. (20:17)

These things have been writtenÂ so thatÂ you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the sonÂ ofÂ GodÂ and that believing you may have life in his name. (20:31).

The Trinitarian interpretation of verse 28 disregards and defies these contextual facts.
Â
4.Â The Significance of the Greek Grammar

Thomas literally said to Jesus, "theÂ Lord of me andÂ theÂ God of me." Now if Thomas had said, "theÂ Lord and God of me," the Trinitarian claim would carry much more weight. The latter statement would be the kind of language you would normally use in Greek to refer to one person as both your Lord and your God. But this is not the language Thomas used. He used a language convention which Greek speakers would use when they wanted to refer to TWO persons, "theÂ Lord of me andÂ theÂ God of me."

Verse 17 is also highly significant here. Jesus says he will ascend to "theÂ Father of you and Father of me and God of you and God of me." This is the kind of language a Greek speaker would use if he wanted to refer to just one person. He did not say he will ascend to, "the Father of you andÂ theÂ Father of me andÂ theÂ God of you andÂ theÂ God of me." This fact tells us that John was definitively selective about his language structures and would use the verse 17 language structure when he wanted to refer to one person. John did not use this "one person" language structure when he wrote John 20:28. He does not record Thomas as saying, "the Lord and God of me." Rather, he used the language structure used by Greek speakers to refer to two persons, "the Lord of me and the God of me." Additionally, it is also significant that Thomas did not say, "the Lord and the God of me." Rather, he said, "the LordÂ of meÂ and the God ofÂ of me."

Compare the following two verses. If the first verse below refers to two persons, what about the second?

This is the antichrist, the one who deniesÂ theÂ Father andÂ theÂ Son. 1 Jn 2:22

Thomas answered and said to him, "theÂ Lord of me andÂ theÂ God of me." Jn 20:28

However, this language structure is occasionally used in Scripture when referring to one person. For example, it is sometimes used to draw a distinction between two different roles that one person might serve (see John 13:13-14). So even though this is the language construction used by Greek speakers to refer to more two persons, this fact alone does not make it certain. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if there is additional information in our Bible which demonstrates Thomas was referring to two persons. And the answer to that question is, "Yes, there is additional information in the Scriptures which demonstrates that Thomas was referring to two persons."
Â
Analysis of the Facts

1.Â The Context of John 20:28 - Seeing and Believing

The context of John 20:28 involves the theme of seeing and believing. The risen Jesus had already appeared to the disciples but Thomas was not present. So when they declared they had seen Jesus, Thomas declared he would not believe Jesus had risen until he hadÂ seenÂ Jesus for himself complete with the wounds in his hands and side. Jesus then appeared to Thomas and said, "Reach here with your finger, and see my hands, and reach here your hand and put it into my side, andÂ do not be unbelieving, but believing." And after Thomas responded to him, Jesus responds back to Thomas, "Because you haveÂ seenÂ me, you haveÂ believed. Blessed are they who do notÂ see, and yetÂ believe." It is quite clear that seeing and believing is the point of this account.
Â
2.Â Seeing and Believing: What Jesus had taught Thomas and the disciples

At the end of John 13, Jesus informs his disciples that he is going away and they become very troubled. But he tells them not to be troubled for they know they way. But they are still confused so Jesus explains:

And you know the way where I am going.Â”Â ThomasÂ said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going, how do we know the way?Â” Jesus said to him, Â“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to him, Â“Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know me, Philip?Â He who has seen me has seen the Father."

The context of John 20:28 is seeing and believing. Jesus had taught Thomas and his disciples about seeing and believing. To see Jesus was not to see just one person but two persons: (1) Jesus their Lord, and (2) their God and Father. Jesus also explained to them precisely HOW they had seen the Father. In the next breath, Jesus said, "the Father abiding in me does the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, otherwise believe because of the works themselves." (14:10-11). At John 12:44-45, Jesus made a similar declaration to the Jews where he said that to see/believe him was to see/believe the One who sent him. To know Jesus was to know the Father; to believe in Jesus was to believe in the Father; to see Jesus was to see the Father. This is because Jesus was sent by the Father to speak and do works in his Father's name. And even moreso, it was the Father abiding in him that did the works. In this way, Jesus was the Father's Word of Truth. And in this way, Jesus explains, they had seen the Father when they had seen Jesus.

At John 1:18, John tells us that no one has ever seen God but the only begotten in the bosom ofÂ the Father declares/explainsÂ HIM. This is precisely what Jesus is talking about in John 14 when he teaches his disciples about seeing and believing. To see Jesus is to see the Father. To see Jesus is to see not just one person but two persons.

Verse Jesus Â The Father

John 12:44 He who BELIEVES inÂ ME also [BELIEVES] inÂ HIMÂ who sent me.

John 12:45 He who SEESÂ ME also SEESÂ HIMÂ who sent me

John 14:9 He who has SEENÂ ME also has SEENÂ THE FATHER.

John 20:28 my Lord and my God.

Â
3.Â In that Day you will know

Carefully compare these two teachings from Jesus:

He who has seen meÂ has seen the Father; how can you say, "Show us the Father"? Do you not believe thatÂ I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? (14:9-10).

In that Day you will know thatÂ I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. (14:20).

Jesus is telling us disciples that they would fully realize the truth of this matter "on that Day." That day is when he rose from the dead. "After a little while the world will no longer see me, but you willÂ see me; because I live, you will live also. In that dayÂ you will know I am in my Father.Â (14:19-20). He also taught them that the Spirit would remind them of everything he had just taught them (14:26). On that Day,t he disciples wouldÂ knowÂ that Jesus was inÂ the Father.

When we put all these facts together, the answer is clear and undeniable. To see Jesus is to see the Father. To see Jesus was to see two persons, Jesus and the Father. Jesus taught Thomas and the disciples that they would know in that Day that Jesus was in the Father. The reason for Thomas' words is clearly explained in the Scriptures in this selfsame Gospel of John.
Â
Conclusion

When all the evidence is honestly weighed, there is simply no doubt that Thomas was affirming Jesus' earlier teaching to him, that to see and believe in Jesus was to see and believe in the Father. Jesus declared/explained the Father in terms of everything he said and did. He is the Way to the Father and through Him we know the Father. Jesus explained that they saw the Father when they saw Jesus because the Father abiding in him did the works. How much more then was the Father abiding in that dead body which had the Father had risen from the dead by the power of His Holy Spirit. Since seeingÂ JesusÂ meant seeingÂ the Father, Thomas saidÂ to Jesus, "My LordÂ andÂ my God. Thomas is confessing what the entire Gospel of John is about. Jesus made the Father known to the people of the world. The only begotten declares/explains the Father. For that reason, to see Jesus is to see the Father. To see the Lord Jesus is to see the Father, our God, and Jesus Christ's God.
Â
Blessed are you Thomas. BecauseÂ you haveÂ seen, you have believed.Â John 20:29Â

He whoÂ believesÂ in me, does notÂ believeÂ in me but inÂ HimÂ who sent me.
He who sees meÂ sees HimÂ who sent me. John 12:44-45

My LordÂ andÂ my God.

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john20_28.html

John 1:1

Quote

John 1:1
Â

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

Â
The Trinitarian Claim

Trinitarians interpret the text as if John is referring to the beginning of the Genesis creation and John is telling us that the Son was God.
Â
The Problems with the Claim

1.Â Eisegesis

Trinitarians impose their doctrine upon the text by imagining the person Jesus is being styled with the title, "the Word" and identified as God. But it simply does not say Jesus was with God nor does it say Jesus was God. Moreover, John 1:14 does not say Jesus became flesh. It says the Word became flesh.

2.Â Can't See the Forest for the Trees

It is common for Trinitarians, and others, to suppose the interpretation of John 1:1 rests entirely upon the grammar of John 1:1c, that is, the meaning of the anarthrous nounÂ theos. This approach essentially ignores any other questions which must be asked concerning this verse. There are several other questions pertaining to this verse which Trinitarians disregard.

3.Â Mythical meaning attached to the wordÂ pros.

John 1:1b has been typically translated as, "the word wasÂ withÂ God. More than one Greek word is translated as "with" in English translations. The Greek word here isÂ prosÂ and it usually refers to directional motion "toward" something in the sense that one thing is coming to be before another thing. Sometimes, Trinitarians suggest that the Greek prepositionÂ prosÂ with a stative verb, as we have at John 1:1, necessarily implies a personal relationship indicating the Son and the Father were in a "face to face" relationship. However, this reads far too much into this common everyday Greek preposition than the word can offer and loads an everyday Greek preposition with a fourth century doctrine. The Greeks actually had a term for a face to face relationship, "prosopon pros prosopon," but this is not what John said. The Greek wordÂ prosÂ with a stative verb simply implies that one thing 'X' is positionally before another thing 'Y.' For example, the Old Testament (LXX) says several times that the word of God cameÂ prosÂ Prophet X referring to a message from God which came to that prophet. Once the word of God had come to him, we could say the word of God wasÂ prosÂ Prophet X.

4.Â The Definition ofÂ theosÂ at 1:1c

It is not uncommon for Trinitarian laypeople to suppose John is telling us WHO the Word was at John 1:1c. They being by assuming that the term "the Word" refers to Jesus and then they also suppose the word "God" means that John is telling us WHO Jesus was/is.

However, Trinitarian scholars and theologians deny that John was indicating WHO the Word was (although this fact doesn't seem to stop them from citing this verse to try and prove Jesus is that identity known as God). Trinitarian academics insist, rather, that John is telling us WHAT the Word was, and the word "God" essentially means "divine" or "deity" in a qualitative sense. In other words, they are defining the word "God" (theos) as a qualitative noun in an adjectival sense. The problem with this interpretation is that John actually said, "and the word wasÂ prosÂ ton theonÂ andÂ theosÂ was the word." The point here is not whetherÂ theosÂ orÂ logosÂ is the predicate noun but the meaning of the wordÂ theosÂ at 1:1c. Even though John's word order is "God and God," we are expected to accept the notion that the first instance of the word "God" means "the Father" but the second instance means just the opposite: "not the Father." It is highly unlikely that John would join two instances of the word "God" with the conjunction "and" and expect readers to assume that each instance of the word "God" has different, and even opposite, meanings.

??? ? ????? ?? ???? ???Â ???? ??? ????Â ?? ? ?????

and the word wasÂ prosÂ God and GodÂ was the word

Is it reasonable to suppose John would expect his readers to suppose the first instance ofÂ theosÂ means "the Father" but the second instance means "not the Father"? It is an extremely far-fetched proposition.

5.Â The Word/Logos

In the New Testament Gospels, the "Word" refers to the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through the ministry of Jesus Christ. This fact is entirely ignored by Trinitarian interpreters. The "Word of God" came to John the Baptist (Luke 3:2) and he proclaimed the Good News. Both Mark and Luke begin their Gospels by referring to the beginning of the Good News (Mark) and the beginning of ministry of the Word (Luke). And again, John opens his first letter by telling us they heard the Word of Life and that is the message which he is announcing in his letter. Jesus kept his Father's word (8:55).

6.Â 1 John 1:1

The language 1 John 1:1 is obviously referring to the same concepts. John refers to "what" they had seen, "what" they had heard, "what" they had touched with their hands concerning "the word of life." And then John proceeds to announce that same word to his readers, the word they had heard. It should be rather obvious that the word in question is the same Word proclaimed by that flesh Jesus.

7.Â "In the beginning"

Since the book of Genesis begins with the words "In the beginning," Trinitarians suppose that John is establishing a time frameÂ whenÂ the Word was with God and when the Word was God. However, New Testament writers clearly portray Jesus' life, beginning with the baptism of John, as the beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ and the imminent establishment of the Kingdom of God. The "Word of God" came to John the Baptist (Luke 3:2) and he proclaimed the Good News testifying to the Light coming into the world (1:6). Mark similarly opens his Gospel with the words, "the beginning of the Good News of Jesus Christ." Luke opens his Gospel referring to the beginning of the ministry of the Word and his opening statement in the Book of Acts refers to his Gospel as "all that Jesus began to do and teach." And in his first letter, John refers to the Word as what they had heard from the beginning.

Additionally, not a few scholars have noted that John's Gospel is about the new creation since he routinely uses Genesis creation imagery. Indeed, the new creation of God is the reconciliation of the Genesis creation. The ministry of Jesus is the beginning of the new creation of God.

8.Â HoutosÂ andÂ Autos

Supposing that John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the Genesis creation, John 1:3 is generally interpreted by Trinitarians to mean the Genesis creation was created through the Son. On this basis alone, the Greek wordsÂ houtosandÂ autosÂ are translated as "he" and "him" respectively in verses 2 and 3. These personal pronouns lead readers to suppose that the Word mentioned verse 1 is being identified as a person. This is due to the fact that most readers are ignorant of Greek grammar and do not realize these two Greek words do not function like our English words "he" and "him." They are also be used to refer to inanimate objects.

The wordsÂ houtosÂ andÂ autosÂ are often translated as "He" and "Him" in verses 2 and 3 in Trinitarian based translations. However, these two Greek words and not equivalent to our English words "He" and "Him." These two Greek words function very much like our English word "This." We use the word "this" to refer to both persons and inanimate objects and that is how these two Greek words operate. The wordÂ houtosÂ is routinely translated as "this" in the New Testament. The wordÂ autosÂ functions in the same manner and is routinely translated as "it." Both of these words refer back to the subject which is under discussion. To illustrate, the exact same words are used at John 6:60 where Jesus is referring to theÂ logosÂ he had justÂ spokenÂ to the Jews. Compare John 1:1-3 with John 6:60:

In the beginning was theÂ logos....Â houtosÂ was with God in the beginning. All things came to be throughÂ autouÂ and apart fromÂ autouÂ not one thing has come to be that has come to be.

?? ???? ?? ?Â ?????....Â ?????Â ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??Â ?????Â ??????? ??? ?????Â ?????Â ??????? ???? ?? ? ???????Â

Therefore many of his disciples, when they heardÂ autouÂ said, Â“houtosÂ is a difficultÂ logos; who can hearÂ autou?Â”

?????? ??? ?????????? ?? ??? ???????Â ?????Â ????? ??????? ?????Â ????? ? ?????Â ??? ???????Â ????????????
Â
Laypeople are often further confused by the fact that Greek is a gender specific language. In English, only people have gender but in Greek, both people and inanimate objects have gender. For example, a spokenÂ logosÂ is a grammatically masculine thing in the Greek language. Masculine words do not mean a male person is in view.

When either of the two wordsÂ houtosÂ andÂ autosÂ are referring back to the subject in view, and the subject in view is a person, it is appropriate to respectively translate these words as "he" and "him" because that is how we speak in English. It is appropriate not because that is precisely what these words mean but that is how we would express the same idea in English. And when the subject is an inanimate object, theseÂ same two wordsÂ must be translated as "this" and "it." If we don't know whether the subject is a person or an inanimate object, the wordsÂ houtosÂ andÂ autosÂ do not tell usÂ whether the subject is or isn't a person.

Â

The grammar of John 1:2-3 does not tell us whether a person is in view or not. All we can say in verse 2 is that the Word was with God in the beginning. And all we can say in verse 3 is that all things were created through the Word mentioned in verse 1. Neither of these two words can tell us that the Word is a person, nor can they tell us the Word isn't a person.

9.Â God Created with Two different Words?

We know that the Word by which God created all things in Genesis was His spoken Word. The Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1-3 introduces an incomprehensible confusion whereby we are to suppose John is referring to the beginning of the Genesis creation and God created all things by means of two different Words: (1) His spoken Word, and (2) a person called the Word.

The confusion of Trinitarians here is especially entertaining since they view verse 3 as referring to the Genesis act of creation. However, the Scriptures tell us that the Genesis creation was accomplished by means of God's SPOKEN Word.

10.Â The Light

The immediate context says the Light shines in the darkness. If John is talking about reality at the creation of the world, then John is talking about Genesis 1:2-3 where darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said, "Let their be Light." And the Trinitarian is stuck in his own folly since this Light was the first of God's creations.

We are informed that this Light is the Father in John's first letter (1 John 1:5). We also see that the Light of the Father was expressed through His Messiah in the ministry of Jesus who was the expression of the Father through the words he said and the works he did. This suggests John does not have the beginning of the Genesis creation in mind but the beginning of the Good News of the Kingdom. And indeed, we are immediately told in verse 9 that the Light was coming into the world as John was testifying to that Light. John came to announce the true Light which was coming into the world since that Light had not yet come into the world.

11.Â The Word became flesh

Trinitarians are again guilty of reading their doctrine into the text concerning this verse. Verse 14 is usually interpreted to mean the Second Person of the Trinity became a human being when he descended into the womb of Mary. However, the text itself says nothing of the sort. God's Word is something which is expected to be fulfilled. For example, Paul said the mystery of godliness was manifested in flesh which means that a human being of flesh named Jesus manifested godliness during his ministry. In the same way, "the Word became flesh" refers to the fact that the Word of the Father was manifested in all the things that flesh said and did. The Word came to be flesh when the Spirit descended upon Jesus and he began to walk according to that Word, that is, the Good News of the Kingdom which God Anointed him to proclaim.
Â
Analysis of the Evidence

The Biblical facts show that John's introductory words (1:1-5) refer to the beginning of the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Word proclaimed through the ministry of God's Anointed, Jesus of Nazareth. The Word of John 1:1 is the Word proclaimed through the ministry of Jesus.

1.Â The Beginning of the Proclaimed Word

In the New Testament, "the Word" is an expression referring to the proclaimed Word of God and it is synonymous with the Good News. The ministry of Jesus was considered the beginning of the Word, the beginning of the Gospel. Mark and Luke open their Gospels in a similar introductory manner:

InÂ the beginningÂ wasÂ the WordÂ andÂ the WordÂ was with God andÂ the WordÂ was God

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who fromÂ the beginningÂ were eyewitnesses and servants ofÂ the Word... Luke 1:1-2

The beginningÂ of theÂ Good NewsÂ of Jesus Christ. Mark 1:1

Luke also opens the Book of Acts in this manner:

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that JesusÂ began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up... Acts 1:1-2

The ministry of Jesus, from his baptism at the Jordan to his death and resurrection, was considered to be the beginning of the Word, the beginning of the Gospel.
Â
2.Â John's First Letter

John opens his first letter in a manner very similar to his Gospel:

What was fromÂ the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerningÂ the WordÂ of Life... 1 John 1:1

The Word is something they had heard. John then immediately proceeds to announce that Word:

What was from the beginning,Â what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerningÂ the WordÂ of LifeÂ— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify andÂ announceÂ to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.Â What we have seen and heardÂ weÂ announceÂ to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete. This isÂ the message we have heard from HimandÂ announceÂ to you.... 1:1-5

The Word which they had heard is a message which John is announcing. John makes it even more clear in his letter what he means in his opening statement. The Word is something his audience had heard from theÂ beginning:

What was fromÂ the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerningÂ the WordÂ of Life

Beloved, I am not writing a new command to you, but an old command which you have had fromÂ the beginning. The old command isÂ the Word which you have heard. 2:7

As for you, let that [Word*] abide in you which you heard fromÂ the beginning. If what you heard fromÂ the beginningÂ abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 2:24
*See v.14

This isÂ the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 3:11

John's letter tells us quite clearly what he means by his language in the first verse of his letter and his Gospel. The "beginning" is the beginning of the proclaimed Good News and "the Word" refers to that proclaimed Word.

Also notice that the Word was something they had seen, something they had touched with their hands. Jesus proclaimed the Gospel in word and deed. He embodied the Word of God, the will of God. That flesh named Jesus always kept his God and Father's Word. To see that flesh was to see the mystery of godliness manifested in the flesh.
Â
4.Â John 1:1-9 and John the Baptist

The Word of God came to John the Baptist and he proclaimed the Good News of the Kingdom.

TheÂ Word of GodÂ came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness and he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins; as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet... Luke 3:2-4

John the Baptist came,Â proclaimingÂ in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Â“Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.Â” For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet... Matthew 3:1-2

The beginning ofÂ the Good NewsÂ of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet... John the Baptist appeared in the wildernessÂ proclaimingÂ a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins... Mark 1:1-4

In the beginning wasÂ the Word... There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. John 1:1-7
Â
4.Â ...and the Word was God

It is easy enough to understand that the proclaimed Word wasÂ prosÂ God (1:1b), but what did John mean when he said, "the Word WAS God?" In verse 18, John tells us plainly what he means.

... and the Word was God

the only begotten in the bosom of the Father he declares* Him

*GreekÂ ex?geomaiÂ - unfolds, expounds, explains, expresses. See Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 15:12, 14; 21:19

The Word proclaimed through Jesus was the declaration of God the Father Himself - "the Word was God." No one has ever seen God but John tells us that Jesus came so that we might have understanding of the Father and so that we might know the Father, the only true God (cf. 17:3; 1 John 5:20). John's words, "the Word was God" refer to the fact that the Word proclaimed by Jesus revealed God the Father Himself to us.

Although no one has ever seen God the Father, Jesus teaches his disciples they had indeed seen the Father, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Jesus also immediately explained to them how they had seen the Father. They had seen the Father in the words Jesus spoke and the works Jesus did. Jesus testified many times in the Gospel of John that his words were not his own but the Father's who sent him. In the same way, his works were not his own but the works of the Father which he did in his Father's name.

The proclaimed Word is not simply uttering a verbal message. Jesus proclaimed the Good News in Word and Work/Deed. The Word of God was all the things God did through Jesus His Anointed.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me wherefore He anointed me to proclaim the Good News to the poor. He has sent me to herald release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. Luke 4:18

Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst. Acts 2:22

God anointed Jesus of Nazareth in the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Acts 10:38

The Father abiding in me does the works. John 14:10
Â
5.Â John's Introductory remarks and the Light of the Gospel: God the Father

In the first verse of Genesis, we read that God created the heavens and the earth. This is an introductory statement since what follows is a description of God creating the heavens and the earth. We should then ask ourselves whether John 1:1-5 is an introductory statement in a similar manner. In Genesis it says, "In the beginning, God created.... darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said, 'Let there be light.'" In John, it says, "In the beginning was the Word... all things came to be through the Word.... the light shined in the darkness."

God the Father is Light. John the Baptist came to testify to that Light (1:7-8). The true Light which enlightens every man was coming into the world. When was the Light coming into the world? The Light was coming into the world when John the Baptist began to proclaim the Word. Because God the Father was at work in Jesus His Anointed, he was the full expression of the Father who is Light. For that reason, Jesus could say, "I am the Light of the world." In contrast, John the Baptist testified that he was not that Light. Rather, he only testified about the Light. In other words, John the Baptist's mission was to testifyÂ aboutÂ the Light of the Father coming into the world. Jesus of Nazareth's mission was to be that Light - the full expression of the Father Himself - and he did this by always keeping his God's Word and doing his Father's will.
Â
6.Â The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (1:14)

The Hebrew word for "Good News",Â bsr, is the verb form ofÂ bsr, flesh (see John 6:53-55,63). The shekinah glory of the Father tabernacled in that flesh named Jesus. God the Father's glory was seen in Jesus' words and deeds. In the Gospel of John, Jesus did signs which revealed the glory of God.

The man of flesh named Jesus was the embodiment of the Word of God since he always obeyed his Father's word. Obedience to his God's will was HOW he proclaimed the Word to the world.
Â
7.Â The Beginning of the New Creation

There is a very good reason John uses the language of Genesis in his opening statement. Not a few commentators have observed John's Gospel employs creation imagery. For example, when Jesus is about to die on the cross, he said, "It is finished" echoing Genesis 2:1. And when the risen Jesus breathes the Spirit into his disciples at John 20:22, we are reminded of Genesis 2:7. Jesus walking on water recalls the Spirit of God hovering over the waters of the Genesis creation. And again, the Light shines into the darkness in the Genesis account just as we see the Light of God shining into the darkness of the world through the ministry of Jesus. In every respect, we are to see the activity of God the Father's Spirit at work in Jesus just as we see the activity of the Spirit in the Genesis creation account.

The new creation is the reconciliation of the Genesis creation. Paul tells us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself and those in Christ are new creations in him. In the same respect, God created anew all things in heaven and earth in the risen Christ by reconciling all things in heaven and earth to Himself in Christ (Col 1:16-19). It is for this reason, we ourselves new creations in Christ who is the firstfruits, the beginning of the creation of God.
Â
8.Â Everything Came to Be through the Word (1:3)

If we carefully consider John 1:5, "the Light shines in the darkness," it is obviously apparent that these words are referring to the ministry of Jesus (see 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36). In verse 4, we also read that life was in the Word and that life was the Light of men. It should be plain here that John is not referring to the Genesis act of creation. The true Light which enlightens every man was presently coming into the world (1:9).

With these facts in view, it is obviously apparent that John 1:3 is not referring to the Genesis act of creation but to all the things that came to be through the proclamation of the Word through the ministry of Jesus. For this reason, Jesus cried, "It is finished" upon the cross just as we find God was finished all His works in the Genesis act of creation. Jesus' ministry was the beginning of the new creation of God, the new heavens and earth, where our risen Lord is the firstfruits of that new creation, the beginning of the creation of God.
Â
Conclusion

An honest exploration of the facts demonstrates to us that the Word of John 1:1 is the Word proclaimed through Jesus in his ministry and the Word he proclaimed was the proclamation of God the Father Himself, "the Word was God." He who had seen Jesus had seen the Father in terms of the things Jesus did. God is Life and Jesus fully expressed that Life in the words he spoke and the works he did. God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he said and did. God is Light and Jesus fully expressed the Light of the Father in all the words he spoke and works he did in the name of his God. God is Love and the flesh named Jesus fully expressed the Father's Love, dead flesh hanging on the cross for your sins and mine. The Word of God was something the flesh named Jesus always kept. The Word became flesh, that is, God the Father was manifested in flesh, that flesh named Jesus. Jesus came so that we might know the Father and Jesus fully expressed the Father in all the things he did because he always kept His Father's Word. Jesus' words and works were not his own but the Father's. The Word as proclaimed by Jesus... was God.
Â
Truly, truly I tell you, whoeverÂ hears myÂ WordÂ andÂ believesÂ HimÂ who sent meÂ has eternal life.
John 5:24

If I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him andÂ keep His Word.
John 8:55

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john1_1.html

Â

Quote

Â

It would be strange, indeed, a created being, sent to reveal the Father, would equate knowing Himself with knowing the Father, in the context of salvation.Â Â Unless, of course,Â He is essentially equal as the one true God, who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him.

I will look at and respond to your other long post at a later date. <><

Â

Â Well sadly it will just be a stalemate because there is information on both sides, and clearly it won't be getting anywhere, but those here who take the time to read the information will see for themselvesÂ of who is in the right.

Â

They can decide.

James Thomas Rook Jr. · February 3, 2018

The simplest is the eleven words of Revelation 1:1's preamble.

If you have any visualization abilities at all.

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR, and UNAMBIGUOUS.

Jehovah God and Christ Jesus are separate.

... and Jehovah is God ....... and Jesus is NOT.

Everything else is "Whack-A-Mole".

... be a sport .... look it up.

James Thomas Rook Jr. · February 3, 2018

REVELATION 1:1-2

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, ²who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. "

GOD GAVE ------>> TO JESUS

...

get it?

Cos · February 4, 2018

Space merchant,

I read through your response and I am astounded by the amount of your contradictions, not only that but you even deliberately alter my statement to try to cover up for something you said.

I said on January 20;

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 8:06 PM, Cos said:

Irenaeus marks the identification of the Holy Spirit as a person just as the Son is a person when he writes; “the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject.” (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 7)

Note carefully that my above statement does NOT contain the word “eternal”!

You responded on January 24 with this comment;

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 8:59 PM, Space Merchant said:

We see here again in Chapter 4, of which you only pulled a portion of said paragraph, not realizing, once again, what Irenaeus was talking about, allow me to post that paragraph so you can see for yourself. Also with all due respect, Irenaeus indeed identified the Holy Spirit as a Person (said spirit has no personality whatsoever), however, never once did he claim that it was God, or that it, the Son and the Father are “selfsame” (remember this word for what you will see later) in this specific paragraph, as you claim:

I replied on January 28

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 9:43 AM, Cos said:

You claim that I just “pull portions” from what Irenaeus writes as if doing so were wrong in some way, even thought you recognize that what I said is correct for you acknowledge that “Irenaeus indeed identified the Holy Spirit as a Person”, but it is you who doesn’t agree with Irenaeus on this… so how can you attribute Unitarianism to Irenaeus?

Now here comes your contradiction and deliberate altering of what I said;

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 3:51 AM, Space Merchant said:

That being said, on to your next claim, my response was regarding you previous claim, which you said:

Irenaeus establishes the Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos. “For with Him (the Father) were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit…” (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20).

I never made such a claim, for I have stated that Irenaeus never stated that the Holy Spirit was or is an “Eternal Person”, as you said, not Irenaeus.

You added the word ‘eternal’ to my statement and then made up the excuse that that was what you were responding to.

This shows me your true character (John 8:44) and to which I will not waste anymore of my time addressing your dishonest claims any further! <><

Cos · February 4, 2018

12 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

REVELATION 1:1-2

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, ²who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. "

GOD GAVE ------>> TO JESUS

...

get it?

Mr. Rook

It amazes me how many times you get so many things wrong.

You imply that Revelation 1:1-2 should be enough to prove that Jesus is not God, because as you reason, Jesus is given the Revelation from God.

But you forget that Jesus is the mediator between the Godhead and mankind, in His mediatorial role He is given the Revelation to pass on to man.

The fact is, Jesus has been resurrected as man and His role as mediator and revealer is not over. The fact is Jesus has a great more to say to His true followers (compare John 16:12).

But you JWs won’t understand this as Jesus is not directly your mediator as such because the Watchtower falsely teaches that He is only the mediator for the 144,000.

Let me make this point plain, Jesus, in His role as mediator represents the matters of God to man, and as mediator He is revealing to man the revelation of the Godhead, the verse speaks of Him in His meditorial role, to claim as you do that this proves He is not God is quite ridiculous, and ignores what Scriptures says elsewhere.

The Revelation comes from the Godhead, and it is given to Jesus as mediator to pass on to man. And Jesus is qualified to perform the role of mediator because He is both God and man, do you get it…probably not! <><

James Thomas Rook Jr. · February 4, 2018

If I had to choose between one dead guy's opinion over another ... I would choose that of Sir Isaac Newton, over that of Irenaeus's opinion .....

What is it about Iranaeus that would give his thoughts special consideration?

I know quite a bit about Sir Isaac Newton ... arguably the smartest natural man that ever lived.

James Thomas Rook Jr. · February 4, 2018

Cos:

The "Godhead" is a completely made up FANTASY... It does not exist, and has never existed.

Proof of this is in Revelation 1:1 ... where Ignorant Jesus is GIVEN the Revelation to forward to the Apostle John.

Until Jehovah God gave the Revelation to Jesus Christ, BOTH now in Heaven ... Jesus was ignorant of it.

The "Godhead" is supposed to be the central theme of Christendom, and is ... but in the Bible is not mentioned even once, and Christendom shows by it's penchant for global war that this "theory" is bogus .... by its fruits.

DUH!

Your response using invented words and concepts as if they were valid is like discussing the two dogs in Mickey Mouse Comic Books ... Pluto is a dog, but the other one is JUST GOOFY!

And all three characters invented by Disney, are cartoons .... as is the "Godhead".

A detailed analysis of a fantasy is ONLY a detailed analysis of a fantasy.

Cos · February 4, 2018

42 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The "Godhead" is a completely made up FANTASY... It does not exist, and has never existed.

Mr. Rook,

Please note the following Scriptures.

“For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9). <><

James Thomas Rook Jr. · February 4, 2018

Seeing is believing .... the translators of those Bible translations BELIEVED THAT FIRST ... so they naturally saw it.

Check out a Greek Interlinear Translation.

IT'S NOT THERE!

In the King James Version, UNICORNS are frequently mentioned .... NINE TIMES ... because King James (who was financing the effort, and directing it according to his OWN ideas about the "divine right of Kings", demons and spiritism.... and the "Godhead" ... and Unicorns ... ) and the trinitarian churches still had the (for the ignorant) imprimatur of holiness... AND they could chastise him and make his life miserable if he crossed them.

The Unicorns are completely made up.Â Â So is the "Godhead"

Biblical TRANSLATION references to both Unicorns, and the "Godhead" have their place .... in the TRASH CAN.

Translation is NOT a science .... it is an ART !!

..and there are many so-so artists that see what they believe ..... not believe what they see.

It's called delusion.

Cos · February 4, 2018

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Check out a Greek Interlinear Translation.

The quotes I gave are a Literal Translation and are from my Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green Sr. You might also want to look up Young’s Literal Translation.

The rest of what you say is a complete and utter load of bias rubbish oozing from you distorted mind. You have no idea whatsoever on any of the things you say, none. It is no wonder you agree with that dishonest Space merchant…birds of a feather…<><

JW's mistaken claim...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Similar Content

Recently Browsing

Popular Contributors

Topics

Posts

Members

Recent Status Updates

Forum Statistics

Member Statistics

Important Information