Видео

Zech. 6:12 - 13.

@@canadiancontrarian3668 Pretty obscure. I certainly would not build a theology around that.

@trackinggod8087 Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

@@Rich4Truth I can appreciate that. In fact Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." But, if there is only one person in the Godhead, one might wonder why Elohim is plural. I noticed that you quote Ellen White on your website. This might be an interesting thing to consider: "The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit." -Special Testimonies, Series A, 10:37. (1897). And this one is fascinating to consider: "Had God the Father come to our world and dwelt among us, humbling Himself, veiling His glory, that humanity might look upon Him, the history that we have of the life of Christ would not have been changed" That I May Know Him p. 338

@@trackinggod8087 The word Elohim used in the text for God…A plural word used with singular verbs, meaning- A plural intensive with singular meaning. It’s using a plural word to denote majesty and greatness. To denote power, not plurality. This is very common in the Bible. Here’s an example: when God sent Moses to Pharoah. He said in Ex 7:1 See, I have made thee a god “elohim” to Pharaoh. But Moses was only one person. The Hebrews understood this very clearly. God created all things through his Son, Jesus Christ. Col 1:15,16 Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: God created all things by His Son. He said to His Son, Let US make man in OUR image. There were two there, Father and Son. Not 3. I never said that the Godhead was just one. I said God, the Father, is just one. Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? Malachi understood that God is not a trinity. We can agree that the Holy Spirit is a person. But not a separate person to Christ, or the Father. The HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT of CHRIST, which is sent to all men to give them sufficiency,” -(E.G. White, 14MR 84.3) “We want the HOLY SPIRIT, which is JESUS CHRIST.” - (E.G. White, Lt66, April 10, 1894

The EGW books have been forged I recently learned from a sister in Russia that she has old Adventist magazines at home before 1917 where there are EGW statements from their main books and in one of them it says "by the power of the spirit" and in a book published later it says "by the power of the third person divinity" it was supposed to be from some book on page "571" or "671" I didn't have time to copy the comment because youtube deleted it. Those who have EGW books published during her lifetime can confirm this. But I've heard that EGW books are forged many times I just never paid attention to it because I can only use the Bible to defend God's truth in all things.

Where does it say dude that Jesus is king?

ia601908.us.archive.org/32/items/mat-28-19-baptismal-formula-changed/Mat_28_19_Baptismal_Formula_Changed.pdf

The Trinity DelusionAn exposé of the doctrine of the Trinity Isaiah 48:16 Come near to me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret. From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord Yahweh has sent me, and His Spirit. The Trinitarian Claim Some Trinitarians imagine this verse refers to Yahweh the Father sending Yahweh the Son. The Claim vs. The Facts The Scriptural facts show that there is one speaker at Isaiah 48:16a, another speaker at Isaiah 48:16b and that second speaker is Yahweh's servant Israel. The Problem with the Claim 1. The Dishonest attempting to Prey upon the Ignorant Trinitarians in general don't have a clue what this verse is about. But they do think they get to imagine their three-person-God into the text unless you find a reason why they cannot (even though you don't need one). Many folks don't know what to do with this verse. Trinitarians make this claim hoping that nobody will be able to provide them with a response. So they disingenuously suppose this gives them a right to make up whatever they like for the sake of their doctrine. They don't have any evidence for their claim but they really don't care. They are just trying to get other people to believe that they get to interpret this verse however they like if others don't provide them with a response which prevents them from doing as they please. these particular Trinitarians don't know what this verse is about and they hope you don't either. They somehow just get it in their own heads that they get to make up whatever they like to suit their Trinitarian traditions if you can't give them a reason they why they can't. But what kind of person supposes they get to practice eisegesis and make up whatever they like unless someone else prevents them from doing so? 2. Eisgetical Interpretation It is typical for Trinitarians to resort to the disingenuous practice of eisegesis and read their doctrine into the text wherever they think possible. This is just one more example of their total disregard for the contextual facts and typical of their method of looking for excuses rather than facts. 3. Who is who? Although they have no evidence for their interpretation, Trinitarians somehow think it is okay to imagine that Jesus is speaking here as Yahweh the Son and he is saying that Yahweh the Father sent him and His Spirit. But the real question isn't who we should imagine into the text but who Isaiah is talking about in this verse. Knowing that Yahweh was speaking at the beginning of the verse, it should be rather obvious to anyone that the words which follow, "And now Lord Yahweh has sent me," are spoken by someone else. It also isn't going to make any sense to suggest Yahweh is sent and is referring to Yahweh as Lord Yahweh which would imply Yahweh's Lord is Yahweh. 4. Interpretations of Trinitarian Scholars This Trinitarian claim illustrates the disregard which some Trinitarians have for any interpretation that does not suit their needs. A simple survey of the opinions of Trinitarian scholars shows that their own scholars do not resort to making such disingenuous claims. Some suppose the one sent is Isaiah, others Cyrus, others God's servant Israel, etc. But since these interpretations do not suit the desires of some Trinitarians, they simply disregard them just as they do another other facts which do not suit them. 5. The Spirit sends or is sent? There is also a different of opinion among scholars about the Spirit. Some argue the verse means Yahweh sends (1) me, and (2) the Spirit. Others argue that (1) Yahweh and (2) His Spirit sends "me." In the former case, the Spirit is the second object; in the latter case the Spirit is the second subject. This problem is also disregarded by Trinitarians who make this claim. 6. Punctuation: Where do the Quotation Marks Start and End? The original Hebrew text did not contain punctuation; there were no quotation marks. So where does Yahweh start speaking and where does He stop speaking? It also appears that people assume there is one speaker due to the fact that Isaiah 48:16 is one single verse. However, these verse divisions were not in the original text either. Analysis of the Facts 1. The Preceding Context Note the preceding context where God speaks in the same vein, beginning at verse 2: The LORD of hosts is His name. "I declared the former things long ago and they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.... I declared them to you long ago, before they took place I proclaimed them to you.... I proclaim to you new things from this time, even hidden things which you have not known... They are created now and not long ago; And before today you have not heard them. So that you will not say, ‘Behold, I knew them.’ “You have not heard, you have not known. Even from long ago your ear has not been open, because I knew that you would deal very treacherously.... So that you will not say, ‘Behold, I knew them.’.... Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. 2. I have not spoken in Secret There is no doubt that Yahweh said the words, "I have not spoken in secret." Note what Yahweh says at Isaiah 45:18-19. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in some dark land. I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, "Seek Me in a waste place"; I, the LORD, speak righteousness, declaring things that are upright. God said the same thing in Isaiah 45. So we can be reasonably certain that God spoke the words "I have not spoken in secret" at Isaiah 48:16. 3. The Contextual Facts Provide the Obvious Answer The solution to this question is really quite easy. In fact, it's right here in the context. Carefully regard the following: Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. “Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together. Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? Yahweh loves him; he will carry out his good pleasure on Babylon, And His arm will be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way. Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now Lord Yahweh has sent ME, and His Spirit." Carefully observe how Yahweh sends "him" and then he says Lord Yahweh has sent "me." I have called HIM.... Lord Yahweh has sent ME... Secondly, if we just read the context, it becomes completely clear how we should identify "ME" in the expression, "Yahweh has sent ME. Please remember that chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the original writings of the Bible. All we need to do is read carefully and observe how "ME" is often speaking in this context: And now MY Lord Yahweh has sent ME and His Spirit. 48:16 Listen to me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. Yahweh called ME from the womb; From the body of MY mother He named ME. He has made MY mouth like a sharp sword, In the shadow of His hand He has concealed ME; And He has also made ME a select arrow, He has hidden ME in His quiver. He said to ME, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will show My glory.” But I said, “I have toiled in vain, I have spent MY strength for nothing and vanity; Yet surely the justice due to ME is with Yahweh, And MY reward with MY God. And now says the Lord, who formed ME from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the Lord, And My God is MY strength). Isaiah 49:1-5. In Isaiah, Israel is Yahweh's servant and routinely depicted as a single man, "Jacob." It is quite clear that "ME" at Isaiah 48:16 is Yahweh's chosen servant Israel aka Jacob. Also carefully note the following: And Lord Yahweh has sent me and His Spirit.... The LORD has redeemed His servant Jacob. 48:16-20 Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon him. 42:1 Conclusion The contextual facts make it quite clear there are two speakers at Isaiah 48:16. The first speaker is Yahweh and the second speaker is Yahweh's servant Israel who Yahweh sent by His Spirit. This is made abundantly plain in the following context at Isaiah 49:1-5.

'God is two' is not in this presentation. Government of two is.

The Father is Spirt, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. The Son is Devine and His spirt is one with the father ( literally the breath of life) but our Saviour says The Father is greater than I, he also says Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God: Mark 10:18-21

You calling our saviour a liar?

@@jeromefalasca5118 Gen 1:26 does not say, 'And God said to God, Let us make man'. Does it?

@ljupconewman9357 The word “us” does not mean three. Look it up. He was talking to His Son. And where in the Bible does it EVER say “God the Holy Spirit”? It says the Spirit OF God. The word “of” shows ownership. God’s own Spirit. You and I both have a spirit. We were made in the image of God. But that doesn’t mean that you and I, are 4 different people. I hope this helps.

@@Rich4Truth Agreed and correct.

God has often spoken in the NT alone or through angels, but never through the angel Jesus.

Incarnation or reincarnation is a purely pagan doctrine and has nothing to do with Christ!

fully agreed! Triune doctrines are blasphemous

Agree, it goes directly against the first commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Having 3 gods is a blasphemy 👍

And Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord: Mark 12:29

The traditions of men lead to hell

@@jeromefalasca5118 ….and? That does nothing to reject the Trinity properly understood. In fact if one actually looked at the Greek they could see quite a bit more on these issues. "'In what did Second Temple Judaism consider the uniqueness of the one God to consist, what distinguished God as unique from all other reality, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles?, the answer given again and again, in a wide variety of Second Temple Jewish literature, is that the only true God, YHWH, the God of Israel, is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. While these characteristics are by no means sufficient to identify God (since they say nothing, for example, about his goodness or his justice), they are the features which most readily distinguish God absolutely from all other reality. God alone created all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are created by him. God alone rules supreme over all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are subject to him. These ways of distinguishing God as unique formed a very easily intelligible way of defining the uniqueness of the God they worshipped which every Jew in every synagogue in the late Second Temple period would certainly have known. However diverse Judaism may have been in many other respects, this was common: only the God of Israel is worthy of worship because he is sole Creator of all things and sole Ruler of all things. Other beings who might otherwise be thought divine are by these criteria God's creatures and subjects."-Richard Bauckham, biblical scholar Isa. 40:26, 28; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12, 18; 48:13; 51:16; Neh. 9:6; Hos. 13:4 LXX; 2 Macc. 1:24; Sir. 43:33; Bel 5; Jub. 12:3-5; Sib. Or. 3:20-35; 8:375-76; Sib. Or. frg. 1:5-6; Sib. Or. frg. 3; Sib. Or. frg. 5; 2 En. 47:3-4; 66:4; Apoc. Ab. 7:10; Ps-Sophocles; Jos. Asen. 12:1-2; T. Job 2:4. Dan. 4:34-35; Bel 5; Add. Esth. 13:9-11; 16:18, 21; 3 Macc. 2:2-3; 6:2; Wis. 12:13; Sir. 18:1-3; Sib. Or. 3:10, 19; Sib. Or. frg. 1:7,15,17,35; 1 En. 9:5; 84:3; 2 En. 33:7; 2 Bar. 54:13; Josephus, A.J. 1:155-6. "...Whereas the inclusion of Jesus in the eschatological sovereignty of God is found in all the New Testament literature, his inclusion in the work of creation is less widespread, but is found in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation and the Gospel of John. Since it is of less direct relevance to most of the concerns of the New Testament writers, this is not surprising. What is noteworthy is that in three of these cases (1 Corinthians, Hebrews and John) the purpose, in my view, is precisely to express Jewish monotheism in christological terms. It is not that these writers wish to say anything about the work of creation for its own sake or even that they wish to say anything about the relationship of Christ to creation for its own sake, but that they wish precisely to include Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. Including him precisely in the divine activity of creation is the most unequivocal way of excluding any threat to monotheism-as though Jesus were a subordinate demigod while redefining the unique identity of God in a way that includes Jesus. To illustrate the point, we shall examine the earliest of these texts: 1 Corinthians 8:6. This passage in its context reads: 'Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'there is no idol in the world' and that 'there is no God except one.' 'Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -as in fact there are many gods and many lords -but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.' Paul's concern in this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship. What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula 'there is no God except one' in order to agree with it and to give, in verse 6, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the 'many gods and many lords' of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance. Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement, a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father, b. from whom [are] all things and we for him, c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ, d. through whom [are] all things and we through him. The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the Shema`, the classic Jewish statement of the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews...It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the Shema° and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it. Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula (labelled a and c above), Paul has, in fact, reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema` (Deut. 6:4: 'The LORD our God, the LORD, is one'), but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema` speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema` would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema. But this is, in any case, clear from the fact that the term 'Lord', applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord, is taken from the Shema` itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema` a 'Lord' the Shema` does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema` affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema`, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is certainly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God he certainly would be repudiating monotheism."-bible scholar Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity John 1:1-5; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14. The 'our' of the Shema` appears as the 'for us' at the beginning of Paul's reformulation. F.F. Bruce, I and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 80; D.R. de Lacey, "'One Lord" in Pauline Christology,' in Christ the Lord, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (D. Guthrie FS; Leicester: IVP, 1982), 191-203; Dunn, Christology, 180; Hurtado, One God, 97; N. Thomas Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 128-9; D.A. Hagner, 'Paul's Christology and Jewish Monotheism,' in Perspectives on Christology, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller (P.K. Jewett; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 28-9; Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God (JSNTSup 99; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 300; B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 316.

KJ2 King James 2000 John 8:40: "But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham."

@@saenzperspectives Thanks for your reply but our Lord and saviours words are clear About His Father, beware of the traditions and words of men ,especially Athanasius . I want to point out that I believe Jesus to be fully Devine and as the word was the active agent of creation but if he says the father is greater than I then I believe him.

Please study your Bible brother and don’t be deceived

Antitrinitarians much lie JWs deny the divinity of Christ and are just as lost!

BIB'16 Berean Interlinear Bible (BIB) John 10:17-18: "Διὰ τοῦτό, με ὁ Πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ, ὅτι ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, ἵνα πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν. οὐδεὶς αἴρει* αὐτὴν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ. ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν. ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου.”" BIB'16 Berean Interlinear Bible (BIB) John 10:17-18: "Therefore I love the Father, that I have laid down my life, that I may receive it again. I have power to give it, and power to receive it again. This commandment I have received from my Father." Who subsequently brought the man Jesus to life? Himself? No! Only God the Father brought him to life. Jesus had no power to revive himself. He could only give his life and then take it back (without having to, of course, but God the Father commanded him to do so).

@@mikmark100 He was God while upon earth, but He divested Himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of a man. He walked the earth as a man. For our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He laid aside His glory and His majesty. He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for awhile relinquished.... He bore the sins of the world, and endured the penalty which rolled like a mountain upon His divine soul. He yielded up His life a sacrifice, that man should not eternally die. He died, not through being compelled to die, but by His own free will.-The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887.

@@Keating-ue6do So the fact that he was God is a completely false non-biblical teaching of EGW, assuming she wrote it, which cannot be 100% proven.

​@@Keating-ue6doThat's a story of a Trinatarian believer. The bible clearly defines God as the Father, Jesus as the son of God ( Not God the son, never ever mentioned once) and the Holy trinity is never mentioned as a God or placed on the throne next to God the Father and Lord Jesus. T he holy trinity is the force, couple of times out of thousands of times it was given a make pronoun and that is if you are aware of the Greek language it gives things a male, feminine or neutral term. The moon is male, the sun is male, the earth is female etc

@@gnads9771 John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him (Jesus),“My Lord and my God!” What makes this passage powerful evidence for the deity of Christ is that Jesus does not correct Thomas. Thomas didn’t merely say, “My Lord and My God!” He said it to Jesus according to the verse.

@BDB-It5gd..I saw that also, BDB, but I forgot about it. So I didn’t mention it in my original reply. But you are right. He took that word “both” completely out of context. He is just learning how to study the Bible, and there are a lot of things that he simply doesn’t know or understand yet. Context is one of them.

Jesus is the High Priest in heaven who intercedes for us and participates in the shaking judgment if the house of God and is not yet king. There is only one ruler in heaven and that is God the Father YHVH. Jesus will become king after the 7 plagues are poured out and he will come as king a second time. KJV1611 Bible King James 1611 1Ti 6:14-16: "That thou keepe this commandement without spot, vnrebukeable, vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ. Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed, and onely Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords: Who onely hath immortalitie, dwelling in the light, which no man can approch vnto, whom no man hath seene, nor can see: to whom be honour and power euerlasting. Amen."

The great plan of redemption was laid before the foundation of the world. And Christ, our Substitute and Surety, did not stand alone in the wondrous undertaking of the ransom of man. In the plan to save a lost world, the counsel was between them both; the covenant of peace was between the Father and the Son. (ST December 23, 1897)

Matthew 28:19, Phillipians 2:6-10, Revelation 22:13. Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, inseparable

Truly man,Truly God

atholicaVeritas777 Matthew 28:19,so 1 John 7:5 you don't find it in Hebrew and Greek!! Read Acts 2:38 it would be controversial!!!

@@williamhartweg6935 In the New Testament, two distinct Greek terms-*Hades* and *Gehenna*-are often translated as "hell" in English, but they refer to different concepts. Understanding these terms correctly is crucial to grasping what the apostles and early Christians meant when they spoke about the afterlife. *Hades* is the Greek word for the place of the dead, equivalent to the Hebrew concept of *Sheol*. It is understood as a temporary abode where souls reside after death, awaiting the final judgment. This is not a place of eternal punishment but rather an interim state. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), the rich man finds himself in Hades, experiencing torment, yet this is not his final destination. On the other hand, *Gehenna* refers to the place of final judgment, the "lake of fire" mentioned in Revelation (20:14-15). *Gehenna* was originally a valley outside Jerusalem where refuse was burned, and it came to symbolize the eternal punishment prepared for the wicked after the final judgment. This is the place traditionally understood as "hell" in the sense of eternal separation from God. The confusion arises when both *Hades* and *Gehenna* are translated into English as "hell," leading many to conflate the temporary state of the dead with the final, eternal punishment. Early Christians, guided by the teachings of the apostles, made a clear distinction between these two terms. They understood *Hades* as a temporary state where souls awaited resurrection and judgment, and *Gehenna* as the final, eternal destination for the unrighteous. This distinction is vital to understanding the eschatological teachings in Christianity. The conflation of these terms in translation has contributed to misunderstandings about the nature of the afterlife. The original language and the early Christian tradition make it clear that *Hades* is not synonymous with the eternal hell but is rather a precursor to the final judgment, where the ultimate fates of souls are determined by God.

"...Whereas the inclusion of Jesus in the eschatological sovereignty of God is found in all the New Testament literature, his inclusion in the work of creation is less widespread, but is found in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation and the Gospel of John. Since it is of less direct relevance to most of the concerns of the New Testament writers, this is not surprising. What is noteworthy is that in three of these cases (1 Corinthians, Hebrews and John) the purpose, in my view, is precisely to express Jewish monotheism in christological terms. It is not that these writers wish to say anything about the work of creation for its own sake or even that they wish to say anything about the relationship of Christ to creation for its own sake, but that they wish precisely to include Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. Including him precisely in the divine activity of creation is the most unequivocal way of excluding any threat to monotheism-as though Jesus were a subordinate demigod while redefining the unique identity of God in a way that includes Jesus. To illustrate the point, we shall examine the earliest of these texts: 1 Corinthians 8:6. This passage in its context reads: 'Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'there is no idol in the world' and that 'there is no God except one.' 'Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -as in fact there are many gods and many lords -but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.' Paul's concern in this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship. What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula 'there is no God except one' in order to agree with it and to give, in verse 6, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the 'many gods and many lords' of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance. Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement, a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father, b. from whom [are] all things and we for him, c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ, d. through whom [are] all things and we through him. The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the Shema`, the classic Jewish statement of the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews...It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the Shema° and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it. Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula (labelled a and c above), Paul has, in fact, reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the Shema` (Deut. 6:4: 'The LORD our God, the LORD, is one'), but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce an affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the Shema` speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing, not christological monotheism, but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema` would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. The only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the Shema. But this is, in any case, clear from the fact that the term 'Lord', applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord, is taken from the Shema` itself. Paul is not adding to the one God of the Shema` a 'Lord' the Shema` does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the Shema` affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the Shema`, the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is certainly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God he certainly would be repudiating monotheism."-Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity John 1:1-5; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14. The 'our' of the Shema` appears as the 'for us' at the beginning of Paul's reformulation. F.F. Bruce, I and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 80; D.R. de Lacey, "'One Lord" in Pauline Christology,' in Christ the Lord, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (D. Guthrie FS; Leicester: IVP, 1982), 191-203; Dunn, Christology, 180; Hurtado, One God, 97; N. Thomas Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 128-9; D.A. Hagner, 'Paul's Christology and Jewish Monotheism,' in Perspectives on Christology, ed. M. Shuster and R. Muller (P.K. Jewett; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 28-9; Neil Richardson, Paul's Language about God (JSNTSup 99; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 300; B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 316.

Jesus is Lord. No Lord but God.

Truly man, Truly God

The Philosophical Foundations of John 1:1 and the Incarnation in Koine Greek The opening verse of the Gospel of John, written in Koine Greek, has captivated theologians and philosophers for centuries with its profound and multifaceted implications. The sentence, "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God), not only introduces the character of "the Word" (ὁ λόγος), but it also delves into the philosophical implications of both "λόγος" and "ἀρχή" (beginning). The following aims to provide an in-depth analysis of John 1:1 in the context of Greek philosophy and Christian theology, while also considering its connection to John 1:14 and the understanding of the Incarnation. The Koine Greek of John 1:1: In this pivotal verse, the word "λόγος" (logos, English: “Word”) takes center stage. In the Greek philosophical tradition, "λόγος" had a long history. It represented rationality, thought, and the underlying principle governing the cosmos. The ideas surrounding "λόγος" were particularly prominent in Pre-Socratic philosophy. Heraclitus saw "logos" as the unifying force in a world of constant change, while Parmenides emphasized the unchanging truth it represented. Plato and Aristotle further explored the relationship between "logos," language, and rationality, while Stoic philosophers considered it the divine principle governing the world. John 1:1 and Its Philosophical Implications: In John 1:1, the concept of "λόγος" reflects the convergence of Greek philosophical ideas with Christian theology. The verse declares that "the Word" (ὁ λόγος) existed in the beginning, emphasizing its eternal nature. This is a direct nod to the Pre-Socratic notion of an underlying, unchanging principle or αρχή "archē" that governs the universe. Moreover, the verse asserts that "the Word" was "with God" (ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν), indicating an intimate relational aspect akin to philosophical ideas about the nature of the αρχή "archē." The ultimate declaration, "and the Word was God" (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), is a theological revelation of the divinity of "the Word," while recognizing its distinctiveness within the Godhead. The Implication of John 1:14 and the Incarnation: John 1:14, written in the same Koine Greek context, follows this profound proclamation with the statement, "καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο" (and the Word became flesh). This verse encapsulates the essence of the Incarnation, the theological doctrine that the divine Word, "the Logos," took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ. The implications are monumental. The eternal and divine Word, identified in the Greek philosophical tradition as the rational and underlying principle of existence, now becomes tangible in human flesh. The Gospel of John beautifully bridges Greek philosophical ideas with Christian theology, presenting Jesus as the embodiment of the eternal, rational, and divine principle. The Understanding of Athanasius of Alexandria: Saint Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, a central figure in early Christian theology, and the first one in history to compile the New Testament canonical list of the 27 books as we now know it, and was a major proponent of the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the divinity of Christ. St. Athanasius championed the understanding that Christ, as the "Logos," was consubstantial with the Father. In his writings, particularly in "On the Incarnation," Athanasius articulated the idea that the Word becoming flesh was a transformative act by which humanity could be reconciled to God. He viewed the Incarnation as the means through which the eternal Word of God entered human history, enabling salvation and the restoration of divine-human communion. Interestingly, those who reject the divinity of Christ, are misunderstanding not just the overt and deep linguistic meaning behind John chapter 1 and the words used, but are also rejecting the beliefs of those who compiled the New Testament that they rely on to reject those very same beliefs. Conclusion: In Koine Greek, John 1:1 masterfully merges Greek philosophical concepts of the "logos" and "archē" with Christian theological beliefs. "The Word" (ὁ λόγος) is presented as both eternal and divine, and the subsequent declaration of the Incarnation in John 1:14 profoundly demonstrates the tangible embodiment of the divine in Jesus Christ. This concept, fundamental to Christian theology, was understood by early theologians like Athanasius of Alexandria as the means by which humanity could be reconciled with God. The Gospel of John, written in Koine Greek, serves as a bridge between the philosophical and theological worlds, providing a timeless and profound exploration of the nature of Christ and the salvation of humanity.

​​@@saenzperspectives Logos can be translated by +- 20 different words why did the translators choose logos = word (in the greece with a small l) when elsewhere in Scripture it is translated completely differently? The Greek texts have And God was the Word not and the Word was God as the Trinitarian translators adapted. Wycliffe Bible, 1395 John 1:1: "In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word." CVB Coverdale Bible, 1535 John 1:1: "In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde." NEB Νέα Ελληνικά βιβλία, 1901 Ιω 1:1: "Εν αρχη ητο ο Λογος, και ο Λογος ητο παρα τω Θεω, και Θεος ητο ο Λογος." (and God was the word) BHPm+ Bunning Heuristic Prototype Greek New Testament (Medieval) John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." BIB'16 Berean Interlinear Bible (BIB) John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." Barach-m KOINE GREEK BIBLE: Septuagint, New Testament, Apocrypha + Lexicon Jn 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." CT ST 1550 Stephanus (ST) John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θεον και θεοϲ ην ο λογοϲ" CT WH 1885 Wescott and Hort (WH) John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θεον και θεοϲ ην ο λογοϲ" GA 01 Codex Sinaiticus, designated by ℵ or 01 John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ϲ̅ ην ο λογοϲ" GA 02 Codex Alexandrinus, designated by A or 02 John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ η̅ προϲ τον θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ϲ̅ ην ο λογοϲ" GA 03 Codex Vaticanus, designated by B or 03 John 1:1: "εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θ̅ν̅ και θ̅ϲ̅ ην ο λογοϲ" GNTTH+ The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." TCGNT Text-Critical Greek New Testament Jn 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

Why does 'us' have to be three? “The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate-a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1,2. “Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father - one in nature, in character, in purpose - the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God.” PP p. 34 In this statement, AN associate, A co-worker and then it clearly states who that associate and co-worker is - Chirst, the Word, the only begotten of God.

You say that "God in the Bible shows us that he is 3 persons". You then quote Genesis 1:26 as proof. Read the following: "And I saw that when God said to his Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man. He was filled with envy, jealousy and hatred. He wished to be the highest in heaven, next to God, and receive the highest honors. Until this time all heaven was in order, harmony and perfect subjection to the government of God." . 1SG 17.1. So God is actually singular and it is the Father and that is why the next verse is singular therefore Genesis 1:26 doesn't prove a triune god. Proverbs 8:30 is Jesus speaking, correct. But it doesn't say He has always been, quite to the contrary it says He had a beginning. "When there were no depths, I was *brought forth*; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I *brought forth*:" "And if you deepen your study you will find that Salvation is worked by them 3." I have not found a verse saying that but I have found the following verse which speaks of the plan of salvation. Mal 6:13 "and the counsel of peace shall be between them both (literally two)."

some really good points

Those are definitely good questions!

We were able to be in the same location at the same time so it worked out. We were able to be sitting right across from each other which is far better than doing these things through technology. I do agree though that it worked really good.

Good point on the triangulation thought

Sadly accurate