# "Through" Another challenge



## 1gr8bldr (May 11, 2014)

Last week we celebrated my grandmothers 85 birthday. My uncle said to look around and ponder that all of us here attending came "through" her. Not one of us  here were here on account of ourselves.  I thought about the debate of through vs by in the scriptures. By implies creator, through implies agent. Here is the challenge, like Hobbs thread, show with the scriptures that Jesus created the universe. Naturally, since I posted this, you realize I have a stand on this. It will be seen that no scripture exists to support this tradition. Even if I were trinitarian, I would feel no need to force Jesus to be the creator. As Hobbs has done, I will point out the greek from which our translations have came from when the suspect verses come up. The bases is that "the old has gone, the new has come" and that nothing new has come that has not come through/on account of Jesus.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 11, 2014)

I have a question first before I can go further. I know you are well studied on this so Im going to approach this as so instead of just blurting out a few verses.

 Do you agree that Jesus is the Word or even the Voice of God?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2014)

It would seem to me that the first chapter of John's Gospel would fit the bill.  God's word is the creator and the word is now made flesh, it says.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made;...

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth...

Consider this: The agent is Mary.

Also consider this: Jeremiah 31:9 

With weeping they shall come,
    and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back,
I will make them walk by brooks of water,
    in a straight path in which they shall not stumble,
for I am a father to Israel,
    and Ephraim is my firstborn.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I have a question first before I can go further. I know you are well studied on this so Im going to approach this as so instead of just blurting out a few verses.
> 
> Do you agree that Jesus is the Word or even the Voice of God?


Jesus is not "the word" but rather the word fullfilled.

 In John Jesus is the light, not the word. The text actually says "and God was the word", not the word was God. Since God is Spirit, he is what he does. He created "in the beginning", he spoke things into existence by his word. Similiar to the phrase "you are what you eat". Eat healthy and you will likely be healthy. God is what he does, and in the beginning, he spoke things into existence with his word. He is what he does.

Notice John says he is not the light. That would be strange if he just said the light was God. It would also be strange to call Jesus God and then call him a created light.  God promised through his word a messiah. This is seen by the expectation of the saints for the messiah. When times reached fullfillment, the word/promise came to pass. vs 14, the word became flesh. 

The word word has been overlooked in John as having meaning, applying it only as in a name while denying it's meaning.

 I figured we would wind up here, John 1:1 yet I had hoped last cause I realize this is not an easy sell, being that traditional thinking is hard to erase. I do concede that I will likely not gain any ground on this verse. But all the others are a slam dunk. And if someone realizes that the others are baseless, just like the gehenna verses, then they might consider a second look at the ambigious one, the only one.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 11, 2014)

My NIV says all things came into being through him. Notice that created is not at all in any means represented by the word "here"
hn 1:3 ►
Text Analysis
Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
3956 [e]	panta	πάντα	All things	Adj-NNP
1223 [e]	di’	δι’	through	Prep
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ	him	PPro-GM3S
*1096 [e]	egeneto	ἐγένετο,	emerged,	V-AIM-3S*
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
5565 [e]	chōris	χωρὶς	without	Prep
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ	him	PPro-GM3S
1096 [e]	egeneto	ἐγένετο	emerged	V-AIM-3S
3761 [e]	oude	οὐδὲ	not even	Adv
1520 [e]	hen	ἕν	one [thing]	Adj-NNS
3739 [e]	ho	ὃ	that	RelPro-NNS
1096 [e]	gegonen	γέγονεν.	has emerged.	V-RIA-3S
Greek Texts


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 11, 2014)

1096:
1096 gínomai â€“ properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /Ä“n).

1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).

M. Vincent, "1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth" (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 11, 2014)

The point is that here we are talking about the new creation. Jesus portrayed as light, compared to the earth being dark in Gen one. The light sustaining all things. Nothing could exist without the light.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 11, 2014)

Here's youngs literal translation of 1john 1:

1 That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we did behold, and our hands did handle, concerning the Word of the Life --

2 and the Life was manifested, and we have seen, and do testify, and declare to you the Life, the age-during, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us --

3 that which we have seen and heard declare we to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ;

4 and these things we write to you, that your joy may be full.

5 And this is the message that we have heard from Him, and announce to you, that God is light, and darkness in Him is not at all;

6 if we may say -- `we have fellowship with Him,' and in the darkness may walk -- we lie, and do not the truth;


 Im going to start with it. My first thought was that if Jesus is the word of God then ofcourse he built the universe because God spoke it into existance, but then I would have to find the scripture.

 I do see plainly where Jesus was involved in the making of man, but that is not the question so I will continue to search when time permits.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> The point is that here we are talking about the new creation. Jesus portrayed as light, compared to the earth being dark in Gen one. The light sustaining all things. Nothing could exist without the light.


And John says that he is not the light. Strange if he were saying "I am not God"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2014)

Not getting much feedback, a sign that I have not made my point and you guys are just being nice by not responding. Maybe we should change the direction. Let's say for argument sake that the Trinity is without question. That John 1:1 is as traditionalist have stood for. So, Does the scriptures say that Jesus created anything... or does it say that all things came "through" him.


----------



## StriperAddict (May 12, 2014)

Jesus Christ in Rev 1, says He is the "alpha and the mega', the beginning and the end.  
He also said throughout John's gospel that He did no work...  apart what the Father did thru Him;
He spoke no word, apart from what the Father spoke thru Him;
He said "He who has seen Me has seen the Father", therefore I can conclude that Jesus, coming in flesh, also existed as without the limits of time in His Person... the only One to claim that kind of Divinity, who walked on His own creation, never seperated from the Father's business, (save that when He became sin that we would be without sin).

I'm not sure 1gr8bldr, but I see a tendency toward unbelief penned by your op and subsequent posts.    I'd sincerely watch the road you are trying to tread...
~~IMO


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2014)

StriperAddict said:


> Jesus Christ in Rev 1, says He is the "alpha and the mega', the beginning and the end.
> He also said throughout John's gospel that He did no work...  apart what the Father did thru Him;
> He spoke no word, apart from what the Father spoke thru Him;
> He said "He who has seen Me has seen the Father", therefore I can conclude that Jesus, coming in flesh, also existed as without the limits of time in His Person... the only One to claim that kind of Divinity, who walked on His own creation, never seperated from the Father's business, (save that when He became sin that we would be without sin).
> ...


But what would be the issue to believe that the Father created and not the son. Rather that we all came through Jesus like the example I gave about my grandmother. I believe in Jesus as the messiah, but not that he created the world.  Most people will resist that the Father created. Yet, I am trying to call attention to the lack of biblical support that Jesus the son created


----------



## StriperAddict (May 12, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> But what would be the issue to believe that the Father created and not the son.


Well, it would be like saying Jesus the Christ is not God...

Consider Genisis, "let us..." (plural) "make man (an act of creation) in Our image".  There's no strech at all (IMO) to consider that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were responsible for our fleshly creation AND the world's physical creation.  
Christ said "I and the Father" are One. He could not make such a claim outside of Himself being God in the flesh, and as He existed with God as Alpha/Omega, He certainly was part of Creation.

I hadn't been around for other parts of your dialouge, but I assume you also dismiss (somehow) those verses in Colossians 1:16-18 - speaking of Christ's involvement in creation... ??



1gr8bldr said:


> Most people will resist that the Father created.


Doubt that, esp if you consider the Genisis plurality verse, "let Us make man..."


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2014)

Speaking of Col 1 ;16 notice the trainwreck of translating. The writer uses the same word in the same breath... yet they translate it differently. ev is in, not by. Consider the proper usuage in Eph "For we are God's workmanship, created in [ev] Christ Jesus to do good works. There is no way that he wrote the same greek word in the same sentence and meant it to be used different

 Colossians 1:16 â–º
Text Analysis
Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
3754 [e]	hoti	á½…Ï„Î¹	because	Conj
*1722 [e]	en	á¼�Î½	*by	Prep
846 [e]	autÅ�	Î±á½�Ï„á¿·	him	PPro-DM3S
2936 [e]	ektisthÄ“	á¼�ÎºÏ„Î¯ÏƒÎ¸Î·	were created	V-AIP-3S
3588 [e]	ta	Ï„á½°	 -	Art-NNP
3956 [e]	panta	Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Î±	all things,	Adj-NNP
*1722 [e]	en	á¼�Î½	in*	Prep
3588 [e]	tois	Ï„Î¿á¿–Ï‚	the	Art-DMP
3772 [e]	ouranois	Î¿á½�Ï�Î±Î½Î¿á¿–Ï‚	heavens,	N-DMP
2532 [e]	kai	ÎºÎ±á½¶	and	Conj
1909 [e]	epi	á¼�Ï€á½¶	upon	Prep
3588 [e]	tÄ“s	Ï„á¿†Ï‚	the	Art-GFS
1093 [e]	gÄ“s	Î³á¿†Ï‚,	earth;	N-GFS
3588 [e]	ta	Ï„á½°	the	Art-NNP
3707 [e]	horata	á½�Ï�Î±Ï„á½°	visible,	Adj-NNP
2532 [e]	kai	ÎºÎ±á½¶	and	Conj
3588 [e]	ta	Ï„á½°	the	Art-NNP
517 [e]	aorata	á¼€ÏŒÏ�Î±Ï„Î±,	invisible;	Adj-NNP
1535 [e]	eite	Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ	whether	Conj
2362 [e]	thronoi	Î¸Ï�ÏŒÎ½Î¿Î¹	thrones,	N-NMP
1535 [e]	eite	Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ	or	Conj
2963 [e]	kyriotÄ“tes	ÎºÏ…Ï�Î¹ÏŒÏ„Î·Ï„ÎµÏ‚	lordships,	N-NFP
1535 [e]	eite	Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ	or	Conj
746 [e]	archai	á¼€Ï�Ï‡Î±á½¶	rulers,	N-NFP
1535 [e]	eite	Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ	or	Conj
1849 [e]	exousiai	á¼�Î¾Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¯Î±Î¹·	authorities:	N-NFP
3588 [e]	ta	Ï„á½°	 -	Art-NNP
3956 [e]	panta	Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Î±	all things	Adj-NNP
1223 [e]	diâ€™	Î´Î¹â€™	by	Prep
846 [e]	autou	Î±á½�Ï„Î¿á¿¦	him	PPro-GM3S
2532 [e]	kai	ÎºÎ±á½¶	and	Conj
1519 [e]	eis	Îµá¼°Ï‚	for	Prep
846 [e]	auton	Î±á½�Ï„á½¸Î½	him	PPro-AM3S
2936 [e]	ektistai	á¼”ÎºÏ„Î¹ÏƒÏ„Î±Î¹·	have been created.	V-RIM/P-3S
Greek Texts


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2014)

And notice the other incorrect use of by;

	archai	á¼€Ï�Ï‡Î±á½¶	rulers,	N-NFP
1535 [e]	eite	Îµá¼´Ï„Îµ	or	Conj
1849 [e]	exousiai	á¼�Î¾Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¯Î±Î¹·	authorities:	N-NFP
3588 [e]	ta	Ï„á½°	 -	Art-NNP
3956 [e]	panta	Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Î±	all things	Adj-NNP
*1223 [e]	diâ€™	Î´Î¹â€™	by*	Prep
846 [e]	autou	Î±á½�Ï„Î¿á¿¦	him	PPro-GM3S
2532 [e]	kai	ÎºÎ±á½¶	and	Conj
1519 [e]	eis	Îµá¼°Ï‚	for	Prep
846 [e]	auton	Î±á½�Ï„á½¸Î½	him	PPro-AM3S
2936 [e]	ektistai	á¼”ÎºÏ„Î¹ÏƒÏ„Î±Î¹·	have been created.	V-RIM/P-3S
Greek Texts


Here is Si defined;
1223. dia â–º
Strong's Concordance
dia: through, on account of, because of
Original Word: Î´Î¹Î¬
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: dia
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ah')
Short Definition: through, on account of
Definition: (a) gen: through, throughout, by the instrumentality of, (b) acc: through, on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of.
HELPS Word-studies
1223 diá (a preposition) â€“ properly, across (to the other side), back-and-forth to go all the way through, "successfully across" ("thoroughly"). 1223 (diá) is also commonly used as a prefix and lend the same idea ("thoroughly," literally, "successfully" across to the other side).

[1223 (diá) is a root of the English term diameter ("across to the other side, through"). Before a vowel, dia is simply written diÌ“.]


NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. preposition
Definition
through, on account of, because of
NASB Translation
account (4), after (2), afterward (1), always* (2), because (111), between* (1), briefly* (1), charge* (1), constantly (1), continually* (6), during (1), forever* (1), gives (1), means (3), over (1), presence (1), reason (40), sake (41), sakes (5), since (1), so then* (1), so* (1), therefore* (16), this reason* (1), this* (1), though (1), through *(225), through the agency* (1), through* (1), view (2), way (3), what (1), why (3), why* (27]


Point is, this in no way implies creator but rather agent [of the new creation] Notice highlihted in red where Si is translated correctly as through 225 times....


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2014)

It is easily seen that the translators forced Jesus to be the creator in these Col verses. Corrupt is all you can say. Look through the bible and see the use of ev and si and it will be used correctly. Except pertaining to Jesus as creator. All the other verses that people use to point to Jesus as the creator is the same way. With the exception of John chp 1 .... and it is ambigious as to it's meaning


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2014)

What a trainwreck, Col 1:16  ev incorrectly translated as "by" which should have been "in" and si incorrectly translated as "by" when it should have been "through".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2014)

Here is another example of misuse. Here it does not change the context... but you can see the writers one word being used differently. 
Colossians 1:20 ►
Text Analysis
Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
*1223 [e]	di’	δι’	by*	Prep
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ	him	PPro-GM3S
604 [e]	apokatallaxai	ἀποκαταλλάξαι	to reconcile	V-ANA
3588 [e]	ta	τὰ	 -	Art-ANP
3956 [e]	panta	πάντα	all things	Adj-ANP
1519 [e]	eis	εἰς	to	Prep
846 [e]	auton	αὐτόν,	himself,	PPro-AM3S
1517 [e]	eirēnopoiēsas	εἰρηνοποιήσας	having made peace	V-APA-NMS
*1223 [e]	dia	διὰ	by*	Prep
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	the	Art-GNS
129 [e]	haimatos	αἵματος	blood	N-GNS
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	of the	Art-GMS
4716 [e]	staurou	σταυροῦ	cross	N-GMS
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ,	of him --	PPro-GM3S
*1223 [e]	di’	δι’*	through	Prep
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ	him --	PPro-GM3S
1535 [e]	eite	εἴτε	whether	Conj
3588 [e]	ta	τὰ	the things	Art-ANP
1909 [e]	epi	ἐπὶ	on	Prep
3588 [e]	tēs	τῆς	the	Art-GFS
1093 [e]	gēs	γῆς	earth,	N-GFS
1535 [e]	eite	εἴτε	or	Conj
3588 [e]	ta	τὰ	the things	Art-ANP
1722 [e]	en	ἐν	in	Prep
3588 [e]	tois	τοῖς	the	Art-DMP
3772 [e]	ouranois	οὐρανοῖς.	heavens.	N-DMP
Greek Texts
Nestle GNT 1904


----------



## hobbs27 (May 12, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> What a trainwreck, Col 1:16  ev incorrectly translated as "by" which should have been "in" and si incorrectly translated as "by" when it should have been "through".



Omnis Traductor Traditor!


----------



## StriperAddict (May 13, 2014)

If my salvation was contingent on being a Greek scholar, I'd be as lost as a goat in a hailstorm.  

I maintain my initial premise (and warning) that God in the flesh, Christ the Lord (not small L) _were_ part of the creation of man ("let us make man in our image") and the earth.

I'll send this back and be done...
What would be the issue for the Father AND Son (and Holy Spirit for that matter) to be equally involved in creation?  
Again, your premise against Christ as Creater has an undercurrent of unbelief...  just saying.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

StriperAddict said:


> If my salvation was contingent on being a Greek scholar, I'd be as lost as a goat in a hailstorm.
> 
> I maintain my initial premise (and warning) that God in the flesh, Christ the Lord (not small L) _were_ part of the creation of man ("let us make man in our image") and the earth.
> 
> ...



And based on this, what would the issue be with God dying on the cross for our sins?
For God so loved the world he made Mary concieve with himself so that he could sacrafice himself for our sins.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.

The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the 3rd century. Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the Nicean doctrine that Jesus is fully God.

I guess technically God died for our sins, Jesus created the universe, and the Holy Spirit begot the son.


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2014)

Then you must ask why did Jesus ask himself why has he forsaken himself...???


----------



## hobbs27 (May 13, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Then you must ask why did Jesus ask himself why has he forsaken himself...???



Jesus would have only asked that while manifest in the flesh between 0 and 33 ad. God came in the flesh. 100% man and 100% God.



1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 13, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Jesus would have only asked that while manifest in the flesh between 0 and 33 ad. God came in the flesh. 100% man and 100% God.
> 
> 
> 
> 1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


Hey friend, Just wondered if you were aware that it does not say God. That would be "theos". But notice it is not there



â—„ 1 Timothy 3:16 â–º
Text Analysis
Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	ÎºÎ±á½¶	*And*	Conj
3672 [e]	homologoumenÅ�s	á½�Î¼Î¿Î»Î¿Î³Î¿Ï…Î¼Î­Î½Ï‰Ï‚	*confessedly*	Adv
3173 [e]	mega	Î¼Î­Î³Î±	*great*	Adj-NNS
1510 [e]	estin	á¼�ÏƒÏ„á½¶Î½	*is*	V-PIA-3S
3588 [e]	to	Ï„á½¸	*the*	Art-NNS
3588 [e]	tÄ“s	Ï„á¿†Ï‚	 -	Art-GFS
2150 [e]	eusebeias	Îµá½�ÏƒÎµÎ²ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï‚	*of godliness*	N-GFS
3466 [e]	mystÄ“rion	Î¼Ï…ÏƒÏ„Î®Ï�Î¹Î¿Î½·	*mystery:	*N-NNS
3739 [e]	Hos	á½‹Ï‚	*[He] who*	RelPro-NMS
5319 [e]	ephanerÅ�thÄ“	á¼�Ï†Î±Î½ÎµÏ�ÏŽÎ¸Î·	was revealed	V-AIP-3S
1722 [e]	en	á¼�Î½	in	Prep
4561 [e]	sarki	ÏƒÎ±Ï�ÎºÎ¯,	[the] flesh,	N-DFS
1344 [e]	edikaiÅ�thÄ“	á¼�Î´Î¹ÎºÎ±Î¹ÏŽÎ¸Î·	was justified	V-AIP-3S
1722 [e]	en	á¼�Î½	in	Prep
4151 [e]	pneumati	Ï€Î½ÎµÏ�Î¼Î±Ï„Î¹,	[the] Spirit,	N-DNS
3708 [e]	Å�phthÄ“	á½¤Ï†Î¸Î·	was seen	V-AIP-3S
32 [e]	angelois	á¼€Î³Î³Î­Î»Î¿Î¹Ï‚,	by angels,	N-DMP
2784 [e]	ekÄ“rychthÄ“	á¼�ÎºÎ·Ï�Ï�Ï‡Î¸Î·	was proclaimed	V-AIP-3S
1722 [e]	en	á¼�Î½	among	Prep
1484 [e]	ethnesin	á¼”Î¸Î½ÎµÏƒÎ¹Î½,	[the] nations,	N-DNP
4100 [e]	episteuthÄ“	á¼�Ï€Î¹ÏƒÏ„ÎµÏ�Î¸Î·	was believed on	V-AIP-3S
1722 [e]	en	á¼�Î½	in	Prep
2889 [e]	kosmÅ�	ÎºÏŒÏƒÎ¼á¿³,	[the] world,	N-DMS
353 [e]	anelÄ“mphthÄ“	á¼€Î½ÎµÎ»Î®Î¼Ï†Î¸Î·	was taken up	V-AIP-3S
1722 [e]	en	á¼�Î½	in	Prep
1391 [e]	doxÄ“	Î´ÏŒÎ¾á¿ƒ.	glory.	N-DFS
Greek Texts


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 13, 2014)

I was hopeing not to get started on a debate about the divinity of Jesus. It will deter from my point. My point being that Jesus the son as creator is not supported by scripture. The "bys" should have been "throughs". Point being that most fight for Jesus as creator. I say why. What makes one want it to be the son rather than the father? Tradition


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

1 Timothy 3:16
New Living Translation
Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and announced to the nations. He was believed in throughout the world and taken to heaven in glory.

Some comments I was reading:
Verse 16. - He who for God, A.V. and T.R.; manifested for manifest,
Godliness (τῆς εὐδεβείας); i.e." the Christian faith;" what in 1 Timothy 6:3 is called "The words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness (τῇ κατ αὐσεβείαν διδασκαλὶᾳ)," 
He who (ὅς). This is generally adopted now as the true reading, instead of Θεός (ΟΣ, instead of ΘΣ). Bishop Ellicott satisfied himself, by most careful personal examination, that the original reading of the Cod. Alex. was ΟΣ, and that it had been altered by a later hand to ΘΣ. The Cod. Sinait certainly has ὅς, and to this all the older versions agree.

The antecedent, therefore, must be understood, and gathered from the preceding words, τὸ μυστήριον τῆς εὐσεβείας. It can only be Christ. The mystery of the whole Old Testament, that which was wrapped in types and hidden under veils, was Christ (Colossians 1:27).

 Christ is the Mystery of Christianity. It is, therefore, no difficult step to pass from "the mystery" to "Christ," and to supply the word "Christ" as the antecedent to "who." Was manifested (ἐφανερώθη); a word frequently applied to Christ (John 1:31; 1 John 1:2; 1 John 3:5, 8, etc.).


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I was hopeing not to get started on a debate about the divinity of Jesus. It will deter from my point. My point being that Jesus the son as creator is not supported by scripture. The "bys" should have been "throughs". Point being that most fight for Jesus as creator. I say why. What makes one want it to be the son rather than the father? Tradition



Could you explain the difference?


----------



## hobbs27 (May 13, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey friend, Just wondered if you were aware that it does not say God. That would be "theos". But notice it is not there
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who do you suppose ( He Who) Hos  was referring to?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

Let's star here:
Colossians 1:27
God wanted to make known among the Gentiles the glorious wealth of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

"I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" John 18:20 

Now that we've got the mystery/secrets  out of the way we can move on to what or how Jesus did any works:

Jesus himself said in John 5:19
Then Jesus replied, "I assure you: The Son is not able to do anything on His own, but only what He sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does these things in the same way.

I think there are a few more verses where Jesus says he only does what his Father gives him the power to do. Now are we to assume that this wasn't a requirement when Jesus created the world?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

So what gr8bldr is asking has nothing to do with what entity or mode Jesus was in when or if he did any works. As Jesus himself stated, he only did the works of the Father. Now can someone provide a verse where Jesus did otherwise or that this will of Jesus to do only the will of his Father only referred to his time on Earth?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

Is it possible that "everything" created or done is "through" Jesus?
Jesus is the Logos. God had thoughts/words before the creation.
He created everything through Jesus. Jesus is the Word revealed. The whole concept of the Logos is Jesus being revealed.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 13, 2014)

Rev 1:8  The NKJV I'm reading doesn't say God in this verse but( Theos )God  does show in the Greek just after Lord.

 What this proves in the Greek is that scripture says Jesus is God, if Jesus is God then He built the universe. IMO.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

Banjo Picker said:


> The Bible declares that the person we now know as Jesus Christ was one of the three divine persons of the Deity and that as God He had no beginning. It is this time before He became a man that we refer to as His pre-existence. Technically, there is no such thing as existence before Him as God, but He existed before He became a man. Mic.5:1-2 speaks of Him as existing from all eternity. John speaks of Him as existing in the very beginning with the Father (John 1:1-5). Jesus speaks of Himself as being before Abraham and before the world was created (John 8:58; 17:5, 24). Paul speaks of Him as existing before all things and as the creator and upholder of all things (Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:1-3, 8; 2:10). God the Father created all things by Him (Eph. 3:9) and the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2).




Let's move on with your interpretation. I can believe Jesus was with God before coming to Earth as a man. Show us a verse where he created the universe by himself instead of through himself. The verses below aren't about the mystery of the Trinity. They are about Salvation of the Gentiles.

8To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

Micah 5:2
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

"goings forth" or Ancient promises. God's Logos are from old ancient times. The concept of Jesus is from old ancient times. Time is different from God than from us. Things will still happen in order but to the Logos they are already here.

Granted that Micah's contemporaries understood the prophecy to state merely that a Saviour should arise from the lineage of David who traced his descent from hoar antiquity, 

Not the best verse to prove Jesus was before he became a man. I believe he might have been. Does his pre existance proof he created anything by himself instead of through himself?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Rev 1:8  The NKJV I'm reading doesn't say God in this verse but( Theos )God  does show in the Greek just after Lord.
> 
> What this proves in the Greek is that scripture says Jesus is God, if Jesus is God then He built the universe. IMO.



Maybe it doesn't say God because God has no beginning or end. 

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Rev 1:8  The NKJV I'm reading doesn't say God in this verse but( Theos )God  does show in the Greek just after Lord.
> 
> What this proves in the Greek is that scripture says Jesus is God, if Jesus is God then He built the universe. IMO.



Wouldn't that also meant God sacrificed himself for our sins? If God became man, man became God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 13, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Who do you suppose ( He Who) Hos  was referring to?


Here is what it says;
 "confessedely great is the mystery of godliness; He who was revealed in the flesh, was justified by the spirit, was seen by angels.... was taken up in glory...."  It is talking about Jesus with no pointing to divinity. He who is Jesus but the word God is not there.  Jesus was revealed

http://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-16.htm


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 13, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Rev 1:8  The NKJV I'm reading doesn't say God in this verse but( Theos )God  does show in the Greek just after Lord.
> 
> What this proves in the Greek is that scripture says Jesus is God, if Jesus is God then He built the universe. IMO.


Why do we think that is referring to Jesus. Notice the text. John is all over the place. Also notice verse 6 in the greek that our translators have swept under a rug. 
 Revelation 1:6 ►
Text Analysis
Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
4160 [e]	epoiēsen	ἐποίησεν	He has made	V-AIA-3S
1473 [e]	hēmas	ἡμᾶς	us	PPro-A1P
932 [e]	basileian	βασιλείαν,	a kingdom,	N-AFS
2409 [e]	hiereis	ἱερεῖς	priests	N-AMP
3588 [e]	tō	τῷ	*to the*	Art-DMS
2316 [e]	Theō	Θεῷ*	God*	N-DMS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	*and	*Conj
3962 [e]	Patri	Πατρὶ	*Father*	N-DMS
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ,	*of him*:	PPro-GM3S


*To the God and father of him* So are we to think that John just said that Jesus has a God and then tells us Jesus is God?


----------



## hobbs27 (May 14, 2014)

The direct greek translation 

Revelation 1:8 ► 
I am the Alpha and to the Omega, [the] beginning and[the] ending says Lord God,the [one]being, and who was,
and who is coming,the Almighty.

I guess it could be said that Jesus is saying that God said , Jesus is the Alpha and Omega--- either way God is saying there was no beginning and will be no end to Jesus. His existence is , was, and alays will be. 

 What was Jesus part in the creation? I dont know except for making man, for God said let us make man in our image. I think the us and our must have been the trinity, because I dont believe the angels had part in the creation.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 14, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> The direct greek translation
> 
> Revelation 1:8 ►
> I am the Alpha and to the Omega, [the] beginning and[the] ending says Lord God,the [one]being, and who was,
> ...


Man is made in God's image... but also in the image of the angels. Hollywood has painted a false image of angels having wings. But Paul said be careful when you entertain because you never know when it might be an angel. [the wings would give it away, if] And the open tomb, one account says an angel and another says a young man in white. Pslams or is it Job tells us the angels rejoiced as God created. The text is a bit vague as to who the us is. It could be "the seven spirits of God" from Rev. I'm not sure. For me, it does not default to Jesus. But I understand why  trinitarians assume it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 14, 2014)

I wonder how Oneness believers would answer the OP's question?If the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one monadic God, then it would have to be God creating. He could do this through Jesus.

I have never understood why we don't have any Oneness believers on this forum and wished we did.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 14, 2014)

Is it possible for God to do something through someone before they ever existed? Could God heal someone through an apostle before that apostle did the healing? Keep in mind the concept of time is different to God than us.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 14, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it possible for God to do something through someone before they ever existed? Could God heal someone through an apostle before that apostle did the healing? Keep in mind the concept of time is different to God than us.


I think the confusion comes from the fact that we assume he is talking about the creation of the earth. I don't agree to this... but have no scripture to help my case. I think he is talking about the new creation. Putting all things old out of mind, speaking as if it never existed. "the old has gone, the new has come". So I think all these so called creation verses are pointing to the new creation. Everything came through Jesus's work on the cross. I think the original creation [of all]  is meant to be thought of as they speak of the new creation through Jesus... but I don't think they mean the original creation. One comparison made is how Adam named the animals that God created. Jesus renamed those newly created. Saul to Paul and Cephas to Peter


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 14, 2014)

Another forcing of scripture by our biased translators; Heb 1:2. My NIV says "through whom he made the universe". Now that is just plain corrupt. NASB says "worlds". Notice it should have been ages; Aion is the greek word


Strong's Concordance
aión: a space of time, an age
Original Word: Î±á¼°ÏŽÎ½, á¿¶Î½Î¿Ï‚, á½�
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aión
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')
Short Definition: an age, a cycle of time
Definition: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.
HELPS Word-studies
165 aiá¹“n (see also the cognate adjective, 166 /aiá¹“nios, "age-long") â€“ properly, an age (era, "time-span"), characterized by a specific quality (type of existence).

Example: Christians today live in the newer age (165 /aiá¹“n) of the covenant â€“ the time-period called the NT. It is characterized by Christ baptizing all believers in the Holy Spirit, i.e. engrafting all believers (OT, NT) into His mystical body (1 Cor 12:13) with all the marvelous privileges that go with that (Gal 3:23-25; 1 Pet 2:5,9).


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 14, 2014)

When you look at these mis translations and realize that they were forcing Jesus to be the creator rather than the father, you have to wonder if tradition has it right. It's not a breach of faith to believe that the Father created the world rather than Jesus


----------



## hobbs27 (May 14, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> When you look at these mis translations and realize that they were forcing Jesus to be the creator rather than the father, you have to wonder if tradition has it right. It's not a breach of faith to believe that the Father created the world rather than Jesus



 I believe in the trinity. I dont have enough scripture to explain it. I now know there's a few translation errors/ biases in the bible. I used to not believe that.

 I'm not real sure that I understand the difference in created by or through means--- Would it be the difference in a construction superintendent and a actual laborer? 

 I've been comparing scriptures with this YLT, its an 1800's translation but its new to me. Ive read it is the most literal translation of Gods word we have. Without getting into a translations debate {which is not allowed} do you have any opinions on it--you can pm me if you prefer, but look at how the creation is written in it. Does anything jump out at you like it did me?

_Young's Literal Translation


The Beginning


(John 1:1-5)


1In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth — 2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

The First Day: Light

3and God saith, ‘Let light be;’ and light is. 4And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness, 5and God calleth to the light ‘Day,’ and to the darkness He hath called ‘Night;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day one.
_


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 14, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I believe in the trinity. I dont have enough scripture to explain it. I now know there's a few translation errors/ biases in the bible. I used to not believe that.
> 
> I'm not real sure that I understand the difference in created by or through means--- Would it be the difference in a construction superintendent and a actual laborer?
> 
> ...


I respect your belief in the Trinity. I realize that I have posted several things against the trinity, but my intentions are the hope that someone might agree that one could be trinitarian and not believe that Jesus created the world, but rather that the Father created the world. I do see the resemblance of John and Gen 1... but just not the same as you guys. I see it as John calling attention to the creation story and applying it to Jesus... as the light of the world, not as the creator


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 14, 2014)

If Moses calls Israel "heavens" and "earth," why then would Genesis 1:1 be a description of the physical universe? Moses knew that "heavens and earth" is God's people, formed through God's special covenant creation.

Consider how Jeremiah speaks about "heavens and earth" in the same vein as Genesis creation:

    I beheld the earth and indeed it was without form, and void; And the heavens, they had no light. (Jer. 4:23 NKJV) 

What God created "in the beginning" perished at the "end." Did the physical universe pass away in AD 70? No. That fact provides a powerful demonstration that Genesis' "in the beginning" creation is not a plain-literal account of the original formation of the physical universe. Hebrews 1:10-11 tells us that Genesis is about the beginning of the covenant world God made with his people, beginning with Adam and Eve.

http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Introduction_to_Covenant_Creation


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 14, 2014)

The destruction of creation? Yes! What Genesis 1-3 does, Revelation 21-22 undoes. AD 70 marked the final end of the old covenant age, the old world of types and shadows. The entire old creation has been recreated in Christ. However, the physical heavens and earth were not destroyed and recreated in AD 70. Indeed, the biblical "end" had no bearing on the physical operation of the sun, moon, stars, and planet Earth.
Neither did the biblical "beginning."

Preterists have made the transition to Covenant Eschatology. Now it is time to transition to Covenant Creation.

Could it be that consistent Full Preterism begins in Genesis 1:1?

http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Introduction_to_Covenant_Creation


----------



## hobbs27 (May 14, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The destruction of creation? Yes! What Genesis 1-3 does, Revelation 21-22 undoes. AD 70 marked the final end of the old covenant age, the old world of types and shadows. The entire old creation has been recreated in Christ. However, the physical heavens and earth were not destroyed and recreated in AD 70. Indeed, the biblical "end" had no bearing on the physical operation of the sun, moon, stars, and planet Earth.
> Neither did the biblical "beginning."
> 
> Preterists have made the transition to Covenant Eschatology. Now it is time to transition to Covenant Creation.
> ...



I think you're on to something.


----------



## Israel (May 15, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The destruction of creation? Yes! What Genesis 1-3 does, Revelation 21-22 undoes. AD 70 marked the final end of the old covenant age, the old world of types and shadows. The entire old creation has been recreated in Christ. However, the physical heavens and earth were not destroyed and recreated in AD 70. Indeed, the biblical "end" had no bearing on the physical operation of the sun, moon, stars, and planet Earth.
> Neither did the biblical "beginning."
> 
> Preterists have made the transition to Covenant Eschatology. Now it is time to transition to Covenant Creation.
> ...



Anyone who has ever "made" anything understands what it means to invest one's self in something. Creation always entails the signature of the creator. It's always there.
The contention, the contest, indeed, all our trials of faith turn on this singular point, is God fully invested in man?
One voice argues "no!"... it says, "even if God got this started, he's off somewhere with something better to do than be attentive to you at every point, in every moment, for your good"
What does Jesus tell us, in so many ways...over and over again? "Your hairs are numbered..." "Your Father knows what you need before you even ask..." "I will never leave you nor forsake you..." "A sparrow..." "A lilly..."


"This is my body...this is my blood..."
Bread and wine, a place infected with "life" to keep supporting life...till true life may finally be seen...till the one, slain from the foundation of the world, can be seen in every provision.
"As often as you do this..." As often as you gather, not because you are blood related by natural birth, not because you are a member of a club, not because you have formed an organization, not because you have all agreed to "do" something...but because you have learned you cannot escape the truth (and no longer fear it) of being utterly and totally dependent on life...for life...because you have had my death for you as your life, you do this in remembrance of me...the One..."all in"...totally invested...from the beginning.

Everyone dies a little, even in the manufacture of a bird house.
To reach for the truth of something...is to die to what does not yet see it.
Hope brothers...hope.
For in a world of shame, a living hope, undoes it all.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 15, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I think you're on to something.



I spent a little time on this last night. The language and hermeneutic consistency does not support this. I believe it is indeed  physical creation although the first verse in the ylt of Genesis makes it appear as earth was already.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I spent a little time on this last night. The language and hermeneutic consistency does not support this. I believe it is indeed  physical creation although the first verse in the ylt of Genesis makes it appear as earth was already.



I figured you would test the spirits. I haven't looked in on it too closely. I just wanted to run it by you for another aspect of what the Heaven & Earth is and if it is related to "the end."
And to see if it's related to Jesus' creation of the "new" Heaven & Earth.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 30, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> When you look at these mis translations and realize that they were forcing Jesus to be the creator rather than the father, you have to wonder if tradition has it right. It's not a breach of faith to believe that the Father created the world rather than Jesus


Lot of searching..... Was not as I recalled. After reading through, no real resistance to the Father being the creator


----------



## welderguy (Jun 30, 2018)

StriperAddict said:


> If my salvation was contingent on being a Greek scholar, I'd be as lost as a goat in a hailstorm.
> 
> I maintain my initial premise (and warning) that God in the flesh, Christ the Lord (not small L) _were_ part of the creation of man ("let us make man in our image") and the earth.
> 
> ...



I perceive that 1gr8bldr's underlying agenda in all this is to shore up his disbelief that Jesus is in the Godhead(His deity). He has already stated this disbelief directly to me in the other thread.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 1, 2018)

welderguy said:


> I perceive that 1gr8bldr's underlying agenda in all this is to shore up his disbelief that Jesus is in the Godhead(His deity). He has already stated this disbelief directly to me in the other thread.


No attempt at shoring up anything. That took place about 15 years ago. After I had read the NT over a thousand times, I knew much more about what was not in scriptures. So I went to CARM discussion forums looking for solid ground. The best of the trinity debaters on the trinity specific forum were of no help. It did not take long to realize I was more studied than they were..... And I eventually spent 4 years there watching them bend logic and reason in an effort to hold on. My name was Dr.Context.... chosen because I look at context rather than grab hold of one liners taken out of Context.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 1, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> No attempt at shoring up anything. That took place about 15 years ago. After I had read the NT over a thousand times, I knew much more about what was not in scriptures. So I went to CARM discussion forums looking for solid ground. The best of the trinity debaters on the trinity specific forum were of no help. It did not take long to realize I was more studied than they were..... And I eventually spent 4 years there watching them bend logic and reason in an effort to hold on. My name was Dr.Context.... chosen because I look at context rather than grab hold of one liners taken out of Context.



Context aside, if you can't believe in the deity of Christ, there's nothing I or any other human can say to convince you otherwise. It will take resurrection power for that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 1, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Context aside, if you can't believe in the deity of Christ, there's nothing I or any other human can say to convince you otherwise. It will take resurrection power for that.


My view is technically called a "low christology", but I say that's not a good description because my belief puts Jesus only second to God Almighty. Actually a high Christology


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> My view is technically called a "low christology", but I say that's not a good description because my belief puts Jesus only second to God Almighty. Actually a high Christology



Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 2, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.



Excellent verse to support the Oneness belief that the Son is the Father incarnate and not the pre-existing son persona of the Trinity belief.

"The everlasting Father" shows this. Most Trinitarians deny that Jesus is the Father.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 2, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


Does that not support the low Christology that I just mentioned..... Did you notice it said "mighty God". Since when was Jehovah ever called mighty God. It's always Almighty God. Jesus being second only to God Almighty can be called mighty God. Remember the NT  use of "the God of this world has blinded". ..... The word God is credited to others. It's not God's personal name. God is a title. "You shall have no other God's before me". Almighty, mighty.... not a problem. Jesus is not God Almighty, he is not Jehovah, or  YAHWEH. But he has become as a god. But he is not God. Jesus repeated Psalms 82:6, "ye are god's", thus verifying the use of the word god attributed to other than God Almighty. I recall another man in the OT being called god. I will need to google it to make my case.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Does that not support the low Christology that I just mentioned..... Did you notice it said "mighty God". Since when was Jehovah ever called mighty God. It's always Almighty God. Jesus being second only to God Almighty can be called mighty God. Remember the NT  use of "the God of this world has blinded". ..... The word God is credited to others. It's not God's personal name. God is a title. "You shall have no other God's before me". Almighty, mighty.... not a problem. Jesus is not God Almighty, he is not Jehovah, or  YAHWEH. But he has become as a god. But he is not God. Jesus repeated Psalms 82:6, "ye are god's", thus verifying the use of the word god attributed to other than God Almighty. I recall another man in the OT being called god. I will need to google it to make my case.


Also, notice than in the Trinity, you can have all three, but the three can not be each other. If the OT writer inspired or not had any idea of a Father, Son and HS...... He would have never called Jesus everlasting Father.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Also, notice than in the Trinity, you can have all three, but the three can not be each other. If the OT writer inspired or not had any idea of a Father, Son and HS...... He would have never called Jesus everlasting Father.



The Trinitarian formula never calls Jesus the Father. Father in scripture can mean many different things. I read on a Trinity site that says Eternal Father or Father of Eternity would be a better translation since Jesus gives us our eternal life he is the Father of Eternity.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 2, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Excellent verse to support the Oneness belief that the Son is the Father incarnate and not the pre-existing son persona of the Trinity belief.
> 
> "The everlasting Father" shows this. Most Trinitarians deny that Jesus is the Father.



It's not one or the other like you are trying to label it.(Trinity vs. Oneness)
It's three being one. All three being one God.
What label do you have for someone who believes in the Oneness of the Trinity?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 2, 2018)

welderguy said:


> It's not one or the other like you are trying to label it.(Trinity vs. Oneness)
> It's three being one. All three being one God.
> What label do you have for someone who believes in the Oneness of the Trinity?



The labels aren't mine. Have you ever looked at the beliefs of Oneness Pentecostalism and their view of the Trinity? They see God as one operating in three different modes.

I think what you are calling oneness of the Trinity is really unity. The tri-unity of the one God. Where you see three personas of the one God(Tri-unity), they see God operating in three different modes but not at the same time.(Oneness)

They actually believe God the Father incarnate as the Son. So they like to use Isaiah 9:6 as proof. I'm guessing since think you are Trinitarian that you believe the pre-existing Christ(Son persona of God) incarnate as man and not the Father persona of God.

When you think about it that's a big difference. Did the one God incarnate as man or did the always eternal Son persona of the triune God incarnate as a man?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 2, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> The labels aren't mine. Have you ever looked at the beliefs of Oneness Pentecostalism and their view of the Trinity? They see God as one operating in three different modes.
> 
> I think what you are calling oneness of the Trinity is really unity. The tri-unity of the one God. Where you see three personas of the one God(Tri-unity), they see God operating in three different modes but not at the same time.(Oneness)
> 
> ...


So, you finally decided to identify the Oneness you have been talking about these many days.  Please compare that with Sabellianism.  I think it will facilitate the study of the doctrine.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 2, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> So, you finally decided to identify the Oneness you have been talking about these many days.  Please compare that with Sabellianism.  I think it will facilitate the study of the doctrine.



OK I'll check it out, I need a label too. I think I might be a Jehovah Mormonist or a Oneness Unitarian.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 2, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> So, you finally decided to identify the Oneness you have been talking about these many days.  Please compare that with Sabellianism.  I think it will facilitate the study of the doctrine.



No that's doesn't describe me at all. That's the category Oneness Pentecostals fall into.
In all fairness to Welder, I myself do use oneness to describe God but I don't see it the way Oneness believers see it. Maybe I should take my advice to him and use the Unity of God.
But even still I don't think I see the unity or oneness of God in describing the Trinity. I don't see God as three personas or modes. In that sense I am Oneness I guess. I don't see the Father becoming Jesus in a change of modes, and I don't see Jesus as being part of the Godhead persona that incarnates either.

I just see Jesus pre-exisiting with God before his incarnation. The incarnation of Jesus, not God. I believe Jesus pre-existed with God in an out of time way maybe. Maybe as divine since his Father was divine. Maybe just by unity of God or the oneness of God.
I see a son who was subordinate to his Father before his incarnation and after his ascension.
I see God as the head of Christ for all eternity. I believe God sent his Son. I believe God is his physical and spiritual Father and thus his divinity.

I'm open for my own label. Builder had one for me. I think it was Arianism but they don't believe Jesus is deity.

From Wiki
Arians taught that the Logos was a divine being begotten by God the Father before the creation of the world, made him a medium through whom everything else was created, and that the Son of God is subordinate to God the Father.[13] A verse from Proverbs was also used: "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work" (Proverbs 8:22–25)[14]. Therefore, the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures, and he was made "God" only by the Father's permission and power.[15][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

I do agree that the Son is subordinate to God. I believe he may have always existed but made divine by God's permission and power.

Is it much different than the Election/predestination belief? In that belief  Jesus had to pre-exist in Word and be a part of Creation because God already knew man would fall and need Jesus. It's not like Jesus was an afterthought. God didn't decide later or after the fall that he would send his Son.
So the son has had to always exist as everything was created "through" him. He has always been the reason and the plan.

So if one can see or believe the Son has always been that plan, then he would have to always exist. I don't see how this pre-existance has to make him God. Why can't he have always just existed with God?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 2, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> No that's doesn't describe me at all. That's the category Oneness Pentecostals fall into.
> In all fairness to Welder, I myself do use oneness to describe God but I don't see it the way Oneness believers see it. Maybe I should take my advice to him and use the Unity of God.
> But even still I don't think I see the unity or oneness of God in describing the Trinity. I don't see God as three personas or modes. In that sense I am Oneness I guess. I don't see the Father becoming Jesus in a change of modes, and I don't see Jesus as being part of the Godhead persona that incarnates either.
> 
> ...


I think they did believe Jesus was diety, but lesser?????


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 2, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think they did believe Jesus was diety, but lesser?????



Do any of them still exist?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 3, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do any of them still exist?


I don't think so, formally. It's a wonder we have any info on it because all the Arian writings were burned and any unsanctioned writing in possesion was made a capitol offense by the Nicene council. But we can clearly see what they believed based on the writings of those that opposed them. Arius believed Jesus to be God in a lesser form, quoting "the Father is greater than I". He believed him to be begotten/born from the Father, not always existing..... I think??/


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 3, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> I do agree that the Son is subordinate to God. I believe he may have always existed but made divine by God's permission and power.


He is self-existing and needs God's permission and power to be made divine?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 3, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> He is self-existing and needs God's permission and power to be made divine?



Weird huh? Not that we are self existing as we were created but our existence has always been in Word. God know us before he created us.

Did the Son's subordination always exist? Did God ever call his Son his "God"? Did God ever call the Holy Spirit "God."? God sent his Son. The Father sent his Son. The Son hands over his Kingdom to God.

What kind of a relationship would one have with their Father? Why would the Son wait until he was incarnate as a man to be a subordinate Son?

Ephesians 1:17 
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.

The God of our Jesus even after the Ascension. Again, the God of Jesus, not "welcome back home, my Son who is God."

John 20:17
"Do not cling to Me," Jesus said, "for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.'"

Jesus refers to his Father as God. is God and our God. His Father and our Father. God is Father. Father is God.

Revelation 3:11-12
I am coming soon. Hold fast to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will never again leave it. Upon him I will write the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from My God), and My new name. 

Does the Son ever anoint, give authority, or exalt the Father?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 3, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> He is self-existing and needs God's permission and power to be made divine?



OK, got carried away there. I can't show that Jesus who always existed needs God's permission be made divine. He was a Son who is by nature submissive to a Father. I don't see why he'd wait until he was a human to be submissive to his God.

John 7:28
Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him,

John 8:42
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me.

This shows that he had to become submissive to his earthly mission before the incarnation.
Jesus said I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. He didn't say "at least after my incarnation."

I just feel like the Father is God. Jesus repeated says keep my Father's commandments or the commands of my Father. The same with the Holy Spirit. Sent from the Father. Does the will of the Father.

I would agree that explaining the eternal Sonship of Jesus is hard but I don't see the Trinity belief explaining it any better. The Trinity belief looks like the easy way out of the explanation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 3, 2018)

Ephesians 1:4-5
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--

We were sons through Christ before creation. God appointed his
Son heir of all things. We, co-heirs with Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

The Father and Son relationship is even used to show us the husband and wife relationship.

John 5:26-27
The Father has life in himself, and he has granted that same life-giving power to his Son.
27And he has given him authority to judge everyone because he is the Son of Man.

The Father granted and gave authority to the Son.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> The Trinity belief looks like the easy way out of the explanation.


The simplicity of the doctrine always confounds those who ignore the biblical idea of God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Weird huh? Not that we are self existing as we were created but our existence has always been in Word. God know us before he created us.
> 
> Did the Son's subordination always exist? Did God ever call his Son his "God"? Did God ever call the Holy Spirit "God."? God sent his Son. The Father sent his Son. The Son hands over his Kingdom to God.
> 
> ...


Hey Art, do you think that any of the disciples thought Jesus was God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 4, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> The simplicity of the doctrine always confounds those who ignore the biblical idea of God.



What about people who ignore the simplicity of the Oneness doctrine? Their biblical idea of God is "One God." They don't see why their idea confounds you. 
Why do you suppose they believe what they believe and you believe what you believe? You are both God fearing individuals. You are both reading the same Bible. Why does Oneness confound you?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Art, do you think that any of the disciples thought Jesus was God?



Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand…. I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am who I am.” — John 13:7,19 

For some reason the death, resurrection, and ascension confused them. Even Jesus know they wouldn't get it until it was over. 
Apostles who don't understand even coming from the mouth of Jesus.

Yet we are suppose to see it plain as day. We aren't suppose to have to wait. We are suppose to just get chosen by the very Spirit of God who then let's us get it. That Election plus Scripture. The Spirit enlightens us to understand the Scripture.

But the Apostles to include Paul didn't understand it all. Then God gave some knowledge to only certain individuals. Given in code that only some could understand.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 4, 2018)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Art, do you think that any of the disciples thought Jesus was God?



I got carried away again and didn't answer. The disciples  pretty much had a Jewish mindset. Christianity in that the Messiah had came was knew to them. Not that he was promised but that he had finally been sent by God.
I guess the key would be if they were looking for the Messiah to be a man or to be God. Did they think the High Priest needed to be God?

If they couldn't understand the Easter story until after it happens, how could they understand the Trinity even if it is true? I would think they saw their God, the God of Abraham as one.
I can't imagine them seeing him as a three-in-one God.
I think that concept or the ability to believe it if true came later.

Which makes me wonder if our Christian knowledge or knowledge from God increases over the ages. Such as the Protestant protest. Maybe input on allowing female preachers. How we view the man being the head of woman. How we view God as the head of Christ.

Is the world's knowledge increasing? Are we finally "getting it" or are we "losing it?"

If Jesus is talking to them in terms like My God and your God, my Father and your Father, etc. then why would they assume he was not telling them the truth about who their God was? Their God was his God.
They were told to keep his Father's commands. Jesus spoke as though his Father was God and he was the Son of God when speaking to the disciples.
I would think they understood this to be like all of the other father and son relationships they were aware of.

No I do not think the disciples believed Jesus was God but send from God.

I would think that if you told them Jesus was God, they would picture the Father becoming the Son. That the one God, incarnate as man. Since they saw God as one, if you forced this belief on them, then this one God would have to become Jesus.
Not that this beleif was forced on them but if it was this is how they would see it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 4, 2018)

John 17:2
For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

This is Jesus speaking to his Father. The eternal life is from God.


----------

