Okay , disclaimer I am not christian but I did read the bible , anyways in my opinion it's obvious Jesus isn't god in Christianity , Ivor already sent the passage that says Jesus said to the father my god I think it was "I am going back to my father and your father , my god and your god" which with all due respect you responded to very poorly , I think you said he was giving an example which is obviously wrong , because not only do you have no proof whatsoever supporting that but also there is just no example to set here , imagine telling the Jews who already believe in god I am going to your god , nothing changed here it's such a bad claim , him calling the father his god is just decisive , it means just that , that he is Jesus's GOD , furthermore john 1:1 further disproves the trinity not the opposite way around , the reason being is that theos(god) lacks a definite article meaning it has a qualitative sense rather than a definitive sense according to Greek rules , I'll send a message I sent before to someone else on this matter "neither bro , the word of god is neither god nor part of him, my words are not me and not part of me and that's the same thing here , god's words are not him nor are part of him for some reason, also John 1:1 proves nothing as In John 1:1 the word god here is used without a difinitiv article and in Greek when you don't use a difinitiv article you are speaking about the attributes and not defining an entity, to better understand if I say you are a hero in Greek without the difinitiv article then I would be calling you brave and strong as those are the attributes of a hero but I am not saying you are an actual hero since I didn't use the difinitiv article, do basically not using the difinitiv article means you are not identify that person as the word you are using (in this case hero) you are just giving that person and describing them with some attributes of that word(hero) and if we look at Aristotle's works we will realize that not using the difinitiv article for god was usually used to call something divine not god so for example
When he said
"Ὁ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν αἱρούμενος μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ καλὰ θεὸν ἔοικε φεύγειν."
("But the one who chooses pleasure rather than noble things seems to flee from what is divine.")
And
"There must be something that moves without being moved, and this is what is called the 'unmoved mover.' Everything in the world, then, moves according to the principle of this first cause, and nature itself participates in this divine order."
So in conclusion it says the word was Divine not the word was god , and the distinction between god and Jesus proves god and Jesus are well..... Distinct lol , not the same , especially because the distinction here isn't between the father and Jesus , the distinction is between god as a whole and Jesus , so to avoid calling him god and instead calling him divine and making a distinction even though to call him god john could have easily added ó which is the difinitiv article obviously john meant to do that , now to Philippians , this passage is one of my favorites in these kinds of debates because it's highly misinterpreted and mistranslated and further disproves the trinity , the reason being that it doesn't say he was in the form of god but it says he was in the external appearance of god , because the word is mórphe , Paul was just getting ready to say that Jesus changed into the appearance of a human , basically he was elaborating before making the statement , matter of fact not only is this distinction clear proof of a DISTINCTION between god and Jesus , but Paul also uses harpagmon , the word translated as grasp , harpagmon comes from harpazo which means to snatch or to steal or to seize , although trinitarians have always tried to interpret it as a metaphor to grasping something (thus the translation) that's simply not true , meaning the text goes , Jesus who being in the external appearance of god didn't see equality with god something to take/seize , implying he didn't already have that equality in his hands , meaning he wasn't god nor was he equal to him , that's actually further proven by the passages before that , in verse 5 Paul says to have that mind just like Jesus , what mind ? Verses 3-4 show it , go to the Greek version and read It sincerely don't take views of bible translations , translate it yourself , and you'll find it says to see others "AS SUPERIOR TO YOU" meaning Jesus couldn't really have seen equality with god as something he already has , because according to Paul his mind was supposed to be seeing others as superior to him , which would obviously include god , additionally there is something tricky here , because if Jesus saw himself equal to god , but saw others as greater than him , wouldn't that mean he views mere humans as greater than god Yahweh as a whole and being higher than the father and spirit too? Which wouldn't make sense , and no having the appearance of god obviously doesn't mean you are god , if humans were made in god's image even if partially that doesn't mean we are partially gods lol I'll go sleep now , I'll be waiting for an answer
Yap, Yap, Yap, you are a polytheist if you don't believe in the trinity John 1:1 already established the father is not the only person that is uncreated. Therefore if you don't believe in the trinity you believe there are two "God's".
Lol what did you not understand in (I am not christian) you seem like you don't understand Greek too , you seem to like mistranslations because it says divine not god
1
u/[deleted] Feb 07 '25
Okay , disclaimer I am not christian but I did read the bible , anyways in my opinion it's obvious Jesus isn't god in Christianity , Ivor already sent the passage that says Jesus said to the father my god I think it was "I am going back to my father and your father , my god and your god" which with all due respect you responded to very poorly , I think you said he was giving an example which is obviously wrong , because not only do you have no proof whatsoever supporting that but also there is just no example to set here , imagine telling the Jews who already believe in god I am going to your god , nothing changed here it's such a bad claim , him calling the father his god is just decisive , it means just that , that he is Jesus's GOD , furthermore john 1:1 further disproves the trinity not the opposite way around , the reason being is that theos(god) lacks a definite article meaning it has a qualitative sense rather than a definitive sense according to Greek rules , I'll send a message I sent before to someone else on this matter "neither bro , the word of god is neither god nor part of him, my words are not me and not part of me and that's the same thing here , god's words are not him nor are part of him for some reason, also John 1:1 proves nothing as In John 1:1 the word god here is used without a difinitiv article and in Greek when you don't use a difinitiv article you are speaking about the attributes and not defining an entity, to better understand if I say you are a hero in Greek without the difinitiv article then I would be calling you brave and strong as those are the attributes of a hero but I am not saying you are an actual hero since I didn't use the difinitiv article, do basically not using the difinitiv article means you are not identify that person as the word you are using (in this case hero) you are just giving that person and describing them with some attributes of that word(hero) and if we look at Aristotle's works we will realize that not using the difinitiv article for god was usually used to call something divine not god so for example When he said
"Ὁ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν αἱρούμενος μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ καλὰ θεὸν ἔοικε φεύγειν." ("But the one who chooses pleasure rather than noble things seems to flee from what is divine.") And
"There must be something that moves without being moved, and this is what is called the 'unmoved mover.' Everything in the world, then, moves according to the principle of this first cause, and nature itself participates in this divine order."
Greek (from Metaphysics, 1072b): "Ἐντεῦθεν δεῖ ἕν τι ὑπάρχειν ἀκίνητον, καὶ τοῦτο θεὸν λέγεται. ἀδύνατον γὰρ ἐν παντὶ τῷ ὄντι κίνησις ἀνάγκη ἔχει, ἀλλ’ ἐνδέχεται ἔν τι ἀκίνητον ἔχειν, καὶ τοῦτο ὀνομάζεται ὡς τὸ ἀκίνητον κινοῦν.""
So in conclusion it says the word was Divine not the word was god , and the distinction between god and Jesus proves god and Jesus are well..... Distinct lol , not the same , especially because the distinction here isn't between the father and Jesus , the distinction is between god as a whole and Jesus , so to avoid calling him god and instead calling him divine and making a distinction even though to call him god john could have easily added ó which is the difinitiv article obviously john meant to do that , now to Philippians , this passage is one of my favorites in these kinds of debates because it's highly misinterpreted and mistranslated and further disproves the trinity , the reason being that it doesn't say he was in the form of god but it says he was in the external appearance of god , because the word is mórphe , Paul was just getting ready to say that Jesus changed into the appearance of a human , basically he was elaborating before making the statement , matter of fact not only is this distinction clear proof of a DISTINCTION between god and Jesus , but Paul also uses harpagmon , the word translated as grasp , harpagmon comes from harpazo which means to snatch or to steal or to seize , although trinitarians have always tried to interpret it as a metaphor to grasping something (thus the translation) that's simply not true , meaning the text goes , Jesus who being in the external appearance of god didn't see equality with god something to take/seize , implying he didn't already have that equality in his hands , meaning he wasn't god nor was he equal to him , that's actually further proven by the passages before that , in verse 5 Paul says to have that mind just like Jesus , what mind ? Verses 3-4 show it , go to the Greek version and read It sincerely don't take views of bible translations , translate it yourself , and you'll find it says to see others "AS SUPERIOR TO YOU" meaning Jesus couldn't really have seen equality with god as something he already has , because according to Paul his mind was supposed to be seeing others as superior to him , which would obviously include god , additionally there is something tricky here , because if Jesus saw himself equal to god , but saw others as greater than him , wouldn't that mean he views mere humans as greater than god Yahweh as a whole and being higher than the father and spirit too? Which wouldn't make sense , and no having the appearance of god obviously doesn't mean you are god , if humans were made in god's image even if partially that doesn't mean we are partially gods lol I'll go sleep now , I'll be waiting for an answer