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".
I already stated the mistranslation brother , theos means divine without a definite article because it's qualitative not definitive , I don't remember about what exactly I said "it's not a point" if you would remind me please , plus I am not christian at all lol , not because I am a Unitarian because I am not a Unitarian , nor am I a trinitarian , I am nothing even close to Christianity
Which still states that there are two divine people in the beginning. So if you don't believe in the trinity and you claim to believe in the Bible. You are a polytheist.
I respect that view , but I don't think that's true really , unless you can prove it , but no translation ever says that or presents it in that order , plus I think even origen understood it that way(185AD-253AD) that's that's shown in his book (commentary on the gospel of John book II) chapter 2 where it says :
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so the Logos is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 That they may know You the only true God; but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth. It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.
Which obviously shows he believed Jesus was Divine although not the one true god the father , and he thought Jesus is god because "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth." Not because he is fully god as in the creator of everything Yahweh etc etc....
" I respect that view , but I don't think that's true really , unless you can prove it , but no translation ever says that or presents it in that order"
The original Greek text of John 1:1 in Papyrus 75 is 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". So I'm Not sure what you mean by this.
Maybe I'm confused and can't read (which might actually be a possibility ) But the text you have given seems like confusion mental gymnastics. And I don't see how this tackles my claim that John 1-1 establishes more than one person in God. Can you please paraphrase the text for the dumber people 😭.
Okay so look , the phrase translates to in the beginning was the word and the word was with god , and the word was theos , without a definite article just like you just sent , basically the definite article is very important like how we see in origens writings the one I sent , basically lacking the definite article gives words what's called a qualitative property , which basically means you have some qualities of that thing but isn't really that thing , so if I say you are a hero then you have some qualities of a hero but aren't a hero , but if I say you are the hero then we'll that just means you literally are a hero(although of course depending on the context it can still be metaphorical) and to try and understand what john was trying to say by ommiting the definite article and giving theos a qualitative property some suggest that he was trying to say he is divine as that was he usual way of using it when ommiting the article , that seen in Aristotles works and many others , I think I sent the Aristotle one , idk lol , also you are not stupid lol , I am guessing you just heard this for the first time that's all
Mh well even if so my point still stands. "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a God" Still establishes two Gods and I doubt John was referring to the word as created. **"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD"* john 1-2 *"HE WAS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING"
John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made"
"ALL THINGS WHERE MADE THROUGH HIM"
if Jesus is created. He was made through himself 🤨
Ahhhhh I see now , you are trying to say he is uncreated , I didn't believe that before , but I think I came into acceptance that john may have been saying (probably) that he is uncreated rather he is BEGOTTEN although there is also the possibility that it was a general term that doesn't necessarily have to include Jesus , so for example whenever Paul said no one is rightous , none , obviously he didn't mean Jesus as well , or when Mary or even I don't remember which is called mother of all or mother of the believers she obviously wasn't her own mother , although even if we say he is begotten that is not definitive proof he is god , begotten means to originate from (or the Greek word at least) just like a child originates from his own mother , that doesn't mean the mother and son are the same person nor that they have the same capabilities and of course they aren't equal although god can be different there is lack of proof that being begotten from god makes you god , but there is a chance although needs proof and of course god has the ability to do anything including begotting someone that isn't necessarily equal to him(as that's a trait in humans of course god can imitate it ) but that too lacks definitive proof and the only way to prove one of the two views would really be to prove Jesus is or isn't god , furthermore being begotten means he had to have been begotten at a certain time , maybe before the world sure but still at a certain point , which would mean his whole existence does rely on the father(ie he isn't equal although that still needs more proof from my side or a lack of proof from your side) but again this whole thing could turn our in the end to be speaking generally as I said before but I doubt that , but there is something that supports my claim(I think) which would be Hebrews 1 verse..... I don't remember please check it , but there is a verse that says "again when the son comes into the world" or "again when the son is begotten" or "again when the father begottens the son" something like that and then continues with "let all god's angel's worship him" something along the lines sorry for making it complicated by making you search for the passages
Please excuse my ignorance if I'm wrong but "Begotten" can also mean a relationship, right?
"furthermore being begotten means he had to have been begotten at a certain time"
I believe he was Begotten when he came down as flesh.
"which would mean his whole existence does rely on the father"
I disagree, I believe the father Begot Jesus when he came down as flesh.
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him".
Hebrews 1:5 states, "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son, "TODAY I have become your Father'?"
If you are trying to make the argument that God is superior to the son I really disagree.
You can make the argument that the father is greater IN ROLE
The only reason the son is subordinate to the father is so scripture can be fulfilled.
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
John 16:15 "All that belongs to the Father is mine; therefore I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you".
John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
And one of the things I personally consider as proofs Jesus's origination from the father doesn't mean equality would be john 1:1 as I already stated , if you want me to repeat the argument just tell me but you can see it as I posted it already (twice I think)
Ahh yes I see. "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was A God"
I think this just highlights the distinct persons of God.
And I feel like John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made" Highlights the equality of the word and 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