jesus is not God

[zackabba]

I have, and it actually strengthens my belief that they were separate.

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things"

I read that is that God did exist in his son. But it doesn't say that the son WAS God

John 1:1 does. The Word was God. Also, read John 20:28 - Thomas confesses the Son as his Lord and God.

And yes, the Father and Son are separate. The being of God is shared by the both of them, however (see Hebrews 1:3).

And if you can't see that Jesus is God from this passage, I honestly don't know what would. How does being called the Creator not make you equal to God? (the text says "through", but compare this with Romans 11:38 - all things were "through" God)



Grace and Love

 

[zackabba]

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:


Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


Question, .... Who is this talking about?

All mankind? The Son? Jesus?

Or All of the above?

Well, Colossians 1:15 is referring to the Son. He is the image of the invisible God. "Ah! But that doesn't make Him God!" Well, if you believe that, then look at Hebrews 1:3 - not only is He the image, but He also has the very nature of God. See Philippians 2:5-11 also.

As for Genesis 1:26 - "Let us make man in our image."

Now, think about this:
- "Us is referring to God, not to the angels (unless you believe they created alongside God) - "make" is referring to the "Us"
- Jesus is the image of God. God made man in His own image. This "image" is Jesus, the Word of God and Son of God. Therefore, "in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17)


Amen.




Grace and Love

 

[2knowhim]

Well, Colossians 1:15 is referring to the Son. He is the image of the invisible God. "Ah! But that doesn't make Him God!" Well, if you believe that, then look at Hebrews 1:3 - not only is He the image, but He also has the very nature of God. See Philippians 2:5-11 also.

As for Genesis 1:26 - "Let us make man in our image."

Now, think about this:
- "Us is referring to God, not to the angels (unless you believe they created alongside God) - "make" is referring to the "Us"
- Jesus is the image of God. God made man in His own image. This "image" is Jesus, the Word of God and Son of God. Therefore, "in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17)


Amen.




Grace and Love

Yes, Very good, He is and was The firstborn among many Brethren.
And it was finished before it was ever made manifest.
All mankind was made in His image and His likeness. (our end)

And then you have The Garden, (our Begining).

Blessings

 

[Saul_Durian]

Genesis 1:26 and the Hebrew Noun 'Elohim'

 

[2knowhim]

Genesis 1:26 and the Hebrew Noun 'Elohim'

'ĕlôhı̂ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

 

[SMMC80]

what is this about Jesus being God and three persons etc.
Im a follower of Jesus christ and have read the bible and I hear people saying Jesus is God why?????

please explain short and clearly,with scripture proof.

thank you.

if you can explain to me John 1 vs 1 to 5. based on your understanding of that scripture, we can then shed the light from there. but bear in mind that before you can solve equations you must already know 1+1=?.

 

[SMMC80]

There are no three Gods But one. Every name of God (OT) shows the office in which He is operating from. John 17:6. Jesus Christ is the name of God with or within us. A man can be can be a father and a son at the same time that does not make him two men. In the Father, we see the FATHERHOOD of God. In the Son we see the CHILDHOOD of God. Not in regard of age but of obedience. The HOLY SPIRIT is the dispensation of GOD. In other words when Christ said (Jn 10:35) i am the son of God He was saying "I AM THE OBEDIENCE OF GOD." or "I AM GOD'S CHILDHOOD" or "I AM THE SON-SHIP OF GOD". The Doctrine of trinity is at error.

 

[zackabba]

There are no three Gods But one. Every name of God (OT) shows the office in which He is operating from. John 17:6. Jesus Christ is the name of God with or within us. A man can be can be a father and a son at the same time that does not make him two men. In the Father, we see the FATHERHOOD of God. In the Son we see the CHILDHOOD of God. Not in regard of age but of obedience. The HOLY SPIRIT is the dispensation of GOD. In other words when Christ said (Jn 10:35) i am the son of God He was saying "I AM THE OBEDIENCE OF GOD." or "I AM GOD'S CHILDHOOD" or "I AM THE SON-SHIP OF GOD". The Doctrine of trinity is at error.

Can you point out a Scripture that shows this?

The Scriptures clearly show Christ to the be the wisdom and power and righteousness of God (1 Corinthians 1:30), but nowhere says that Christ is the childhood of God.

 

[SantoSubito]

if you can explain to me John 1 vs 1 to 5. based on your understanding of that scripture, we can then shed the light from there. but bear in mind that before you can solve equations you must already know 1+1=?.

This isn't a math problem. A better question to ask would be if I show you a three leaf clover would you say each leaf of the clover is a clover unto itself? Or would you say that each leaf of the clover is equally as much a clover as any other leaf?

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

John 1:1 is telling us WHAT the Word was – God, or more accurately those qualities or attributes which are of God. So we're being told that the Word is godly, or divine. It's very clear if you look at the Greek; we are not being told “who” but “what.” In other words, the Word isn't being presented as a distinct divine person from the Father.

[FONT=&quot]I realize this is a bit of a late response, but none the less I wanted to respond to the lengthy post that you submitted. I don't have time right now to respond to all objections raised, but I do plan on answering them over the short course of the next few days as time allows.

To start, without going into the complexities that surround John 1.1, I do want to offer a sound response to your objection of the Trinitarian understanding of this passage.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
This passage is not simply implying that the Logos is “divine” or “god-like” as you would espouse, because John does not use the adjectival (θεῖος [“divine”]) here, but rather uses the noun form (θεὸς [“God”]); however, that is not to say that nouns cannot, within their semantic domain, convey qualities – they most certainly can, and do! Take for example, John 3.6,

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The idea here has absolutely nothing to do with identification of any sort (“the spirit,” “a spirit&#8221, but everything to do with that of predication. More specifically, the nouns (“flesh,” “spirit&#8221 here function in a purely qualitative sense, without a definite or indefinite semantic force. The context of the passage in view is about the inherent nature of sinful flesh (John 3.6a) in contrast to the new nature of man in the process of regeneration (John 3.6b). Likewise, a similar idea being portrayed is found in 1 John 1.5 (“God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all&#8221, where it is God's essence and nature that is being described in contrast to “darkness.” That is, God has all the qualities, and attributes of light – He is just, holy, and good -- therefore, light is an attribute/characteristic inhering within God. Further examples include, but are not limited to, John 6.63 (“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life&#8221, 1 John 4.8 (“…because God is love&#8221, Acts 16:21 (“…are not lawful for us as Romans&#8221, 2 Corinthians 11:22 (“Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I&#8221,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]et al.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]With that being said, the Trinitarian approach to John 1.1 does not emphasize the identity of the Word (thus, the reason for the anarthrous θεὸ&#962, so your overall assessment and conclusion falls ten miles short of the mark. Call attention to what Henry Alford, the 19th c. Anglican theologian once wrote, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“The omission of the article before θεὸς is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the word might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς would destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεὸς must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, -not ὁ θεὸς, ‘the Father,’ in Person. . . . as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο [John 1.14], σὰρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸς ἦν [John 1.1c], θεὸς expresses that essence which was His ἐν ἀρχῇ [“In the beginning”]: -that He was very God.”—Henry Alford[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The point Alford is driving at here in his comparison of vv. 1 (θεὸς ἦ&#957, and 14 (σὰρξ ἐγένετ&#959, is not only are the two parallel passages conveying similar thought, but John’s placement of the noun before the verb in each passage is significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning of θεὸς before the verb ἦν is what is known as a preverbal predicate nominative. Since John has identified ὁ λόγος (“the Word&#8221 as the subject of the verse, this means that θεὸς in John 1.1b is a subject complement which further identifies the subject (not that the subject ["the Word"] is stressing the quality of the noun ["God"]). In other words, θεὸς serves to describe the nature and essence of the Word, and this is precisely what we as Trinitarians believe. Not that the Word’s identity is being stressed, rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the Logos that is being portrayed here. All the qualities, attributes, and nature of God [/FONT][FONT=&quot]–[/FONT][FONT=&quot] everything that makes God, God – the Word also possesses. In other words, this is a clear affirmation of ontological equality between the Father, and the Son, as expressed in the historic Christian confessions, and creeds,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood” – Chalcedonian Creed[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity” – Athanasian Creed[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]That being said, John 1.1b does not say, “the Word was in God,” nor does it say, “the Word was God’s,” rather, the preposition πρός (“pros&#8221 is used -- “the Word was with God.” And not only was the Logos “with” God, but because the preposition πρός is followed by a noun in the accusative case, it indicates that the Logos was existing in a personal face-to-face communion with God (c.f. John 1.29, 1.42, 1.47), not as an attribute inhering within Him.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Secondarily (this may, or may not apply to you), should John had thought the Word was some part of the created order sometime before the incarnation as Arians espouse then the prologue of John would have been the place to say it. John could have easily wrote, “All other things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing else came into being that has come into being.” However, call attention to v. 3,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]Contemplate here for a moment on John’s words, because their import is indeed striking. Everything that was created; everything that had a starting point in time; everything that has come into existence… all things that “came into being” did so through, or by means of the Word. These are not words that describe a created being, these are words that describe the active, and eternal agent of creation! The Logos is not here identified as one that “came into being,” but the One through whom all things that have “come into being” have their existence. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Likewise, if John thought that the pre-incarnate Word was but a creature, would he not have quoted Christ as saying, “Before Abraham came into existence, I came into existence”? Most assuredly he would have, but instead of saying that Christ “came into existence” before Abraham, which would have certainly taught a created pre-existence, Christ claimed to have existed before Abraham without any reference of being created[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“So the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I AM.’” [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]The contrast here is being made between Abraham, who “came into existence,” and our Lord as the uncreated, self-existing One – coming into existence vs. continual existence. [/FONT]

 

[IMINJC]

Frank4Yahweh

You Said:

I have never said "Yahweh is with Yahweh". I believe that Father Yahweh's word was with Him and that He is His word. Do you not believe that your word is with you and that you are your word? If you do not, then where do you believe that your word is and who do you believe your word is?

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.

John was clearly identifying here the authority and true deity of the person of the Son who is Jesus or Yashua. You can tell by how it is written, this is not a testimony of the Father, it is a clear testimony of the Son and His majesty and importance. It is time for Him..the Son..to be glorified as the Father stated.

Why would the writer find it necessary to write that the Fathers Word was with Him or that He was His Word? This makes no since. This could only be assumed or argued by someone who refuses to accept that these verses are referring to the Son not the Father.

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made

If this verse is talking about the Son and it is...the verses before it must be referring to the Son.

John reveals in verse 1-2 that the Son and the Father are one... two seperate personages... but one God. Only those who refuse to accept what is made clear by scripture can argue against it.

Another picture in scripture of the three personages in the one God is found throughout Proverbs and Psalms... whenever Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding is mentioned.

Wisdom, Knowledge, Understanding...Father ,Son, Holy Spirit.

Father/Wisdom (The Principle Thing...Conceives a thing)... Son/Knowledge (Knowledge is Word or instruction...furnishes a thing)...Holy Spirit/Understanding (Action,Make it happen...Establishes a thing)

By wisdom a house is built, by knowledge it is furnished, and by the Holy Spirit it is established.

One could easily say the following:

By the Father a house is built, by the Son it is furnished, and by the Holy Spirit it is established.

 

[Bushido8000]

John 1:1 does. The Word was God. Also, read John 20:28 - Thomas confesses the Son as his Lord and God.

And yes, the Father and Son are separate. The being of God is shared by the both of them, however (see Hebrews 1:3).

And if you can't see that Jesus is God from this passage, I honestly don't know what would. How does being called the Creator not make you equal to God? (the text says "through", but compare this with Romans 11:38 - all things were "through" God)



Grace and Love

Careful there. Different Bible translations say different things. I've read in John 1:1 as "The Word was a god" before, implying less than true God status. You also have to take into consideration that other languages aren't like ours and everything/not everything can be summed up with one word. for example: I'm sure you know about Agápe, Éros, Philia, and Storge. Same things/the opposite can happen with words like god or lord. Calling Jesus a god is not the same as calling him God. These are some of the most controversial parts of the Bible because they can have 2 totally different meanings based on what translation you are using. Also remember that the trinity was invented by Constantine 300 years after the first Christians died off and that usually when God really wants you to know something important Hes usually pretty blatant about it in the Bible. I would think that something as important as to understanding who God actually is would be pretty blatant in the Bible, yet people who believe in the trinity have to nit-pick their proof of one in the Bible.

 

[zackabba]

Careful there. Different Bible translations say different things. I've read in John 1:1 as "The Word was a god" before, implying less than true God status. You also have to take into consideration that other languages aren't like ours and everything/not everything can be summed up with one word. for example: I'm sure you know about Agápe, Éros, Philia, and Storge. Same things/the opposite can happen with words like god or lord. Calling Jesus a god is not the same as calling him God. These are some of the most controversial parts of the Bible because they can have 2 totally different meanings based on what translation you are using. Also remember that the trinity was invented by Constantine 300 years after the first Christians died off and that usually when God really wants you to know something important Hes usually pretty blatant about it in the Bible. I would think that something as important as to understanding who God actually is would be pretty blatant in the Bible, yet people who believe in the trinity have to nit-pick their proof of one in the Bible.

And in what translation did you read that? Why, in the New World Translation, which is a biased translation - no other major translation translates John 1:1 this way.

Calling Jesus a God is not the same as calling Him God.

This is true - which is the very reason why John wanted to make it clear that Jesus was, and is, God and not a god. (John 20:28)

Also remember that the trinity was invented by Constantine 300 years after the first Christians died off....

Do a bit more honest research before making that claim. Are we just to throw out the New Testament witness to the Trinity? The term is not there, but the concept is.

I would think that something as important as to understanding who God actually is would be pretty blatant in the Bible, yet people who believe in the trinity have to nit-pick their proof of one in the Bible.

So, when Jesus is explicitly called God in the Bible (John 20:28), and the Holy Spirit is shown to be personal (John 14)...that's nit-picky?

God is "pretty blatant" about Himself - He is one (Deut. 6:4). Is this a oneness in person, or oneness in being? This is never said. But if we take all of the Bible's witness to God, we find He is a complex being, three persons in one being.




Grace and Love

 

[zackabba]

Frank4Yahweh

You Said:

I have never said "Yahweh is with Yahweh". I believe that Father Yahweh's word was with Him and that He is His word. Do you not believe that your word is with you and that you are your word? If you do not, then where do you believe that your word is and who do you believe your word is?

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.

John was clearly identifying here the authority and true deity of the person of the Son who is Jesus or Yashua. You can tell by how it is written, this is not a testimony of the Father, it is a clear testimony of the Son and His majesty and importance. It is time for Him..the Son..to be glorified as the Father stated.

Why would the writer find it necessary to write that the Fathers Word was with Him or that He was His Word? This makes no since. This could only be assumed or argued by someone who refuses to accept that these verses are referring to the Son not the Father.

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made

If this verse is talking about the Son and it is...the verses before it must be referring to the Son.

John reveals in verse 1-2 that the Son and the Father are one... two seperate personages... but one God. Only those who refuse to accept what is made clear by scripture can argue against it.

Another picture in scripture of the three personages in the one God is found throughout Proverbs and Psalms... whenever Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding is mentioned.

Wisdom, Knowledge, Understanding...Father ,Son, Holy Spirit.

Father/Wisdom (The Principle Thing...Conceives a thing)... Son/Knowledge (Knowledge is Word or instruction...furnishes a thing)...Holy Spirit/Understanding (Action,Make it happen...Establishes a thing)

By wisdom a house is built, by knowledge it is furnished, and by the Holy Spirit it is established.

One could easily say the following:

By the Father a house is built, by the Son it is furnished, and by the Holy Spirit it is established.

I wouldn't expect an answer - he's been banned.

 

[Bushido8000]

And in what translation did you read that? Why, in the New World Translation, which is a biased translation - no other major translation translates John 1:1 this way.

Calling Jesus a God is not the same as calling Him God.

This is true - which is the very reason why John wanted to make it clear that Jesus was, and is, God and not a god. (John 20:28)

Also remember that the trinity was invented by Constantine 300 years after the first Christians died off....

Do a bit more honest research before making that claim. Are we just to throw out the New Testament witness to the Trinity? The term is not there, but the concept is.

I would think that something as important as to understanding who God actually is would be pretty blatant in the Bible, yet people who believe in the trinity have to nit-pick their proof of one in the Bible.

So, when Jesus is explicitly called God in the Bible (John 20:28), and the Holy Spirit is shown to be personal (John 14)...that's nit-picky?

God is "pretty blatant" about Himself - He is one (Deut. 6:4). Is this a oneness in person, or oneness in being? This is never said. But if we take all of the Bible's witness to God, we find He is a complex being, three persons in one being.




Grace and Love

Then how would you explain Satan's offering to Jesus? Satan wouldn't have even tried offering Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world if there wasn't a chance that Jesus would accept. What if Jesus said "hmm that sounds like a reasonable offer" and bowed before Satan (even though he pretty much owns the universe since people believe Jesus is God) ? What would have become of the trinity God then? God would have betrayed God and would have created the biggest paradox that the universe has ever seen.

 

[zackabba]

Then how would you explain Satan's offering to Jesus? Satan wouldn't have even tried offering Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world if there wasn't a chance that Jesus would accept. What if Jesus said "hmm that sounds like a reasonable offer" and bowed before Satan (even though he pretty much owns the universe since people believe Jesus is God) ? What would have become of the trinity God then? God would have betrayed God and would have created the biggest paradox that the universe has ever seen.

Then how would you explain Satan's offering to Jesus? Satan wouldn't have even tried offering Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world if there wasn't a chance that Jesus would accept.

Let me ask you this: do you think there was a chance that Satan could have overthrown God?

What if Jesus said "hmm that sounds like a reasonable offer" and bowed before Satan (even though he pretty much owns the universe since people believe Jesus is God) ? What would have become of the trinity God then? God would have betrayed God and would have created the biggest paradox that the universe has ever seen.

Do you really trust more in hypothetical reasoning than in how God is presented in the Bible?

Yes, Jesus "pretty much owns the universe" - He created it. (Hebrews 1:10, Colossians 1:15-20, Romans 11:38)

Someone may respond "Wait, then why was Jesus given rule over the universe if He already ruled over it?" For that, I would go to Philippians 2:5-11 - though the Lord was in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but He made Himself nothing, [giving up all of His rights]. Now he has the form of a servant. Do you see? He was in the form of God - and still is - and now He also has the form of a servant. He is the very image of God, and the image of a being cannot be separated from itself. In the same way, Christ is the glory of God - can God's glory be separated from Himself? Never!



Grace and Love to you

 

[MaranathaSoonQuick]

if you're a bible believing Christian you would agree that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3 persons making up One God, scripture notes " he who has seen the Son has seen the Father" now Jesus clearly is God and the express image of God hence scripture in the book of John "in the beginning was God and the Word was with God and the Word was God" the Word is evidently Jesus and again in Hebrews chapter 1 verse 8, this is where the Father himself talks to His Son as if His Son were God!
8 But unto the Son He saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom.
that should be evidence enough for one to understand.

 

[Bushido8000]

Then how would you explain Satan's offering to Jesus? Satan wouldn't have even tried offering Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world if there wasn't a chance that Jesus would accept.

Let me ask you this: do you think there was a chance that Satan could have overthrown God?

What if Jesus said "hmm that sounds like a reasonable offer" and bowed before Satan (even though he pretty much owns the universe since people believe Jesus is God) ? What would have become of the trinity God then? God would have betrayed God and would have created the biggest paradox that the universe has ever seen.

Do you really trust more in hypothetical reasoning than in how God is presented in the Bible?

Yes, Jesus "pretty much owns the universe" - He created it. (Hebrews 1:10, Colossians 1:15-20, Romans 11:38)

Someone may respond "Wait, then why was Jesus given rule over the universe if He already ruled over it?" For that, I would go to Philippians 2:5-11 - though the Lord was in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but He made Himself nothing, [giving up all of His rights]. Now he has the form of a servant. Do you see? He was in the form of God - and still is - and now He also has the form of a servant. He is the very image of God, and the image of a being cannot be separated from itself. In the same way, Christ is the glory of God - can God's glory be separated from Himself? Never!



Grace and Love to you

if you're a bible believing Christian you would agree that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3 persons making up One God, scripture notes " he who has seen the Son has seen the Father" now Jesus clearly is God and the express image of God hence scripture in the book of John "in the beginning was God and the Word was with God and the Word was God" the Word is evidently Jesus and again in Hebrews chapter 1 verse 8, this is where the Father himself talks to His Son as if His Son were God!
8 But unto the Son He saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom.
that should be evidence enough for one to understand.

Interesting responses guys. If we are taking Bible scriptures very literally here though then how would you explain the passage "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." (John 20:17) as being supportive of the trinity? How can Jesus have his own God (not a Father but God) when he is already God?

Also in response to Marantha: Hebrews 1:8 doesn't seem very compelling as multiple beings above man are referred to as gods in the Bible. Satan himself is even referred to as a god in the Bible.

EDIT: also note that in John 20:17 Jesus is already a mighty spirit

 

[shroom2]

if you're a bible believing Christian you would agree that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3 persons making up One God

Only if you are a trinitarian, a concept not found in the bible, do you believe as you state.

I am a bible believing Christian and I do not agree that God is three persons. There is one God, the Father. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, the Christ, a man. "Holy Spirit" can either refer to God Himself because God is Holy and He is spirit, or to the gift he gives to men when they believe on Jesus Christ, the gift of holy spirit.

Only God, the Father, is God.

 

[zackabba]

Interesting responses guys. If we are taking Bible scriptures very literally here though then how would you explain the passage "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." (John 20:17) as being supportive of the trinity? How can Jesus have his own God (not a Father but God) when he is already God?


The Father is God to Him now that He has a human nature (again, see Philippians 2:5-11 - He has taken on the form of a servant).

EDIT: also note that in John 20:17 Jesus is already a mighty spirit

The fact that Mary was holding onto Him shows that He wasn't some disembodied spirit, if that's what you mean. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.


I'll ask you a question: If Jesus is not God, why didn't He rebuke Thomas when he called Jesus his Lord and His God? (John 20:28)



Grace and Love