₦airaland Forum

gohf:
Nachmonides do please listen
"Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:10)

Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is described as an unforgivable sin. The fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable signifies that the Holy Spirit is of divine importance and has the same authority as God. This would be nonsensical if the Holy Spirit were not considered God, as blasphemy against a mere created being wouldn't hold such weight."

My response: why should it be nonsensical, but becomes sensible when one imposes that the spirit of God is God. Then does God who forgives become unforgiving when he dwells with us as the Holy Spirit. Do you not the see the implications of trying to impose what is not true so as to accept an instruction from Jesus.

If you knew the scripture should you not also know that it is written
Exod.23.20 - "See, I am sending my angel before you to lead you safely to the land I have prepared for you.
Exod.23.21 - Pay attention to him, and obey all of his instructions. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your sins. He is my representative--he bears my name.


Do we then call the angel of God God as well seeing as it should make sense that one who is from God and who wouldn't forgive us would be nonsensical if he wasn't God.

You’re emphasizing that divine authority and representation doesn’t necessarily imply independent divinity, drawing on the example of the angel of God in Exodus.

In both cases (the Holy Spirit and the angel of God), the authority comes from God, but the Holy Spirit is understood in Christian theology as fully divine in a way the angel in Exodus is not. Therefore, the unforgivable nature of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit still holds true, even if we understand the Holy Spirit's role as being distinct but not separate from God the Father and Son.

Nachmonides:
For everyone reading this thread who is not aware:


The New World Translation (NWT), which is the Bible translation produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, has a distinct rendering of John 1:1 that differs from most other translations, especially in its handling of the phrase that refers to Jesus as "the Word."

Let's look at John 1:1in both the Greek and the NWT, focusing on the key differences.

John 1:1 (Greek Text)

The Greek text of John 1:1 (based on the Textus Receptus) reads:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Translation (Literal): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."



NWT Translation of John 1:1

The NWT renders John 1:1 as:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1, NWT)


"the Word was God" vs. "the Word was a god":

In the Greek text, the phrase "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (translated as "the Word was God" ) clearly presents the Word (Jesus) as God. The word "θεὸς" (theos) is a noun that can refer to the one true God, and the verb "ἦν" (ēn) is a form of "to be," indicating identity (i.e., the Word was God).

The NWT, however, translates this phrase as "the Word was a god." The indefinite article "a" is inserted, suggesting a lower god or a divine being who is not the Almighty God (YHWH) but rather a subordinate deity. This rendering is not supported by the Greek grammar or context, and is a significant departure from the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus' divinity.

This is dishonesty to the greek in which John wrote his gospel. This is what the JW's run by.

The reliability on the theology of John hangs on the very first verse and chapter of his gospel.

Nachmonides:
The NLT says:

In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Why in V.2 is the pronoun "He" used

John started talking about two entities; the word and God


And then he says "He existed in the beginning with God"

Why that statement, who is the "He" that existed in the beginning with God?

For everyone reading this thread who is not aware:


The New World Translation (NWT), which is the Bible translation produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, has a distinct rendering of John 1:1 that differs from most other translations, especially in its handling of the phrase that refers to Jesus as "the Word."

Let's look at John 1:1in both the Greek and the NWT, focusing on the key differences.

John 1:1 (Greek Text)

The Greek text of John 1:1 (based on the Textus Receptus) reads:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Translation (Literal): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."



NWT Translation of John 1:1

The NWT renders John 1:1 as:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1, NWT)


"the Word was God" vs. "the Word was a god":

In the Greek text, the phrase "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (translated as "the Word was God" ) clearly presents the Word (Jesus) as God. The word "θεὸς" (theos) is a noun that can refer to the one true God, and the verb "ἦν" (ēn) is a form of "to be," indicating identity (i.e., the Word was God).

The NWT, however, translates this phrase as "the Word was a god." The indefinite article "a" is inserted, suggesting a lower god or a divine being who is not the Almighty God (YHWH) but rather a subordinate deity. This rendering is not supported by the Greek grammar or context, and is a significant departure from the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus' divinity.

This is dishonesty to the greek in which John wrote his gospel. This is what the JW's run by.

gohf:
how you see the phrase "the Son of God" and conclude that they said God is indeed a mystery that relates with demonic blindness because how else can one say or state that here is Jesus being worshipped as God when he is declared to be the Son of God

you quote an exclamation of Thomas written by John who went unto to conclude in that very chapter John.20.31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life.

There's a reason new living translation puts it
John.20.28 "My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed.

Even if you do not understand verse 28 understand verse 31 of what you are expected to believe.

if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God.

John 1:1 is the word was God's or the word is from God, I have written the explanation previously about the difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.

And I have also spoke on John 8:58, where I explained the term eimi, used in Greek doesn't mean God either in that verse nor in the context of the conversation in that chapter, even explaining the difference between what was here and what was said in Exodus 3:14 which is who God is and how it relates to the name of God revealed in Exodus 6:3.

Did Jesus exist before Abraham yes he did
God reveals himself as the one who causes things to exist, who is self existing

Is Jesus self existing? No, did he come from God? Yes


Why don't you show us the trinity in Genesis 1:1
Which is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

In Genesis.

Genesis 1:1
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth—



The word for God there is Plural, not singular.

We see another hint of this plurality in V.26 when it says, "Let us make man..."

I just realized I was using the NLT instead of your cherished NWT

I perceive you're a Jehovah's Witness.
Correct me if I'm wrong before I go on.

Nachmonides:
The NLT says:

In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Why in V.2 is the pronoun "He" used

John started talking about two entities; the word and God


And then he says "He existed in the beginning with God"

Why that statement, who is the "He" that existed in the beginning with God?

John1:14-15 (NLT)

14 So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.

15 John testified about him [/b]when he shouted to the crowds, “This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘Someone is coming after me [b]who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.’”

gohf:
the word becoming flesh, points to the word Apostle John was writing about of which John the Baptist bears witness to.

Scripture says, God sends forth his word, HIS word not he himself, the word of God was never called God, it was treated as Holy as Jesus is the Holy one of God and the term or idea of God's incarnation isn't even scriptural it's down right gnostics

The NLT says:

In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.


Why in V.2 is the pronoun "He" used

John started talking about two entities; the word and God


And then he says "He existed in the beginning with God"

Why that statement, who is the "He" that existed in the beginning with God?

gohf:
how you see the phrase "the Son of God" and conclude that they said God is indeed a mystery that relates with demonic blindness because how else can one say or state that here is Jesus being worshipped as God when he is declared to be the Son of God

you quote an exclamation of Thomas written by John who went unto to conclude in that very chapter John.20.31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life.

There's a reason new living translation puts it
John.20.28 "My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed.

Even if you do not understand verse 28 understand verse 31 of what you are expected to believe.

if only God is to be worshipped then why does God need to command the angels to worship a being who being God already deserves worship. Why then was God and the lamb of God worshipped in revelations. You assume that because he is worshipped he is God, yet even while he is worshipped he is never called God.

John 1:1 is the word was God's or the word is from God, I have written the explanation previously about the difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.

And I have also spoke on John 8:58, where I explained the term eimi, used in Greek doesn't mean God either in that verse nor in the context of the conversation in that chapter, even explaining the difference between what was here and what was said in Exodus 3:14 which is who God is and how it relates to the name of God revealed in Exodus 6:3.

Did Jesus exist before Abraham yes he did
God reveals himself as the one who causes things to exist, who is self existing

Is Jesus self existing? No, did he come from God? Yes


Why don't you show us the trinity in Genesis 1:1
Which is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Hebrews 1:6 states: “And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God’s angels worship him.'”


Angels don't know everything, as we will find out in scriptures. The declaration of worship is tied to his incarnation. Not a general declaration.

Also, The command for angels to worship Jesus affirmed His divine nature and position as the Son of God, as well as the importance of His mission.

The idea of worshiping Jesus is tied to His dual nature: He is both fully God and fully man. As God, He is deserving of worship. As a man, He received worship to reveal His true identity, the God-man, to both the angels and humanity.

gohf:
how you see the phrase "the Son of God" and conclude that they said God is indeed a mystery that relates with demonic blindness because how else can one say or state that here is Jesus being worshipped as God when he is declared to be the Son of God

I started by saying

There are many passages in the New Testament that show Jesus being worshipped or being referred to as God.

Why would the Son of God be worshipped if God is the only one deserving of worship according to scriptures; the old testament especially.

gohf:
And for Acts 5:3-4 lying to the Holy Spirit or even as Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Luke 12:10 doesn't make the Holy Spirit God.

If open heart is what you define as like a woman with open legs, then no. What we need is a pure heart to see God, a renewed mind to understand His word and will.

Saying that, "the doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence." Is deceptive because there is only one way, Jesus Christ and Jesus never called nor revealed that the Holy Spirit is God. When Jesus listed the assignment of the Holy Spirit he did not list worship, to be worshipped, so neither in name nor in assignment did Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as God.

You call it an understanding but from where did this understanding come from. There's nothing true about that teaching, if it is deep it is hell deep.

When the three are mentioned they are NEVER mentioned as gods nor did any of the apostles teach anyone to accept or call them God.

Acts 5:3-4 (Lying to the Holy Spirit)

In Acts 5:3-4, Peter says that Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit and then equates that with lying to God:
“You have not lied to men but to God.”

This statement directly connects the Holy Spirit to God. The refusal to recognize the Holy Spirit as God here contradicts the clear scriptural teaching that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, as seen in passages like Acts 5:3-4, and also in 1 Corinthians 3:16 where Paul says that believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit were not divine, such a declaration would be misleading.



Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:10)

Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is described as an unforgivable sin. The fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable signifies that the Holy Spirit is of divine importance and has the same authority as God. This would be nonsensical if the Holy Spirit were not considered God, as blasphemy against a mere created being wouldn't hold such weight.


The Holy Spirit's Role (Not Listed for Worship)

The argument that the Holy Spirit is not listed for worship in the same way Jesus is is understandable but misses the point. In biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is understood as part of the Godhead. While Jesus, as the Son, receives direct worship (Matthew 28:17, John 20:28), the Holy Spirit is worshiped through the worship of God as a whole. The Bible does not suggest that the Holy Spirit is less divine or not to be honored, but rather that the Spirit’s role in the world is often to glorify the Father and the Son (John 16:14). This does not exclude worship, as the Spirit is integral to the divine action in the world and salvation.


Jesus Never Revealed the Holy Spirit as God

The argument that Jesus never explicitly referred to the Holy Spirit as God is based on a misunderstanding of biblical revelation. While Jesus did not always explicitly say, "The Holy Spirit is God," He did reveal the Holy Spirit's divine role in many ways:

Matthew 28:19: The Great Commission, where Jesus instructs His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, places the Holy Spirit in the same position as the Father and the Son, implying full equality.

John 14:16-17: Jesus speaks of sending another Advocate, the Spirit of truth, who will dwell with believers forever. Jesus’ words in this context imply that the Holy Spirit is the continuation of God's presence in the world after His departure.



Jesus and the Apostles Never Called the Three Persons 'Gods'

The word “God” is used in scripture, especially in the Old Testament, to emphasize the unity of God (Deuteronomy 6:4). However, in the New Testament, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clear, and all are ascribed divine attributes.

John 1:1 refers to Jesus as God (the Word was God).

Acts 5:3-4 equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God.

Matthew 28:19 places the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and Son in the context of baptism, signifying the shared divinity of all three persons.

If your argument is that they didn't explicitly mention it, that's a fallacy.

gohf:
Because you do not understand what is written doesn't make it the fault of the writer.
But I do blame those who in their academic but spiritual ignorance interpreted the Greek in their own error or possible motive.

Now there's a difference between a normative noun, theos, and an accusative noun, theon. Normative is used to show derivative or what something is related to.


So it is more correct to say John 1:1 and the word was God's... that is the word was from God.

And for Acts 5:3-4 lying to the Holy Spirit or even as Jesus said blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Luke 12:10 doesn't make the Holy Spirit God.

If open heart is what you define as like a woman with open legs, then no. What we need is a pure heart to see God, a renewed mind to understand His word and will.

Saying that, "the doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence." Is deceptive because there is only one way, Jesus Christ and Jesus never called nor revealed that the Holy Spirit is God. When Jesus listed the assignment of the Holy Spirit he did not list worship, to be worshipped, so neither in name nor in assignment did Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as God.

You call it an understanding but from where did this understanding come from. There's nothing true about that teaching, if it is deep it is hell deep.

When the three are mentioned they are NEVER mentioned as gods nor did any of the apostles teach anyone to accept or call them God.

Later in John 1:14, the Word becomes flesh, pointing to the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ.


What do you have to say about it?

gohf:
by who's standard?

You offered clarity by reversing priority, what and who should be your priority in making your explanation, your wisdom of God's?

It is cunny because your logic seems sound but your conclusion deviates from God's own word

My goal is to align with God's revelation in scripture, not impose human philosophy on it.



Please, instead of being emotional, dismissing it immediately, provide evidences against the argument.
I am willing to review ideas and consider them former if/when I see the truth.

gohf:
Jesus was never worshipped and is never worshipped as God, he is our Lord and husband crowned with eternal glory and majesty by God YHVh his and our Father.

I'd like to tackle this statement.

There are many passages in the New Testament that show Jesus being worshipped or being referred to as God. For example:

Matthew 14:33 – After Jesus calms the storm, the disciples worship Him: "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly, You are the Son of God.’"

John 20:28 – Thomas addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God!" after seeing His resurrection. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas, which implies acceptance of this worship.

Hebrews 1:6 – God commands that the angels worship Jesus: "Let all God’s angels worship Him." This is significant because only God is to be worshiped.

John 1:1 – "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 8:58 – Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am," which is a reference to God’s self-identification in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14), indicating His eternal existence and divinity.




Even in Genesis 1:1, we see the concept of the Trinity, the very first verse of the Bible


Please explain these without being sensual.

gohf:
Having the same nature or essence as you put it with his Father doesn't make him his father, it makes him the son of God and not God. Now when Jesus says he and his father are one, it means they are united

Yes, the same nature or essence means he is not the Father.

The same nature or essence means he is God, not the Father.


Please read your statement and see for yourself.

gohf:
God doesn't care about our nonsense concept that goes against his word. Or no He does care because He will judge such nonsense.


You outrightly reject God's word for the traditions of men

I understand that you may feel strongly about the doctrine of the Trinity, but I believe the doctrine is firmly rooted in scripture and is an attempt to describe God as He has revealed Himself. The Bible teaches that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and yet we see that Jesus is fully God (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit is fully God (Acts 5:3-4). The doctrine of the Trinity is not a human tradition, but rather a way to understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons while remaining one essence. It is for our own good that we approach these deep theological matters with an open heart, seeking to understand God’s word and how He has revealed Himself to us.

Nachmonides:
You’re right that things can be separate but still connected in certain ways. The Trinity is a good example of this idea: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (separate), but they are connected in essence (the same divine nature). However, this is different from saying that things are not separate in the first place. The connection doesn’t negate the separation of the persons in terms of their roles.


Let me further explain:

In the context of the Trinity:

1. Separate but Connected:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons—they have unique roles and identities.

For example, the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the Comforter. These roles are distinct, meaning they are separate in function and personhood.

However, they are connected in essence—all three share the same divine nature or essence. In other words, each of them is fully God, and they are not separate gods; they are united in their divinity.



2. Distinction vs. Separation:

Saying they are separate means that the persons are not the same person (e.g., the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit).

But saying they are connected means that while each person is distinct, they all share the same core essence of being God. They are not independent from one another in nature, even though they are distinct in personhood.

The distinction between them (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) does not mean they are independent or separate in nature. They remain one in essence, but three in persons.

The concept of Trinity teaches that there is separation (in terms of personhood) but no separation in essence (they are all fully and equally God).

gohf:
I didn't ask for a lecture in English, I do have a dictionary but it's funny to see how you cunningly added to your definition of separation- no intrinsic connection

It's pathetic that you do not understand that though we are in separate worlds we are still connected. Connection would not be needed if things were not separated.

It is because a thing is separate that it is distinct having it's own characteristics has you put it. Now because you things or being have or share the same nature it doesn't mean they are the same.

It's like one being myopic and see all Chinese people or blacks as the same in their eyes, even though each person is different only connected by race but God is not a race, if you say Spirit that may be manageable but God is just one person, one being YHVH. You can't make him two becomes you want to.


If there was another god besides God it means God lied and if God lied, then... do you now see the agenda of the devil to make you believe that there are three or more gods

You’re right that things can be separate but still connected in certain ways. The Trinity is a good example of this idea: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (separate), but they are connected in essence (the same divine nature). However, this is different from saying that things are not separate in the first place. The connection doesn’t negate the separation of the persons in terms of their roles.


Let me further explain:

In the context of the Trinity:

1. Separate but Connected:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons—they have unique roles and identities.

For example, the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the Comforter. These roles are distinct, meaning they are separate in function and personhood.

However, they are connected in essence—all three share the same divine nature or essence. In other words, each of them is fully God, and they are not separate gods; they are united in their divinity.



2. Distinction vs. Separation:

Saying they are separate means that the persons are not the same person (e.g., the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit).

But saying they are connected means that while each person is distinct, they all share the same core essence of being God. They are not independent from one another in nature, even though they are distinct in personhood.

The distinction between them (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) does not mean they are independent or separate in nature. They remain one in essence, but three in persons.

gohf:
I didn't ask for a lecture in English, I do have a dictionary but it's funny to see how you cunningly added to your definition of separation- no intrinsic connection

It's pathetic that you do not understand that though we are in separate worlds we are still connected. Connection would not be needed if things were not separated.

It is because a thing is separate that it is distinct having it's own characteristics has you put it. Now because you things or being have or share the same nature it doesn't mean they are the same.

It's like one being myopic and see all Chinese people or blacks as the same in their eyes, even though each person is different only connected by race but God is not a race, if you say Spirit that may be manageable but God is just one person, one being YHVH. You can't make him two becomes you want to.


If there was another god besides God it means God lied and if God lied, then... do you now see the agenda of the devil to make you believe that there are three or more gods

The phrase “no intrinsic connection” is a standard way of describing what it means for two things to be separate in a relational sense. It’s not a manipulation of the term but a precise way to explain that separate entities are distinct and do not share an inherent, essential bond. My explanation was valid, and there’s no "cunning" involved in offering clarity.

gohf:
why are you confusing yourself like this, which one is not separate but it is distinct.

Why are you being cunny?

Essence refers to the fundamental nature or substance of something—what it is at its core.

Separate means existing independently or apart from something else, with no intrinsic connection.

Distinct means being uniquely identifiable and having individual characteristics or roles while remaining connected.

Janosky:
John 10:30= John 17:21-22, Jesus, the disciples and God are One.

Jesus said so ,It is written there in your Bible.

The damage was done by men @ Nicene 381 AD..

Don't be unwise. Either your statements show deliberate dishonesty, or willful ignorance.

In John 10:30, the Lord Jesus was stating his oneness (essence) with the Father. "I and the father are one"


In John 17: 21 -22, the Lord Jesus was praying (not making a satisfied/fulfilled/definitive statement; rather he was desirous of them) to the Father that his disciples be one (united) just as he (Jesus) and the Father are one (in essence).

How?

In V.14, he tells us 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world just as I am not of the world.

14 - He has given them the Father's word


In V.15, he tells us 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you protect them from the evil one.


15 - The protection from the evil one is tied to the word he says he has given them as mentioned in V.14

In VV.16-19

16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth—your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 [/b]And for them I sanctify myself, so that they themselves also may be sanctified in the truth.

16 - How are they not of the world? Don't forget V.14

17 - To Sanctify means to make Holy; to separate, set apart. He asks the Father to Sanctify them in the truth and he says the Father's word (the one he says he gave them in V.14) is truth.

18 - He gives them his word and sends them to the word.

19 - He Sanctifies, or sets himself apart, separate, with the word of the Father, so his disciples may be Sanctified as well.


Then VV.20-22

[b]20 “And I do not ask on behalf of these only, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, in order that they may be one, just as we are one

20 - He doesn't pray (ask) for only the disciples but also for all those who will believe through their word (which is the Father's word he says he gave them in V.14 and the one he says is truth in V.17)

21 - With the previous texts in mind, how would they be one? - Obviously it will have to do with the word he has been talking about.

22 - This now hits the nail in the coffin, he switches from the Father's word to the Father's glory. He says he has given them the glory, is he talking of a different thing? — No, he had already said he gave them the Father's word in V.14.

So we see Word in V.14, Glory in V.22.
And he says, that's how they will be one.

What exactly did some men at Nicaea in 325, or 381 AD do?

SIRTee15:
First U know trinity isn't written in the bible. What we see in the scripture is the concept of trinity.

Now let me ask U a simple question

Is the word of God a separate existence from the Father?
Is the spirit of God a separate existence from the Father?

1, No, the Word of God (Jesus Christ, the Son) is not a separate existence from the Father, but a distinct person within the Godhead.

2, No, the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) is not a separate existence from the Father, but a distinct person within the Godhead.


They are of the same essence but distinct.

MrBroke:
You are right my bro

Bro, don't break the flow. Use the last word to form a sentence. Easy, right?

Nachmonides:
I was referring to the idea of the Trinity.

I have placed scriptural evidences all over this thread, Sir.

The idea of trinity if I could explain it simply, though not accurately, but for starters.

I would use the concept of water to explain the Trinity. Using the three states of water: solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas (steam).

"Think about water. It can be ice when it’s frozen, water when it’s liquid, and steam when it’s really hot. It looks different, but it’s all still water.

The Trinity is like that. God is one, but we can know Him in three ways:

The Father is like the source of everything, like the water.

The Son (Jesus) is God coming to us, like water we can drink or see.

The Holy Spirit is like steam, moving around us and helping us feel God’s love.


Even though they seem different, they are all the same God, just like ice, water, and steam are all still water."


Nota Bene:

While this analogy is helpful, it's not a perfect representation of the Trinity, as it could lean toward the theological error of modalism (the idea that God is one person showing up in three forms).

SIRTee15:
What is true? And what is the scriptural evidence for this your truth?
I don't want to assume anything.

I was referring to the idea of the Trinity.

I have placed scriptural evidences all over this thread, Sir.

Nachmonides:
If one does a honest study on the scriptures, one would see that it is true, then the question of whether to believe it or not is left to the person. Are there evidences in the written word?—Yes, of course!

Argument about the trinity is not even something we see as an issue found in scriptures (both old testament and new testament). It's as though, the participants all knew and understood this truth.

There is no recorded controversy or confusion among biblical figures about the nature of God’s unity and plurality. For example, Jesus refers to the Father and the Spirit without needing to justify their oneness (e.g., John 10:30, John 14:16-17).

SIRTee15:
The bone of contention here is whether the son is another existence from the Father.
Christians don't believe the son is another existence/being from the Father because that would mean there are two Gods.
We believe in one God, not 2 or 3.

So the issue of father sacrificing his son does not arise at all. It's a meaningless argument not backed by any Christian theology.

If one does a honest study on the scriptures, one would see that it is true, then the question of whether to believe it or not is left to the person. Are there evidences in the written word?—Yes, of course!

sonmvayina:
Ok..we both agree on something.

God is consciousness.... different cultures have different names for it/him/her

What's your basis, foundation for the statement: "God is consciousness"

Careente7:
Happiness ain’t cheap

Cheap is expensive.

Yujiz:
Charge your batteries cos this year is going to be interesting

"Interesting", said Yujiz,, "Charge your batteries cos this year is going to be interesting", said Yujiz.

Mandela27:
Beautiful as life is, some days it will look as if you wronged God,some days it will be sweet as if u bribed God

God is in charge.

sonmvayina:
Believe whatever you want...

Mine is to drop knowledge, not beliefs..

To just drop knowledge?

The end point of knowledge is actions, and actions come from a belief in that knowledge.

By the way, I am not dropping beliefs, I am sharing knowledge, and hopefully, I think, am having a conversation.

sonmvayina:
God is the universal divine consciousness...

Not a jewish man up in the sky.

There's no one in the sky.