The Son Is Gods Self 1 Hr. Video

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

There is only 1 person - Jesus Christ - God manifest in the flesh. When you have seen me, you have seen the father.

He is our all in all - Isaiah 9:6. The Apostles understood this and didn’t parse words with “persons” or “modes”. The “we” and “our” simply shows that they are one and the same. “I come in my father’s name”, “the Father is in me and I in Him.”

I don’t know how more One He could become - body and spirit.

So "we" and "our" really means "me" and "myself" per the verse? Why wouldn't Jesus say that in the first place?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by 1 God

So "we" and "our" really means "me" and "myself" per the verse? Why wouldn't Jesus say that in the first place?

He is acknowledging both body and Spirit. Flesh speaking, the Spirit doing the work. You see how I am forced to say “the” Spirit, when I know they are one and the same? Linguistics in play.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by 1 God

So "we" and "our" really means "me" and "myself" per the verse? Why wouldn't Jesus say that in the first place?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He is acknowledging both body and Spirit. Flesh speaking, the Spirit doing the work. You see how I am forced to say “the” Spirit, when I know they are one and the same? Linguistics in play.

Just an after thought. I wanted to come back and add that the “we” and “our” is the same, IMO, and because we already know who He is, as thinking and/or saying - when you have seen Me, you have seen the Father. How else would the Apostles view that, having no problem accepting Jesus as God manifest in the flesh. It isn’t as much the wording, but what they knew and how they accepted the wording.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If Jesus is trying to explain how He would indwell us and the mode in which he would accomplish that(by the Spirit/Father), how would Jesus have explained that He would personally indwell us if He didn’t use plural language?

Just as I said above, from the quotes from the Gospel of John. There Jesus used self-referential, or first person singular, pronouns when speaking of the idea that He would later on indwell His disciples.

If the Father and Son are meant to imply two persons, why are singular verbs used in I Thessalonians 3:11 - “direct” and II Thessalonians 2:16-17 - “”loved”, “gave”, “encourage”, and “strengthen”?

Because in each instance, there is only only acting agent.

In 1 Thessalonians 3:11, Paul is writing a prayer that he and his team would be allowed to come and visit the Thessalonians (contrast to 1 Thessalonians 2:18 where Paul writes that their earlier attempts at visiting them were thwarted by Satan).

Read it closely, translated literally:

Now may God Himself, even our Father, and also our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you.

If you notice, "and also the Lord Jesus" is situated as a parenthetical, even without the parentheses. We know this, because if you drop the phrase from the text, you still have a complete and independent sentence. Paul is including the Lord Jesus in His prayer to the Father, because He knows the Lord Jesus is one with the Father, at the Father's right hand. So, he isn't identifying the Lord Jesus with God the Father, by using a singular verb form.

How do we know? Because if he had wanted to do, he could have and likely would have written, "Now may God Himself, even our Father, the Lord Jesus, direct our way to you".

The fact that in Greek, there is a second use of kai (rendered as "and also") and a second use of hēmōn (rendered as "our"; more literally translated: of us) shows that Paul did not intend for his audience to think God the Father and the Lord Jesus were the same being.

The singular verb form is then an indication of Paul's understanding of the Father and the Son operating in unity.

It is the same situation in 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17 (also a prayer of petition) even in grammatical construction, just reversed. There, the singular agent, instead of being God the Father, as in 1 Thessalonians 3:11 is the Lord Jesus, and the addition of God the Father is the parenthetical.

There are too many instances in Paul's other writings that indicate He thought of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in complementary, but still nonetheless, different categories in terms of their respective identities.

A small samplying:

Romans 15:6,

That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:6,

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2 Corinthians 1:3,

Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

2 Corinthians 11:31,

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Ephesians 1:3 and 1:17,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Colossians 1:3,

We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

Simplicity can’t be covered up or hidden behind wordy and lengthy hermeneutics. That is why I don’t respond to some of your posts. It isn’t necessary.

Doubling down on your cop out?

No one is hiding anything. In John 17:5, Jesus said the Father had a different "self" than He, Jesus, had. It's clear enough in the English, but absolutely crystal clear in the Greek. Forget whatever I wrote, ignore it even. Doesn't matter.

Both the Greek and English of the text is still there, waiting to be addressed.

So, if you or anyone else (second invitation here) is willing to tackle John 17:5 and show how Jesus referring to the Father's "own self" does not mean Jesus and the Father are two different selves, meaning therefore, two different persons, be my guest. You don't have to respond to me at all.

Just post the info and I will read it. I am not unreasonable. You might even convert me.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I was just wondering if anyone watched the video to know the context of the Son being Gods self?

Do you address John 17:5 in the video?

If so, do you have a time stamp or minute mark for it?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

How did God answer Christ's prayer? Especially in light of the following:

Isaiah 48:11-13 KJV
For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it : for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. [12] Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. [13] Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

Isaiah 48:11 is written as Hebraic poetry, as much OT prophecy often is, specifically as a parallelism.

The prevailing theme of Isaiah 48 is the contrast between the works and promises of YHVH and the carved images of Israel's idols and their misguided reliance upon them (see Isaiah 48:5).

So, in verse 9, God promises to defer and restrain His anger, not because Israel has repented of their idolatry, but for the sake of YHVH's own name and the praise He is due.

In verse 10, there is a wonderful and powerful image of Israel being refined by God in a smelter, comparable to how molten metal is refined by smelting. Israel had made the the idols YHVH addresses in the chapter using the same fabricating practices, that is, crafting them from molten metals refined in a smelter. So, God was going to throw them in a fire and smelt them the same way they had smelted their metals in order to make their idols.

When ore is smelted, and is thus refined, the impurities in the ore are separated from the metal. The impurities, prior to the refining, were considered pollutants in the ore.

Then, when we get to verse 11, we have a second affirmation that God is going to defer and restrain His anger toward Israel for His own sake.

He then asks rhetorically:

How shall my name be polluted?

That is, how shall the name of YHVH be associated with the impurities of the ore used in the process of making idols?

God then states He will not give His glory to another.

Another what?

Remember the theme is the contrast between the works and promises of YHVH with the carved images of Israel's idols and their misguided reliance upon them.

So, the glory God says He will not give is to the idols Israel had made and were relying upon.

It has nothing to do with whether or not God will or won't share His glory with others in terms of people.

For example, in 1 Peter 4:14, the spirit of glory, and of God rests upon the believer.

It is by this spirit that the Christian believer is to eventually be glorified (Romans 8:17 and 30).

If God doesn't share or give His glory to others, then how come He gives and shares with us the spirit of His glory?

Clearly He does give and share His glory with us as Spirit-filled believers. He also shares His glory with His Son.

In John 17:5, the glory Jesus spoke of, as having with the Father since the foundation of the world, is the glory the Logos had and shared with God since the transcendent eternal past of John 1:1.

That glory is the sharing of God's divine nature or hypostasis, per Hebrews 1:3. The Logos that became flesh (John 1:14) shared in God's divine nature since before the world began/was. But that glory was divested at the Incarnation and Conception. The Logos became fully human with only one nature or hypostasis: human.

After Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, Jesus as Logos, would re-take His place at God's right hand and be re-invested with the glory of the divine nature that He had had with the Father in the transcendent eternal past, that is, before the world began/was.

That's how the Father answered Christ's prayer.

Remember what Jesus said earlier in John. He said He came forth from God the Father, and that likewise, He would return thither, to God the Father (John 16:28).

This is from the same monologue as His prayer in John 17. Jesus said He came from God the Father. The author of John indicated clearly that the Logos had been with the Father, but came to the world in the Incarnation, and dwelt among us. Then, at the end of Christ's life, Jesus indicated He would be returning from whence He came. That is, back to the Father. Jesus, as Logos, would return to heaven (See John 6:38 and 51 with John 20:17).

And He did just that.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

I thought so!

Too bad for you, because I am not a Trinitarian.

Pressing-On, I hope you are noticing how your continued mischaracterization of my beliefs and of me as a believer in Christ Jesus, coupled with your refusal to disavow them, is now negatively affecting another member of this forum's perception of me, causing him to make false assumptions.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Lol!

Yet, we (trinitarians and oneness) all believe in the same God.

Oneness believers believe that there is only one God whose name is Jesus.

Trinitarians believe they’re three distinct, divine (god like) persons that make up the god head. Be sure not to rock the boat and say thee separate gods, you must say three separate persons.



Let me know how that works for you.

Hey, man. If you want to continue to display your ignorance and show you aren't interested in the slightest in learning anything, you go right on ahead.

Just remember what pride goes before. And don't say I didn't warn you.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Do you address John 17:5 in the video?

If so, do you have a time stamp or minute mark for it?

So you dont even know what the video is about. But I know what Jesus meant in John 17. The glory Jesus had with the Father was as the Fathers glory. As the Fathers image. As the Fathers person. As the Fathers "self".

Now go watch the video.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Isaiah 48:11 is written as Hebraic poetry, as much OT prophecy often is, specifically as a parallelism.

The prevailing theme of Isaiah 48 is the contrast between the works and promises of YHVH and the carved images of Israel's idols and their misguided reliance upon them (see Isaiah 48:5).

So, in verse 9, God promises to defer and restrain His anger, not because Israel has repented of their idolatry, but for the sake of YHVH's own name and the praise He is due.

In verse 10, there is a wonderful and powerful image of Israel being refined by God in a smelter, comparable to how molten metal is refined by smelting. Israel had made the the idols YHVH addresses in the chapter using the same fabricating practices, that is, crafting them from molten metals refined in a smelter. So, God was going to throw them in a fire and smelt them the same way they had smelted their metals in order to make their idols.

When ore is smelted, and is thus refined, the impurities in the ore are separated from the metal. The impurities, prior to the refining, were considered pollutants in the ore.

Then, when we get to verse 11, we have a second affirmation that God is going to defer and restrain His anger toward Israel for His own sake.

He then asks rhetorically:

How shall my name be polluted?

That is, how shall the name of YHVH be associated with the impurities of the ore used in the process of making idols?

God then states He will not give His glory to another.

Another what?

Remember the theme is the contrast between the works and promises of YHVH with the carved images of Israel's idols and their misguided reliance upon them.

So, the glory God says He will not give is to the idols Israel had made and were relying upon.

It has nothing to do with whether or not God will or won't share His glory with others in terms of people.

For example, in 1 Peter 4:14, the spirit of glory, and of God rests upon the believer.

It is by this spirit that the Christian believer is to eventually be glorified (Romans 8:17 and 30).

If God doesn't share or give His glory to others, then how come He gives and shares with us the spirit of His glory?

Clearly He does give and share His glory with us as Spirit-filled believers. He also shares His glory with His Son.

In John 17:5, the glory Jesus spoke of, as having with the Father since the foundation of the world, is the glory the Logos had and shared with God since the transcendent eternal past of John 1:1.

That glory is the sharing of God's divine nature or hypostasis, per Hebrews 1:3. The Logos that became flesh (John 1:14) shared in God's divine nature since before the world began/was. But that glory was divested at the Incarnation and Conception. The Logos became fully human with only one nature or hypostasis: human.

After Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, Jesus as Logos, would re-take His place at God's right hand and be re-invested with the glory of the divine nature that He had had with the Father in the transcendent eternal past, that is, before the world began/was.

That's how the Father answered Christ's prayer.

Remember what Jesus said earlier in John. He said He came forth from God the Father, and that likewise, He would return thither, to God the Father (John 16:28).

This is from the same monologue as His prayer in John 17. Jesus said He came from God the Father. The author of John indicated clearly that the Logos had been with the Father, but came to the world in the Incarnation, and dwelt among us. Then, at the end of Christ's life, Jesus indicated He would be returning from whence He came. That is, back to the Father. Jesus, as Logos, would return to heaven (See John 6:38 and 51 with John 20:17).

And He did just that.

Can you demonstrate that when God said He would not give His glory to another, that He excepted giving His glory to Messiah or His people?

Also, who actually laid the foundations of the earth and stretched out the heavens? Was it God? Or the Logos? When He says "my hand has" done these things, what is He saying?