I’m not sola scriptura but I don’t think this is a fair statement. Before (depending on which church father you’re talking about) sola scriptura was a thing…. There was many heresies as you already stated this isn’t new…. Opposition to the church will and has always been discussed.
@@DaScripturePlug.Albert Yes, that is true. There were people spreading doctrines against the deposit of faith. But they don't just argue 'what the scripture says'. They also look at the sacred tradition. However, what is most important is that the Church ultimately decides. So, the reason this is still being discussed is because of this idea that "You don't need the Church. All you need is the Bible." One guy picks up the Bible, reads it cover-to-cover, and now thinks he completely understands the Christian faith. Another guy does the same thing, except his understanding differs from the first guy. In practice, sola scriptura leads to solo scriptura.
Well the good thing is we can respectfully agree to disagree. I see where you’re coming from and I thank you for sharing. God bless you brother! May I ask if you’re Catholic or Orthodox? I myself am prortholic 🤣🤣🤣 leaning more toward protodoxy
To Dizzy and Co.: Why are you going against YOUR OWN Greek manuscripts which says THEOS was the LOGOS??? ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS TOWARD THE GOD AND GOD WAS THE WORD
The problem you have there is your ordering from a point of pre-existence not self-existence. Cocky Trinitarian tries to get smart but only proves by his statement Jesus had a point of beginning! Albert: And yes He became the spirit of life through the resurrection as from His death and resurrection we have eternal life not that that’s when He was formed lol. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Me: 1 Corinthians 15:45: "Just as it is written: the first man Adam became a living soul, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." Jesus BECAME a life-giving spirit, meaning there was a point in time where Jesus was not a life-giving spirit. More importantly, this points to the fact that Jesus has a point of beginning, unlike God the Father, who again is self-existent. God the Father was not granted life by anyone or anything and has always been a life-giving spirit. God the Father is self-existent. That is why He has life in Himself. Jesus, on the other hand, is non-self-existent and was granted life by the Father. This is why God the Father is unbegotten, and God the Son is begotten. John 5:26: "For just as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has given to the Son to have life in Himself." In John 5:26, the Greek word ἔδωκεν simply means "he/she/it gave" in a straightforward sense, implying an action of providing or offering something. ζωῐν refers to "life," meaning the state or essence of being alive. John 6:57: "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me." John 6:57 tells us by what means Jesus became a life-giving spirit. It was God the Father who passed life onto Jesus so that Jesus could be the mediator of God the Father's everlasting life, by which He can provide salvation. Checklist: 1. Christ is not self-existent because He has a point of beginning (1 Corinthians 15:45). 2. Christ is given His divinity by God the Father (John 5:26 and John 6:57). 3. We know God the Father and Jesus cannot be part of a Trinity because they do not have the same essence, as shown in points 1 and 2 above. There is no Trinity
@@dazzadizzy5308 Where is the "A" in your demonic manuscript dear little child??? The points don't matter...little Modalist Bendover won't help you, he is more useless than you...where is the "A" child???
@@dazzadizzy5308 Look what your m0r0nic Modalist friend says: @dougbendo8817 13 minutes ago @solascriptura1536 You're asking me to name the theophany that conversed with Abraham, implying that my inability to do so invalidates my argument. However, this demand for a specific name misses the point entirely and reveals a flawed understanding of both theophanies and the biblical narrative. Firstly, the Bible doesn't always provide names for theophanies. These appearances are often described as "the Angel of the Lord," "a man," or simply "God," without a specific name being given. The focus is on the encounter with the divine, not on the precise identity of the manifestation. Secondly, demanding a name for the theophany distracts from the core issue I've raised: the inherent contradictions within the Trinity doctrine. My argument consistently points to the Father as the ultimate source of life and authority, while Jesus, as the Son, is eternally begotten but distinct from and submitted to the Father. Thirdly, the very fact that you're fixated on a single theophany suggests you're overlooking the broader pattern of God's self-revelation throughout Scripture. God manifests Himself in various ways, including through dreams, visions, prophets, and ultimately, through Jesus Christ. Focusing on one specific theophany to "prove" the Trinity is a narrow and misleading approach. Now, let's address the point you're trying to avoid: Jesus, in his human form, worked off of faith, a quality that contradicts the Trinity's claim of his co-equality with the Father. Hebrews 5:7-9: This passage describes Jesus praying to the Father for deliverance, learning obedience through suffering, and being made perfect. This process of learning and becoming, rooted in faith, directly challenges the idea that Jesus was eternally perfect and complete, as the Trinity claims. Faith, by definition, implies a reliance on something outside of oneself, a trust in something unseen or not fully understood. The Father, being pure spirit and eternally existent, wouldn't have the same need for faith as Jesus did in his human experience. His reliance on faith demonstrates his dependence on the Father. Instead of getting bogged down in demands for specific names, I challenge you to: Explain how the Father can be the sole source of life, as Scripture consistently affirms, while Jesus also possesses inherent, uncreated life, as the Trinity claims. Show me where the Bible explicitly defines the Trinity as three co-equal, co-eternal persons in one God. Your attempts to "bust" me with questions about theophanies ultimately backfire. They reveal a lack of understanding of the nature of God's self-revelation and the logical inconsistencies within the Trinity doctrine itself. YOU pagans are something else...
Heretics will flat out be denying this. even if it appears in their false translations. They keep saying Jesus is A god, a divine being, whereas YHWH said he is the only one divine God. “You are my witnesses,”+ declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,+ So that you may know and have faith in me* And understand that I am the same One.+ Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none, How on earth do you keep saying Jesus is a god whereas YHWH says he is the only one??? In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.* Why are heretics such liars????
THEOS :GOD , a god Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges. Angels were called gods Psalm 8:5 , and are divine messengers of God Men were called gods as judges Exodus 7:1 , John 10:34 Jesus is like His Father and divine and represents God his Father. Just absorb the knowledge , learn the lessons I give you and dont say stupid things . Thats you sorted.
But wasn't this you who I cooked 🤪 extra crispy! Me: God the Father was not granted life by anyone or anything. God the Father is self-existent. That is why He has life in Himself. Jesus, on the other hand, is non-self-existent and was granted life by the Father. This is why God the Father is unbegotten, and God the Son is begotten. John 5:26: "For just as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has given to the Son to have life in Himself." In John 5:26: ἔδωκεν simply means "he/she/it gave" in a straightforward sense, implying an action of providing or offering something. ζωὴν refers to "life," meaning the state or essence of being alive. @solascriptura1536: I conceded nothing because nowhere in that verse does it speak of the Son being dead or inanimate before receiving life. He GRANTED the Son to have life in himself, meaning the Son was already in existence before receiving that life. You clearly can't think beyond your script. Me: You're asserting that John 5:26, "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself," means that the Son existed before receiving life from the Father. You're focusing on the phrase "life in himself" to imply that the Son possessed some kind of inherent existence prior to this "granting" of life. However, this interpretation is based on a theological presumption, not on what the verse actually says. It also creates logical contradictions. Here's why your logic is flawed: Misinterpreting "Granted": The key word in John 5:26 is "granted." This word implies a bestowal or giving of something that the recipient didn't already possess in the same manner. If the Son already had life "in himself," then the Father wouldn't need to grant it to Him. The very act of granting implies a change-a receiving of something new. Ignoring the Parallel Structure: The verse uses a parallel structure: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." This parallelism emphasizes the distinction between the Father and Son. The Father has life inherently; the Son is granted life by the Father. Creating a Contradiction: If the Son already existed before being granted life, then what kind of existence did He have? Was it a lifeless existence? This doesn't make logical sense. The verse clearly states that the Father granted the Son to have life, implying that this life was something the Son received from the Father. Imposing a Preconceived Notion: You seem to be imposing the idea of the Son's eternal, pre-existent nature onto this verse, trying to make it fit within a Trinitarian framework. However, a straightforward reading of the text, without any theological assumptions, clearly indicates the Father as the source of the Son's life. Your interpretation of John 5:26 is an attempt to sidestep the clear meaning of the verse to support a pre-conceived theological position. Instead of letting Scripture speak for itself, you're trying to force it into a box that it doesn't fit.
@@solascriptura1536 THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”-The Holy Bible-New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible. Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting. The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.” The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.
Its crazy how so many have eyes to see and do not see saying "I don't see" But even earlier in Mark "The beginning of the GOOD NEWS about Jesus When you look up the Hebrew Context regarding Prophecy with the Term "GOOD NEWS" in the TaNaKh it says two powerful scriptures. One Says "HERE IS YOUR GOD" The Second says "Your God Reigns" Mark 1:1 says the "Good News" is about Jesus. In the Old Testament again the Good News is about YHWH.
Funny , I dont see Jesus being called God in Mark , I see him being called God's son , His chosen one. Mark 1:1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God
He is called the Son of Man, this is a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel is given the vision of one like the Son of Man that descends from the clouds, eliminates evil and all nations bow to him. He is given reign of the world everlasting. Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man is him claiming to be whom the father gives everlasting dominion and reign too.
@@TheOdoyle72 The Son of Man is distinguished from God though, he isn't the same as the father. That was also the understanding in Enochic literature as well AFAIK
@Darksouls184 awe you missed the part of Jesus being both Son of Man & Son of God , as is His both nature's. We also know that God is out of time & space thus can see past present & future simultaneously, then we go back to Jesus who sees & does all that the Father sees & does , we can also see in scripture that even the Son of Man doesn't know the hour , Yet He never said the Son of God doesn't know the hour His devine nature .
MALACHI 3:1 “I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty. 3 parties involved , 1: GOD who is saying this and sends the first messenger. 2 :John as that first messenger 3: the Lord who is Jesus as the messenger of the covenant . Both John and Jesus are ahead of YHWH working toward His cause . Easy !!
go ahead and read Malachi 2:17 right before 3:1, since it sets up the context: Mal 2:17 - 3:1 "You have wearied the LORD with your words. But you say, “How have we wearied him?” By saying, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them.” Or by asking, “Where is the God of justice?” “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts." its clear that the "Lord you are seeking" is in relation to the question "Where is the God of justice?", and applies "God of justice" to the Lord Jesus. To further demonstrate that the "God of justice" is YHWH, Isaiah 30:18 reads as follows: " Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him" thanks for bringing up a verse that completely goes against what you're trying to say!
@@LeifOfaVineEternal You've just wrote it yourself "he is coming" as spoken by YHWH , shouldnt that read "I am coming" , Who sent Jesus ?, who's will did Jesus do? No nothing goes against what I say !
@@LeifOfaVineEternal The one who sent Jesus is the God of Justice , and Jesus was God's representative who carried His words. John 12:49 For I did not speak from Myself, but the Father Himself, having sent Me, gave Me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak.
@@dazzadizzy5308 you clearly didn't read what I wrote, if you came to that conclusion. let me put it like this: 1) "the Lord whom you seek" is the same one who will come to his temple. That's referring to Jesus, you and I agree to that at least 2) Malachi 2:17 says that the "God of justice" is the one who is being sought 3) Isaiah 30:18 says that YHWH is the "God of justice" "the Lord whom you seek" (Jesus) is the "God of justice", who is YHWH don't get dizzy reading that, it's pretty simple. May the Lord Jesus open your eyes
Let me make this simple for yall and huff . No one who walked with jesus thought or even considered jesus god. Here we go . these writers who did not walk with jesus and whom we don 't know who wrote these gospels they are attributed to these people. Now at the concel of necia dont have time to correct the spellin g. 325ce they after jesus was dead for 325 years was just trying to debate the divinity of jesus. 325 years after his death he is not god yet.
so when the gospel of john, matthew, mark luke, pauls writings, majority of church fathers as athanisius, polycarp, say jesus is God you forgot to mention that or are you iliterate like muhammed?
@@MelburnGov MATTHEW 14:33 -Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” MARK 1:1 -The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God LUKE 1:32 - He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. JOHN - 1:34 -And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God The Father is the ALMIGHTY GOD .
@@dazzadizzy5308 Im not sure about the verses you quoted, those who were in the boat "worshipped him". Also can you read revelations 1:7-8 where jesus says he is the almighty? Or is revelations not a part of the bible?
@@MelburnGov Rev 1:8 is the Father "he who is who was and who is to come " is the Father , as said in verse 4 identifying Him as the one upon the throne , verse 5 then speaks of Jesus . Also Rev 4:8 is the same confirmation of the Father as "he who is who was and who is to come ".
i was ordained as a minister 30 years ago still spend 5-8 hours a day studying spiritual data.
Amen !
Literal chills when Wes mentioned the collapse of time during the transfiguration. I’d never heard it described that way before. Amazing!
✝️🙌🏽
gARBAGE
This issue was settled by the Church centuries ago. The reason why this is still being discussed is Sola Scriptura.
I’m not sola scriptura but I don’t think this is a fair statement. Before (depending on which church father you’re talking about) sola scriptura was a thing…. There was many heresies as you already stated this isn’t new…. Opposition to the church will and has always been discussed.
@@DaScripturePlug.Albert Yes, that is true. There were people spreading doctrines against the deposit of faith. But they don't just argue 'what the scripture says'. They also look at the sacred tradition. However, what is most important is that the Church ultimately decides.
So, the reason this is still being discussed is because of this idea that "You don't need the Church. All you need is the Bible." One guy picks up the Bible, reads it cover-to-cover, and now thinks he completely understands the Christian faith. Another guy does the same thing, except his understanding differs from the first guy.
In practice, sola scriptura leads to solo scriptura.
Well the good thing is we can respectfully agree to disagree. I see where you’re coming from and I thank you for sharing. God bless you brother! May I ask if you’re Catholic or Orthodox? I myself am prortholic 🤣🤣🤣 leaning more toward protodoxy
To Dizzy and Co.: Why are you going against YOUR OWN Greek manuscripts which says THEOS was the LOGOS???
᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS TOWARD THE GOD AND GOD WAS THE WORD
The problem you have there is your ordering from a point of pre-existence not self-existence.
Cocky Trinitarian tries to get smart but only proves by his statement Jesus had a point of beginning!
Albert:
And yes He became the spirit of life through the resurrection as from His death and resurrection we have eternal life not that that’s when He was formed lol. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Me:
1 Corinthians 15:45: "Just as it is written: the first man Adam became a living soul, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
Jesus BECAME a life-giving spirit, meaning there was a point in time where Jesus was not a life-giving spirit. More importantly, this points to the fact that Jesus has a point of beginning, unlike God the Father, who again is self-existent.
God the Father was not granted life by anyone or anything and has always been a life-giving spirit. God the Father is self-existent. That is why He has life in Himself. Jesus, on the other hand, is non-self-existent and was granted life by the Father. This is why God the Father is unbegotten, and God the Son is begotten.
John 5:26: "For just as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has given to the Son to have life in Himself."
In John 5:26, the Greek word ἔδωκεν simply means "he/she/it gave" in a straightforward sense, implying an action of providing or offering something. ζωῐν refers to "life," meaning the state or essence of being alive.
John 6:57: "As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me."
John 6:57 tells us by what means Jesus became a life-giving spirit. It was God the Father who passed life onto Jesus so that Jesus could be the mediator of God the Father's everlasting life, by which He can provide salvation.
Checklist:
1. Christ is not self-existent because He has a point of beginning (1 Corinthians 15:45).
2. Christ is given His divinity by God the Father (John 5:26 and John 6:57).
3. We know God the Father and Jesus cannot be part of a Trinity because they do not have the same essence, as shown in points 1 and 2 above.
There is no Trinity
@@dougbendo8817 Why is there no "A" in your demonic Greek manuscript dear m0r0n???
@@dougbendo8817 Good points there Doug 👍 , too good for these pigs though ,they prefer swill and to wallow in sh*t LOL
@@dazzadizzy5308 Where is the "A" in your demonic manuscript dear little child??? The points don't matter...little Modalist Bendover won't help you, he is more useless than you...where is the "A" child???
@@dazzadizzy5308 Look what your m0r0nic Modalist friend says:
@dougbendo8817
13 minutes ago
@solascriptura1536 You're asking me to name the theophany that conversed with Abraham, implying that my inability to do so invalidates my argument. However, this demand for a specific name misses the point entirely and reveals a flawed understanding of both theophanies and the biblical narrative.
Firstly, the Bible doesn't always provide names for theophanies. These appearances are often described as "the Angel of the Lord," "a man," or simply "God," without a specific name being given. The focus is on the encounter with the divine, not on the precise identity of the manifestation.
Secondly, demanding a name for the theophany distracts from the core issue I've raised: the inherent contradictions within the Trinity doctrine. My argument consistently points to the Father as the ultimate source of life and authority, while Jesus, as the Son, is eternally begotten but distinct from and submitted to the Father.
Thirdly, the very fact that you're fixated on a single theophany suggests you're overlooking the broader pattern of God's self-revelation throughout Scripture. God manifests Himself in various ways, including through dreams, visions, prophets, and ultimately, through Jesus Christ. Focusing on one specific theophany to "prove" the Trinity is a narrow and misleading approach.
Now, let's address the point you're trying to avoid:
Jesus, in his human form, worked off of faith, a quality that contradicts the Trinity's claim of his co-equality with the Father.
Hebrews 5:7-9: This passage describes Jesus praying to the Father for deliverance, learning obedience through suffering, and being made perfect. This process of learning and becoming, rooted in faith, directly challenges the idea that Jesus was eternally perfect and complete, as the Trinity claims.
Faith, by definition, implies a reliance on something outside of oneself, a trust in something unseen or not fully understood. The Father, being pure spirit and eternally existent, wouldn't have the same need for faith as Jesus did in his human experience. His reliance on faith demonstrates his dependence on the Father.
Instead of getting bogged down in demands for specific names, I challenge you to:
Explain how the Father can be the sole source of life, as Scripture consistently affirms, while Jesus also possesses inherent, uncreated life, as the Trinity claims.
Show me where the Bible explicitly defines the Trinity as three co-equal, co-eternal persons in one God.
Your attempts to "bust" me with questions about theophanies ultimately backfire. They reveal a lack of understanding of the nature of God's self-revelation and the logical inconsistencies within the Trinity doctrine itself.
YOU pagans are something else...
Let's go! Your boy loves a good Albert reaction!
God bless you and thank you. May he preserve your path to spread the good word
Thank you. God bless you! Appreciate your message
Forgot to like, let me get my chips really quick😂 🙏
Heretics will flat out be denying this. even if it appears in their false translations. They keep saying Jesus is A god, a divine being, whereas YHWH said he is the only one divine God.
“You are my witnesses,”+ declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen,+ So that you may know and have faith in me* And understand that I am the same One.+ Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none,
How on earth do you keep saying Jesus is a god whereas YHWH says he is the only one???
In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.*
Why are heretics such liars????
THEOS :GOD , a god
Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.
Angels were called gods Psalm 8:5 , and are divine messengers of God
Men were called gods as judges Exodus 7:1 , John 10:34
Jesus is like His Father and divine and represents God his Father.
Just absorb the knowledge , learn the lessons I give you and dont say stupid things . Thats you sorted.
@@dazzadizzy5308 Child...where is "A" in your pathetic Greek manuscript? Show it to me...John 1:1...
But wasn't this you who I cooked 🤪 extra crispy!
Me:
God the Father was not granted life by anyone or anything. God the Father is self-existent. That is why He has life in Himself. Jesus, on the other hand, is non-self-existent and was granted life by the Father. This is why God the Father is unbegotten, and God the Son is begotten.
John 5:26:
"For just as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has given to the Son to have life in Himself."
In John 5:26:
ἔδωκεν simply means "he/she/it gave" in a straightforward sense, implying an action of providing or offering something.
ζωὴν refers to "life," meaning the state or essence of being alive.
@solascriptura1536:
I conceded nothing because nowhere in that verse does it speak of the Son being dead or inanimate before receiving life. He GRANTED the Son to have life in himself, meaning the Son was already in existence before receiving that life. You clearly can't think beyond your script.
Me:
You're asserting that John 5:26, "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself," means that the Son existed before receiving life from the Father.
You're focusing on the phrase "life in himself" to imply that the Son possessed some kind of inherent existence prior to this "granting" of life. However, this interpretation is based on a theological presumption, not on what the verse actually says. It also creates logical contradictions. Here's why your logic is flawed:
Misinterpreting "Granted":
The key word in John 5:26 is "granted." This word implies a bestowal or giving of something that the recipient didn't already possess in the same manner. If the Son already had life "in himself," then the Father wouldn't need to grant it to Him. The very act of granting implies a change-a receiving of something new.
Ignoring the Parallel Structure:
The verse uses a parallel structure: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." This parallelism emphasizes the distinction between the Father and Son. The Father has life inherently; the Son is granted life by the Father.
Creating a Contradiction:
If the Son already existed before being granted life, then what kind of existence did He have? Was it a lifeless existence? This doesn't make logical sense. The verse clearly states that the Father granted the Son to have life, implying that this life was something the Son received from the Father.
Imposing a Preconceived Notion:
You seem to be imposing the idea of the Son's eternal, pre-existent nature onto this verse, trying to make it fit within a Trinitarian framework. However, a straightforward reading of the text, without any theological assumptions, clearly indicates the Father as the source of the Son's life.
Your interpretation of John 5:26 is an attempt to sidestep the clear meaning of the verse to support a pre-conceived theological position. Instead of letting Scripture speak for itself, you're trying to force it into a box that it doesn't fit.
@@dazzadizzy5308 You pagans have to lie to purport your demonic doctrine.
@@solascriptura1536 THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”-The Holy Bible-New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.
Its crazy how so many have eyes to see and do not see saying "I don't see"
But even earlier in Mark
"The beginning of the GOOD NEWS about Jesus
When you look up the Hebrew Context regarding Prophecy with the Term "GOOD NEWS" in the TaNaKh it says two powerful scriptures.
One Says "HERE IS YOUR GOD"
The Second says "Your God Reigns"
Mark 1:1 says the "Good News" is about Jesus.
In the Old Testament again the Good News is about YHWH.
Amen brother! Always look forward to what Gods given you to share. God bless you
Yeshua akbar
Christ is King 👑 ✝️🙌🏽
Funny , I dont see Jesus being called God in Mark , I see him being called God's son , His chosen one.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God
He is called the Son of Man, this is a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel is given the vision of one like the Son of Man that descends from the clouds, eliminates evil and all nations bow to him. He is given reign of the world everlasting. Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man is him claiming to be whom the father gives everlasting dominion and reign too.
@@TheOdoyle72 The Son of Man is distinguished from God though, he isn't the same as the father. That was also the understanding in Enochic literature as well AFAIK
@Darksouls184 awe you missed the part of Jesus being both Son of Man & Son of God , as is His both nature's. We also know that God is out of time & space thus can see past present & future simultaneously, then we go back to Jesus who sees & does all that the Father sees & does , we can also see in scripture that even the Son of Man doesn't know the hour , Yet He never said the Son of God doesn't know the hour His devine nature .
Okay just learnt 4:34 is Quran, and it’s weird, but though, it’s just permissible for the like button 😂
🤣
🎄👍🎄👍
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
✝️🙌🏽
Jusus is not god .... period
So can you refute what was said?
Yet another clown who's never read the Bible but lectures Christians about a book he's never read.
Guys, we are in the presence of pure genius.
@@DaScripturePlug.Albert see my comm above
This is such a dumb argument.
MALACHI 3:1
“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty.
3 parties involved ,
1: GOD who is saying this and sends the first messenger.
2 :John as that first messenger
3: the Lord who is Jesus as the messenger of the covenant .
Both John and Jesus are ahead of YHWH working toward His cause . Easy !!
Where in the Old Testament does it say the temple belongs to Jesus??? New Testament for that matter???
go ahead and read Malachi 2:17 right before 3:1, since it sets up the context:
Mal 2:17 - 3:1 "You have wearied the LORD with your words. But you say, “How have we wearied him?” By saying, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them.” Or by asking, “Where is the God of justice?”
“Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts."
its clear that the "Lord you are seeking" is in relation to the question "Where is the God of justice?", and applies "God of justice" to the Lord Jesus.
To further demonstrate that the "God of justice" is YHWH, Isaiah 30:18 reads as follows:
" Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you,
and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you.
For the LORD is a God of justice;
blessed are all those who wait for him"
thanks for bringing up a verse that completely goes against what you're trying to say!
@@LeifOfaVineEternal You've just wrote it yourself "he is coming" as spoken by YHWH , shouldnt that read "I am coming" ,
Who sent Jesus ?, who's will did Jesus do?
No nothing goes against what I say !
@@LeifOfaVineEternal The one who sent Jesus is the God of Justice , and Jesus was God's representative who carried His words. John 12:49 For I did not speak from Myself, but the Father Himself, having sent Me, gave Me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak.
@@dazzadizzy5308 you clearly didn't read what I wrote, if you came to that conclusion. let me put it like this:
1) "the Lord whom you seek" is the same one who will come to his temple. That's referring to Jesus, you and I agree to that at least
2) Malachi 2:17 says that the "God of justice" is the one who is being sought
3) Isaiah 30:18 says that YHWH is the "God of justice"
"the Lord whom you seek" (Jesus) is the "God of justice", who is YHWH
don't get dizzy reading that, it's pretty simple. May the Lord Jesus open your eyes
Let me make this simple for yall and huff . No one who walked with jesus thought or even considered jesus god. Here we go . these writers who did not walk with jesus and whom we don 't know who wrote these gospels they are attributed to these people. Now at the concel of necia dont have time to correct the spellin g. 325ce they after jesus was dead for 325 years was just trying to debate the divinity of jesus. 325 years after his death he is not god yet.
Can you provide proof for your claims?
so when the gospel of john, matthew, mark luke, pauls writings, majority of church fathers as athanisius, polycarp, say jesus is God you forgot to mention that or are you iliterate like muhammed?
@@MelburnGov
MATTHEW 14:33 -Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
MARK 1:1 -The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God
LUKE 1:32 - He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
JOHN - 1:34 -And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God
The Father is the ALMIGHTY GOD .
@@dazzadizzy5308 Im not sure about the verses you quoted, those who were in the boat "worshipped him". Also can you read revelations 1:7-8 where jesus says he is the almighty? Or is revelations not a part of the bible?
@@MelburnGov Rev 1:8 is the Father "he who is who was and who is to come " is the Father , as said in verse 4 identifying Him as the one upon the throne , verse 5 then speaks of Jesus . Also Rev 4:8 is the same confirmation of the Father as "he who is who was and who is to come ".
JESUS IS GOD ALMIGHTY 👑♾
ISLAM = blind faith
we are debunking islam with this 💪
✝️🙌🏽