The Word was with God, and the Word was A god

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I must have missed Jesus' discourse on reincarnation, nevertheless, it is not part of this discussion. There are other threads dedicated to that topic, so maybe address your apparent insecurities there.

a reply to: Akragon

yea the thread by that title is yours but Lastdays/SethTsaddik made that claim last year.

However I am I on Jesus Side. I learned more in trying to see what was being said, but I learned that when the kingdom of Israel was set aside he had to give us deeper instructions as we would be aimless with out it. Saul/Paul was that vessel by which he gave us the expanded teachings for this age.

The Preserved Bible is whole and complete we need only allow the Holy Ghost to guide and live through us it is in Jesus Power we live and not of ourselves.

Nothing lost for me but more gained than I would have imagined.

Good night

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

there are numerous verse that state that the Holy Ghost is a he. I will try tomorrow if I can to give you the exact quotes from the preserved bible.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: namelesss

Yeah... except he didn't say "As I Am, so can you Be"

so...

Perhaps you should read the book?

www.libertynet.org...

'GOD condescended to impute unto men, because of the hardness of their hearts, this Love that will melt a heart of stone. I put before you a Love that is beyond utterance and this Love is a sample and example for men and women in all walks of life that you may be even as I AM: laying no mortal claims on any material thing; relaxing your conscious mentality and recognizing all things are given unto you; allowing the CHRIST within you to realize HIS at-one-ment as being you, as being the inheritor of all that you have, and hence, you being an inheritor of all that is in the world.'

Well no... perhaps you should

that is not from the bible... perhaps some sort of stitched up quote using pieces of the bible...

but regardless that isn't biblical...

I read the book about 40 times and know what is in it.
If you want to know what is in it, perhaps YOU should read it.
I am not going to read the entire thing again to find the quote for you.
I know it's there.
Have a nice night.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: namelesss

Like i said above... i have many times...

Especially the gospels...

HE didn't say such a thing...

Obviously, you missed it.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: namelesss

Yeah... except he didn't say "As I Am, so can you Be"

so...

Perhaps you should read the book?

www.libertynet.org...

'GOD condescended to impute unto men, because of the hardness of their hearts, this Love that will melt a heart of stone. I put before you a Love that is beyond utterance and this Love is a sample and example for men and women in all walks of life that you may be even as I AM: laying no mortal claims on any material thing; relaxing your conscious mentality and recognizing all things are given unto you; allowing the CHRIST within you to realize HIS at-one-ment as being you, as being the inheritor of all that you have, and hence, you being an inheritor of all that is in the world.'

Well no... perhaps you should

that is not from the bible... perhaps some sort of stitched up quote using pieces of the bible...

but regardless that isn't biblical...

I read the book about 40 times and know what is in it.
If you want to know what is in it, perhaps YOU should read it.
I am not going to read the entire thing again to find the quote for you.
I know it's there.
Have a nice night.

lol...

Please give me the passage...

Good luck

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: namelesss

Yeah... except he didn't say "As I Am, so can you Be"

so...

Perhaps you should read the book?

www.libertynet.org...

'GOD condescended to impute unto men, because of the hardness of their hearts, this Love that will melt a heart of stone. I put before you a Love that is beyond utterance and this Love is a sample and example for men and women in all walks of life that you may be even as I AM: laying no mortal claims on any material thing; relaxing your conscious mentality and recognizing all things are given unto you; allowing the CHRIST within you to realize HIS at-one-ment as being you, as being the inheritor of all that you have, and hence, you being an inheritor of all that is in the world.'

Well no... perhaps you should

that is not from the bible... perhaps some sort of stitched up quote using pieces of the bible...

but regardless that isn't biblical...

I read the book about 40 times and know what is in it.
If you want to know what is in it, perhaps YOU should read it.
I am not going to read the entire thing again to find the quote for you.
I know it's there.
Have a nice night.

lol...

Please give me the passage...

Good luck

Sorry, I really do not care whether you have read it or not.
I don't need to prove it to you.
I am NOT going to read it again just so you can argue from your ignorance and bias.
When/if you read it, you'll find it.
That's it.
Good night.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: namelesss

Yeah... except he didn't say "As I Am, so can you Be"

so...

Perhaps you should read the book?

www.libertynet.org...

'GOD condescended to impute unto men, because of the hardness of their hearts, this Love that will melt a heart of stone. I put before you a Love that is beyond utterance and this Love is a sample and example for men and women in all walks of life that you may be even as I AM: laying no mortal claims on any material thing; relaxing your conscious mentality and recognizing all things are given unto you; allowing the CHRIST within you to realize HIS at-one-ment as being you, as being the inheritor of all that you have, and hence, you being an inheritor of all that is in the world.'

Well no... perhaps you should

that is not from the bible... perhaps some sort of stitched up quote using pieces of the bible...

but regardless that isn't biblical...

I read the book about 40 times and know what is in it.
If you want to know what is in it, perhaps YOU should read it.
I am not going to read the entire thing again to find the quote for you.
I know it's there.
Have a nice night.

lol...

Please give me the passage...

Good luck

Try John 1-12;
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God"
Means exactly what I said!

There are others.

Romans 8:14
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Romans 8:16
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

Romans 8:19
The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God.

Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

1 John 3:1
Behold what manner of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God. And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know Him.

The Witness of John
…11He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God — 13children born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but born of God.…

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“That they all shall be one, just as you, my Father, are in me, and I am in you, so that they also shall be one in us. “

We are all One, all inclusive!
That means that We and Jesus are One!

You still want to argue?

Haven't you guys been through this routine before? 'Defeating' eachother's Don Quijote's Windmill Giants; Don Quijote's perceived spiritual or moral 'victory' means very little when he's just chasing down shadows while avoiding the real issues, like someone avoiding reality and facts (historical or otherwise) by preferring to fight and conquer someone else's imaginations and misleading, inaccurate or plain false/incorrect information (about history or current realities/truths/facts) about the subject in this case. Then feeling more secure about being right because the other fella is clearly wrong about something. Like fans of evolutionary philosophies debating young earth creationists about the age of the earth and feeiling more confident about their own views regarding evolutionary philosophies and/or philosophical naturalism in the process because they can figure out that the earth and the universe isn't approx. 6000 years old. You're being played by someone who has thousands of years of experience in manipulating human beings to get them to get dragged into useless debates where none of the participants has the correct view or understandable logical and reasonable explanation for their position(s). I'd call it WWF wrestling if you guys weren't actually going at it that hard. Pride and following the teachings of men (including traditions) are some key aspects to consider in all this.

Like I initially only wanted to say (until I got distracted with adding the Don Quijote Windmill Giant explanation because I unwisely chose to mention that term, forcing me to have to explain my usage of it):

Haven't you guys been through this before?

What has been is what will be,
And what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun. (Eccl.1:9)

This time, not even that long ago:
See also my commentary in the thread: You have been lied to : Christians , Muslims , Jews - all worship the same God
And this thread: Who sits on the left hand of God?
Thread: If Jesus is God's Son...

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Ok as promised here are some verse that speak of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit as being a he.

John 14:16, 26 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; . . . But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This last verse shows the Oneness of God So if the Father is a he, and the Word is a he then the Holy Ghost also is a he because they are one.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ok. I'll acknowledge that. The Greek word for helper "Παράκλητος" is masculine singular, however, the OT uses feminine words for the Holy Spirit. In fact, Ruach is feminine, so my conclusion thus far is that God has no gender, but simply reveals aspects of Itself in either gender forms depending on spiritual context. The hupostatic incarnation of Christ does have gender, since flesh has gender.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The Sun is spoken of as a him, and Moon is spoken of as a she in the OT, yet the sun and moon are without sexual gender.

I would guess because of the Poetic Nuances of Hebrew that make it Feminine and not necessarily a sexual/gender assignment. But the NT definitely has a gender qualification given the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: GnosticusMaximus

The Word was there in the beginning before there was anything but God ... so saying the Word was divine (God) or the Word was God (divine) is really two ways of saying the same message, plus context matters, and it's clear in context the message is the Word is God.

No it's not (especially the bolded part). That would be the tactic called "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language" mentioned on the webpage before the page linked in my signature (which is the same article).

Coptic John 1:1 -- Ambiguous?

According to Dr. Jason D. BeDuhn, the Greek text of John 1:1 is, grammatically, not a difficult verse to translate. "It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression." (Truth in Translation, 2003, p. 132) Dr. BeDuhn would render the Greek of John 1:1c literally as "and the Word was a god," or in "a slightly polished" variant carrying the same meaning, "and the Word was divine." According to BeDuhn, the traditional, Latin Vulgate-inspired reading formalized by the King James Version, "and the Word was God," is the least accurate rendering of the Greek text, a reading that violates the grammar and syntax.

The same conclusion can be readily drawn about the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c. This is a fairly literal translation of the Greek, made in the 2nd or 3rd century of our Common Era, at a time and place where the Koine Greek of the New Testament was still a living language and widely understood in Egypt.

In regular Coptic syntax, auw neunoute pe pSaje means, straightforwardly, "and the Word was a god." And just as the Greek sentence at John 1:1c may express a qualitative force, the Coptic syntactical unit which corresponds to that Greek sentence may express an adjectival force. In other words, both may also be rendered as "and the Word was divine." (Cf. Bentley Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 2006/7, pp. 7, 34) But is this ambiguity? No, for as Dr. BeDuhn states, both translations carry "the same basic meaning."

Still, some scholars are not satisfied with even their preferred "qualitative" meaning for John 1:1c, unless they can define "qualitative" as synonymous with "definite." For example, Daniel B. Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996, p. 269) prefers a qualitative rendering for John 1:1c, but then goes on to say that "and the Word was God" is the simplest, most straightforward translation. That is a non sequitur.

John 1:1c is not carrying on a Greek philosophical dissertation about "persons" or "essences." But it is making an important distinction between "God" (Greek, ho theos; Coptic, p.noute) and another entity whom John describes simply with the Greek word theos (Coptic, ou.noute). The noun theos in the Greek of John 1:1c is pre-verbal and anarthrous. The noun noute in the Coptic of John 1:1c is in a regular indefinite syntactical unit. The force in both cases is the same: the Word is being distinguished from God, not identified as being God.

Further, John 1:1b emphasizes that this Word is "with" (Greek) or "in the presence of" (Coptic) God.

If, as some Trinitarian scholars assert, the idea of a qualitative rendering highlights the "nature" or "characteristics" of the Word rather than his identity, but this Word shared all the attributes and qualities that God (= the Father) has, then logically, the Word would be the Father. Yet, mainstream Trinitarians deride that idea as Sabellianism or modalism, "heresies" condemned by the church.

Is Coptic John 1:1 ambiguous? Not at all. But to be sure, it is the Trinitarian scholars who are forcing John 1:1 to be "ambiguous," not the Greek nor the Coptic text. The Greek text is not definite ("the Word was God") and neither is the Coptic text. Both the Greek and the Coptic texts agree that "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine," which mean essentially the same thing.

Source: John 1:1 and the Coptic Versions

Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia:

A non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an invalid argument.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false (because there is a disconnect between the premises and the conclusion), but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious.

What's Athanasius Got to Do With It?
Another of the basically irrelevant Trinitarian objections against translating the Sahidic Coptic of John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god" -- which is clearly what it literally says -- is that the Coptic translators could not possibly have "meant" to say that.

The reason given is that the dynamic 4th century Coptic scholar, theologian, bishop and "saint" Athanasius was the staunch adherent of Trinitarianism. And the Coptic Church itself is Trinitarian.

That argument may be of some value in refuting the inaccurate charge that everything Coptic must, by definition, also be Gnostic.

But it has no bearing on positively identifying the theology of the 2nd or 3rd century Sahidic Coptic translators, and no bearing on identifying their possible theological presuppositions while translating John 1:1.

Coptic scholar and translator George W. Horner, in his classic Coptic New Testament English translation, postulates a 2nd century date for the Coptic New Testament. Other scholars, and the Anchor Bible Dictionary give a 3rd century date.

Coptic Church tradition also dates the Coptic New Testament to the 2nd century, "under the supervision of St. Pantaenus [late second century] and St. Clement [160-215]." Therefore, it is quite possible that the Sahidic Coptic translation of the Gospel of John predated Athanasius [300-373] by a couple of generations.

So, what's Athanasius got to do with it?

And as for the Coptic Church, it has not always been a Trinitarian church. Its tradition ascribes its founding to the Gospel writer "Saint" Mark, and there is nothing Trinitarian in Mark's Gospel.

Besides, there was another famous (or infamous, according to one's view) presbyter and theologian in 4th century Alexandria, Egypt. His name was Arius, the noted opponent of Trinitarianism, whose doctrine "was once at least as popular as the doctine that Jesus is God." (Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, p. 7). Before Nicea (325 CE) many Coptic and other bishops considered Arius' theology to be "orthodox."

So, IF a case could be made for Athanasian Trinitarian influence upon the Sahidic Coptic translators, a similar case could be made for Arian, non-Trinitarian influence.

In point of fact, however, the Sahidic Coptic translators are anonymous. We don't know who they were. Therefore, it is impossible to state dogmatically what their theological presuppositions were, or even if their theological presuppositions influenced their translation of John 1:1.

It is just as likely that they simply made a fair, honest, and accurate translation of John's Greek as they understood it: ne.u.noute pe p.shaje, "And the Word was a god."

Attempts to link Athanasian Trinitarianism to the Sahidic Coptic translators is shown to be just another smokescreen put up by apologists for whom Coptic John 1:1 is extremely unsettling and inconvenient.

a reply to: namelesss

You can't be serious I have read the Bible through more than you and I still don't "Know all that is in it". The Bible is a progressive learning program that keeps you learning and then learning more for you whole life. No one can read it forty times and know what's in it.

This last year was an adventure for me As I went through the NT three times and the Old once as I usually do but this time I focused on what Jesus taught and what Paul taught and found that Jesus Called Paul and used him to expand on his teachings as found in the gospels, because the Kingdom for Israel was set aside. There are certain things Paul does not expand on because they are not for this age but all that was for this age was expanded on by revelation from Jesus.

I was strengthened in my faith on Christ.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Translating The Indefinite Article at Coptic John 1:1c

Some Trinitarian apologists are trying hard to make the Coptic text of John 1:1c support a qualitative meaning rather than an indefinite one. They have to acknowledge the witness of Coptic grammarians who have said that "the Word was a god" is a perfectly legitimate translation there, because the Coptic indefinite article is clearly present.

But just like they look at YHWH in the Hebrew text of the Bible and yet come away denying that God has a unique Name, or insist that His name is Lord, they try to deny what is plainly in front of their face: Coptic has the indefinite article; the indefinite article is used at John 1:1c; and the regular translation of the Coptic indefinite article into English is "a."

'It's all so difficult to understand,' they opine. 'It will take years and years of Coptic study to fathom the "mystery" of the Coptic indefinite article'! For example, one such apologist writes:

"The grammar, alone, cannot prove that the Word was 'a god,' 'a God,' or 'had the quality of God' in the minds of the Coptic translators. Indeed, a thorough study of the Sahidic Translation, based on the published MSS, is needed to even begin such a task."

I agree that there should be a thorough study of the Sahidic translation, but not because this is needed to understand how the Coptic translators used the indefinite article. Just about any currently-present Coptic grammar book explains that quite well. Also, there is Coptic scholar Reverend George W. Horner's 1911 English translation of the Coptic text, still available, though hard to find.

In just the book of John, how does Horner's English translation render Coptic sentence constructions that are just like John 1:1c? Well, let's look at a few. The Coptic construction found at John 1:1c is the neu...pe, construction: neunoute pe pSaje, with noute being the Coptic word for "god," and pSaje meaning "the word."

Look at some other neu....pe constructions, translated into English by Horner:

John 8:44 neureFHetb rwme pe = “was a murderer”
John 12:6 neureFjioue pe = “was a thief”
John 18:40 neusoone pe = “was a robber.”

So why should John 1:1c, neunoute pe be rendered as anything in English other than “was a god”????

In each of the other instances of the indefinite article before the noun in the Gospel of John, Horner accurately translates the indefinite article into English as “a” and does not put any brackets around the “a, ” as he does, without any grammatical cause, at John 1:1c.

After years of insisting that the anarthrous QEOS of John 1:1c is definite, the new theory of Trinitarian apologists is that it is "qualitative." But then they try to define "qualitativeness" to mean definiteness anyway! This is a disingenuous attempt to put definiteness out by the front door, while slipping it back in through the back door, and it doesn't work.

An indefinite construction can be "qualitative" in meaning when translated into English, and to say "the Word was divine" does not actually differ from saying "the Word was a god." But it does distinctly differ from saying "the Word was God."

Therefore, whereas the Coptic sentence at John 1:1c literally reads, "the Word was a god," it would not be incorrect to convey that into English also as "the Word was divine." But this is not to be overlooked or glossed over: The Coptic of John 1:1c definitely and specifically does not say "the Word was God." Indeed, that is ruled out by the Coptic indefinite article in that verse.

And you don't need to examine any further than the rest of the Coptic Gospel of John to affirm that point. Though, of course, it is quite beneficial to 'make a thorough study of the Sahidic translation' for other insights, or for the sheer joy of doing so.

Source: John 1:1 and the Coptic Versions (blog with posts and commentary, multiple pages, different type of commentary than ATS though)

Isaac Newton was right, they are not dissembling* their knowledge (*: it seems the meaning and usage of that word has become the exact opposite since Newton's time, he was talking about not revealing their knowledge and obscuring it, long story). That was the polite way of pointing out that some people are lying through their teeth in order to defend their traditions and have a rather deceptive game they play when doing that. And you (everyone who reads this) really oughta take note of that even if some people would describe you as a KJ-Onlyite (as the easy excuse or justification for ignoring the counsel at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 or allowing what's being expressed at the end of the video below to be going on in your mind without expressing it in the same manner).

Psalms 32:9:

Do not become like a horse or a mule, without understanding,

Whose spiritedness must be controlled with a bridle or a halter

Before it will come near to you.”

Warning, the Trinitarian in the video below gets quite a lot wrong, but he does also make some interesting points, the main reason for the video is the demonstration of the verse above (regarding those who haven't had anyone emphasizing the importance of that verse to them) that is a bit more obvious than when it's going on with some posters on ATS (more in the background and regarding their dismissiveness or just ignoring inconvenient biblical facts/truths):

a reply to: namelesss

Sorry, I really do not care whether you have read it or not.
I don't need to prove it to you.
I am NOT going to read it again just so you can argue from your ignorance and bias.
When/if you read it, you'll find it.
That's it.

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God"
Means exactly what I said!

Still want to argue?

yup...

go back to your first quote.... I said JESUS didn't ever say that...

You quoted John and Paul... No Jesus...

Not to mention the fact that he already called us gods ("children of the most high" Psalm 82)

Why would we need to become what we already are?

Good try though

a reply to: namelesss

We are all One, all inclusive! That means that We and Jesus are One!

You can be one in spirit with Jesus after you pass the judgment and become justified. But until that time you are hoping through faith that you will become a son/daughter of the Most High. Nevertheless you will never be equal to Jesus --

Act_4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

There is only one Begotten Son of God who is Jesus. None of the created can be begotten. Jesus was not created but was conceived by The Most High.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: namelesss

We are all One, all inclusive! That means that We and Jesus are One!

You can be one in spirit with Jesus after you pass the judgment and become justified.

Jesus never said that you'd have to die, or pass some monstrous 'judgment', first.
He was all about Here! Now!

But until that time you are hoping through faith that you will become a son/daughter of the Most High. Nevertheless you will never be equal to Jesus --

Well, Jesus says that we will, and you say that we won't.
Hmmmm...
We do not need to do anything to experience Our Universality other then to stop the 'beliefs/ego' and experience the Reality that already is!
"Heaven is AT HAND!" - Jesus
Here! Now!

Act_4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Yeah, to can leave that erroneous preaching to someone who doesn't know any better.
Unconditional Love (Enlightenment), no matter where or when we find/become it, is (Christ) Heaven!
Here! Now!
It has nothing to do with some 'name', it has to do with unconditional Love, the only way that Jesus will identify his followers. ("By their Love...")
Not what vanity they 'believe'!

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

There is only one Begotten Son of God who is Jesus. None of the created can be begotten. Jesus was not created but was conceived by The Most High.

I do appreciate all the tales and stories and miracles and magic and catechisms of your religion, but it is hellish insanity if you use it to obfuscate his real teachings!
Only begotten son?!
Really?
Did he claim that?
He DID claim that We can Be as He!
You know and recite the words, but you have no clue what they mean!

Oh the vanity of those who 'claim' to be Xtians, who do not show/Know the fruits thereof!

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS recognized by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity ('Charity' is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

“Your task is not to seek for Love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.” - Rumi

Please do not presume to preach to me thy parrotisms! *__-

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: namelesss

Sorry, I really do not care whether you have read it or not.
I don't need to prove it to you.
I am NOT going to read it again just so you can argue from your ignorance and bias.
When/if you read it, you'll find it.
That's it.

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God"
Means exactly what I said!

Still want to argue?

yup...

go back to your first quote.... I said JESUS didn't ever say that...

You quoted John and Paul... No Jesus...

Not to mention the fact that he already called us gods ("children of the most high" Psalm 82)

Why would we need to become what we already are?

Good try though

You are either being deliberately obtuse, or are a mere juvenile gainsayer, even of the truth!
Either way, I find that continuing our discussion would be fruitless.
Good try, yourself.

This is strange, my friend just showed me this website that allegedly proves the New Testament says Jesus is God, which I say no it doesn't, and every offer of proof is refutable with simple logic some even proof to the contrary.

Matthew 1:23

And they will call him Emmanuel [God is with us].

Because the name of the child in Isaiah's prophecy, Emmanuel, was both not prophecied to be a virgin in original Hebrew AND was born in the time of Isaiah, I believe to the person he was talking to, this prophecy is disqualified on grounds of innaccuracy and previous fulfillment, a person under the inspiration of the Spirit and Jewish would never make that mistake and it wasn't in the Jewish version according to several Catholic father's.

And Jesus was never called Emmanuel or God (with us).

2 Peter 1:1

..., given through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.


OK. The website claimed this was calling Jesus God AND Savior. Let's look at my footnote provided alternate reading:

a. Or 'Of our God and of the Savior Jesus Christ'


In both instances it speaks of God first and then the Savior as two separate personas, and Savior is not God.

The alternate translation is clear as day and at least they provided it but the rendering in the text is deceptive and was either misread by the sight coordinator and he is not aware of the reality or he took advantage of the deception.

John 1:1-3 has been covered, Jesus is described in terms of much less important status and a god as the Word.

So when in 1:14 when "the Word became flesh" at best means a god called Logos became Jesus who was divine but not God Most High or in any way equal. He was created from the speech of God and at most second in rank to God, worst, just human and the author is being poetic. Which is not bad to me.

John 5:17-18 [the Jews are looking to entrap Jesus for "breaking the Sabbath"]

18. He spoke of God as his own Father, and so made himself God's equal.

According to who? Abraham was the friend of the Lord, King David called his son too. They were never called equal.

All that Jesus said is God was his Father. A father is not equal to a son, nevertheless, there are two kinds of people in the world, sons of men and sons of God, good vs. evil, light vs dark.

The Jews made the illogical assumption he was calling himself equal with God.

John 5:19...continued

"I tell you most solemnly, the Son can do nothing by himself [ i.e. powerless without God]; he can only do what he sees the Father doing [no original creative powers]: and whatever the Father does the Son does too."

Jesus literally just denied being equal to God the next chapter after the Jews accuse him.

Despite all that proof of inequality the site still tried using this:

John 5:23

So that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father.

They should be honored, both of them.

Only God should be WORSHIPPED.

They are not even close to the same thing. Honoring God is not enough he must be worshipped alone, but he can be honored in addition to worshipped and people can be honored without being worshipped.

I got more but I think I will save them.