Jesus: Both Son and Father?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.


Senior Member
Feb 15, 2017
Because I believe what the Jesus Christ has said about everything, that was noted to those people in that day, and for that generation.

I believe what Jesus Christ has said to his disciples about His coming back...

I believe what the Apostles said about Jesus Christ and Him coming back to others back then in that those ancient days...

I believe that the people who were elected where people chosen back then from that period and not for us today...

I believe that Jesus Christ in what He said He would do was true, and He would not have lied to His disciples about coming back, even though a lot of people think there is going to be a psychical, it's actually spiritual...

There is a lot of things people don't notice in scripture they just read it, and say this and that, without considering context and everything else...

I believe when the revelation was a time when thing was going to shortly come to pass, I don't believe that could have been 2000 years later...

I just believe what the bible says, and I believe here what Noose shared is true.
Thanks for responding.
That's why I liked your post.

Good to discuss without getting crappy with each other.

I have just skimmed your response.
I agree with your first sentence. Jesus came to seek the lost house of Israel.

A few other thoughts came to mind.
But I'm tired and is soon of bed.

If I forget to post my thoughts give me a bump.

God bless.



Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
I can only take the word of accomplished Greek scholars that have made easy references in the English. All the lexicons I've read translate the word "Word" in John 1:1 as "logos" and give the definition as a plan or concept. You may be a Greek scholar but I haven't read any of your works and if yours differ with the hundreds of others that are published, I would tend to believe the majority that have been scrutinized through due process before being published vs the opinion of one unverifiable source.
It would appear that these renowned Greek scholars are unfamiliar with your definition of Logos.
Also, beyond the simple lexical definition of the word you must also consider how the Holy Spirit is using the word in the context of the prologue.

[TABLE="class: border_bottom_lightest, width: 100%"]
[TD="align: left"] Liddell-Scott-Jones Definitions
λόγος, ὁ,
verbal noun of λέγω
(B), with senses corresponding to λέγω (B) II and III (on the various senses of the word v. Theo Sm. pp.72,73 H., An.Ox. 4.327): common in all periods in Prose and Verse, exc. Epic, in which it is found in signf. derived from λέγω (B) 111, cf.infr. VI. 1 a:
I computation, reckoning (cf. λέγω (B) II).
1 account of money handled, σανίδες εἰς ἃς τὸν λ. ἀναγράφομεν IG 12.374.191; ἐδίδοσαν τὸν λ. ib.232.2; λ. δώσεις τῶν μετεχείρισας χρημάτων Hdt. 3.142, cf. 143; οὔτε χρήματα διαχειρίσας τῆς πόλεως δίδωμι λ. αὐτῶν οὔτε ἀρχὴν ἄρξας οὐδεμίαν εὐθύνας ὑπέχω νῦν αὐτῆς Lys. 24.26; λ. ἀπενεγκεῖν Arist. Ath. 54.1; ἐν ταῖς εὐθύναις τοῦ τοιούτου λ. ὑπεχέτω Pl. Lg. 774b; τὸν τῶν χρημάτων λ. παρὰ τούτων λαμβάνειν D. 8.47; ἀδικήματα εἰς ἀργυρίου λ. ἀνήκοντα Din. 1.60; συνᾶραι λόγον μετά τινος settle accounts with, Matthew 18:23, etc.; δεύτεροι λ. a second audit, Cod.Just.; ὁ τραπεζιτικὸς λ. banking account, Theo Sm.p.73 H.: metaph., οὐκ ἂν πριαίμην οὐδενὸς λ. βροτόν S. Aj. 477. public accounts, i. e. branch of treasury, ἴδιος λ., in Egypt, OGI 188.2, 189.3, 669.38; also as title of treasurer, ib.408.4, Str. 17.1.12; ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν λ. IPE 2.29 A (Panticapaeum); δημόσιος λ., = Lat. fiscus, OGI 669.21 (Egypt, i A.D.), etc. (but later, = aerarium, Cod.Just. 1.5.15); also Καίσαρος λ. OGI 669.30; κυριακὸς λ. ib.18.
2. generally, account, reckoning, μὴ φῦναι τὸν ἅπαντα νικᾷ λ. excels the whole account, i.e. is best of all, S. OC 1225 (lyr.); δόντας λ. τῶν ἐποίησαν accounting for, i.e. paying the penalty for their doings, Hdt. 8.100; λ. αἰτεῖν Pl. Plt. 285e; λ. δοῦναι καὶ δέξασθαι Id. Prt. 336c, al.; λαμβάνειν λ. καὶ ἐλέγχειν Id. Men. 75d; παρασχεῖν τῶν εἰρημένων λ. Id. R. 344d; λ. ἀπαιτεῖν D. 30.15, cf. Arist. EN 1104a3; λ. ὑπέχειν, δοῦναι, D. 19.95; λ. ἐγγράψαι Id. 24.199, al.; λ. ἀποφέρειν τῇ πόλει Aeschin. 3.22, cf. Eu. Luke 16:2, Hebrews 13:17; τὸ παράδοξον τῶν συμβεβηκότων ὑπὸ λόγον ἄγειν Plb. 15.34.2; λ. ἡ ἐπιστήμη, πολλὰ δὲ ὁ λ. the account is manifold, Plot. 6.9.4; ἔχων λόγον τοῦ διὰ τί an account of the cause, Arist. APo. 74b27; ἐς λ. τινός on account of, ἐς χρημάτων λ. Th. 3.46, cf. Plb. 5.89.6, LXX 2 Maccabees 1:14, JRS 18.152 (Jerash); λόγῳ c. gen., by way of, Cod.Just. 3.2.5. al.; κατὰ λόγον τοῦ μεγέθους if we take into account his size, Arist. HA 517b27; πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λ. Hebrews 4:13, cf. D.Chr. 31.123.
3. measure, tale (cf. infr. 11.1), θάλασσα.. μετρέεται ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν λ. ὁκοῖος πρόσθεν Heraclit. 31; ψυχῆς ἐστι λ. ἑαυτὸν αὔξων Id. 115; ἐς τούτου (sc. γήραος) λ. οὐ πολλοί τινες ἀπικνέονται to the point of old age, Hdt. 3.99, cf. 7.9. β; ὁ ξύμπας λ. the full tale, Th. 7.56, cf. Philippians 4:15; κοινῷ λ. νομίσαντα common measure, Pl. Lg. 746e; sum, total of expenditure, IG 42(1).103.151 (Epid., iv B.C.); ὁ τῆς οὐσίας λ., = Lat. patrimonii modus, Cod.Just.
4. esteem, consideration, value put on a person or thing (cf. infr. VI. 2 d), οὗ πλείων λ. ἢ τῶν ἄλλων who is of more worth than all the rest, Heraclit. 39; βροτῶν λ. οὐκ ἔσχεν οὐδέν ' A. Pr. 233; οὐ σμικροῦ λ. S. OC 1163: freq. in Hdt., Μαρδονίου λ. οὐδεὶς γίνεται 8.102; τῶν ἦν ἐλάχιστος ἀπολλυμένων λ. 4.135, cf. E. Fr. 94; περὶ ἐμοῦ οὐδεὶς λ. Ar. Ra. 87; λόγου οὐδενὸς γίνεσθαι πρός τινος to be of no account, repute with.., Hdt. 1.120, cf. 4.138; λόγου ποιήσασθαί τινα make one of account, Id. 1.33; ἐλαχίστου, πλείστου λ. εἶναι, to be highly, lowly esteemed, Id. 1.143, 3.146; but also λόγον τινὸς ποιεῖσθαι, like Lat. rationem habere alicujus, make account of, set a value on, Democr. 187, etc.: usu. in neg. statements, οὐδένα λ. ποιήσασθαί τινος Hdt. 1.4, cf. 13, Plb. 21.14.9, etc.; λ. ἔχειν Hdt. 1.62, 115; λ. ἴσχειν περί τινος Pl. Ti. 87c; λ. ἔχειν περὶ τοὺς ποιητάς Lycurg. 107; λ. ἔχειν τινός D. 18.199, Arist. EN 1102b32, Plu. Phil. 18 (but also, have the reputation of.., v. infr. VI. 2 e); ἐν οὐδενὶ λ. ποιήσασθαί τι Hdt. 3.50; ἐν οὐδενὶ λ. ἀπώλοντο without regard, Id. 9.70; ἐν σμικρῷ λ. εἶναι Pl. R. 550a; ὑμεῖς οὔτ' ἐν λ. οὔτ' ἐν ἀριθμῷ Orac. ap. Sch. Theoc. 14.48; ἐν ἀνδρῶν λ. [εἶναι] to be reckoned, count as a man, Hdt. 3.120; ἐν ἰδιώτεω λόγῳ καὶ ἀτίμου reckoned as.., Eus.Mynd. Fr. 59; σεμνὸς εἰς ἀρετῆς λ. καὶ δόξης D. 19.142.
II relation, correspondence, proportion,
1 generally, ὑπερτερίης λ. relation (of gold to lead), Thgn. 418 = 1164; πρὸς λόγον τοῦ σήματος A. Th. 519; κατὰ λόγον προβαίνοντες τιμῶσι in inverse ratio, Hdt. 1.134, cf. 7.36; κατὰ λ. τῆς ἀποφορῆς Id. 2.109; τἄλλα κατὰ λ. in like fashion, Hp. VM 16, Prog. 17: c. gen., κατὰ λ. τῶν πρόσθεν ib. 24; κατὰ λ. τῶν ἡμερῶν Ar. Nu. 619; κατὰ λ. τῆς δυνάμεως X. Cyr. 8.6.11; ἐλάττω ἢ κατὰ λ. Arist. HA 508a2, cf. PA 671a18; ἐκ ταύτης ἐγένετο ἐκείνη κατὰ λ. Id. Pol. 1257a31; cf. εὔλογος: sts. with ὁ αὐτός added, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λ. τῷ τείχεϊ in fashion like to.., Hdt. 1.186; περὶ τῶν νόσων ὁ αὐτὸς λ. analogously, Pl. Tht. 158d, cf. Prm. 136b, al.; εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν λ. similarly, Id. R. 353d; κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λ. in the same ratio, IG 12.76.8; by parity of reasoning, Pl. Cra. 393c, R. 610a, al.; ἀνὰ λόγον τινός, τινί, Id. Ti. 29c, Alc. 2.145d; τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν λ. πρὸς.. ὃν ἡ παιδεία πρὸς τὴν ἀρετήν is related to.. as.., Procl. in Euc. p.20 F., al.
2. Math., ratio, proportion (ὁ κατ' ἀνάλογον λ., λ. τῆς ἀναλογίας, Theo Sm. p.73 H.), Pythag. 2; ἰσότης λόγων Arist. EN 113a31; λ. ἐστὶ δύο μεγεθῶν ἡ κατὰ πηλικότητα ποιὰ σχέσις Euc. 5 Def. 3; τῶν ἁρμονιῶν τοὺς λ. Arist. Metaph. 985b32, cf. 1092b14; λόγοι ἀριθμῶν numerical ratios, Aristox. Harm. p.32 M.; τοὺς φθόγγους ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ἀριθμοῦ λ. λέγεσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους to be expressed in numerical ratios, Euc. Sect.Can. Proëm.: in Metre, ratio between arsis and thesis, by which the rhythm is defined, Aristox. Harm. p.34 M.; ἐὰν ᾖ ἰσχυροτέρα τοῦ αἰσθητηρίου ἡ κίνησις, λύεται ὁ λ. Arist. de An. 424a31; ἀνὰ λόγον analogically, Archyt. 2; ἀνὰ λ. μερισθεῖσα [ἡ ψυχή] proportionally, Pl. Ti. 37a; so κατὰ λ. Men. 319.6; πρὸς λόγον in proportion, Plb. 6.30.3, 9.15.3 (but πρὸς λόγον ἐπὶ στενὸν συνάγεται narrows uniformly, Sor. 1.9, cf. Diocl.Fr. 171); ἐπὶ λόγον IG 5(1).1428 (Messene).
3. Gramm., analogy, rule, τῷ λ. τῶν μετοχικῶν, τῆς συγκοπῆς, by the rule of the participles, of syncope, Choerob. in Theod. 1.75 Gaisf., 1.377 H.; εἰπέ μοι τὸν λ. τοῦ Αἴας Αἴαντος, τουτέστι τὸν κανόνα An.Ox. 4.328.
III explanation,
1 plea, pretext, ground, ἐκ τίνος λ.; A. Ch. 515; ἐξ οὐδενὸς λ. S. Ph. 731; ἀπὸ παντὸς λ. Id. OC 762; χὠ λ. καλὸς προσῆν Id. Ph. 352; σὺν ἀφανεῖ λ. Id. OT 657 (lyr., v.l. λόγων) ; ἐν ἀφανεῖ λ. Antipho 5.59; ἐπὶ τοιούτῳ λ. Hdt. 6.124; κατὰ τίνα λ.; on what ground ? Pl. R. 366b; οὐδὲ πρὸς ἕνα λ. to no purpose, Id. Prt. 343d; ἐπὶ τίνι λ.; for what reason ? X. HG 2.2.19; τὸν λ. τοῦτον this ground of complaint, Aeschin. 3.228; τίνι δικαίῳ λ.; what just cause is there? Pl. Grg. 512c; τίνι λ.; on what account? Acts 10:29; κατὰ λόγον ἂν ἠνεσχόμην ὑμῶν reason would that.., ib.18.14; λ. ἔχειν, with personal subject, εἶχον ἄν τινα λ. I (i.e. my conduct) would have admitted of an explanation, Pl. Ap. 31b; τὸν ὀρθὸν λ. the true explanation, ib. 34b. plea, case, in Law or argument (cf. VIII. I), τὸν ἥττω λ. κρείττω ποιεῖν to make the weaker case prevail, ib. 18b, al., Arist. Rh. 1402a24, cf. Ar. Nu. 1042 (pl.); personified, ib. 886, al.; ἀμύνεις τῷ τῆς ἡδονῆς λ. Pl. Phlb. 38a; ἀνοίσεις τοὺς λ. αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν θεόν LXX Exodus 18:19; ἐχειν λ. πρός τινα to have a case, ground of action against.., Acts 19:38.
2. statement of a theory, argument, οὐκ ἐμεῦ ἀλλὰ τοῦ λ. ἀκούσαντας prob. in Heraclit. 50; λόγον ἠδὲ νόημα ἀμφὶς ἀληθείης discourse and reflection on reality, Parm. 8.50; δηλοῖ οὗτος ὁ λ. ὅτι.. Democr. 7; οὐκ ἔχει λόγον it is not arguable, i.e. reasonable, S. El. 466, Pl. Phd. 62d, etc.; ἔχει λ. D. 44.32; οὐδεὶς αὐτὰ καταβαλεῖ λ. E. Ba. 202; δίκασον.. τὸν λ. ἀκούσας Pl. Lg. 696b; personified, φησὶ οὗτος ὁ λ. ib. 714d, cf. Sph. 238b, Phlb. 50a; ὡς ὁ λ. (sc. λέγει) Arist. EN 1115b12; ὡς ὁ λ. ὁ ὀρθὸς λέγει ib. 1138b20, cf. 29; ὁ λ. θέλει προσβιβάζειν Phld. Rh. 1.41, cf.1.19 S.; οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἀκούσειε λόγου ἀποτρέποντος Arist. EN 1179b27; λ. καθαίρων Aristo Stoic. 1.88; λόγου τυγχάνειν to be explained, Phld. Mus. p.77 K.; ὁ τὸν λ. μου ἀκούων my teaching, John 5:24; ὁ προφητικὸς λ., collect., of VT prophecy, 2 Peter 1:19 : pl., ὁκόσων λόγους ἤκουσα Heraclit. 108; οὐκ ἐπίθετο τοῖς ἐμοῖς λ. Ar. Nu. 73; of arguments leading to a conclusion (ὁ λ.), Pl. Cri. 46b; τὰ Ἀναξαγόρου βιβλία γέμει τούτων τῶν λ. Id. Ap. 26d; λ. ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχῶν, ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, Arist. EN 1095a31; συλλογισμός ἐστι λ. ἐν ᾧ τεθέντων τινῶν κτλ. Id. APr. 24b18; λ. ἀντίτυπός τε καὶ ἄπορος, of a self-contradictory theory, Plot. 6.8.7. ὁ περὶ θεῶν λ., title of a discourse by Protagoras, D.L. 9.54; ὁ Ἀχιλλεὺς λ., name of an argument, ib. 23; ὁ αὐξόμενος λ. Plu. 2.559b; καταβάλλοντες (sc. λόγοι), title of work by Protagoras, S.E. M. 7.60; λ. σοφιστικοί Arist. SE 165a34, al.; οἱ μαθηματικοὶ λ. Id. Rh. 1417a19, etc.; οἱ ἐξωτερικοὶ λ., current outside the Lyceum, Id. Ph. 217b31, al.; Δισσοὶ λ., title of a philosophical treatise (= Dialex.); Λ. καὶ Λογίνα, name of play of Epicharmus, quibble, argument, personified, Ath. 8.338d. in Logic, proposition, whether as premiss or conclusion, πρότασίς ἐστι λ. καταφατικὸς ἢ ἀποφατικός τινος κατά τινος Arist. APr. 24a16. rule, principle, law, as embodying the result of λογισμός, Pi. O. 2.22, P. 1.35, N. 4.31; πείθεσθαι τῷ λ. ὃς ἄν μοι λογιζομένῳ βέλτιστος φαίνηται Pl. Cri. 46b, cf. c; ἡδονὰς τοῖς ὀρθοῖς λ. ἑπομένας obeying right principles, Id. Lg. 696c; προαιρέσεως [ἀρχὴ] ὄρεξις καὶ λ. ὁ ἕνεκά τινος principle directed to an end, Arist. EN 1139a32; of the final cause, ἀρχὴ ὁ λ. ἔν τε τοῖς κατὰ τέχνην καὶ ἐν τοῖς φύσει συνεστηκόσιν Id. PA 639b15; ἀποδιδόασι τοὺς λ. καὶ τὰς αἰτίας οὗ ποιοῦσι ἑκάστου ib. 18; [ τέχνη] ἕξις μετὰ λ. ἀληθοῦς ποιητική Id. EN 1140a10; ὀρθὸς λ. true principle, right rule, ib. 1144b27, 1147b3, al.; κατὰ λόγον by rule, consistently, ὁ κατὰ λ. ζῶν Pl. Lg. 689d, cf. Ti. 89d; τὸ κατὰ λ. ζῆν, opp. κατὰ πάθος, Arist. EN 1169a5; κατὰ λ. προχωρεῖν according to plan, Plb. 1.20.3.
3. law, rule of conduct, ᾧ μάλιστα διηνεκῶς ὁμιλοῦσι λόγῳ Heraclit. 72; πολλοὶ λόγον μὴ μαθόντες ζῶσι κατὰ λόγον Democr. 53; δεῖ ὑπάρχειν τὸν λ. τὸν καθόλου τοῖς ἄρχουσιν universal principle, Arist. Pol. 1286a17; ὁ νόμος.. λ. ὢν ἀπό τινος φρονήσεως καὶ νοῦ Id. EN 1180a21; ὁ νόμος.. ἔμψυχος ὢν ἑαυτῷ λ. conscience, Plu. 2.780c; τὸν λ. πρόχειρον ἔχειν precept, Phld. Piet. 30, cf. 102; ὁ προστακτικὸς τῶν ποιητέων ἢ μὴ λ. κοινός M.Ant. 4.4.
4. thesis, hypothesis, provisional ground, ὡς ἂν εἰ λέγοι λόγον maintain a thesis, Pl. Prt. 344b; ὑποθέμενος ἑκάστοτε λ. provisionally assuming a proposition, Id. Phd. 100a; τὸν τῆς ὁμοιότητος λ. hypothesis of equivalence, Arist. Cael. 296a20.
5. reason, ground, πάντων γινομένων κατὰ τὸν λ. τόνδε Heraclit. 1; οὕτω βαθὺν λ. ἔχει Id. 45; ἐκ λόγου, opp. μάτην, Leucipp. 2; μέγιστον σημεῖον οὗτος ὁ λ. Meliss. 8; [ἐμπειρία] οὐκ ἔχει λ. οὐδένα ὧν προσφέρει has no grounds for.., Pl. Grg. 465a; μετὰ λόγου τε καὶ ἐπιστήμης θείας Id. Sph. 265c; ἡ μετα λόγου ἀληθὴς δόξα (ἐπιστήμη) Id. Tht. 201c; λόγον ζητοῦσιν ὧν οὐκ ἔστι λ. proof, Arist. Metaph. 1011a12; οἱ ἁπάντων ζητοῦντες λ. ἀναιροῦσι λ. Thphr. Metaph. 26.
6. formula (wider than definition, but freq. equivalent thereto), term expressing reason, λ. τῆς πολιτείας Pl. R. 497c; ψυχῆς οὐσία τε καὶ λ. essential definition, Id. Phdr. 245e; ὁ τοῦ δικαίου λ. Id. R. 343a; τὸν λ. τῆς οὐσίας ib. 534b, cf. Phd. 78d; τὰς πολλὰς ἐπιστήμας ἑνὶ λ. προσειπεῖν Id. Tht. 148d; ὁ τῆς οἰκοδομήσεως λ. ἔχει τὸν τῆς οἰκίας Arist. PA 646b3; τεθείη ἂν ἴδιον ὄνομα καθ' ἕκαστον τῶν λ. Id. Metaph. 1006b5, cf. 1035b4; πᾶς ὁρισμὸς λ. τίς ἐστι Id. Top. 102a5; ἐπὶ τῶν σχημάτων λ. κοινός generic definition, Id. de An. 414b23; ἀκριβέστατος λ. specific definition, Id. Pol. 1276b24; πηγῆς λ. ἔχον Ph. 2.477; τὸ ᾠὸν οὔτε ἀρχῆς ἔχει λ. fulfils the function of.., Plu. 2.637d; λ. τῆς μίξεως formula, i. e. ratio (cf. supr. II) of combination, Arist. PA 642a22, cf. Metaph. 993a17.
7. reason, law exhibited in the world-process, κατὰ λόγον by law, κόσμῳ πάντα καὶ κατὰ λ. ἔχοντα Pl. R. 500c; κατ τὸν <αὐτὸν αὖ> λ. by the same law, Epich. 170.18; ψυχῆς τὸ πᾶν τόδε διοικούσης κατὰ λ. Plot. 2.3.13; esp. in Stoic Philos., the divine order, τὸν τοῦ παντὸς λ. ὃν ἔνιοι εἱμαρμένην καλοῦσιν Zeno Stoic. 1.24; τὸ ποιοῦν τὸν

[TABLE="class: border_bottom_lightest, width: 100%"]
[TD="align: left"] Thayer's Expanded Definition

, λόγου, ὁ (λέγω) (from
down), the
especially for דָּבָר, also for אֹמֶר and מִלָּה; properly,
a collecting, collection​
(see λέγω) — and that, as well of those things which are put together in thought, as of those which, having been thought i. e. gathered together in the mind, are expressed in words. Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be distinguished: one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking.
As respects speech:
a word,​
yet not in the grammatical sense (equivalent to vocabulum, the mere name of an object), but language, vox, i. e. a word which, uttered by the living voice, embodies a conception or idea; (hence, it differs from ῤῆμα and ἔπος (which see; cf. also λαλέω, at the beginning)):
Hebrews 12:19​
; ἀποκριθῆναι λόγον,
Matthew 22:46​
; εἰπεῖν λόγῳ,
Matthew 8:8​
λόγον (cf. εἶπον, 3a. at the end));
Luke 7:7​
; λαλῆσαι πέντε, μυρίους, λόγους,
1 Corinthians 14:19​
; διδόναι λόγον εὔσημον, to utter a distinct word, intelligible speech,
1 Corinthians 14:9​
; εἰπεῖν λόγον κατά τίνος, to speak a word against, to the injury of, one,
Matthew 12:32​
; also εἰς τινα,
Luke 12:10​
; to drive out demons λόγῳ,
Matthew 8:16​
; ἐπερωτᾶν τινα ἐν λόγοις ἱκανοῖς,
Luke 23:9​
; of the words of a conversation, ἀντιβάλλειν λόγους,
Luke 24:17​
what someone has said; a saying​
Matthew 19:22​
Mark 5:36​
, 302 (259) note);​


Senior Member
Feb 15, 2017
No, these are the only ones that will be singing a new song, 12,000 virgin men from each tribe of Israel.
Now I just want to curl up in my bed and go to sleep.

I'm assuming I won't be one of them as I'm not a virgin man:cool:


Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
Now I just want to curl up in my bed and go to sleep.

I'm assuming I won't be one of them as I'm not a virgin man:cool:
Don't feel bad, I missed the boat too. :)
Aug 7, 2016
Lol Tourist and BillG!

God bless, friends in Christ Jesus.


Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
Only 144k will be saved as spirits?
There are 2 groups of believers, the 144k (the smaller group) - these are the faithful believers (faithful because they know who God is). These are marked by the Holy spirit and are set apart so that they are not harmed during tribulation. God protects them. These are also called the church of Philadelphia (rev 3:7). These form the new Jerusalem, the temple of God. God dwells in them as the Holy spirit. If you read about the dimensions of the New Jerusalem, you find out that it is 144 something something in angelic measurements of men. And, it's precious stones are similar to those that describe God. this group is also spiritually referred to as remnants of Judea or Judea.

The other group of believers are considered unfaithful. These are what Jesus referred to us Jerusalem when He kept lamenting because they killed the prophets (didn't understand the message). He says He tried to cover them as a hen covers her chicks but they wouldn't listen. Jerusalem doesn't even know her time of visitation and because of this, the enemies will surround her, hem her from all the sides and crush her. This group is also called the church of Smyrna - they must die to receive a crown of life a their gift. They will undergo the great tribulation and will be killed by Antichrist. They overcome the Antichrist by the blood of the lamb.

"Therefore, when you shall see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, let those in Judea flee to the mountains..."

This 2 groups were also prophesied by Jeremiah:

Jer 24:1After Jehoiachin[SUP]a[/SUP] son of Jehoiakim king of Judah and the officials, the skilled workers and the artisans of Judah were carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the Lordshowed me two baskets of figs placed in front of the temple of the Lord. 2One basket had very good figs, like those that ripen early; the other basket had very bad figs, so bad they could not be eaten.3Then the Lord asked me, “What do you see, Jeremiah?”“Figs,” I answered. “The good ones are very good, but the bad ones are so bad they cannot be eaten.”4Then the word of the Lord came to me: 5“This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Like these good figs, I regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom I sent away from this place to the land of the Babylonians.[SUP]b[/SUP] 6My eyes will watch over them for their good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up and not tear them down; I will plant them and not uproot them. 7I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.8“ ‘But like the bad figs, which are so bad they cannot be eaten,’ says the Lord, ‘so will I deal with Zedekiah king of Judah, his officials and the survivors from Jerusalem, whether they remain in this land or live in Egypt. 9I will make them abhorrent and an offense to all the kingdoms of the earth, a reproach and a byword, a curse[SUP]c[/SUP] and an object of ridicule, wherever I banish them. 10I will send the sword, famine and plague against them until they are destroyed from the land I gave to them and their ancestors.’ ”

This prophesy in reality applied to Daniel and other captives from Judea who the Lord preserved in Babylon. But in real real real reality, it also applies to the people in end times (us- Judea and Jerusalem). We are in babylon now(kingdom ruled by Antichrist). Some will be preserved some will perish in the name of the Lord- doesn't mean they will be condemned to hell, but they'll face tribulations.

Good night guyz, got to go to bed.
Mar 14, 2011
You are still mistaken. This is another example of God sending Himself, the Father/Son/Holy spirit are one. You do realize that everything in Isaiah is a prophesy that is fulfilled by Jesus, right?
But Isaiah's prophesy are very different from other prophesies; in Isaiah, God speaks as if those things are happening then (during Isaiah's time) but they are actually prophesies some prequoting Jesus. And Jesus when he fulfills them, he never used to quote everything, He could just quote part of the phrase so that people could relate but very few would understand that he is. A good example is:

Isa 43:10“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,“and my servant whom I have chosen,so that you may know and believe meand understand that I am HE.Before me no god was formed,nor will there be one after me.11I, even I, am the Lord,and apart from me there is no savior.12I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—I, and not some foreign god among you.You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “that I am God.13Yes, and from ancient days I am he.No one can deliver out of my hand.When I act, who can reverse it?

Here, God declares His sovereignty over other gods. He says that the difference between Him and other gods is that He declares things before they happen (In this case salvation), He comes and acts within the people (witnesses) so that they witness, and after they witness, he proclaims to them that He had actually said He would do that and that He has accomplished in their midst as God and not some foreigner.

Jesus fulfils this prophesy by quoting part of it:

John 8:24
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am HE, you will indeed die in your sins.”

The context of Jesus' condemnation is salvation. he was basically saying that he is the savior and if they didn't believe He was, they would die in their sins. It came after the Pharisees asked Him about His witnesses (which also Isa 43 talks about). The only part that Jesus quotes so that people could relate to what He was saying and who He was claiming to be was "..I'm He.." only. Anybody who would have understood Him would have related to God's claims of sovereignty in Isaiah 43

It is about God sending himself even if there appears to be a separation between the authorities of God.

no, I am not mistaken. But I am done..

God did not send himself. He sent his son, who died, then he sent his spirit, who convicts and teaches and comforts and does his job.


Senior Member
Dec 28, 2016
From Bluto:


First of all, you are wrong in stating that I do not believe Christ existed before the incarnation. I do believe he existed: as the Father. Let me explain what i believe so there are no misconceptions or assumptions as have already been happening. (I am not a Modalist.)

  • In the beginning of time, before earth, heaven, angels, or any of creation existed, God (the Father) was there. - (Psalm 90:2, Psalm 93:2)
  • He then created all things - Isaiah 44:24
  • He constantly emphasized to the children of Israel that he is the only God - Deuteronomy 6:4, Isa 44;24, Isa 45:5, etc
  • He gave them a promise that their one God (the Father) would come and save them - Isa 35:3-6, Isa 9:6, Isa 7:14
  • He told them what the signs would be that God was among them - Isa 35:3-6
  • God (the Father) came in the flesh just like he said he would! - Luke chapter 1, John 1:1-14
  • Jesus tried to tell them he was God that came in the flesh - John 10:30, John 14:6-11

You see, all of the scriptures then make sense when you realize that the Father was the spirit that lived inside of the man Christ Jesus. Then when you see Jesus, you are seeing God himself but he is veiled in the flesh. No man can look upon God and live. But you could look at the man Christ Jesus and you were looking at God Almighty! So Jesus was the one God (the Father of the old testament.

So when the bible says all things were created by Jesus, guess what. They were! Because who is Jesus? The Father that is manifested in the flesh! The creator! The Almighty God! Just like he said he was in Revelation 1:8 and Isa 9:6. Jesus Christ is the everlasting Father, the Almighty God! Whoo!
Then the Christ must have been confused, because on the cross He cried out to His Father. I guess He was crying out to Himself? :rolleyes: :confused:


Senior Member
Dec 28, 2016
Now for those who keep calling me a modalist, let me make it very clear i am not a modalist. As far as my understanding, a modalist is someone who believes that God physically transforms himself whenever he fulfills a different role. If my understanding is incorrect then please forgive me and correct me. But if that is correct, i do not believe that.

I do however believe that the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit (however you prefer it) refer to 3 different aspects of God's relationship to humanity. In the same way that a man can be his son's Father, Pastor, and Boss. If a man worked for his dad at a company, and his dad was also the Pastor at his church, then his Dad has three different aspects of his relationship to his son. And depending on the context of their conversation or their location, his Dad's conversation with him and behavior towards him will be different. However his dad does not have to be three separate individuals to fulfill each role and neither does he have to physically transform into another being to fulfill the roles.

So if the father and son are on a job site, the dad has can tell the son to perform a specific task because he has the authority to do so. At the same time, if his son needs some counsel and spiritual guidance while working on the job, that dad can speak as his Pastor. But he doesn't stop being his boss just because they are now talking about spiritual things. He has the authority and the ability to do both! This is why Jesus could be hungry as a man, and yet he could multiply fish and bread to feed a multitude as well. He did not stop being the Creator simply because he indwelt the man Jesus Christ.
If you deny there are three persons in the Godhead, you are a modalist. The Christ is not Father, Son & Spirit. That’s what modalism avers.


Senior Member
Dec 28, 2016
Again you people just misunderstand; Jesus being God, becomes the son (authority of the son) so that He demonstrates to us how to relate to the father in heaven, hence the frantic prayers and submission. Once He ascends, He is our Father in heaven, now we take up the authority of the son and the Holy spirit who comes from the Father indwells us- this basically means, He comes in us.
The idea is very simple- Only God lives forever, if anyone is to live forever with God, they must be one with God so that it is said that God is in them and them in God. In the end, we will be all like God or we will be God. The reason these authorities- Father/son are one.
Another heresy. Jesus did not become the Son. He is the eternal Son of God. The second person in the triune Godhead.


Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
See the irony here? You accused me of inserting or assuming a word, and then you turned around and did exactly that. In the Psalms, the reason we "assume" that it is referring to the Father is because this is a Jew that is writing worship songs for Jews to sing. All of the Jews only believed in One God. They did not believe in a trinity and they still don't believe in a trinity. They only believed in one single God. And they also believed that that one single God was their Lord. It appears to me that you do not believe the Father is Lord.

Deut 6:4 - Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.

Psalm 99:9: Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the Lord our God is holy.

And on and on and on.

You are wrong. It does not make a distinction between the Father and Son. The word "Word" in this passage in the original greek is "logos" which means plan or concept. John 1:1 would read "In the beginning was the Plan, and the Plan was with God, and the Plan was God." This is consistent with Revelation 13:8:

Rev 13:18 - And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Obviously Jesus had not been physically slain before anything was created. If he had been that would mean two things: He was not eternal, and either the Father or the Holy Ghost had killed him! That is obviously not what was being expressed. How then was he slain from the foundation of the world? It was the plan of God for him to die! But guess who was going to die for us? GOD HIMSELF! He didn't send someone else to do his work, he came in the form of man and did it himself! God had this plan "with" him from the very beginning of creation. The Word is not a separate being from God, the Word or the "plan" was God! The plan was that God would come and die for humanity.
First of all apostolic I want to comment on your understanding of John 1:1. I knew you would finally get to the oneness excuse that John 1:1 is about the "plan, thought or concept." So if your view is correct then why does the Apostle John have to inform us that the "Word/Logos" is the plan, thought and concept of God who is "WITH" God? In other words, is it not obvious Gods words, plans and thoughts are already with Him? You view does not only make any sense but goes against the grammar.

Now, since you insist that Jesus is God the Father because that is the title of this thread, and you also insist that in the Old Testament everywhere it says "God" it is the Father answer me this question? It was Jews who wrote the New Testament and the Apostle John wrote what Jesus said (who you say is the Father) the following.

John 5:37, "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, NOR SEEN HIS FORM." So here's the question? It says at Genesis 17:1,2, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord APPEARED to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walke before Me, and be blameless, vs2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply your exceedingly."

It explicitly says that the Lord God Almighty APPEARED to Abram, and Jesus said the Father cannot been seen so please reconcile this apparent contradiction from what you believe that this is referring to the Father to what the Bible says? And go ahead if you like, ask your oneness friends to help you out. One more point, none of this has to do with the Trinity. This issue is all about identifying the players or the persons in the various text. :eek:



Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
Mat 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!”

Mark 1:10
10As soon as Jesus came up out of the water, he saw the heavens breaking open and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

Luke 3:22
and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in a bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."

Look at these verses carefully. These are things that only Jesus saw and experienced, not the people around, not even John the baptist. Mat 3:16 doesn't imply the authorities of God were there at the same time in a manner that people witnessed, it is only symbolic to show the understanding they have had (Father/son/Holy spirit) since the beginning and they are timeless. Christ is the representation of fullness of God in bodily form, a dove is not and a voice is not- this was just symbolic to help the readers know the authorities of God.
You need to at least properly understand modalism - it is clear that you do not...
You are advocating for something that you do not even understand.

As for your dismissal of Matt 3:16-17, specifically dismissing the voice of God and the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove as merely symbolic, you are still telling me that Jesus was speaking to Himself!
Can you not see how silly and implausible that is?
An honest reading of that Scripture makes it plain that that events recorded actually happened as described and it is also plainly obvious that the three entities are acting independently.

In your view Jesus is just a world-class ventriloquist!
Go figure...
Aug 7, 2016
There is God, God's Word, God's Spirit.

Then there was God, God's Word manifested in Flesh named Jesus Christ, and God's Spirit.

Jesus Christ was with God from the very start, but was just God's Word.

Jesus Christ and His Father are one, because of this ; Also known as one is Reason/ Purpose/ Unity.

All three are one ; also known as one in Reason/ Purpose/ Unity.

And as the bible plainly puts it, in 1 John 3.

1 John 3: 20 Even if we feel guilty, God is greater than our feelings, and he knows everything.
Dear friends, if we don’t feel guilty, we can come to God with bold confidence. 22 And we will receive from him whatever we ask because we obey him and do the things that please him.

23 And this is his commandment: We must believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as he commanded us. 24 Those who obey God’s commandments remain in fellowship with him, and he with them. And we know he lives in us because the Spirit he gave us lives in us.

That receive from him whatever we ask just means, we can find help from God by asking Him to help us with our problems we have in life, things we struggle with in the flesh to overcome addictions, asking him to watch over our family, and friends.

Ephesians 2:4-10

4 But God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so much, 5 that even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God’s grace that you have been saved!) 6 For he raised us from the dead along with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ Jesus. 7 So God can point to us in all future ages as examples of the incredible wealth of his grace and kindness toward us, as shown in all he has done for us who are united with Christ Jesus.
8 God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. 9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. 10 For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.

Let me know if I am heretical thanks and blessings. Because no one understands the trinity anyway, it's just a concept made by man to think they can understand God in some form and structure of a way, and it doesn't have anything to do with salvation.
Last edited:
Aug 7, 2016
** I also do believe that Jesus Christ was God with us, because God was with us through His (Word) Son Jesus Christ.

Just Like when God came as a cloud or a fire, the cloud surpressed God's great glory that would have destoryed everything if He didn't come like so.

Which I find intresting. Cheers, and God bless, brothers and sisters of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Last edited:


Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
This is something I wrote up a while back, that I got out of my first year Greek text "The Basics of Biblical Greek, by Bill Mounce. So no, reading Strong's will not help you understand this. You need a knowledge of noun cases, and Greek grammar to understand John 1:1. Plus, I have the definitions of Arianism and Modalism or Sabellianism at the bottom of the post.

In English, the order of the sentence generally determines the use of the noun. The subject usually comes first. However, in Greek, the word order is flexible, and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical functions. For example, if there are two nouns and one has the definite article, it is the subject.

Word order is also employed for the sake of emphasis. Generally, if a word is thrown to the front of a clause or sentence, it is done so for emphasis. When the predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis.

A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. English versions usually say, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order is reversed.

Καί θεός ήν ό λόγος or (Kai theos en ho logos)
And God was the Word

We know that “the Word” is the subject, because it has the definite article and is in the nominative case and we translate it accordingly “and the Word was God.”

Two questions, both of theological importance, come to mind
1. Why was θεός (theos or god) thrown forward?
2. Why does it lack the article?

The emphatic position of θεός (theos) stresses its essence of quality” “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the Person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).

That means that the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has: lack of the article tells us the Jesus Christ is not the Father.

John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism

To state this another way, let’s look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

1. καί ό λόγος ήν ό θεός
“and the Word was the God” Sabellianism*
2. καί ό λόγος ήν θεός
“and the Word was a god” Arianism+
3. καί θεός ήν ό ΄λόγος
and the Word was God” Orthodoxy

Mounce William D., Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar

*Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.
The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the 3rd century. Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the Christian doctrine that Jesus is fully God.

+ Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God to the Son of God (Jesus of Nazareth). Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father.
Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals), with the exception of such groups as Oneness Pentecostals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism
Jun 1, 2016
** I also do believe that Jesus Christ was God with us, because God was with us through His Son Jesus Christ.

Just Like when God came as a cloud or a fire, the cloud surpressed God's great glory that would have destoryed everything if He didn't come like so.

Which I find intresting. Cheers, and God bless, brothers and sisters of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

what is the Holy spirit with us?

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. "

so if the argument is Jesus is God, what does that make the Holy spirit?

john 14 " If ye love me, keep my commandments.
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26But 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."

according to Jesus Christ, He and the Father come to be with those who receive the Holy ghost. so then isn't the Holy ghost God with us?

or is the holy spirit not One with God or one with us? it is by the holy spirit that we have God with us, Jesus is the way God gave the gift of His spirit to us. it was the plan for Him to be crucified and to be raised up and seated beside God in order to send the Holy spirit to those who come to God through Him.

acts 2 "
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Therefore 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.34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Jesus is the Son of God, that's the gospel that God sent His son to offer eternal Life to those who will accept Him and receive the Holy spirit. that is God with us. by the holy ghost both Father, and son are with us, because the Father, the Son and the Holy ghost are One. therefore those who receive the Holy ghost are One with Father and son by the spirit. that's the Gospel, that's our reconciliation to God. paul spoke of. we are reconciled by the gift of the Holy ghost that only comes through Jesus Christ. the son of God, who makes children of God of those who believe.

Jun 1, 2016
Look down from heaven and see from Your holy and glorious habitation;
Where are Your zeal and Your mighty deeds?
The stirrings of Your heart and Your compassion are restrained toward me.

For You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us
And Israel does not recognize us.
You, O LORD, are our Father,
Our Redeemer from of old is Your name.
(Isaiah 63:15-16)

here in Isaiah YHWH is identified as both Father & Redeemer.
named, even.
((v. 17 presents also a problem for the idea of completely free will, btw))

my opinion is that this isn't so easily understood as such human conversations as the one we are engaged in sometimes make it out to be; it is a mystery.

or,,,is it so simple we aren't getting it?

A Father begins as One. in Him there is Life, he plants that life in a womb and the life grows into a Son. you can look at that " the father has manifested Himself in another body. " but in reality lol God had a Son, who He sent to be the savior of the World. the Father Gave all things to His Son ( inheritance) He gave His Son all power and authority. and Jesus was His Son, a Son is nothing more than His fathers life planted and grown. the simplicity is Jesus is the Son of God. that makes Him divine, because He is everything His Father is. Only, He is the Son of God, He has a God, He has a Father. its about inheritance because its about Gods Son.

some will hear " the son of God" and instantly they begin saying " oh no you are " denying his divinity lol" actually it is they who cant grasp the simplicity of it. God sent His only begotten Son to be Our savior, to be One of us, and One with God at the same time. He came into Our realm of existence and made a path Home to God the Father. based on His suffering and mercy towards us. Jesus is the Word of salvation the Son of God.


Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
Now for those who keep calling me a modalist, let me make it very clear i am not a modalist. As far as my understanding, a modalist is someone who believes that God physically transforms himself whenever he fulfills a different role. If my understanding is incorrect then please forgive me and correct me. But if that is correct, i do not believe that.

I do however believe that the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit (however you prefer it) refer to 3 different aspects of God's relationship to humanity. In the same way that a man can be his son's Father, Pastor, and Boss. If a man worked for his dad at a company, and his dad was also the Pastor at his church, then his Dad has three different aspects of his relationship to his son. And depending on the context of their conversation or their location, his Dad's conversation with him and behavior towards him will be different. However his dad does not have to be three separate individuals to fulfill each role and neither does he have to physically transform into another being to fulfill the roles.

So if the father and son are on a job site, the dad has can tell the son to perform a specific task because he has the authority to do so. At the same time, if his son needs some counsel and spiritual guidance while working on the job, that dad can speak as his Pastor. But he doesn't stop being his boss just because they are now talking about spiritual things. He has the authority and the ability to do both! This is why Jesus could be hungry as a man, and yet he could multiply fish and bread to feed a multitude as well. He did not stop being the Creator simply because he indwelt the man Jesus Christ.
You know apostolic you have said on a couple occasions that you are not a Modalist. Yet you just said above, "I do however believe that the titles, Father, Son and Holy Ghost Or (Holy Spirit) however you prefer it refer to three different "ASPECTS" of God's relationship to humanity." The following is the definition of "Modalism."

noun: modalism

  • 1.
    the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature.

Now pay attention because this is important. The Bible "DOES NOT" identify God by "modes, roles, or aspects. The Bible does identify God by (1) His names, (2) His titles, (3) His unique attributes, (4) His unique actions, (5) His worship. I am not aware of any other literary, contextual means by which the Bible clearly identifies God. I could be wrong, but I am confident this list is comprehensive and your more than welcome to add to the list, this goes for anybody else.

The doctrine of the trinity cannot be understood, argued or refuted by appealing to any single passage in the Bible. That is because it is a systematic theology in the proper sense of the term "theology" the "study" or knowledge" of God, and is drawn from the whole Bible, as any valid systematic theology should be. It is the doctrin that explains the nature of the one and only true God described in the Bible, and is necessarily drawn from a harmonization of ALL of scripture and therefore can only be undetstood from a view that accounts for ALL of the Bible.

If you will examine the Bible thoroughly you should be able to quickly discover that there are three and ONLY three "persons" who are identified as God by the COMBINATION of the literary means I listed above. These persons are variously ...

1) CALLED by the NAMES of God (YHWH and its variants) either directly of indirectly....usually both. We already know God the Father is called God, YHWH, and Lord. Jesus is called God and Lord. The Holy Spirit is identified or called God at Acts 5:3,4.

2) RECOGNIZED with the TITLES of God, (Lord, King, Savior, Redeemer, etc.)

3) ATTRIBUTED with UNIQUE characteristics of God, (creation, orgin of God's word, salvation of men and/or creation. The Holy Spirit is identified at Genesis 1:2 as "moving over the waters."

4) CREDITED with the UNIQUE characteristics of God (omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscient, eternality, etc.)

5) WORSHIPED and/or given the honor, reverence and position due to GOD ALONE.

Keep in mind I am not saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all consistently, equally and in every mention identified as God in every place they are represented in the Bible by any combination of thes 5. Nor am I saying that each person of the tirntiy is represented equally by ALL FIVE of these means of identifying God.

I am saying that:
1) that each person of the trinity receives some COMBINATION of the 5 means of identifying and distinguishing God listed above and
2) ONLY the three persons of the trinity receive some COMBINATION of these 5 literaly means.

For example, the Bible does not call anyone "God" (in the proper sense--meaning THE one and only God to whom it does not attribute the UNIQUE actions and UNIQUE attributes of God. I think you get my point and remember, theology is not salvation. It is in Christ that we find God fully and sufficiently manifested to us human beings, AS a human being and for His own glory. And it is only through His Holy Spirit that we can know Him and be saved by His grace. Any questions? :eek: