The Holy Trinity

[Fortigurn]

The Bible is calling God our father because he created us. He's not referring to the father as in the trinity.

That doesn't hold, because Christ himself refers to Him as 'Father', and 'my Father'. It also fails to hold because the distinctions 'God the Father', 'God the Son', and 'God the Holy Spirit' are post-Biblical inventions. They are nowhere used in the Bible.

It mentions Jesus in there because he's the only one who is a physical being.

This is speculation.

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. Joh 14:11

Yes, I agree. I believe.

[Fortigurn]

If you believe the Athanasian creed consists of only two lines, then perhaps some case could be made that it was believed there were three Gods and one God in the same sense.

Please read my posts. I have never claimed that the Athanasian Creed stated that there are three Gods and one God in the same sense.

I said this:

The logical contradiction of having God the Father, God the Son and God the Son, and having only one God.

That is a logical contradiction. I said that this logical contradiction is found in the Athanasian Creed. I quoted from the Athanasian Creed directly. This contradiction is found in the Athanasisan Creed.

This contradiction has also historically been recognised as a logical contradiction, which is why it has historically been argued that the trinity is a dogma beyond human reason.

Sorry, but what you say of Tertullian not believing in the Trinity is entirely untrue. Have you read any part of Tertullian's work, Adversus Praxean?

Yes I have. He was a Modalist.

In chapter 25, Tertullian writes: "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

And a website dedicated to Tertullian writes:

Praxeas thought that the Father and the Son were so much the same that we could say that God the Father suffered on the cross. Tertullian points out that this isn't how scripture talks about God, and goes on to summarise the teaching of scripture on the persons of the trinity, and their relationship, thereby being the first to explicitly recognise the doctrine of the Trinity.

(http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm)

Firstly, this is simply reading the trinity back into what Tertullian wrote. Secondly, it is destructive to your argument to declare that the trinity was not explicitly recognised until almost the 3rd century.

I'm also inclined to believe Alister McGrath on this one, a very well-respected and fair-minded theologian whose introductory textbooks are often used to teach Theology.

Unfortunately McGrath is approaching Tertullian with the supposition that Tertullian believed in the trinity. He then reads the trinity back into Tertullian (as so many trinitarians do).

At best Tertullian held to 'Logos Christology' (I have mentioned this before, please read up on it).

Well I see that my interpretation doesn't just take "parts", but that it takes into account "all" of Scripture.

Actually what you have shown me is that you do indeed take parts - parts from which you then infer a dogma which is not revealed.

Sure, if we take only the parts that refer to God as one (disregarding the parts that refer to the Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit as each being God), and take only the parts that refer to Christ's humanity (disregarding those that refer to His divinity in any way), but then that would leave us with an uninformed hacked interpretation wouldn't it?

You are begging the question by assuming that there are passages which refer to Christ and the Holy Spirit as God.

None of the passages you quoted "explicity" say the Father is God. Rather, what we have are strong "implicit" statements of the Father being God. Point me to one verse in what you quoted that explicitly says the Father is God, rather than one having to implicity assume the Father to be God, and the only God at that. I'll go through your passages in my next reply to highlight how they are not explicit.

I'm afraid they are all explicit. All of them refer to the Father as God.

[Fortigurn]

Now to go through some of your passages to highlight how they are not explicit.

Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, 'You are my father, my God, and the protector who delivers me.'

Here it can be taken as there are two persons, one who is "my father" the other who is "my God". Or even if we accept the two are infact one, it is not explicitly stated they are.

That is not grammatically possible, given the single referent 'you'.

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life—that they know you, [the Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

Isn't it a shame that "the Father" isn't actually in the original verse.

You mean isn't it a shame that 'Father' is in the preceding passage?

John 17:
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you—
2 just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him.

It's unavoidable that the Father is being addressed here specifically.

John 20: Jesus replied, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

Sounds like two fathers here, and two Gods. One has to assume Christ is referring to one and the same person. If one has to assume anything, or make any kind of logical connection on their own, then the statements in question are only implicit.

No assumption has to be made, this is simple grammar. Find me any commentary which says this is a reference to two fathers and two gods.

Romans 15:6 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This does not explicitly say "the Father" is God.

It does indeed. It calls God 'our Father'.

I'm sure you are aware that if Socrates is a man, a man is not necessarily Socrates. Or a better example than the Socrates one would be God is love, but this does not mean love is God. Likewise if God is our Father, then this does not necessarily mean our Father is God.

This actually does state that our Father is God. Your analogy is flawed, because it does not use equivalent terms. If Socrates is 'our man', then 'our man' is necessarily Socrates.

It is also interesting that "God" is further distinguished by "our Father" as though there may by others who could bear the title of God.

Find me any Greek commentary which agrees with your interpretation of the grammar.

Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
I Corinthians 15:24 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
II Corinthians 11:31 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, same as the previous.

Answered above.

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Wow, here we have an indication that Christ was not a man. For Paul, an apostle, did not come of men or by man, but by Jesus Christ.

You cannot argue that without arguing that Jesus was not a man, which contradicts the trinitarian dogma.

Yet, getting back to the explicitness, this passage does not explicitly state the Father is God, nor does it mean there aren't others who could be "God". In order to it to be explicit that "the Father" is God, it would have to read something like: "and the Father, who is God, raised him from the dead."

It says that God, identified as the Father, raised him from the dead. It specifically declares that God is one person, 'the Father'. Remember, that is the case I am proving - that God is described as one person, 'the Father'.

Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Again not explicit.

It is explicit. It refers to God as one person, the Father.

Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Still not explicit for one has to assume two persons aren't be referred to (i.e., one God and one Father = two)

It is grammatically impossible to assume two persons here (one 'God' and the other 'Father').

Ephesians 5:20 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Ephesians 6:21 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
II Thessalonians 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
I Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

My comments regarding previous passages you provided apply here also. While there is an implicitness that the Father is God, it is not explicit.

They are all explicit. You appeal either to fallacies of grammar or fallacies of false reasoning.

IMPORTANT: I want to emphasise to all that what I am doing is not denying the Father is God. Rather I am denying it is explicitly stated "the Father is God". One always has to draw the conclusion or assumption that the Father is God, and also often that there aren't other Fathers or Gods (however obvious may be the author's intention).

These are all in fact explicit statements. They are not implicit statements, and it is not grammatically possible to read them in another way.

The fact you had to make comments to make it more obvious to me, reveals the passages you provided are only "implicit" (however strongly implicit they may be).

I didn't have to make any comments, I just gave you the list of quotes you had requested.

This is a great passage with which to finish:

I Corinthians 8:
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

There is one God, and that God is one person, and that person is the Father.

Oh... so some sort of Pantheism is true in so much as we are all God? We are all the Father?

It is not possible to derive such a conclusion from this passage.

Of course I don't believe this, but again a few assumptions are required in the passage.

You are not actually addressing the grammar here. No assumptions are required.

In addition, this passage actually favours Christ's divinity. For if all things are by one God who is the Father, and all things are by one Lord Jesus Christ, then Christ is not created but eternal. Only God is eternal. Therefore Christ is also God.

This is a fallacy of equivocation which leads to the Oneness theology (I hope you don't want to go there).

Oh no, there are passages, but they need to be taken collectively and together they uphold a concept such as the Trinity, which was developed in response to Scripture, not in the absense of Scripture or against it.

Which means you are in fact telling me is that there are no passages in the Bible which refer to God as consisting of three persons in one being.

You are instead telling me that the trinity is a logical inference from a chain of reasoning which involves interpreting certain passages as stating that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God.

Yes, that is pretty much it... only it has seemed to me that you relegate logical inferences as unimportant when it suits you. Martin Luther was for Scripture and reason alone, and I strongly believe one shouldn't divorce reason from their interpretation of Scripture.

I have already explained that I do not believe that logical inferences are unimportant.

[Kurieuo]

I will reiterate:

IMPORTANT: I want to emphasise to all that what I am doing is not denying the Father is God. Rather I am denying it is explicitly stated "the Father is God". One always has to draw the conclusion or assumption that the Father is God, and also often that there aren't other Fathers or Gods (however obvious may be the author's intention).

Now much of your contention in your last posts seems to be that I have denied God being the Father in your passages. I have not. Rather, I have gone into some detail to say how these passages aren't "explicit", which means "Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied." You have to imply certain things in the passages you presented, so I still advocate everything I previously said about your passages being implicit, and maybe you have a different idea of "implicit" and "explicit" than I do, but I don't believe you've responded to my points adequately.

For example, "God our Father" does not explicitly express "The Father is God". Infact by virtue of "our", there is the implication there are other "Fathers", perhaps even other Gods who are Fathers. This passage therefore only implicitly affirms the Father is God, for it requires a previously implied understanding as to who the Father is and some Christian understanding.

Kurieuo

[Felgar]

Actually 1 Corinthians 8:6 says 'through whom are all things', which is a critical difference (that's not my translation, that's from a standard modern evangelical translation).

Every time you get backed into a corner by clear and simple scripture you simply deny the authority of scripture. "Oh, well this is the wrong translation" or "That passage in 1 John should not even be in there." Yet at the same time you claim to accept the authority of the Bible and have denied my charges that you are undermining it. These two examples are you doing just that; explaining passages away to error or mistranslation. Yet I cannot accept this, because I believe it to be in God's nature to provide us the means to know Him, and I believe the Bible to be an extremely important part of that.

Now you've already accepted earlier in this thread that the description of the Son of Man in Revelation 1 is clearly Jesus, and in verse 17 Jesus states "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last." Being the First and Last is an attribute of divinity. How then do you deny the divinity of Christ?

I have already explained this more than once. The term 'first and last' is a title. Titles of God are given by Him to those who represent Him (His agents).

Ok, fine. But I believe your explanation to be particularly clouded and unreasonable, esspecially when the whole of our discussion and the passages we've been over have been reviewed.

To recap I already said back on page 4 that I don't believe a full understanding of the Trinity is a requirement to be saved. Nor does anyone believe the Bible explicitly states that God is a Trinity. I still remain focussed on the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now THIS is something that I feel quite strongly may be a determining factor in salvation. As Kurieuo has pointed out, what we believe about Jesus IS very important.

So I just want to close by saying that I sincerely pray that you will come to know Jesus Christ as we know Him. That you come to know that your God is your very saviour, and that in His infinite love and mercy He accepted the burden of our sin. The Good News of Jesus Christ is not that He was a good man who the Romans executed, but rather that Jesus Christ, who is perfect, divine, and eternal in nature committed Himself to suffer the humilitation and death that is the price of our sin. God's plan for our salvation set forth from the very start of creation was not to appoint an unfortunate Jewish child to pay the price of our sin, but rather to suffer the consequences of our sin Himself in order to confer upon us an undeserved righteousness without which we could not spend eternity in a direct and loving relationship with Him.

Consider the very nature of God that each alternative reveals; did God just pick a blameless human to suffer for all humanity? Would a just and loving God even do that? Or was the love of God so great that He set aside His eternal and divine nature in order to suffer as one of us?

Honestly no response is necessary; just please consider the implications of Christ's divinity on God's plan for salvation.

[Fortigurn]

I will reiterate:

IMPORTANT: I want to emphasise to all that what I am doing is not denying the Father is God. Rather I am denying it is explicitly stated "the Father is God". One always has to draw the conclusion or assumption that the Father is God, and also often that there aren't other Fathers or Gods (however obvious may be the author's intention).

Yes, I understood that was your intention.

Now much of your contention in your last posts seems to be that I have denied God being the Father in your passages.

No, I didn't think that at all. I know you were using these as examples for your argument. I realise you believe that the Father is God.

Rather, I have gone into some detail to say how these passages aren't "explicit", which means "Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied."

You were unsuccessful because you didn't demonstrate in what way they were implicit rather than explicit. You launched a series of arguments based on ungrammatical readings and flawed reasoning.

You have to imply certain things in the passages you presented, so I still advocate everything I previously said about your passages being implicit, and maybe you have a different idea of "implicit" and "explicit" than I do, but I don't believe you've responded to my points adequately.

There is nothing which needs to be implied or assumed in these passages. They are explicit. As I have said, you have merely resorted to ungrammatical readings and flawed reasoning (please deal in particular with the fact that I proved your 'Socrates' analogy to be flawed).

For example, "God our Father" does not explicitly express "The Father is God". Infact by virtue of "our", there is the implication there are other "Fathers", perhaps even other Gods who are Fathers. This passage therefore only implicitly affirms the Father is God, for it requires a previously implied understanding as to who the Father is and some Christian understanding.

What you are saying here is that we understand what 'God our Father' means when it is in context. That goes without saying. That does not mean it is not an explicit statement. It is an explicit statement - it states that God is our Father.

Exactly what 'God' means, and in what way He is our Father, is something not stated in the text, but something we derive from context. But the statement that God is 'our Father' is explicit.

[Fortigurn]

Actually 1 Corinthians 8:6 says 'through whom are all things', which is a critical difference (that's not my translation, that's from a standard modern evangelical translation).

Every time you get backed into a corner by clear and simple scripture you simply deny the authority of scripture. "Oh, well this is the wrong translation" or "That passage in 1 John should not even be in there."

That is not correct. I have said a lot more than that. In this particular instance, you claimed that this passage says Jesus is God. It does not. It makes a statement about Christ from which you draw a particular inference, and in the process of reconciling that infererence with other Biblical data you eventually draw the conclusion that Jesus is God.

That is very far from the passage saying that Jesus is God. Because you are so used to going through this entire process of reasoning, you don't even realise you're doing it, so when you read the passage you don't so much read what it says, you read into it the conclusion you've reached, so you genuinely believe it is saying 'Jesus is God', even though it is not.

Yet at the same time you claim to accept the authority of the Bible and have denied my charges that you are undermining it. These two examples are you doing just that; explaining passages away to error or mistranslation.

I have said that a few passages you've offered me have been incorrectly translated. Since you have been quoting from the KJV (a notoriously inaccurate translation), this should come as no surprise to you.

If I were relying on my own authority, and disputing the authority of modern translators, you might have an argument to make. But I am not. I am actually quoting from standard evangelical trinitarian scholarship, and demonstrating that these passages are translated inaccurately in the KJV.

Yet I cannot accept this, because I believe it to be in God's nature to provide us the means to know Him, and I believe the Bible to be an extremely important part of that.

I certainly agree. It should not therefore come as a suprise to you that the KJV is not the only translation available to men, nor has it ever been such. It should also come as no surprise to you that a large number of these passages translated badly by the KJV have been recognised as badly translated or else misunderstood by some of the leading trinitarian scholars over the centuries - men such as John Calvin (1509-1564), Theodore Beza (1519-1605), John Gill (1748), Adam Clarke (1813), Albert Barnes (1851), and AT Robertson (1973).

Ok, fine. But I believe your explanation to be particularly clouded and unreasonable, esspecially when the whole of our discussion and the passages we've been over have been reviewed.

If you could show me that my argument is false - that in the Bible neither men, nor angels, nor anyone who is not God bears Divine titles - that would prove your case. I invite you to do so. Until them, I don't see why you should describe my argument as 'particularly clouded and unreasonable', especially as it is an argument recognised by standard evangelical scholarship.

Honestly no response is necessary; just please consider the implications of Christ's divinity on God's plan for salvation.

Thank you, I have. When discussing the atonement, the apostles - in six different passages - predicate the salvic efficacy of the atonement on the fact that Christ was a man. Not once do they say that he had to be God in order to effect the atonement.

The Propitiatory Substitution doctrine was invented by Anselm in the 11th century, and I see no reason to believe in the product of his imagination.

[Felgar]

In this particular instance, you claimed that this passage says Jesus is God. It does not.

Actually I claimed that the Corinthians passage indicates Christ's divinity; His eternal nature. I stated right at the start that Christ's divinity must first be shown before the Trinity can be discussed. I am making no such leap to Jesus is God as you claim.

I have said that a few passages you've offered me have been incorrectly translated. Since you have been quoting from the KJV (a notoriously inaccurate translation), this should come as no surprise to you.

Actually I've been quoting almost exclusively from NIV and I had the one point of clarity with which I used NASB; any KJV quoted was a reprint of another passage posted by yourself or someone else in the thread. The rest of your statements about KJV are moot.

If you could show me that my argument is false - that in the Bible neither men, nor angels, nor anyone who is not God bears Divine titles - that would prove your case.

It's about context, and you should realize that. Christ returns in all His glory and majesty and says "I am the First and the Last" - to me that's much more than a title. Your argument is not false; it is implausible because it is based on an unreasonable interpretation of scripture.

The Propitiatory Substitution doctrine was invented by Anselm in the 11th century, and I see no reason to believe in the product of his imagination.

I'm talking about much more than "only God can save." I'm talking about the nature of a loving, living God whom our very purpose is to love in return.

In the end I think that anyone who takes the time to read through the entire thread will see that the divinity of Christ has been established and from that the Trinity follows, and at this point that is my only concern. Obviously you will not reconsider, though really you should be open to the concept of Christ's divinity because from my point of view stubbornly maintaining that Jesus was only a man gains you nothing.

Maybe that's the start of a new thread; why is it so important to you that Jesus was only a man? I've explained the implications I see of understanding that Jesus is God, what do you believe that mandates Jesus be no more than a man?

[B. W.]

The doctrine of the Trinity seems to be the topic of choice here. Since I am new here, I'll jump right in and hope to clarify the issue as simply as I can.

I have trouble with why the doctrine of the trinity is so hard to understand or comprehend. After all, Romans 1: 20 sums up where to find the clue for this as it states: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse (NKJV Thomas-Nelson 1984 Ed).”

I will post this weak analogy so that readers may gain insight into how God's Tri-nature is displayed throughout His living creation. First, let me set forth boundaries to distinguish what constitutes a tri-nature or trinity. Number one; there will be three separate and distinct parts. The substance of these three parts will be different from each other but each cannot live without the other parts. Each part will have varied functions and attributes that support life of a single living entity: Now on to the analogy.

All living things have three parts. Even we humans have this. I will grant you this weak comparison so that you can search the matter yourself and draw your own conclusions.

The human body is comprised of three different parts: Body — which consist of skin, tissue, bone, and internal organs, all which is solid. The second part consists of liquid elements which make up the blood, and bodily solutions. The fluids have there own separate functions and attributes that differ from the solid nature of the body. These two agree as one. If each were separate — life would cease.

Now comes the third part — You. What makes you — You? If we were all just made up of bodily parts and fluids what makes us think, reason, and have different personalities? Since we all have a brain, a bodily organ is all it is, why do we not all think, act the same, and be carbon copies of personality? Could it be that we have a third part?

Some may define this as soul or spirit or even a combination of both. My point is not to go off in this direction at this time but rather to provoke your thought concerning the Trinity, so that you may grasp its concept. Once you see the model, you can explore the idea further on your own.

I divided the human body in three distinct parts. Each part differs in substance and function. The three parts co-exist with each other and make one — One. Each part is independent of each other in accord to substance and function but agree as one in order to make life alive.

Instead of telling you about God's triune nature, I ask, can you not see it within God's living creations as Romans 1: 20 says? “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse (NKJV Thomas-Nelson 1984 Ed).”

[Felgar]

An interesting and valid take on it BW, and welcome to the forums.

[B. W.]

An interesting and valid take on it BW, and welcome to the forums.

Thank You - Nice to be here and hope I can help out here!

[Byblos]

Actually 1 Corinthians 8:6 says 'through whom are all things', which is a critical difference (that's not my translation, that's from a standard modern evangelical translation).

Every time you get backed into a corner by clear and simple scripture you simply deny the authority of scripture. "Oh, well this is the wrong translation" or "That passage in 1 John should not even be in there."

That is not correct. I have said a lot more than that. In this particular instance, you claimed that this passage says Jesus is God. It does not. It makes a statement about Christ from which you draw a particular inference, and in the process of reconciling that infererence with other Biblical data you eventually draw the conclusion that Jesus is God.

That is very far from the passage saying that Jesus is God. Because you are so used to going through this entire process of reasoning, you don't even realise you're doing it, so when you read the passage you don't so much read what it says, you read into it the conclusion you've reached, so you genuinely believe it is saying 'Jesus is God', even though it is not.

Felgar did not comment on your entire response above, particularly the last paragraph but I will, since it clearly shows the level of blind arrogance you seem to display and the utter disregard with which you dismiss the opinions and interpretations of others if they disagree with yours. Please do not take this as an insult, it is simply how I read it, though I'm sure you will somehow dismiss it as well.

In the last paragraph, you're not arguing historical, textual or linguistic points. You are simply and matter-of-factly telling us that either we do not comprehend what we read and when we do, our conclusions are false, albeit genuine. It just defies credulity that you can reach this level of unreasonableness as to actually believe your erroneous conclusions to be factual. However misplaced, I'm certain to you they seem genuine.

[Deborah]

Jesus and the father are one. (possably how man and wife are one)

John 10:30 I and the Father are one."


John 12:45 When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me.


Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

John 14:8-11
8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

John 20:27-29
27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Luke 19:46 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'[a]; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"


Mark 11:17 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'[a]? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"


Matthew 21:13 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[a] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"


Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no savior.

[Byblos]

Jesus and the father are one. (possably how man and wife are one)

John 10:30 I and the Father are one."


John 12:45 When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me.


Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

John 14:8-11
8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

John 20:27-29
27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Luke 19:46 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'[a]; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"


Mark 11:17 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'[a]? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"


Matthew 21:13 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[a] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"


Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no savior.

Hi Deborah,

Those are great examples of the divinity of Jesus, many of which were posted throughout this thread many times. If, however, you're posting for the benefit of Fortigurn, I would suggest not to even bother as his arguments are old and tiring. According to him either the quotes are mis-translated or we're just too blind to really see what they actually mean, although he is gracious enough to acknowledge that our intentions are genuine.

We've been through this many times with him but he refuses to budge in the face of overwhelming evidence for the divinity of Christ. Not only that, he goes so far as to state all of us are not understanding what we're reading. It is simply pointless with him and frankly I'm personally getting bored with it, but that's just me.

[Deborah]

Actually Byblos I believe jesus said something like it is possable for the blind to see more clearly, that those who think they can see.

It is said that John son of Zebadee brother of James, the desciple who Jesus loved, wrote the gospel of John at Ephesus in opposition to the herisy of the Ebionites, who held that our lord was a mere man.
While the other evangelists wrote more about the bodily things of christ, John wrote about the spiritual things of christ, the life and soul.

From Matthew Henry's Commentary.

Personally I have found alot of truth in the book of John, I have found more understanding than in any other book of the gospel.
John knew exactly who Jesus was/is, he made it perfectly clear in his book.