If you don’t see your rejection of dictionary-based definitions in favor of personally fabricated meanings as support of confusion and misleading communication, then I wonder why you are so confused.
Words have meanings. Your loosey-goosey, nonchalant attitude toward communication is harmful to the goal of clear discussions.
For crying out loud, you have to look at the context of how people are using words, not hold them to dictionary entries. Dictionaries aren’t all knowing.
I had whole textbooks in some theology classes that avoided pronouns for God. It’s a relatively common thing, there’s nothing cryptic or misleading about it. I’m surprised you’ve never seen it before.
If you’ve learned nothing around here, surely you have learned how important it is to get your capitalization right. You looked up GodSelf, not Godself, rookie mistake. If you had looked up Godself, you would have found that it is the reflexive form of God.
Yes, is the words of men, and pagan men at that. Here are 14 biblical quotes where Jesus says He is not God. Where does Jesus say that He is part of the trinity?
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matthew 24:36)
Here Jesus makes a distinction between what he knows and what the Father knows.
And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (Matthew 26:39)
Jesus’s will is separate from God’s Will. Jesus is seeking to be obedient to God’s will.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; (John 5:26)
Jesus received his life from God. God received his life from no one. He is eternally self-existent .
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30)
Jesus says, “by myself, I can do nothing.” This indicates that Jesus is relying upon his own relationship with God. If He were God incarnate this would not make sense. One cannot “send” them self.
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5:19)
Jesus declares that he is imitating God. One cannot imitate ones self.
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (Mark 10:18)
Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God.
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)
This is another strong statement that makes a distinction between Jesus and God .
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Matthew 6:9)
He didn’t tell them to pray, Oh Jesus, who art standing right here!”
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)
Inconceivable if he God incarnate.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:21-23)
In this prayer Jesus defines the term “to be one.” It is clearly accomplished through the relationship of two autonomous beings. Christian believers are to model their relationship (to become one) after the relationship of God and Christ (as God and Christ are one). Notice that “to be one” does not mean to be “one and the same person.”
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:27-28)
Paul declares that God put everything under Christ, except God himself. Instead God rules all things through Christ. (remember: “through him all things were made.”)
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: (Hebrews 1:3)
I am the Legal representative for ABC Company, I represent the ABC Company, can speak and act for them, but I am NOT the ABC Company.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
This scripture make is quite clear that Jesus is NOT equal to God or is God, but He is a lesser person subject to God Almighty not a co-equal.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15) (compared with James 1:13)
Jesus has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he never sinned.
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (James 1:13)
Jesus was tempted in every way (Luke 4), but God cannot be tempted . This is why Jesus said, “don’t call me good, none are good, only God.”
Shawn, trying to deny Jesus’ divinity on this Christian web site is just a non-starter. All your listed passages are well within the scope and awareness of many who have gone before you, and who also had in their awareness other testimonies and accounts where it was quite clear that Jesus’ contemporaries understood exactly the ‘heretical’ status he was claiming for himself. No doubt you write off those passages you disapprove of as being written by ‘pagan men’. But all the same, mysterious or incomplete as our understanding of the incarnation must remain, we Christians today worship Jesus as God with us. That’s a reality you’ll just have to deal with.
I have no intention of re-establishing the doctrine of the Trinity. The Church I am a part of has been there and done that. I am not concerned about convincing anyone it is true. But if you deny it is, you are outside Christian orthodoxy. You belong to a cult, Shawn. None of your interpretations are surprising or convincing. Neither are they instructive to people who look to the actual Christian Church for sound doctrine.
Dear Mervin,
I was just supporting your fellow moderator @Christy who started this thread. But you did not answer my call to show me one passage where Jesus says He is part of a trinity. I accept no man-made mystery as I have often said, just like the apostles who demanded proof of Jesus’ divinity.
Best Wishes, Shawn
Shawn, you misquoted Jesus here. He did not say, “Don’t call me good.” He said, Why do you call me good? There is One Good and that is God."
The rich young ruler called Jesus “good,” because He is Good. He is Good because He is God, the Son, but He is not God the Father, Who is also Good. The evidence indicates Jesus is God and Good, not that He is not God and not Good.
Wow. I am amazed. Interesting! Thanks
Dear Roger,
I reframed:
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (Mark 10:18)
to: “don’t call me good, none are good, only God.”
The only assumption I made is that Jesus does not want Himself to mistaken for the Father.
My reframing does not deny the divinity of Jesus, just that He is not the Father. Not being the Father in no way denigrates Him, but He is just emphasizing that the source of Goodness is from the Father, not the Son. Not being the source of Goodness, does not make Jesus “not Good”.
When Jesus gave the Great commission, who were the father, son and holy spirit?
The Human aspect of Jesus was tempted, not his divine aspect
Dear Reggie,
So you do not believe in dualism? Jesus incarnated as human, demonstrated by His resurrection int eh same form and with the same injuries as His human body. Just as every human has a (corrupt) soul, did the human form of Jesus have a (divine) soul.
Dear @Shawn_Murphy, a couple of things for your consideration.
Firstly, I believe John’s gospel must be read in light of the prologue which sets the theological boundaries of the book. Consider, John 1:1-3 (NIV2011)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
A couple of observations:
The Word shares God’s divine nature. This is the only way to make sense of ‘the Word was with God, and the Word was God’. ‘A god’ does not work linguistically, and it creates huge problems later on when the man born blind worships Jesus (John 9:38). Was the man sinning when he worshipped Jesus? Jesus didn’t seem to think so. Neither does it work linguistically to say that the Word was like God. Since again, Jesus is worshipped as God would be worshipped, but also because he shares in God’s rights, attributes, and nature (more on this in a moment).
“In the beginning” is a fairly unsubtle allusion to Genesis 1:1. John is saying 'In the beginning, before God created the heaven’s and the earth, even then the Word was. Jesus cannot be the first of God’s creations as Jehovah’s witnesses and Arian’s claim since, ‘through him [the Word] all things were made; without him nothing has been made that has been made.’ This is an example of tautology, the act of saying the same thing twice but in different ways. Everything was made through the Word’s agency, and nothing was made without the Words agency. It does violence to the text to make it mean something like ‘everything the Word made was made through him; nothing that was made by him was made without him, but the Word himself was made by God.’ as some have argued.
Thomas Aquinas once described God as (among other things) a being of pure existence, arguing that everything that lives has life because it is sustained by, and connected to, the life that God has in and of himself. John makes a similar claim in v3, the Word has life in himself. Notice that John doesn’t say that the Word has life through God, or in God, but that the Word has life in himself. The Word is a being of self-existence because he share the divine nature. Moreover, the life the Word has is marked by light. Light denoting purity, self-revelation, and life-giving power - this favourite ways of using ‘light’ (Cf. John 3:18-21; 1 John 1:5-7, John 1:9-13).
John eventually says that ‘the word become flesh and made his dwelling among us’. This might lead us to think that the Word ceased to be ‘God’ or that an exchange of natures took place (eg. divine nature for human). Yet John leaves us no wriggle room there because he says: ‘We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.’ The whole verse is self-consciously referential of the tabernacle and the temple where God made his dwelling among his people and revealed his visible splendour to them. For example, compare John 1:14 with 2 Chronicles 5:13-14, “Then the temple of the Lord was filled with the cloud, and the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the temple of God.” and John 2:19-21, “Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body.” John presents Jesus as the fulfilment of OT tabernacle/temple typology. On an aside, I believe that Matthew is doing a similar thing by drawing our attention to the phrase ‘Immanuel’ (Matthew 1:22-23). The writer of Hebrews does a similar thing in Hebrews 10:21-22. Yet John is using temple imagery in a different way to Paul in 1 Corinthians, for John closes v14 by telling us that the one who is now dwelling in a human flesh tabernacle is the Son of God.
To sum up, the word is self-existent, the creative agent who is himself uncreated, the being of holy self-existence who animates humanity and reveals God to the world, who came to dwell in a human body in fulfilment of temple/tabernacle typology, is with God spatially, is in relation with God as his Son, and share in the divine nature.
Once we understand the themes that John sets out in the prologue many (not all) of the suggested problem verses you put forward from John’s gospel begin to fall into place.
Also a quick point on language, often the bible writers are a bit fast and loose with how they use their language of God which often carries over into Christian vocab too. For example, sometimes they use Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as in the Great Commission). More often God and the Father are interchangeable with little to distinguish them other than the context. Again many Trinitarians uses God to mean ‘the God who exists as one being in three persons’ and sometimes as ‘God the Father, the first person of the Trinity’. This thread has reminded me again that impression is the enemy of accurate theological communication. I for one will be trying hard to be clearer in future posts.
Finally, on the use of nature. I believe the Bible teaches that beings are integrated things, which means that the mind, soul, body, flesh, will, heart, emotions, nature, etc. are not things which can be easily separated if at all. Certainly, when a Christian dies a person goes to be with the Lord is some spiritual sense, but the very fact that we look forward to a resurrected physical body is, I think, evidence enough that God does not see this temporary separation as a good thing long term. This is important when discussing Jesus’ temptations and death and resurrection. When Jesus is tempted, it is not that his human nature is tempted but his divine nature isn’t. Nature is the stuff that gives form to a thing. Human’s are formed of humanness, dogs are formed of dogness, cats are formed of catness. Humanness gives form to a human body, human bodily systems, but also human thoughts, feelings, ideas, the human soul, the human mind, and ways of human interaction, etc. Human nature gives form to a human person, but a person is more than human nature. Does that make sense?
The result is that you cannot tempt a nature any more than you can tempt the wood of a table. When I experience temptation what is tempted is a person, Liam, not Liam’s nature per say. The same is true for Jesus. When Jesus is tempted, the person of Jesus as an integrated being experiences that temptation, his natures are in him, and impact how he responds to that temptation, but it is the person who responds to that temptation. I have a regenerate human nature, that means sometimes I can overcome temptation by relying on God’s grace, other times I fall for the temptation and sin. In Jesus case, he has a perfect human nature and a perfect divine nature, and so the person of Jesus experiences real and genuine temptation but is also able to resist that temptation. What Jesus relies on to do that is a separate issue.
Similarly, when Jesus suffered and died, what suffered and died was not a nature but a person. Remember that the Bible teaches that death is not the end of existence but rather the transference of a person into a different state. IN the case of Jesus death, the person of Jesus was transferred to a different state of existence (worldly to heavenly, for want of better terms). In the same way, his resurrection was the transference of the person of Jesus to a different state of existence (heavenly to worldly). Just as a when a person dies their human nature is not destroyed. Even though the body remains in the ground, the person (including their nature) changes its state of existence. The Christian for example goes from worldly to heavenly and then heavenly to existence in the New Creation.
I hope that helps makes sense of some of the theology John uses and some of the metaphysics that unpins the incarnation. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
They were the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Thanks.
Strange that you are so specific on the capitalization and so flexible on the definition of Bible.
That’s funny. Are you counting coup?
My comments will be less frequent as I am on a cruise, but I will catch up.
Enjoy your cruise, Vance! Going anywhere nice? 
I think that we have a different definition of what it means to be God or divine. I would say as a Christian, that to be God. or divine, means to be self created, to have no Beginning or End.
To be inherently Good is to be God. To be secondarily good is not to be God. The whole testimony of the NT, including the passage you quoted, is that Jesus was inherently Good and thus God. I really do not see why this should be a problem, but clearly it is for you.
God created the universe as good, but not divine. God created us human beings as good, even in God’s Own Image, but not divine or God. Jesus is different. “In the Beginning is the Word.” Jesus was “in very nature God.” Philippians 2:6
Great points, Roger! Only God is pure goodness. All other ‘goods’ are contingent on God’s own goodness and are, in that sense, an expression of God’s good and a signpost back to their source. Creation was good, as you rightly point out because it was made by a God who is goodness personified.
Thanks for sharing your insights.
PS. It took us a while to get here but I’m glad we’ve found some common ground 
.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.