Jesus CANNOT be Jehovah/YHVH God

[chair]

The NT quotes Psalm 110 in numerous locations, and had dedicated Greek terms for 'Right Hand', clearly refuting your assertions to the contrary.

I don't know Greek or pretend to. Perhaps the Greek has an idiom similar to that of the English. If you knew Hebrew, you'd realize how silly this all is.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Apple7,

Psalm 33.6 Through the Word of Yahweh (Son) the heavens were made; and all their host by the breath (Holy Spirit) of His Mouth (Son).

Psalm 33:6–9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; (the spoken word of Yahweh, God the Father) and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth (a poetic parallel to the previous phrase, hence the breath of Yahweh, God the Father). 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, (the spoken word of Yahweh, God the Father) and it was done; he commanded, (the spoken command of Yahweh, God the Father) and it stood fast.

Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: (out of the mouth of Yahweh, God the Father) it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Dartman]

There is no bluster, and it’s the Greek grammar and lexicography that designate the Divinity of Christ.

I will grant, the commentary/opinions inserted in SOME Lexicons are biased toward trinity. But Greek grammar and word definition clearly teach Jesus as a human, sent by "the ONLY true God.

This has been established for nearly 2 millennia based upon these clear criteria relative to Greek anarthrous nouns and the lexical meaning of several words used in the divinely inspired text.

It is correct the trinity began to be developed ABOUT 1900 years ago, and wasn't fully in the form we see it today until 381AD. The development of trinity began with VERY poorly converted disciples of Greek philosophy, and borrows HEAVILY from the theories and terminology found in this pagan teaching.

I don’t really care what modern heretics say or think. The express image (charakter) of a hypostasis is the same ousia as that hypostasis.

Says no verse EVER.

It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.^[5] Specifically, Basil of Caesarea argues that the two terms are not synonymous and that they, therefore, are not to be used indiscriminately in referring to the godhead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)

This is linguist fact, not “theory”.

This is more bluster, and zero fact.

And “the Word was God (anarthrous)” means the same quality character and functional activity, so it’s explicitly Divinity.

No, it is God's words, God's spirit, God's thinking .... and is therefore an aspect of Jehovah/YHVH God. IT was given to Jesus as an anointing, that MADE Jesus of Nazareth into "The Christ".

 

[Dartman]

Isaiah 51.15 - 16

But I am Yahweh your God (First-Person), stirring up the sea and making its waves roar; Yahweh of Hosts is His name (Third-Person). And I have put My Words (First-Person) in your mouth, and covered you in the shade of My hand, to plant the heavens and found the earth, and to say to Zion, You are My people.


Conclusion:

Yahweh is more than one Person.

You are merely trying to avoid your previous error, by changing the subject.

First, correct your thinking on this issue;
The " made up phrases" are;
First Person of The Trinity
The Second Person of The Trinity
The Third Person of The Trinity

The "why" is blatantly obvious ..... EVERY text you provided is discussing Jehovah/YHVH God, Christ's God. You, in terrifying arrogance, took it upon yourself to falsify the Scriptures, by REPLACING Jehovah/YHVH God, with your false Gods, as listed.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I will grant, the commentary/opinions inserted in SOME Lexicons are biased toward trinity. But Greek grammar and word definition clearly teach Jesus as a human, sent by "the ONLY true God.

Incorrect.

It is correct the trinity began to be developed ABOUT 1900 years ago, and wasn't fully in the form we see it today until 381AD. The development of trinity began with VERY poorly converted disciples of Greek philosophy, and borrows HEAVILY from the theories and terminology found in this pagan teaching.

Speaking of bluster... This is utter historical revisionist anecdotes of the poorest kind.

Says no verse EVER.

The lexical absolute is that the hypostasis underlies the ousia, and the charakter of an hypostasis would also share that same underlying. This is why Cappadocian doctrine is correct. Always has been and always will be. You and other Unitarians don’t get to change it in modernity because you don’t like it.

It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.^[5] Specifically, Basil of Caesarea argues that the two terms are not synonymous and that they, therefore, are not to be used indiscriminately in referring to the godhead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)

Yes, this is a reasonable, if incomplete, summary of fact. I notice you consider wiki an authority, but dismiss scriptural lexicography as authoritative.

This is more bluster, and zero fact.

It’s what the terms mean. You don’t get to change that and dismiss the truth because you don’t like the Savior being Divine so you can attempt to innovate false doctrine two millennia in arrears.

No, it is God's words, God's spirit, God's thinking .... and is therefore an aspect of Jehovah/YHVH God. IT was given to Jesus as an anointing, that MADE Jesus of Nazareth into "The Christ".

LOL. The old fiat of thought false argument. If Christ is not Divine then salvation is functionally impossible.

I’ve declared, not argued. You can do with any of it whatever you will. I’m not accountable for you.

Christian doctrine regarding Theology Proper was settled many centuries ago. It doesn’t matter what you or any other Unitarian, Arian, Sabellian, Adoptionist, or any other historical heretic and heresy think or say.

I’m not like others here. I will leave you to your non-salvific antichrist heresies. Ciao.

 

[Dartman]

This is utter historical revisionist anecdotes of the poorest kind.

Quite to the contrary, there is NO evidence of trinity being preached in the Scriptures. The EARLIEST "evidence" of trinitarian thought is NOT any complete statement of the trinity, rather, that evidence is inferred by citing RARE statements using the title "God" in reference to Jesus .... and then gradual increase in trinitarian thinking over the next 300 years.
I don't believe creeds are appropriate, because they trend away from "Sola Scriptura", BUT, the so called "Apostolic Creed" is a VERY Unitarian document!! There isn't even the SMELL of trinity/oneness;

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.

He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting. Amen.

This creed, written roughly 150AD, agrees perfectly with the Scriptures, in stark contrast to the incomplete trinitarian doctrine found in the Nicene Creed 325AD, and the later, completed, trinitarian statement in the Constantinople Creed 381AD.

The lexical absolute is that the hypostasis underlies the ousia, and the charakter of an hypostasis would also share that same underlying.

Verses please?

 

[Aimiel]

The word for "right" can sometimes refer to a right hand, but it in itself doesn't mean "hand". It depends on the context.
In Exodus 15:6 the reference is to God's "right", i.e. his right hand. Though the word for hand doesn't appear there.
In Genesis 29:4 to reference is to the direction right, as opposed to the direction left.

In Psalm 110:1 right is simply "to my right", and translators have used the idiomatic expression "on my right hand"- but there is no real reference to "hand" there, nor is it implied by the context.

In Psalm 110:5 teh situation is similar. God on your right will crush kings. "Hand" only comes into it as a result of the translation.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

He is IN His Father's Throne. Please note: God doesn't share His Glory with ANYONE. Jesus, ergo: MUST be God!!!

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Quite to the contrary, there is NO evidence of trinity being preached in the Scriptures. The EARLIEST "evidence" of trinitarian thought is NOT any complete statement of the trinity, rather, that evidence is inferred by citing RARE statements using the title "God" in reference to Jesus .... and then gradual increase in trinitarian thinking over the next 300 years.
I don't believe creeds are appropriate, because they trend away from "Sola Scriptura", BUT, the so called "Apostolic Creed" is a VERY Unitarian document!! There isn't even the SMELL of trinity/oneness;

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.

He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting. Amen.

This creed, written roughly 150AD, agrees perfectly with the Scriptures, in stark contrast to the incomplete trinitarian doctrine found in the Nicene Creed 325AD, and the later, completed, trinitarian statement in the Constantinople Creed 381AD.

I adhere to the ancient authentic and historical orthodox Christian faith, with all its scriptural terminologies as propounded throughout the ages, from the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the valid Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, etc.). I am rigorously Cappadocian, to the point of rejecting certain Western false perceptions of Trinitarian thought.

So if you want to innovate and pretend to be a greater authority than the Apostles, the Early Fathers, and all of Christian history, that’s on you.

I’ve read every Patristic writing extant that is available in English translation. I’m a historian and linguist and semioticist. I really couldn’t care less if you deny the truth of orthodox doctrine regarding Theology Proper (including Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology). It just means you’re outside the faith.

Verses please?

Proof-texting in this manner, while ignoring lexicography and grammar, is a decidedly modernist error. As I said, it’s in the very core definitions for hypostasis and ousia as they relate to one another. If you want to change the meanings or ignore them, it’s not really my problem.

Unitarians, like Arians and numerous others, are not merely heterodox; they are heretical and not considered to be within the faith. Those are not my words. Those are the words of virtually every Patristic authority througout the ages.

If you’ve imbibed the Unitarian lie to this extent, no stranger on a forum is going to set that aside. You’re not here to find truth or be corrected. You’re here on a mission to contend for Unitarianism against the Christian faith. So have at it. It’s no concern of mine, ultimately.

 

[Dartman]

I adhere to the ancient authentic and historical orthodox Christian faith,

Oh, sorry, I didn't know you were Unitarian.

 

[Idolater]

It is obvious what logos means;
John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
John 1:14 And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,...
John 2:22 ...and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
John 4:37 And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
John 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
John 4:41 And many more believed because of his own word;
John 4:50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life ...
John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
John 7:36 What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come?
John 7:40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
John 8:52 .. thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
John 8:55 ... I know him, and keep his saying.
John 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake,..
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, .. hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: ...
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, ... if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
John 17:6 ... thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
John 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
John 18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
John 19:8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
John 19:13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die:
Close, the word was made flesh, and that flesh is Jesus.

"Flesh" in John 1:14 KJV refers to Jesus of Nazareth, right? That's all I'm asking.

"And XYZ was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."​

 

[Dartman]

I adhere to the ancient authentic and historical orthodox Christian faith, with all its scriptural terminologies as propounded throughout the ages, from the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the valid Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, etc.).

I'm not surprised.
I, on the other hand, ONLY trust the Scriptures. And the Scriptures warn about the eminent trinitarian heresy;
Matt 24:24-25 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before.

Acts 20:29-31 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.


2 Cor 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.


2 Thess 2:1-12 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


2 John 9-11 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Verses please?

Proof-texting in this manner, while ignoring lexicography and grammar, is a decidedly modernist error.

Yeah ..... that's what I thought. You've got exactly ZERO texts that actually STATE your premise. Instead you have a HEALTHY dose of "the traditions of men".

On the other hand;
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


1 Cor 8:6 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.


1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

 

[JudgeRightly]

You clearly did not, or if you did, you still misunderstood what I wrote.



You gave two answers for two different questions.

I quoted the first one, to which your answer was "no."

I ignored the second one, which you just repeated, because it wasn't what I was asking.



Read my post again, and consider which part of your post I quoted at the beginning of mine.

Honestly, I shouldn't have to spell this all out for you.

If the "logos" in John 14:24 is not the same "logos" of John 1:1, then how can you make the argument that John 1:1 is talking about the same "logos" as John 14:24? In other words, having the same definition doesn't mean that it is the same "logos".

It's amazing how simple logic defeats such antics, and how quickly those who reject that Jesus is God ignore such logic.

 

[Dartman]

"Flesh" in John 1:14 KJV refers to Jesus of Nazareth, right? That's all I'm asking.

"And XYZ was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."​

Absolutely.
God's words were fulfilled/"made" as a flesh and blood baby boy in Bethlehem.

 

[Dartman]

It's amazing how simple logic defeats such antics, and how quickly those who reject that Jesus is God ignore such logic.

What you call "logic" is merely an attempt to rationalize AWAY what the Scriptures actually state.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the wordwas God.
John 1:14 And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,...
John 2:22 ...and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
John 4:37 And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
John 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
John 4:41 And many more believed because of his own word;
John 4:50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life ...
John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
John 7:36 What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come?
John 7:40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
John 8:52 .. thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
John 8:55 ... I know him, and keep his saying.
John 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake,..
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, .. hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: ...
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, ... if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
John 17:6 ... thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
John 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
John 18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
John 19:8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
John 19:13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die:
Close, the word was made flesh, and that flesh is Jesus

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Aimiel,

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
He is IN His Father's Throne. Please note: God doesn't share His Glory with ANYONE. Jesus, ergo: MUST be God!!!

On the basis of that logic, then those that sit in the future with Jesus IN His throne must be God also, for example Peter, James and John.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings Aimiel,On the basis of that logic, then those that sit in the future with Jesus IN His throne must be God also, for example Peter, James and John.

Kind regards
Trevor

Please quote the scripture that says that those apostles will sit IN HIS FATHERS throne.

You have throne confusion.

 

[Idolater]

I adhere to the ancient authentic and historical orthodox Christian faith, with all its scriptural terminologies as propounded throughout the ages, from the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the valid Ecumenical Councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, etc.). I am rigorously Cappadocian, to the point of rejecting certain Western false perceptions of Trinitarian thought.

So if you want to innovate and pretend to be a greater authority than the Apostles, the Early Fathers, and all of Christian history, that’s on you.

I’ve read every Patristic writing extant that is available in English translation. I’m a historian and linguist and semioticist. I really couldn’t care less if you deny the truth of orthodox doctrine regarding Theology Proper (including Paterology, Christology, and Pneumatology). It just means you’re outside the faith.



Proof-texting in this manner, while ignoring lexicography and grammar, is a decidedly modernist error. As I said, it’s in the very core definitions for hypostasis and ousia as they relate to one another. If you want to change the meanings or ignore them, it’s not really my problem.

Unitarians, like Arians and numerous others, are not merely heterodox; they are heretical and not considered to be within the faith. Those are not my words. Those are the words of virtually every Patristic authority througout the ages.

If you’ve imbibed the Unitarian lie to this extent, no stranger on a forum is going to set that aside. You’re not here to find truth or be corrected. You’re here on a mission to contend for Unitarianism against the Christian faith. So have at it. It’s no concern of mine, ultimately.

Are you in fact Orthodox? I am Catholic theologically, but I am not Catholic.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Wonder if Mormons take kindly to being banned.

Why don't you find one and ask?
I am not a Mormon, as I have told you several times already.

is genuineoriginal a moron I mean mormon ? sorry I get the two confused .

No, I am not a Mormon and I also think that Mormons should be called Morons after the so-called angel Moroni.
If any angelic being named Moroni visited Joseph Smith, then it was a demon.

2 Corinthians 11:14-15 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.​

 

[Idolater]

Absolutely.
God's words were fulfilled/"made" as a flesh and blood baby boy in Bethlehem.

In some ways I take XYZ to be referring back to creation. Before God created light, He said, "Let there be light" (Ge1:3KJV), so either language itself was created, before light, or language itself is uncreated, and in this sense, is in some ways, how I think of XYZ.

John 1:1 KJV indicates that in at least one critical way, XYZ "was God," it wasn't as if God 'employed' XYZ, as if XYZ were a tool of His, or even a servant, no, John 1:1 KJV tells us that XYZ was God Himself, in at least one critical way.

And that XYZ is singular I think is significant. Before there were God's words, plural, there was God's XYZ, XYZ was the start of it all, and XYZ was there with God (Jn1:1KJV) in the beginning.

'Just food for thought is all. fwiw.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since, by the word 'God', you mean God the Father, what you are saying, here, is:

"The Bible never teaches that [God the Father] is triune."

What Trinitarian has ever claimed that the Bible teaches that God the Father is triune?

Every Trinitarian claims that the God of the Bible is a Triune God.

Answer: NONE.