JESUS IS NOT YHWH

[Nihilo]

That is a false accusation insinuation. Just because you do not understand what people mean when they say such simple things that is no reason for you to assume what they mean and put words in their mouths. And if you do know what I meant by that simple statement, which was clear enough, then you are a hatemonger spreading intentional lies and false reports through insinuating forked-tongue accusations and evil speaking. I only meant that you can say you believe whatever you want about the Messiah, (anything you say you believe, hence "this or that", including the resurrection)

Oop. You just did it again.

, but if you do not believe his words then I do not believe your claims.

lain: What if someone said they'd nail you to a cross unless you recanted your supposed belief in the Resurrection, Daqq? What would you do? Because we know what Peter did. I'm OK going with Peter on the matter of the Trinity, Daqq. The Lord chose Peter. I'm an idiot if I don't agree with Him. IMO.

And I see by the rest of your post that you do exactly what was already said: you claim to believe the Testimony of Messiah but you do not actually believe it in the whole and rather believe what your mother church tells you to believe about his words. So all the "this or that" you are rambling on about is neither here nor there because I do not believe you truly believe the Testimony of the Master. You've already rejected his words quoted right here in this thread.

That is a false accusation insinuation.

lain:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So I said, "Censored, I'm taking all this stereo equipment," and I did. Ricky

@1Mind1Spirit In your video at 4:01-4:02, is the reason why Elvis was the King. He never, ever mailed it in. Thanks for sharing. :thumb:

Was comin' back from grocery shoppin' Saturday and heard a Little River Band song.

Thought about you reppin' me for postin' one back before they had the thanks feature here.

Just sayin'.

Thanks for the thanks.

 

[daqq]

Oop. You just did it again.
lain:

Yeah, I did that on purpose to make a point. It is a figure of speech that apparently you do not understand: no matter what the topic might be, in other words, "this or that", and now you have moved on to something else, that is, more of "this or that". It is simply a nicer way of saying "blah, blah, blah", and had nothing to do with denigrating the resurrection which I already told you I AFFIRM. It is YOUR view of "this or that" which I was speaking of, for you claim to believe that the Master was resurrected and yet you do not actually believe his words but rather uphold Catholic dogma over the Testimony of the Messiah; and therefore, as I said, I do not believe your confession is genuine because you do not actually uphold the Testimony of Messiah in uprightness and truth. If indeed you truly believed that he was resurrected, and indeed you believe he is Almighty God, then no doubt you would believe every word he spoke: but you do not, as you have shown right here before my eyes in your own responses to his words which have been quoted. It is not difficult to understand but you appear to want to make it seem so.

 

[Nihilo]

Yeah, I did that on purpose to make a point. It is a figure of speech that apparently you do not understand: no matter what the topic might be, in other words, "this or that", and now you have moved on to something else, that is, more of "this or that". It is simply a nicer way of saying "blah, blah, blah", and had nothing to do with denigrating the resurrection which I already told you I AFFIRM. It is YOUR view of "this or that" which I was speaking of, for you claim to believe that the Master was resurrected and yet you do not actually believe his words but rather uphold Catholic dogma over the Testimony of the Messiah; and therefore, as I said, I do not believe your confession is genuine because you do not actually uphold the Testimony of Messiah in uprightness and truth. If indeed you truly believed that he was resurrected, and indeed you believe he is Almighty God, then no doubt you would believe every word he spoke: but you do not, as you have shown right here before my eyes in your own responses to his words which have been quoted. It is not difficult to understand but you appear to want to make it seem so.

You're trying to sympathize with me, or empathize with me, as a Trinitarian, even though you're not a Trinitarian yourself. You're taking what you "know to be true" of what Trinitarians believe, and then extrapolating out to try to catch us in a trap that none of us are walking anywhere near. That's just a dumb trap to set, where no Trinitarian will ever get caught in, because Trinitarians don't see things like how you think Trinitarians see things, all your effort to catch a Trinitarian in a snare fails because there's no reason to be over where your trap is set. You're trying to argue that either the Church has been wrong since she was born, when reading those passages you quote from John, and that instead of John 1:1 and John 1:14 making it clear that the Lord Jesus is the Word become flesh, and that He is therefore both God, and distinct from God.... All this, we learn from just John 1:1 and John 1:14. The rest of the Trinity is simply more of the same. We don't have any reason to listen to you, or even to answer you. You point to passages the Church has never thought invalidated that God is the Trinity, and they're from the very same book as John 1:1 and John 1:14. Why should we listen to you? In what way do you think that we should find you the least bit interesting, or worth our time?

I asked you a question you dodged. What would you do if the only reason someone was going to give you the death penalty reserved for murderers, is if you don't recant your belief in the Resurrection? Paul got his head chopped off for it. I'm OK going with Paul, Daqq.

I admire your language skill.

 

[KingdomRose]

Re. Nihilo's post #481, what did Peter say on the Trinity? I must have missed something. According to everything I have read in the Scriptures, Peter didn't believe in a Trinity.

 

[KingdomRose]

You're trying to sympathize with me, or empathize with me, as a Trinitarian, even though you're not a Trinitarian yourself. You're taking what you "know to be true" of what Trinitarians believe, and then extrapolating out to try to catch us in a trap that none of us are walking anywhere near. That's just a dumb trap to set, where no Trinitarian will ever get caught in, because Trinitarians don't see things like how you think Trinitarians see things, all your effort to catch a Trinitarian in a snare fails because there's no reason to be over where your trap is set. You're trying to argue that either the Church has been wrong since she was born, when reading those passages you quote from John, and that instead of John 1:1 and John 1:14 making it clear that the Lord Jesus is the Word become flesh, and that He is therefore both God, and distinct from God.... All this, we learn from just John 1:1 and John 1:14. The rest of the Trinity is simply more of the same. We don't have any reason to listen to you, or even to answer you. You point to passages the Church has never thought invalidated that God is the Trinity, and they're from the very same book as John 1:1 and John 1:14. Why should we listen to you? In what way do you think that we should find you the least bit interesting, or worth our time?

I asked you a question you dodged. What would you do if the only reason someone was going to give you the death penalty reserved for murderers, is if you don't recant your belief in the Resurrection? Paul got his head chopped off for it. I'm OK going with Paul, Daqq.

I admire your language skill.

I think that the Church has known that John 1:1 does not say (in good Greek translated according to the rules of translation from Greek to English) that the Word is God. That is why they would say that there is no real confirmation of the Trinity Doctrine anywhere in the Scriptures, and that the doctrine was not a solid one until the 4th century.

"One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. When one does speak of Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought....It was the product of three centuries of doctrinal development." (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.14, 1967, p.295)

Even writers for the Church say that the Trinity Doctrine did not originate with Christ and his earliest church. It GRADUALLY DEVELOPED over the course of three centuries. Hello?

Once again considering John 1:1....According to the Coptic text in G. Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Vol.III (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911-1924)pp.2-4:

"In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed WITH God, and the Word was a god. In the beginning this one existed WITH God....He became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory, like the glory of an only child from his father, filled with grace and truth." (John 1:1,2,14)

(Digitalized and Translated by Lance Jenott, 2003.)

There are more and more translations like this coming to light.

 

[Nihilo]

Re. Nihilo's post #481, what did Peter say on the Trinity? I must have missed something. According to everything I have read in the Scriptures, Peter didn't believe in a Trinity.

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

Besides Peter himself believing in and teaching the Trinity, as supreme pastor of the Church (Jn21:15-17KJV), all his successors have always taught the same. Always.

 

[Nihilo]

I think that the Church has known that John 1:1 does not say (in good Greek translated according to the rules of translation from Greek to English) that the Word is God. That is why they would say that there is no real confirmation of the Trinity Doctrine anywhere in the Scriptures, and that the doctrine was not a solid one until the 4th century.

"One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. When one does speak of Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought....It was the product of three centuries of doctrinal development." (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.14, 1967, p.295)

Even writers for the Church say that the Trinity Doctrine did not originate with Christ and his earliest church. It GRADUALLY DEVELOPED over the course of three centuries. Hello?

Once again considering John 1:1....According to the Coptic text in G. Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Vol.III (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911-1924)pp.2-4:

"In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed WITH God, and the Word was a god. In the beginning this one existed WITH God....He became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory, like the glory of an only child from his father, filled with grace and truth." (John 1:1,2,14)

(Digitalized and Translated by Lance Jenott, 2003.)

There are more and more translations like this coming to light.

That translation has no foundation in Church history, and therefore, according to my Catholic faith, which is well-founded in both history and in Scripture, it is wrong. Besides, I don't see how you're clarifying anything to have one God, and then another God (the Word). That doesn't even make any sense. The Trinity teaching is that the Word and Son, is God, and is distinct from the Father, and the Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God, and He is distinct from both the Son, and from the Father. Each Person is God, and each Person is not either of the other Persons. Sameness, and distinction. Both of which are exemplified in Scripture. Therefore, ergo, God is the Trinity, and the Trinity is God.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

Besides Peter himself believing in and teaching the Trinity, as supreme pastor of the Church (Jn21:15-17KJV), all his successors have always taught the same. Always.

That translation has no foundation in Church history, and therefore, according to my Catholic faith, which is well-founded in both history and in Scripture, it is wrong. Besides, I don't see how you're clarifying anything to have one God, and then another God (the Word). That doesn't even make any sense. The Trinity teaching is that the Word and Son, is God, and is distinct from the Father, and the Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God, and He is distinct from both the Son, and from the Father. Each Person is God, and each Person is not either of the other Persons. Sameness, and distinction. Both of which are exemplified in Scripture. Therefore, ergo, God is the Trinity, and the Trinity is God.

:thumb:

 

[daqq]

You're trying to sympathize with me, or empathize with me, as a Trinitarian, even though you're not a Trinitarian yourself. You're taking what you "know to be true" of what Trinitarians believe, and then extrapolating out to try to catch us in a trap that none of us are walking anywhere near. That's just a dumb trap to set, where no Trinitarian will ever get caught in, because Trinitarians don't see things like how you think Trinitarians see things, all your effort to catch a Trinitarian in a snare fails because there's no reason to be over where your trap is set. You're trying to argue that either the Church has been wrong since she was born, when reading those passages you quote from John, and that instead of John 1:1 and John 1:14 making it clear that the Lord Jesus is the Word become flesh, and that He is therefore both God, and distinct from God.... All this, we learn from just John 1:1 and John 1:14. The rest of the Trinity is simply more of the same. We don't have any reason to listen to you, or even to answer you. You point to passages the Church has never thought invalidated that God is the Trinity, and they're from the very same book as John 1:1 and John 1:14. Why should we listen to you? In what way do you think that we should find you the least bit interesting, or worth our time?

I asked you a question you dodged. What would you do if the only reason someone was going to give you the death penalty reserved for murderers, is if you don't recant your belief in the Resurrection? Paul got his head chopped off for it. I'm OK going with Paul, Daqq.

I admire your language skill.

And there you are, about the same spiritual place as Evil.Eye, believing that the words of the Messiah are a trap. Suit yourself, I was only trying to help you see that passages like John 1:1 do not say what you have imagined them to say in your overly vivid imagination. Your church has made up your doctrine for you and told you what to believe. John 1:1 does not even mention the name Jesus and yet you and the herd have practically insisted that it does by way of your erroneous doctrines. You do not believe the words of the Master and therefore I do not believe anything else you say about doctrine. You can say "why should we believe you" all day long but you only feel safe in saying that because you consider yourself part of a giant herd of giants. The reason you should believe what I say is because I am quoting the words of the one you claim is God Almighty. But I already made that point time and time again with you; you do not believe the words of the same one whom you claim is God Almighty. You not only prove yourselves deceived but disprove your own doctrine from the start; for you cannot prove that he is God Almighty and at the same time believe his own Testimony and words concerning himself. You invented for yourselves a religion designed to incorporate the pagan religions in the Roman empire, circa 300-350AD, what did you expect? You have exactly what you wished and exactly what you were hoping for.

 

[Zeke]

You would believe a trinitarian if he said the sky was green.

Not that i agree with either side yet a son of God would eventually grow up to be?

 

[oatmeal]

Not that i agree with either side yet a son of God would eventually grow up to be?

I am a son of God. I John 3:1-2 Romans 8:14,16

As is every Christian.

What do you expect me to grow up to be?

Ephesians 4:15

 

[oatmeal]

Re. Nihilo's post #481, what did Peter say on the Trinity? I must have missed something. According to everything I have read in the Scriptures, Peter didn't believe in a Trinity.

Peter never mentions "trinity" or anything that even slightly resembles it in concept or any other way

 

[daqq]

You're trying to argue that either the Church has been wrong since she was born, when reading those passages you quote from John, and that instead of John 1:1 and John 1:14 making it clear that the Lord Jesus is the Word become flesh, and that He is therefore both God, and distinct from God.... All this, we learn from just John 1:1 and John 1:14. The rest of the Trinity is simply more of the same.

All of the following except for John 1:1 has already been posted, and you have denied it, and therefore you have terrible inconsistencies, contradictions, and gaping holes in your dogma:

It is very simple, the Anointed one says that he himself is not the Logos:

John 12:48
48 The one rejecting me, and not receiving my words, has one who judges him: the Logos which I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

And here is another critical statement from the Master

John 14:24
24The one not loving me does not keep my words: and the Logos which you hear is not my own, but is the Father's who sent me.

John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the Elohim, and the Logos was Elohim.

John 12:48
48 The one rejecting me, and not receiving my words, has one who judges him: the Logos which I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

---

Your dogmas and creeds therefore openly contradict the Testimony of the Master:

Matthew 24:35 (also Mark 13:31)
35 The heavens and the earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away.

John 5:22
22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

John 8:15
15 You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

John 8:50
50 And I seek not my own glory: one there is who seeks and judges.

John 12:47-48
47 And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world be saved.
48 The one rejecting me, and not receiving my words, has one who judges him: the Logos which I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

John 14:24
24The one not loving me does not keep my words: and the Logos which you hear is not my own, but is the Father's who sent me.

The Father judges no one, (John 5:22)
The Anointed one judges no one, (John 8:15, 12:47)
The Logos-Word is the Son: the Seeker and the Judge, (John 5:22, 8:50, 12:48).
No one has seen or beheld Elohim at any time, (John 1:18a, 1John 4:12a).
The words of the Anointed one shall not pass away, (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31).

The Anointed one is not the Logos because the Logos is the very Anointing. Your logos-reasoning is not my Logos-reasoning because you do not believe the Testimony of the Anointed one in the Gospel accounts. Your dogmas, creeds, and traditions of men have shut you up in your own prison house where you are slowly dying off.

And the Anointed one clearly tells us he is anointed in another passage already quoted herein, where he reads from Isaiah and that Isaiah passage is again quoted in Luke; and everyone who believes the same things you do ignored what was said, (including the one it was posted to, "glorydaz"), and you all apparently wish to pretend that passage doesn't exist, just as was already said to you concerning what you and yours always practice and do, (that is, ignore, ignore, ignore, and go on repeating same erroneous teachings over and over again thinking yourselves to be doing Elohim a service).

KR quoted, (referenced), Isaiah 61:1,2. Are you aware that the Master quotes from this passage in Luke 4:17-21 and applies it to himself? How then do you say what you do in response to this passage? Are you suggesting that in the first advent he was only "anointed" by the Spirit of YHWH, as he says in quoting that passage, (Isaiah 61:1 reads the Name, YHWH), but in the second advent he will then be YHWH Almighty?

Isaiah 61:1-2 ASV
1 The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me; because Jehovah hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 to proclaim the year of Jehovah's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

Isaiah 61:1-2
1 The Spirit of Adonai YHWH is upon me; because YHWH hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of YHWH, and the day of vengeance of our Elohim; to comfort all that mourn;

Luke 4:17-21 KJV
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

???[End Quote.

 

[daqq]

I am a son of God. I John 3:1-2 Romans 8:14,16

As is every Christian.

What do you expect me to grow up to be?

Ephesians 4:15

Babes are born, become children, and eventually are made sons, (in the time appointed of the Father, Gal 4:1,2), and that is a day and hour no man knows, not even the angels, but the Father only.

 

[Nihilo]

Peter never mentions "trinity" or anything that even slightly resembles it in concept or any other way

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

 

[freelight]

Not that i agree with either side yet a son of God would eventually grow up to be?

Like his Abba-Daddy

Jesus told us to be 'perfect' even as OUR heavenly Father is perfect

When we are perfect in our 'love/loving'....we shall be as our Father, shining as stars in his kingdom. Since we are the offspring of God, and sons of the Most High, of course we are like 'God', sons of Elohim, and even in some respects 'elohim' as well, as we represent and serve in His Name (positions of power and authority). We could go deeper into metaphysical truths and universal truth-principles as well regarding the 'divine nature', that we are 'Christ' embodied here in the earth, temples of YHWH....individual extensions of God himself, by his indwelling spirit. This stuff is pretty basic in universal esoteric teachings - of course you know this. All is symbolic of the inner realities, in shadows, types and figures,....all reflects the greater Universal ONE, in various facets and angles within The Infinite. There is the One White Light and all its offspring colours filling all vibrations and dimensions of Existence. We are individual rays of the Trinity.

 

[freelight]

Peter, a true Unitarian.....

Peter, a true Unitarian.....

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

Besides Peter himself believing in and teaching the Trinity, as supreme pastor of the Church (Jn21:15-17KJV), all his successors have always taught the same. Always.

I think you'll have to do better than that to show Peter as expressly teaching the Trinity, because the above does not necessarily prove a Trinity as later church councils decided to formulat/describe it - Also note that both epistles of Peter are questionable as 'pseudographical', more particularly 2 Peter, so what is in them is not always wholly reliable with the greater context of things in sight, even if a follower of Peter was one of the scribes. I would also look into some apocryphal works attribute to Peter, which I may research in due time.

Futhermore, Peter himself says this by revelation about Jesus IDENTITY - its pretty important -

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.


Matthew 16:15-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

> Notice here Peter had ample opportunity to say "O Jesus you are God himself manifest in the flesh!, the logos,... even YHWH!" - Did he? Jesus further confirms Peter's answer...that he being God's Messiah-Son was revealed to him from heaven. Peter did NOT identify Jesus as YHWH.

Peter confirms Jesus being the MAN attested by God by his works, whom God raised up to be both 'lord' and 'Christ'. His Day of Pentecost sermon is true to his Jewish roots, consonant within his traditional monotheistic Unitarian concept of God...and his Messiah, a man born from the seed (loins) of David. (Acts 2). We can spiritualize things here of course,...but the physical lineage is pretty important to the Jews and that Messiah is to be a man, and not a demi-god or a God-man. (easy now, I enjoy various demi-god motifs and different variations of Christ-figures, just saying). Of course Trinitarians have the versatile advantage of highlighting both 'human' and 'divine' aspects of the man Jesus, which in some ways gives much more liberal "wiggle room" on Christological matters, but hey its all good

Some just choose to stay basically biblical Unitarians, after all....all ancient and modern traditional-orthodox Jews are, and Jesus and his disciples, including his brother James the Just who led the Jerusalem Community, were just that. You've really got to be kidding to assume that what Rome produced in the 3rd-6th centuries for their 'church-state' was the original religion of Jesus and his Jewish apostles. So much morphing, adopting, transposing, interpolations of the merging culture, mythos and imagery was amagalmated into the religious cult of that time, and continued to expand thru the centuries, that what we NOW have as so called 'Christianity' is but a mangled or decorated mirror of what the true original was.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.......

 

[oatmeal]

​

I commend you for your effort.

when we learn to rightly divide the word of truth, we find out that God the Father alone is "the God". We learn that God the Father is spirit, not flesh, thus we must worship him in spirit and in truth, for the flesh profits nothing. God is holy and God is spirit, John 4:24 ,therefore God calls himself "the Holy Spirit" for that is what he is, he is holy and he is spirit.

God gave to us of his spirit, it is now our spirit, I John 4:13.

Since we have God's spirit in us, we can fellowship with God as sons. We are no longer body and soul, but with the addition of God's spirit in us, we are now body and soul and spirit.

I John 1:3 tells us that this epistle was written that we might have fellowship with the believers and with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ. Why is "the Holy Spirit" not part of this fellowship?

Because "the Holy Spirit" is simply another one of the scores of names that God calls himself by, it is not another being or person.

When we rightly divide the word of truth, truth being the Greek word "logos", when we rightly divide the logos of truth, we find that God is spirit, He choose to send a son to cause him to be conceived divinely so as for our redemption and salvation.

The son obeyed the Father, because the son is inferior, derived and subordinate to the Father.

Hence, I commend you for your effort, but that verse no more teaches a trinity than does

Matthew 17:1

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

or Job 1:8

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

or Matthew 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Nihilo]

Spoiler

Paul seems pretty clear in most of his writings of God the Father being distinct from the Lord Jesus as in the passage quoted. John 1:1 is clearly speaking of the 'God' existing from the beginning with the logos as being 'the theos' (God the Father of all, the Original Creator)...the one and only Supreme Being. In the beginning of every new creation, Deity creates thru his 'word', - "in the beginning" is the key phrase pointing to a 'genesis' of creation thru the intentional spoken word of the Creator. There is one God, one creative power, so it is that One Creator and one creative principle, divine logic operating. Mono-theos....thru and thru.

Deity ever works thru his word. The logos represents, expresses, reveals the thought, plans, intentions, design, logic of his will and purpose and this is all Johns prologue articulates, God working in and thru the Lord Jesus. John further thru his gospel confirms God sending his Son and life coming from faith in Jesus being the Son of God, sent by the Father. It is unnecessary to read anything further into the text.....although you can adopt whatever Christology suits your palate.

Even a purely Arian view is just as suitable. God is still God, and works thru His Messiah-Son, the Angel of Great Counsel, his anointed Agent, his Firstborn. Such coincides perfectly with a traditional-orthodox Unitarian monotheism.

The Catholic Arian Church

There's one truth.

Spoiler

There's one nonfictional reality. All else is fiction. There are fictions that closely resemble nonfiction, and those with no intention of resembling nonfiction (fantasy). Fictions aren't evil, many fictions are good, but there remains one nonfictional reality at all times and in all ways. To deny this is to embrace solipsism, which I reject.

You believe the Resurrection is nonfictional Freelight? The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is said to be built over/contain both Golgotha and the tomb. If tradition is true (nonfiction) in this case, then the distance from the cross to the tomb was not very far at all, and there would have been an audience of people who watched His lifeless corpus detached from the cross and carried down to the tomb (the tomb is lower elevation than was calvary). There was no way to mistake Who was dead and Whose body was put in the tomb. On the third day Easter Sunday when He nonfictionally rose from the dead, and emerged from the tomb, He was not far from where He had been crucified on Good Friday. If His cross still stood anybody could see it from the tomb, including the women and the Apostles who came to check it out.

Here is what is found at the website for the Catholic Arian Church (the link in your post), when scrolling down on the left and clicking on "The Resurrection:"

The Resurrection - What happened on Easter morning?

First of all the Arian Catholic Church believes that the Resurrection was a spiritual event, not a physical returning to life of Christ’s body...

...A literal reading of the Gospels does not come to the conclusion that the Resurrection was a physical event....