John 1 and edpobre

Ben johnson · Oct 30, 2002

"Then after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (that is the King's Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most Higy. And he blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Creator of Heaven and Earth; And blessed be God Most High , Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.' And he gave him a tenth of all." Gen14:17-20

Genesis doesn't really give any details to who Melchizedek here is. But Jesus claimed to have seen Abraham, in John 8:56-58. Will you consider that the One who ministered to Abraham, was JESUS?

In Hebrews 7 we have a description of one who is said to have "no beginning" and "no end", who is "made like the Son of God"---you filter this to mean, "Jesus made priest through the POWER of a life-without-end". This is identical with how you re-write Col2:9, in the exact tradiction of Jehovah's Witnesses who re-write, "In Jesus dwelt the fullness of the PURPOSE of God in bodily form". You follow the Jehovah's Witness handling of Thomas' response, proposing that Thomas, after touching Jesus' scars and declaring "My LORD!"---Thomas then shuffled-shuffled around facing AWAY from Jesus and TOWARD Jehovah-in-Heaven and saying: "...and my GOD!" (Rather than reading it as written, Thomas saying to JESUS "My Lord and my God!")

You rewrite Titus2:13, inserting conjunctions to separate "GOD" from "JESUS", so that rather than reading "the appearaing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus" you read, "...the appearing of our great God AND OF our Savior Jesus"---ignoring of course the undeniable reality that Jesus IS THE SAVIOR, and Isaiah 43:11 which says, "There IS NO SAVIOR besides Me (Jehovah!)".

Jehovah is the Savior, Jesus is the Savior---but there is no Savior besides Jehovah (or was that THEN, and NOW God CHANGED?!?!)

You submit that there is a separation between the naming of "Jesus" in Heb6:20, and the description of Heb7:3, claiming that "it doesn't REALLY mean that someONE has no beginning, it's only talking about a hypothetical PRIESTHOOD that has no father/mother/beginning/end".

Ed, no matter how many Scriptures are presented to you, they are rejected or re-written by you. I just looked up Isaiah 9:6 in a Strong's concordance---this you believe is translated wrongly. You and I agree that Jesus is fully and completely a man---yet you reject that He could also be fully and completely God. I have flesh and blood, I am fully Human; I also have a Human spirit. What if Jesus had flesh and blood, fully Human, but His SOUL was the Spirit of GOD? Can you not conceive of Him being BOTH fully man AND fully God?

Yes John 17:3 says that God is the ONLY TRUE GOD---yet John 14:7-10 expresses Jesus' identification with the Father: "Have I been with you so long and you do not KNOW Me? Why do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? He who has seen ME has SEEN the FATHER!" And in John10:30 Jesus furthers the point, "I and the Father ESMEN HEIS---are one"--- not "one in attitude", not "one in purpose", just "are ONE" (in ESSENCE).

"If you have seen ME JESUS you have SEEN THE FATHER---do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?"

Is it POSSIBLE to convince you that Jesus is part of God? Think about that---I have always claimed that I am subject to Scripture---I can certainly be changed by clear doctrine if I am shown to be in error. Can you say the same? It appears to me that so resolute and fixed are you in your belief, that nothing can dissuade you---each and every Scripture offered in opposition is rejected, re-defined, even rewritten. You simply dismiss Isaiah 9:6 as "mistranslation"---but do you make any effort to retrieve the CORRECT one (if it exists), WITH documentation of its correctness? No. It contradicts your stubborn stance, so it must be wrong. I mean this as a gentle and loving admonishment, Ed---it seems to me that you make Scripture subject to your opinion, rather than your opinion subject to Scripture.

What would it take to convince you? What would Scripture have to SAY to convince you that Jesus is God?

edpobre · Oct 30, 2002

Originally posted by Ben johnson

Genesis doesn't really give any details to who Melchizedek here is. But Jesus claimed to have seen Abraham, in John 8:56-58. Will you consider that the One who ministered to Abraham, was JESUS?

Only a Trinitarian would think that it was Jesus who ministered to Abraham in Gen. 14:17-20. The Bible account is very CLEAR that it was MELCHIZEDEK, King of Salem who met Abraham.

Your statement that "Jesus CLAIMED to have seen Abraham" in John 8:56-58 is FALSE and MISLEADING. Jesus did NOT do such thing. Your statement is a TWISTED interpretation of John 8:56-58 to SUIT your FALSE belief that it was Jesus in the GUISE of Melchizedek who ministered to Abraham.

BTW Ben, was Melchizedek God? If Melchizedek was Jesus in DISGUISE, how would that make Jesus God?

In Hebrews 7 we have a description of one who is said to have "no beginning" and "no end", who is "made like the Son of God"---you filter this to mean, "Jesus made priest through the POWER of a life-without-end".

Hebrew 7:3 describes Melchizedek as a priest forever, like the Son of God or like Jesus. You TWIST this to mean that Melchizedek BECAME Jesus.  It is CLEAR in Hebrews 5:5-6 and Hebrews 7:21 that it was God who MADE Jesus priest forever inthe order of Melchizedek.

This is identical with how you re-write Col2:9, in the exact tradiction of Jehovah's Witnesses who re-write, "In Jesus dwelt the fullness of the PURPOSE of God in bodily form".

Be sensible Ben. How can apostle Paul describe Jesus as God in Col. 2:9 when he wrote that Jesus is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God (Col. 1:15)? You know as well as I that an IMAGE is NOT the REAL thing. In the SAME letter, apostle Paul wrote that God is ALSO the Father of Jesus (Col. 1:3).

You follow the Jehovah's Witness handling of Thomas' response, proposing that Thomas, after touching Jesus' scars and declaring "My LORD!"---Thomas then shuffled-shuffled around facing AWAY from Jesus and TOWARD Jehovah-in-Heaven and saying: "...and my GOD!" (Rather than reading it as written, Thomas saying to JESUS "My Lord and my God!")

Again, be sensible Ben. You know as well as I that Thomas was NOT only a DISCIPLE of Jesus but an apostle as well. A DISCIPLE believes in Jesus and ABIDES in his word. Thomas couldn't have directed "MY God" to Jesus.

IF Thomas THOUGHT that Jesus were God, he would have called him "my Lord God" which was what Jews were TAUGHT since childhood to call God.

At any rate, the Bible teaches that Christ's doctrine is God's doctrine (John 7:16). Why Trinitarians USE Thomas to CONTRADICT Jesus' doctrine recorded in John 17:3 is beyond me.

You rewrite Titus2:13, inserting conjunctions to separate "GOD" from "JESUS", so that rather than reading "the appearaing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus" you read, "...the appearing of our great God AND OF our Savior Jesus"---ignoring of course the undeniable reality that Jesus IS THE SAVIOR, and Isaiah 43:11 which says, "There IS NO SAVIOR besides Me (Jehovah!)". Jehovah is the Savior, Jesus is the Savior---but there is no Savior besides Jehovah (or was that THEN, and NOW God CHANGED?!?!)

Jesus and Jehovah are NOT one and the same savior. God EXALTED Jesus to be Prince and SAVIOR, to give repentance to Israel, the forgiveness of sins (Acts 5:31).

You DISREGARD the truth that apostle Paul, the author of Titus 2:13, is the SAME author of Eph. 1:3 and Col. 1:3 which states that God is the Father of Jesus and 1 Cor. 8:6 which says that there is only one God, the Father. Apostle Paul is also the SAME author of Heb.1:3 and Col. 1:15 which say that Jesus is the IMAGE of he INVISIBLE God.

You submit that there is a separation between the naming of "Jesus" in Heb6:20, and the description of Heb7:3, claiming that "it doesn't REALLY mean that someONE has no beginning, it's only talking about a hypothetical PRIESTHOOD that has no father/mother/beginning/end".

Don't put words in my mouth Ben. I did NOT say such things. Heb. 6:20 is CLEAR. Jesus has BECOME a high priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. This simply means that Jesus followed the priesthood of Melchizedek. 

Heb. 7:3 is about Melchizedek who, like Jesus, is priest forever. Melchizedek is the one referred to as having no beginning because there is NO RECORD of his father or his mother or his ancestors or his birth or his death (Today's English Version).

Ed, no matter how many Scriptures are presented to you, they arrejected or re-written by you. I just looked up Isaiah 9:6 in a Strong's concordance---this you believe is translated wrongly.

The first part of the prophecy was fulfilled. The second part is a MISTRANSLATION because it is INCONCEIVABLE that the Almighty God BECAME a HELPLESS baby boy.

Now, IF it is true that the son to be GIVEN will be called Mighty God and Everlasting Father, Who GAVE to us the baby boy and what do we CALL the GIVER? Don't you think what I'm saying makes sense?

You and I agree that Jesus is fully and completely a man---yet you reject that He could also be fully and completely God. I have flesh and blood, I am fully Human; I also have a Human spirit. What if Jesus had flesh and blood, fully Human, but His SOUL was the Spirit of GOD? Can you not conceive of Him being BOTH fully man AND fully God?

I can accept the idea that "the spirit OF God" was in Jesus as it is also present in all children of God. But that does NOT make Jesus and all God's children God. 

Yes John 17:3 says that God is the ONLY TRUE GOD---yet John 14:7-10 expresses Jesus' identification with the Father:Have I been with you so long and you do not KNOW Me? Why do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? He who has seen ME has SEEN the FATHER!"

Click to expand...

John 17:3 CLEARLY identifies the FATHER as the ONLY true God. John 14:7-10 could NOT mean that Jesus is ALSO God because he is the SON not the Father. The word "SEEN" could mean "believe" or "understand."

 And in John10:30 Jesus furthers the point, "I and the Father ESMEN HEIS---are one"--- not "one in attitude", not "one in purpose", just "are ONE" (in ESSENCE).

Click to expand...

Aren't you the one PICKING what you want the verse to mean? You don't like "one in attitude" and you don't like "one in purpose" either. You say "just are one" yet you add in parenthesis "essence." Why? Where did you get "essence?" The context points to attitude or purpose as the most likely extension of "one," 

Is it POSSIBLE to convince you that Jesus is part of God? Think about that---I have always claimed that I am subject to Scripture---I can certainly be changed by clear doctrine if I am shown to be in error. Can you say the same?

Click to expand...

You haven't proven to me that your Trinity doctrine is TRUE nor have you proven to me that John 8:40 and John 17:3 are FALSE. You haven't convince me that I should NOT believe Jesus and instead believe the Catholic Councils who MADE Jesus God.

It appears to me that so resolute and fixed are you in your belief, that nothing can dissuade you---each and every Scripture offered in opposition is rejected, re-defined, even rewritten. You simply dismiss Isaiah 9:6 as "mistranslation"---but do you make any effort to retrieve the CORRECT one (if it exists), WITH documentation of its correctness? No. It contradicts your stubborn stance, so it must be wrong.

Click to expand...

The popular version of Isaiah 9:6 does NOT make sense. Please go over my post carefully and be sensible Ben. Do waste you intelligence my friend.

I mean this as a gentle and loving admonishment, Ed---it seems to me that you make Scripture subject to your opinion, rather than your opinion subject to Scripture.

Click to expand...

Be honest with yourself Ben. You are the one depending on opinion and private interpretation to defend your FALSE belief that Jesus is ALSO God. Jesus is very CLEAR about this: he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). 

What would it take to convince you? What would Scripture have to SAY to convince you that Jesus is God?

Click to expand...

Show me a scripture which says that the Catholic Councils who AFFIRMED the DEITY of Jesus and the Trinity doctrine will SAVE me on judgment day.

Jesus SAID that anyone who does NOT believe him does NOT have life (John 3:36).

Ed

Click to expand...

Gunny · Nov 9, 2002

John 1:1 - Meaning and Translation

by James White

(This information sheet is divided into two sections - the first explores the meaning of John 1:1, and the second addresses the more technical subject of the correct translation of the verse. The second portion will be of interest to those who are faced with the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses and its rendering of the last clause of this verse as "the Word was a god.")

Section I

John 1:1-3, 14, 18

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth...No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

The prologue to John's Gospel has long been a center of controversy when discussing the Deity of Christ, and naturally so. One can hardly read the above sentences without catching a glimpse of One Who is far beyond the realm of simply human; even far beyond the realm of the angelic. The logos, the Word, was in the beginning, was with God, and was God. The Word created all things, and there is absolutely nothing in existence that the Word did not create. Remember that the original readers of John's Gospel would not have already read verse 14, and they would not have the preconceived knowledge that the Word is identified as Christ. Try to detach yourself from that knowledge for a moment, and imagine what kind of being you would be imagining while reading about this Word. Certainly one can hardly conceive of a higher Being.

To understand what John is saying, we must delve into the verses themselves and analyze them carefully. We must bear in mind that we are reading only a translation of what John wrote, and hence some mention will have to be made of the Greek language.

John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1. But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this magnificent verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word en (the "e" pronounced as a long "a" as in "I ate the food"). It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Hence, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He antedates that beginning.

John is very careful in his language at this point. Throughout this section, John carefully contrasts the Word, and all other things. He does so by consistently using en of the Logos, the Word, and by consistently employing a totally different verb in reference to all other things. This other verb is "to become" (egeneto). It is used of John the Baptist in verse 6, of the world in verse 10, and the children of God in verse 12. Only when we come to verse 14 does John use "to become" of the Word, and that is when the Word "became flesh." This refers to a specific point in time, the incarnation, and fully demonstrates John's intentional usage of contrasting verbs.

John is not alone in this. Jesus contrasted Abraham's "becoming" with His own eternal existence in John 8:58 in the same way. The Psalmist contrasted the creation of the world with the eternity of God in Psalm 90:2 (LXX) by using the same verbs found in John 1:1 and 14. Hardly seems coincidental, does it?

We have seen that the Word is eternal. Much has been said about how John got the term "Logos," the Word. Some say he borrowed it from Greek philosophy, a sort of philosophical subterfuge. No one would argue that John just simply left the Logos as he found it among the philosophers. No, he filled the Word with personality and identified the Word not as some fuzzy, ethereal essence that was the guiding principle of all things, (as the Greeks thought), but as the eternal Son of God, the One Who entered into time, and into man's experience as Jesus of Nazareth. The "Word" reveals that Jesus is the mind of God, the thought of God, His full and living revelation. Jesus did not just come to tell us what God is like - He showed us. He is the revelation of God.

John did not stop here, however. He did not leave us to simply know the eternity of the Word. The next phrase says, "and the Word was with God." Again we find the verb "was" cropping up, again pointing to the timelessness of the subject at hand. The Word was with God. The preposition John uses here is quite revealing. It is the Greek word pros. It means "to be in company with someone" (1) or to be "face-to-face." It speaks of communion, interaction, fellowship. Remember that this is an eternal fellowship, a timeless relationship. "Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other."(2) This phrase, if taken completely alone, would be very confusing, since John has already asserted the eternality of the Word. Now he clearly distinguishes between the Word and God. He asserts that they are distinguishable. "God" and "Word" are not interchange-able terms. Then, is John talking about two "gods?" Can more than one being be fully eternal? John was a monotheistic Jew. He could never believe in more than one Being Who can rightly be called "God." How then is this to be understood?

This phrase must be taken with the one that follows. We read, "and the Word was God." Again, the eternal en. John avoids confusion by telling us that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus, as we know Him as the Word, does not constitute everything that is included in the Godhead. In other words, John is not teaching the ancient heresy known as Sabellianism, which taught that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are simply three different aspects of one person, i.e., Jesus is the Father, the Father is the Spirit, and so on. Instead, John here asserts the full Deity of Christ, while informing us that He is not the Father, but that they ("God" and the "Word") have eternally co-existed.

This last phrase has come under heavy fire throughout the ages. The correct translation of this passage is here given, and anyone interested in the technical aspects of the argument are referred to Appendix A. Basically, the passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. John does not here call the Word "a divine one," as some polytheistic Greek might say. He did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature, or a god-like one. Instead, he used theos, the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the "only true God" (17:3). He uses the term three times of Jesus in the Gospel, here, in 1:18, and in 20:28. It can not be doubted that John would never call a creature theos. His upbringing and Jewish heritage forbad that.

How then are we to understand these two phrases? Benjamin B. Warfield said:

"And the Word was with God." The language is pregnant. It is not merely coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side, united in local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimated. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the very beginning already "was," "was" also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a separate being from God: "And the Word was" --still the eternal "was" --"God." In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is "with," He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. The predicate "God" occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast with the phrase "with God," as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God's coeternal fellow, but the eternal God's self. (3) The Beloved Apostle walks a tight line here. By the simple omission of the article ("the", or in Greek, ho) before the word for God in the last phrase, John avoids teaching Sabellianism, while by placing the word where it is in the clause, he defeats another heresy, Arianism, which denies the true Deity of the Lord Jesus. A person who accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures can not help but be thrilled at this passage.

John goes on in verse two to reiterate the eternal fellowship of the Father and Son, making sure that all understand that "this one," the Word, was (there it is again) in the beginning pros ton theon, with God. Their fellowship and relationship precedes all else, and it is timeless.

As icing on the cake, John then precludes anyone from misunderstanding his claim that Jesus is eternally God by writing verse 3. "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." One can hardly be more inclusive than that. There is simply nothing that is existent anywhere that was not created by the Word. He created everything. Obviously, therefore, if one can be described as creating everything, one must be the Creator, and certainly not a creation. The Word is the Creator. All people reading John's words would understand that the Creator is God, not some lower being created by God to do the work for Him. By not qualifying his statement, John assured that we could correctly understand his intention and his teaching concerning Christ, the Word. He is eternally God, the Creator.

Section II

En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.

Almost all the controversy surrounding John 1:1 revolves around the fact that the theos of the last phrase kai theos en ho logos is anarthrous, i.e., it has no article. Some have gone so far as to assert that the correct translation, therefore, is "the Word was a god," basing the argument on the lack of the definite article ho before theos. What does the lack of the article indicate? Is it necessary to what John is saying?

Cont''d

Gunny · Nov 9, 2002

John 1:1 - Meaning and Translation Cont'd

by James White

I begin with the most quoted scholar on this subject, Dr. A. T. Robertson:

And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. (4) As Robertson made reference to his voluminous Grammar in the above quotation, I will include it in its entirety:

The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, theos an ho logos, the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. ho logos sarx egeneto (Jo. 1:14). It is true that ho theos an ho logos (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism. See also ho theos agape estin (1 Jo.4:16). "God" and "love" are not convertible terms any more than "God" and "Logos" or "Logos" and "flesh." Cf. also hoi theristai angeloi eisin (Mt. 13:39), ho logos ho sos alatheia estin (Jo. 17:17), ho nomos hamartia; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea. (5)

Note that Robertson translates the phrase, "the Word was God." His argument is summed up well in the following passage:

A word should be said concerning the use and non-use of the article in John 1:1, where a narrow path is safely followed by the author. "The Word was God." It both God and Word were articular, they would be coextensive and equally distributed and so interchangeable. But the separate personality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were articular and Logos non-articular, the affirmation would be that God was Logos, but not that the Logos was God. As it is, John asserts that in the Pre-incarnate state the Logos was God, though the Father was greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos became flesh (1:14), and not the Father. But the Incarnate Logos was really "God only Begotten in the bosom of the Father" (1:18 correct text). (6) In light of Dr. Robertson's comments, it is indeed unbelievable that some will quote from the above section and try to intimate that Robertson felt that Jesus was less than the Father because he quoted John 14:28. A quick look at his comments on John 14:28 in Word Pictures in the New Testament, volume 5, page 256 refutes this idea.

To recap, Robertson says that 1) the translation of the phrase theos en ho logos is "the Word was God." 2) That the anarthrous theos is required for the meaning. If the article were present, this would teach Sabellianism, as then theos and logos would be convertible terms. 3) That the article before logos serves to point out the subject of the clause.

H. E. Dana and Julius Mantey utilize John 1:1 to illustrate the usage of the article to determine the subject in a copulative sentence:

The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos. (7) Again, these scholars are pointing out the use of the article to show the subject against the predicate in a clause. They, like Robertson, point out that since theos is anarthrous, it shows that it is not convertible with logos and vice versa.

Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, commented on this verse:

The Word was God. Here the word "God" is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes. Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter, the teacher, is Very God. (8)

Wuest in his Expanded Translation, renders 1:1:

In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity. (9) That Wuest brings in the idea that the anarthrous predicate noun has a characterizing effect, and that it refers more to the nature of the subject of the clause than to an identification of it. This is right in line with what Robertson said - that the Logos is not all of God, and that you cannot say "the God was the Logos." The very context (kai ho logos en pros ton theon) demonstrates this fully. Those who would assert that the Logos is to be identified with all of God (i.e., Jesus is the Father and the Father is Jesus - Sabellianism) find an insuperable problem here.

It is good to note Vincent's comment that here "John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word." (10) The Logos is the central character here. Hence, when we see that the Word was, as to His nature God, we can understand exactly how He can be with God and yet be God.

F. F. Bruce's comments on this passage are valuable:

The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation "The Word was God." Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God". What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase "what God was, the Word was", brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can...So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, "There was once when he was not." (11)

Another scholarly source along this line is found in the Expositor's Greek Testament:

The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Theos en ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not "a God," which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted...(12)

A slightly different tact is taken by another group of scholars. These scholars refer to what is known as Colwell's rule, named after E. C. Colwell, who first enunciated his rule in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933. (13) The rule says, "The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John." (14) This is the view taken by Morris, Metzger, Griffith and others. Though Colwell's rule is not exceptionless, it is a valuable guide. At the very least, it is a good guide to translation in this case. Those scholars who see the verse in this light are not necessarily in contradiction with the others already cited. First it should be noted that Robertson and Nicoll had passed away before the work of Colwell, and their comments reflect this. Also, both approaches lead to the same conclusion - the passage teaches the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Some scholars see the anarthrous theos as emphasizing the nature of the Word, and all agree that it is not simply an adjectival type of description, saying that Christ is merely a "god-like one." A more recent authors work (March 1973) bears on this issue as well. Philip B. Harner did an extensive study of anarthrous predicate nouns which was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature as well (15). His research led to some realignment in viewing Colwell's rule, it is true. It should also be noted that his article has been used extensively by those who would deny the Deity of Christ and mistranslate this passage. Sufficient at this point is a quotation from Harner's article itself:

In all of these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos. (16)

The authoritative reference source, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, is quite direct on John 1:1:

A similar ascription is more common in the Johannine writings, and for the most part incontestable. Jn. 1:1 says of the Pre-existent: kai theos en ho logos...The lack of the article, which is grammatically necessary in 1:1, is striking here, and reminds us of Philonic usage. The Logos who became flesh and revealed the invisible God was a divine being, God by nature. The man born blind has some sense of this when, after his healing, he falls down in believing adoration before Christ, who addresses him with the divine "I" (Jn. 9:38f). The final veil is removed, however, when the Risen Lord discloses Himself to Thomas and the astonished disciple exclaims: ho kurios moukai ho theos mou (Jn. 20:28). In Jn. 1:1 we have Christology: He is God in Himself. Here we have the revelation of Christ: He is God for believers. (17)

To summarize: The phrase kai theos en ho logos is most literally translated as "and the Word was God." (Robertson, Bruce). The reason that theos is anarthrous is both that it is the predicate nominative (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) and that it is demanded by the fact that if it had the article, it would be then interchangeable with logos, which is contextually impossible. (Robertson, Dana and Mantey, Bruce, Nicoll) Colwell's rule also comes into play at this point. We have seen that the majority of scholarship sees the theos as indicating the nature of the Word, that He is God as to His nature. The noun form is here used, not the adjectival theios, which would be required to simply classify the Word as "god-like."

Hence, John 1:1 teaches that the Word is eternal (the imperfect form of eimi, en), that He has always been in communion with God (pros ton theon), and hence is an individual and recognizable as such, and that, as to His essential nature, He is God. Anything less departs from the teaching of John, and is not Biblical.

Cont'd

Gunny · Nov 9, 2002

John 1:1 - Meaning and Translation Cont'd

by James White

What about "a god?"

Until 1950, an extra section dealing with a translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" would not have been necessary. No one would dare publish such a "translation." However, in 1950, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society published its own translation of the Bible, The New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures. This version translates John 1:1 in this way. A number of appendices have appeared in the NWT attempting to defend this translation by making reference to many of the same scholars that have already been quoted. Aside from the comment of The Expositor's Greek Testament above, the following from F. F. Bruce sums up the truth pretty well:

It is nowhere more sadly true than in the acquisition of Greek that "a little learning is a dangerous thing". The uses of the Greek article, the functions of Greek prepositions, and thefine distinctions between Greek tenses are confidently expounded in public at times by men who find considerable difficulty in using these parts of speech accurately in their native tongue. (18)

A footnote appears after the comment on the article, and it says:

Those people who emphasize that the true rendering of the last clause of John 1:1 is "the word was a god", prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.

This translation violates the following principles:

1.Monotheism in the Bible - certainly it can not be argued that John would use the very word he always uses of the one true God, theos, of one who is simply a "god-like" one or a lesser "god." The Scriptures do not teach that there is a whole host of intermediate beings that can be called "gods." That is gnosticism.

2.If one is to dogmatically assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times theos appears anarthrously. For an example of the chaos that would create, try translating the anarthrous theos at 2 Corinthians 5:19. There is simply no warrant in the language to do this.

3.It ignores the position of theos in the clause - it comes first, and is emphatic.

4.It ignores a basic tenet of translation: if you are going to insist on a translation, you must be prepared to defend it in such a way as to provide a way for the author to have expressed the alternate translation. In other words, if theos en ho logos is "a god," how could John have said "the Word was God?" We have already seen that if John had employed the article before theos, he would have made the terms theos and logos interchangeable, amounting to Sabellianism.

5.The translation tears the phrase from the immediately preceding context, leaving it alone and useless. Can He who is eternal (first clause) and who has always been with God (second clause), and who created all things (verse 3) be "a god?"

6.Just because a noun is not preceded by the article does not automatically justify the insertion of the English indefinite "a". This is a gross over-simplification of the facts, a practice unfortunately common amongst those who are not properly trained in the Greek language. I am aware that this is a serious charge, however, the facts reveal that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has consistently refused to name any of its NWT translators, and of those who have been discovered, none had any more than two years of Greek and no formal Hebrew. (19)

Others could be added, but this is sufficient. There is obviously no scholarly support for the rendering of "a god," and there is massive scholarly argument against it. It is not a valid translation in any way.

1. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd edition edited by F. W. Gingrich and Frederick Danker, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 719.

2. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols., (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932), 5:4

3. Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1950), p. 53.

4. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5, pp. 4-5.

5. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) p. 767-768.

6. A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977) pp. 67-68.

7. H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950) pp. 148-149.

8. Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, "Golden Nuggets," p. 52.

9. Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, p. 209.

10. M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 1, p. 384.

11. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31.

12. W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 vols, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 1:684.

13. E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament" (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1933) pages 12-21. See also discussion in footnote, Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 77.

14. Morris, The Gospel According to John, p. 77.

15. Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" (Journal of Biblical Literature, March 1973), 92:75-87.

16. Harner, pg. 87.

17. Gerhard Kittel, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964) vol 3:105-106.

18. F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), p. 60-61.

19. This information was made available during a trial in Scotland, Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honorable James Latham Clyde, M.P., P.C., etc., Scotland, 1954. I include this to demonstrate the non-scholarly, non-factual approach utilized in defending this erroneous translation.

Gunny · Nov 9, 2002

J.C. Ryle: Expository Thoughts
John 1:14

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (And we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The passage of Scripture now before us is very short, if we measure it by words. But it is very long, if we measure it by the nature of its contents. The substance of it is so immensely important that we shall do well to give it separate and distinct consideration. This single verse contains more than enough matter for a whole exposition.

The main truth which this verse teaches is the reality of our Lord Jesus Christ's incarnation, or being made man. St John tells us that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us".

The plain meaning of these words is, that our divine Saviour really took human nature upon Him, in order to save sinners. He really became a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves, he was born of a woman, though born in a miraculous manner. Like ourselves, he grew from infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to man's estate, both in wisdom and in stature (Luke 2:52). Like ourselves he hungered, thirsted, ate, drank, slept, was wearied, felt pain, wept, rejoiced, marvelled, was moved to anger and to compassion. Having become flesh, and taken a body, He prayed, read the Scriptures, suffered being tempted, and submitted His human will to the will of God the Father. And finally, in the same body, He really suffered and shed his blood, really died, was really buried, really rose again, and really ascended up into heaven. And yet all this time He was God as well as man!

This union of two natures in Christ's one Person is doubtless one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian religion. It needs to be carefully stated. It is just one of those great truths which are not meant to be curiously pried into, but to be reverently believed. Nowhere, perhaps, shall we find a more wise and judicious statement than in the second article of the Church of England. "The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, were joined together in one Person, that is to say, the Godhead and the manhood were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man." This is a most valuable declaration, "sound speech, which cannot be condemned."

But while we do not pretend to explain the union of two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ's person, we must not hesitate to fence the subject with well defined cautions. While we state most carefully what we do believe, we must not shrink from declaring boldly what we do not believe. We must never forget, that though our Lord was God and man at the same time, the divine and human natures in Him were never confounded. One nature did not swallow up the other. The two natures remained perfect and distinct. The divinity of Christ was never for a moment laid aside, although veiled. The manhood of Christ, during His lifetime, was never for a moment unlike our own, though by union with the Godhead, greatly dignified. Though perfect God, Christ has always been perfect man from the first moment of His incarnation. He that is gone into heaven, and is sitting at the Father's right hand to intercede for sinners, is man as well as God. Though perfect man, Christ never ceased to be perfect God. He that suffered for sin on the cross, and was made sin for us, was "God manifest in the flesh." The blood with which the church was purchased, is called the blood "of God." (Acts 20:28). Though He became "flesh" in the fullest sense, when He was born of the Virgin Mary, He never at any period ceased to be the Eternal Word. To say that He constantly manifested His divine nature during his earthly ministry, would, of course, be contrary to plain facts. To attempt to explain why His Godhead was sometimes veiled and at other times unveiled, while He was on earth, would be venturing on ground which we had better leave alone. But to say that at any instant of His earthly ministry He was not fully and entirely God, is nothing less than heresy.

The cautions just given may at seem at first sight needless, wearisome, and hair-splitting. It is precisely the neglect of such cautions which ruins many souls. This constant undivided union of two perfect natures in Christ's Person is exactly that which gives infinite value to His mediation, and qualifies Him to be the very Mediator that sinners need. Our Mediator is One that can sympathise with us, because He is very man. And yet, at the same time, He is One who can deal with the Father for us on equal terms, because He is very God. It is the same union which gives infinite value to His righteousness, when imputed to believers. It is the righteousness of One who was God as well as man. It is the same union which gives infinite value to the atoning blood which He shed for sinners on the cross. It is the blood of One who was God as well as man. It is the same union which gives infinite value to His resurrection. When He rose again, as the Head of the body of believers, He rose not as a mere man but as God. Let these things sink deeply into our hearts. The second Adam is far greater than the first Adam was. The first Adam was only man, and so he fell. The second Adam was God as well as man and so He completely conquered.

Let us leave this subject with feelings of deep gratitude and thankfulness. It is full of abounding consolation for all who know Christ by faith, and believe on Him.

Did the Word become flesh? Then He is One who can be touched with the feeling of His people's infirmities, because He has suffered himself being tempted. He is almighty because He is God, and yet He can feel with us, because He is man.

Did the Word become flesh? Then He can supply us with a perfect pattern and example for our daily life. Had He walked among us as an angel or a spirit, we could never have copied Him. But having dwelt among us as a man, we know that the true standard is to "walk even as he walked." (1 John 2:6). He is a perfect pattern because He is God. But He is also a pattern exactly suited to our wants, because He is man.

Finally, did the Word become flesh? Then let us see in our mortal bodies a real, true dignity, and not defile them by sin. Vile and weak as our bodies may seem, it is a body which the Eternal Son of God was not ashamed to take upon Himself, and to take up to heaven. That simple fact is a pledge that He will raise our bodies at the last day, and glorify them together with His own.

Ben johnson · Nov 10, 2002

Jesus and Jehovah are NOT one and the same savior. God EXALTED Jesus to be Prince and SAVIOR...

Soooo, the "There IS no Savior BESIDES ME-JEHOVAH-GOD"---that was THEN, but now we have a DIFFERENT SAVIOR? Is that what you believe?

The second part is a MISTRANSLATION because it is INCONCEIVABLE that the Almighty God BECAME a HELPLESS baby boy.

Root: "Concieve"---[<L. com together + capere, take] 2. To form in the mind. 3. To imaine. 4. To understand.

INCONCIEVABLE---is this the standard with which we are to validate the Bible, Ed? We are only to accept it as we in our Human minds can understand it? Are we in the position of "ARBITER OF SPIRITUAL TRUTH"?

You haven't proven to me that your Trinity doctrine is TRUE nor have you proven to me that John 8:40 and John 17:3 are FALSE.

We've never TRIED to prove those two are false. As someone said, "Trinitarians believe Jesus was a Man, and we believe there is only one God"... ( :wave:

@ Louis )

I would like you to answer, "in John1:14, And the Word flesh became, and tabernacled among us---is this speaking of JESUS-in-the-FLESH-AMONG-US?"

If your answer is "YES", then you will accept that the passage also says, "Jesus was in the beginning with God"---meaning that He existed long before Mary gave birth. "Yes" again?

Then please explain to me John1:3---Through the Word all things were made; and apart from Him was nothing made that has been made. If Jesus is not God, then Jesus was nothing more than a man---Jesus had a beginning. He was "a made-thing". But apart from Him was nothing made that was made. How does this work? If HE was MADE, then how can "nothing be made apart from Him that was made"? If He was the FIRST CREATED THING, the only option was for Him to be "created apart from the Word". Yet nothing-that-was-made, was made apart from Him.

How do you resolve this?

fieldsofwind · Nov 10, 2002

Posted by ed: I know what is in the Bible fow. But that is not my question. I said you are NOT being RATIONAL because you said that this "thing" who is at the the side of the Father is "one and the SAME thing as the Father." BTW, what is this you cal "thing" fow?

you are the one that refered to 'thing'

Posted by ed: "Then show me the verse which says that the Father BECAME the SON."

The Bible says: (John 14:5-10) Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus 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'? Don'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."

The Bible says: (John 1:1-5, 14) 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 men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Bible says: (Revelation 19:13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

The Bible says: (Phil 2:5-10) Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in APPEARANCE as a man, he HUMBLED HIMSELF and BECAME obedient to death--even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (Reminder: God will not give His glory to another... He is the LORD and Him alone), that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Bible says this was necessary: (Hebrews 9:14) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

The Bible says: (Hebrews 9:16-17) In the cse of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living.

Did God not make the covenant???

The Bible says: (Rev 19:16) On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (Remeber God says that I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8)

well ed.... Christ says that HE is the Alapha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... the First and the Last..... as does the Father. I ask you ed... are they not claiming the saim thing??? if two things come in first in a race... are they not of equal speed??? simple

ed's reply: If that's how you think, do you admit then that you believe there are two "Gods" whom you pass off as "things?"

No ed... that's not how I think.. They both say it ed... God says that there are no others... therefore they are one... they are both the Alpha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... ther FIRST AND THE LAST!!!

Why did God create the earth ed??? It was because He desired a love relationship with a creation... Love ed... "Through Him all things were made that have been made" (John 1)... God is Love (1st John 4:8)... and through His love, He came to us. (also John 1) There are not two separate 'things' as you say ed... there is one Living God who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He is undescribable... and says that He IS.

When God made Himself a man... it was His love.... Jesus Christ... and He subjected himself to endure mans punishment, and subservience. This was His sacrifice, that He became our sins... God the Father can not be in the presence of sin, much less become it. Therefore, out of His uncomprehendible love... He made Himself nothing. He came to us and His name is Jesus Christ-Emmanuel-God with us: Yes... God can do that, even becoming something on earth, while at the same time being God the Father in Heaven. Yes... God can do any number of "evens" that one could fathom asking.

Christ, who being in very nature God, who made Himself nothing, became subject to God the Father... and at the end when all things were finished, was taken again into glory and given the title KING OF KINGS AND LORD OR LORDS... ALL CAPS ED. This is the title reserved for the LORD HIMSELF... WHO WILL NOT GIVE HIS GLORY TO ANOTHER... IT IS THE TITLE OF MY LORD CHRIST WHO IS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE HAVING DEFEATED DEATH... AND THE KEYS OF DEATH AND HADES RESIDE IN HIS HANDS! And after it is all over... Christ will subject Himself to the Father thus the Father becomes all in all. Christ is God... who made>HIMSELF<a man... and who was then again glorified by Him from whom He came

I believe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by edpobre: "I wonder if Einstein would agree to this "out of space" equation!"

I wonder if you have read 1 cor. chapter 1. God says that he delights in the fact that man finds Himself as foolishness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by edpobre: "You really are FORCING a square peg into a round hole Ben. How can Jesus, a SEPARATE personality, be ABSOLUTE God when he does NOT know EVERYTHING the Father knows?"

Got something for you here ed... look this up.

Revelation chapter 19:12

take care

FOW
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8)

Ed... who is the Lord of Glory?

scroll down

1 Corinthians 2:8-- None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fieldsofwind · Nov 10, 2002

Posted by edpobre: The Lord of Glory is Jesus. Don't you know that God MADE Jesus LORD? Read Acts 2:36.

Here ed you are contradicting every part of: I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8)

What does the LORD say ed? He says that He will NOT do what you are saying He did. Explain that one. Of course that is unless they are one in the same (which they are)

Posted by edpobre: If you THINK God the Father BECAME Jesus because of YOUR interpretation of these verses, then answer me HONESTLY fow, who is the Father to whom Jesus was praying in John 17:1

Here ed lets let everyone read this and see what they see how about it?

The Bible says: (John 14:5-10) Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus 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'? Don'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."

You ask: Who is the Father to whom Jesus was praying in John 17:1? Your dimensional understanding does not limit the Father ed. He is the LORD of LORDS He is the Alpha and the Omega the Beginning and the End the First and the Last He is the Living God who says that there are no others but Him. He is the Savior He is the Redeemer. All of these things Christ claims as well.

However you say that God made Him these things and that He gave all of this to Christ. Ah ha, but ed that contradicts the very character of God He says that He will NOT give these things to another He says that there are no others but Him. Therefore Christ is God the Father who TOOK the nature of a man, out of His own Love He says that He made HIMSELF a man no one else did this to Him. God did not make some sub-god a man He made HIMSELF a man. This is the Father to whom the one who came from the Father prayed to during the time that He made Himself nothing.

Posted by edpobre: While it is true that Jesus (the MAN into which the WORD that was God BECAME) is the WORD of God

You say that the Word is God and that it came into a man. However, God says that The He (the He that you refer to as a mere man) was with God in the Beginning. So, basically the Word was God refers to this He who was with God in the Beginning.

(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 men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.)

Posted by edpobre: show me a scripture which says that <I>Jesus WAS the WORD</I> that was God <I>BEFORE he WAS born.</I>

The Bible says: (Revelation 19:13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
Posted by edpobre: Apostle Paul SAID: there is ONLY ONE God, the FATHER (1 Cor. 8:6)

Here I will post the verse for you ed: yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and from whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

First of all read the verse tell me do you think that this verse is saying that they are two different beings? It is not Furthermore this does explain exactly what we have been discussing here. God the Father had to fulfill His covenant. He had to become the ultimate sacrifice for man you want to see this in the Bible? >>> Here you go: The Bible says, (Hebrews 9:16-17), In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living. Through what was man made (as the verse indicates)? I say that it was through Love that God created us. (Remember through Him all things were made that have been made: John 1) Also, 1 John 4:9This is how God showed His love among us: He sent His one and only Son into the world that we might live through Him. 1 John 4:19We love because He first loved us. I also know that God is love (1 John 4:8 and 4:16) This Love whom He is desired to become our sacrifice: (Remember the greatest love is willing to lay down his own life for his friend) Importance on HIS OWN. You may say God will not make Himself nothing therefore being able to sacrifice Himself. Why ed? Is God unwilling to do this? Is He too self-seeking to allow Himself to become humble and submit Himself to death? How would this be if Love is not self-seeking, and God is Love? (1 Corinthians 13:5)

Therefore: From an earlier post---When God made Himself a man... it was love.... Jesus Christ... and He subjected himself to endure mans punishment, and subservience. (Which is why you see Him in subservience to the Father) This was His sacrifice, that He became our sins... God the Father can not be in the presence of sin, much less become it. Therefore, out of His uncomprehendable love... He made Himself nothing. He came to us and His name is Jesus Christ-Emmanuel-God with us: Yes... God can do that, even becoming something on earth, while at the same time being God the Father in Heaven. Yes... God can do any number of "evens" that one could fathom asking.

Posted by edpobre: Sure, God and Jesus are BOTH Alpha and Omega. They BOTH said "I am the Alpha and the Omega." But that does NOT make them ONE God. Alpha and Omega does NOT mean the same to God as it means to Jesus.

Really according to whom ed? Are you now speaking for Christ saying what He is and is not? I simply believe what He says. I believe what He says to me through His Spirit. And I believe what He says in His word. I do not try to twist things around as you do. And if you say you havent, then answer all of the questions pertaining to Isaiah 42:8

Posted by edpobre: Show me the verse that says "God MADE Himself a MAN.

Well ed Christ, in the word of God, says that He made HIMSELF nothing. The word does not say some separate being made Him nothing it says He made Himself nothing. You seem to indicate that God gave some other being everything indicated in the above posts (coming with info straight out of the word) The problem is that God HIMSELF says that He will NOT do exactly what you say He did. Here-- The Bible says: (Phil 2:5-10) Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in APPEARANCE as a man, he HUMBLED HIMSELF and BECAME obedient to death--even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (Reminder: God will not give His glory to another... He is the LORD and Him alone), that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Posted by edpobre: Earlier, you said that God the Father BECAME Jesus Christ. Now you are saying that Christ BECAME subject to God the Father.
Well ed the Bible says that the Word (who was God) became flesh. It is the flesh (who was God) that became subservient to the very God (the only God) from whom He came.

Posted by edpobre: Christ will SUBJECT himself to HIM (meaning God) who placed ALL things under his feet (1 Cor. 15:28). Finally, God will again become "Lord of Lords."

You say again meaning that there was time when He was not a time where it was Christ. However, this again contradicts the nature of God. He says that HE WILL NOT give His glory to another. Yet Christ is the Lord of Glory. This can only mean that Christ is the same as the one who spoke this: I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another

The fact is ed, that you are indeed wrong. You have allowed darkness to pervert what God says. Believe Him ed!

Christ, who being in very nature God, who made Himself nothing, became subject to God the Father... and at the end when all things were finished, was taken again into glory and given the title KING OF KINGS AND LORD OR LORDS... ALL CAPS ED. This is the title reserved for the LORD HIMSELF... WHO WILL NOT GIVE HIS GLORY TO ANOTHER... IT IS THE TITLE OF MY LORD CHRIST WHO IS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE HAVING DEFEATED DEATH... AND THE KEYS OF DEATH AND HADES RESIDE IN HIS HANDS! And after it is all over... Christ will subject Himself to the Father thus the Father becomes all in all. Christ is God... who made>HIMSELF<a man... and who was then again glorified by Him from whom He came

I believe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fieldsofwind · Nov 10, 2002

hello edward... I find it somewhat humerous that you did not address the post ed... are they things that you did not want to attempt to twist because you knew it would be an obvious effort on your part?

Posted by edpobre: "You are saying that Christ is God the Father who BECAME Christ and Christ BECAME subservient to HIMSELF being the Father, right? Thus, when Christ lifted his eyes to heaven and SAID, "Father, the hour has come..." (John 17:1), he was ACTUALLY praying to himself, he being the Father, right? And he was also crying out to himself on the cross when he said, "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Your belief is FALSE fow. Christ CAME as a HUMAN being and anyone that says he CAME as God the Father who BECAME a MAN has the spirit of the ENEMY of Christ (1 John 4:1-3)."

According to you. You have no way of proving how it is 'false', and acctually... I have proven that your's is. You seem to think it impossible for God to take the nature of man... and come to earth in the flesh as He did indeed do. I notice that you conveniently never address a certain aspect of Hebrews... but we will get to that later.

Posted by edpobre: "Look at Hebrews 9:14 fow. It says, "Christ offered HIMSELF unblemished TO God. If Christ were God, there would be TWO Gods which is NOT what the Bible teaches."

Once again... only in your view does it mean there are two of anything. Christ obviously took off the 'robe' of being God to take on the 'robe' of sin. He submitted Himself to God, from whom He came (get it... whom He was, from whom He came), to be able to sacrifice Himself for us. Here is the Hebrews aspect ed... In Hebrews... the verse is posted in the other posts... it says that the sacrifice was necessary because the covenant could not go into effect until the ONE WHO MADE IT was still living. I ask you ed!!! WHO MADE THE COVENANT!!!???

Posted by edpobre: "Did you read Acts 2:36? Doesn't it say that God MADE Jesus both "LORD and Christ?"

Ed... you are not grasping what took place. Do you think that God... once He took the nature of man... made Himself nothing... now being the Christ... could He do anything on His own??? No... The Father... (remember...from whom He came)... did indeed make Him Lord. The Christ... was nothing, remember? (Made HIMSELF nothing phil 2) And furhermore... this again contrasts Isaiah 42:8...

Posted by edpobre: "How can God and Jesus be the SAME"

Simple... they must be according to God's word: (Hebrews 9:14,16-17) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living. Did God not Make the covenant ed?

Posted by ed: "John 14:5-10 does NOT tell us that Jesus is God the Father"

According to you ed... but lets see what others see if they read it huh?
The Bible says: (John 14:5-10) Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus 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'? Don'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."

Posted by ed: "The "HE" refers to the MAN that the WORD of God turned into. The WORD has NO gender fow, just to let you know.
Rev. 19:13 refers to Jesus. Jesus is the MAN that the WORD turned into (the WORD became Jesus, remember?). Thus, Jesus BECAME the WORD of God AFTER he was born. This is NOT what I am asking for."

Really... well this 'man' was with God in the beginning... through this 'man' all things were made... and without Him NOTHING was made that has been made. This 'man' was given the title KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Would this not be an example of God giving His glory to 'another'. Do you not claim that Christ is 'another' If He is not God (as you claim), then He would be 'another'... and this would not be 'glory'... KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS??? HE IS GOD who became like a man... took our nature.

This 'man' is described here ed... lets let others see what it says... they should be able to tell since God is not the author of confusion: "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 men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Posted by ed: "But anyone can see that everything you have posted so far are TWISTED interpretation of Isaiah 48:2."

Really ed??? Well lets get a post of that verse on down here... here we go: I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another

now you state they are two different things... yet... God makes Christ... the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS... the Alpha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... the First and the Last... the Lord of Glory... Thomas cries out to Him 'my Lord and my God'... the Prince of Peace... the Redeemer... the Holy One of Israel... In Hebrews the Father says about the Son... "Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever."

If they are two different beings as YOU state... then God is indeed giving His glory to another... those titles are diety are they not? But this would contradict God's own words.

The fact is that Christ is indeed God who became like man... making Himself nothing... God is the Beginning and the End... He alone is God... Yet Christ is also called God by God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fieldsofwind · Nov 10, 2002

ed... I do care for you, but you have to believe if you want to see. God became like man... became subservient even to death... to become our sacrifice. In doing so, He gave up the ability to do things from His own power, but instead became like a man... and had to place His trust in the Father. God, (who became like a man in Christ), also retained being God. This also must be true, because God will not stop being God either. Therefore, because of His love (through which all of us were created) He became our sacrifice. This means that He had to do what is described above. The Son of God is God who became like man. Simple, and yet so complex! All of the verses in the Bible that you have given and the have been given by the field guy are in line with this. However, it is the Spirit that testifies to the truth, and He is whom I have been listening. God is love, and Christ is God who through His love became like man to die for us. Believe it. If Christ were just a man... none of the verses posted here below would be able to be true. They would all be examples of God giving His glory to another. You claim that by God giving His glory to 'a man' (another) He was in fact glorifying Himself. But, that is not what God said... He did not say He would give it to another because it was going to come back and glorify Him. He DID say that He would not give it away... period! Here are some facts for you. And your claims about John 1 are completely self-fabricated. God was not trying to trick people when He breathed those words into existence. The words clearly indicate that the Word is this "He" who is being spoken of, who was God and became flesh. Take care:

1) 1 Corinthians 2:8-- None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

2) (John 14:5-10) Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus 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'? Don'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."

3) (John 1:1-5, 14) 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 men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

4) (Revelation 19:13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

5) (Phil 2:5-10) Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in APPEARANCE as a man, he HUMBLED HIMSELF and BECAME obedient to death--even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (Reminder: God will not give His glory to another... He is the LORD and Him alone), that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

6) (Rev 19:16) On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (Isaiah 42:8--I am the LORD: that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.)

7) (Hebrews 9:14) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:16-17) In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living. (Did God not make the covenant? These verses are very clear as to who had to die)

8) Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son: today I have become your Father. Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. Hebrews 1:10 He also says, In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. (Notice at the beginning of this God says TODAY I have become your Father indicating that He wasnt always while Christ says many times that He is the Beginning and the End indicating the claim I AM)

9) Revelation 22:13(Jesus speaking) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

10) Colossians 2:9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

11) Titus 2:13While we wait for the blessed hopethe glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

12) John 20:28Thomas said to him, My Lord and my God!

13) John 18:3-6So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, Who is it you want? Jesus of Nazareth, they replied. I am he, Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, I am he, they drew back and fell to the ground.

14) Revelation 5:11-14--Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" THen I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever! The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped. ------- Matthew 4:10--Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

15) Acts 3:15--You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. (Who is the author of life?)

16) We recieved the Spirit of God correct? (Joel 2:28) (2 Cor 1:21-22--Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a desposit, guaranteeing what is to come.) Then how is it that God's word also says that God sent the Spirit of Christ into us... unless Christ's Spirit is the Spirit of God? There are not two different Spirits within me, but one! Galatians 4:6--Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Spirit:

1) John 4:24--"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

2) 2 Cor 3:17-18--"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

3) Galatians 4:6--Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."------- Same as Spirit of God------Acts 2:4--All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit...------ Joel 2:28--"And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people...

4) John 14:15-17--"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. (notice Christ says that the Spirit lives with them already... yet has not been given to them yet... hmm... who does this indicate the Spirit is as well) Matthew 28:20--"and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." The Spirit is within us... and Christ says... "I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

5) 1 Cor 2:10- --but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Future Man · Dec 2, 2002

Hello Edpobre and God bless-

>

Sorry for the time I spent away. Had a few things going.

>

When God manifested Himself as a pillar of fire, He was himself, the pillar of fire. The Israelites did NOT pray to any OTHER God while the pillar of fire was leading them. The ONENESS of the ONLY God was PRESERVED.

And likewise Jesus was himself God incarnated as man. There is essentially no difference in principles of manifestation. Secondly, you wrongly assume again that I believe in a *plurality of 'gods*. Rather, I believe in a plurality of "persons" so to speak, who make ONE God.

If Jesus Christ were this SAME God who manifested himself as MAN, and this MAN prayed to ANOTHER God in heaven whom this MAN called Father, then it would appear that there were TWO Gods BEFORE Jesus Christ, the God TURNED himself into Jesus Christ, the MAN.

Triunitarians do not believe in multimple 'gods' but rather *ontological oneness*.

I still believe that what Jesus SAID about himself (he is a MAN) and about God (the Father alone is God) is TRUE and NOTHING can CHANGE that!

And yet I must ignore all else that states that He is also God. I have already explained how Jesus [God] became a part of mankind [Jn1:14; Phil2:6].
>
In addition to this the main rub of the argument pertained to your argument previously posted here:

When we talk of God being a SPIRIT, we are talking about His state of being (INVISIBLE) in CONTRAST to Jesus being FLESH and bones in state of being (VISIBLE). Thus, God is SPIRIT (John 4:24) while man is FLESH and bones (Gen. 6:3; Luke 24:39).

Manifestation is not a problem for a God who is 'spirit'. This assumes that YHWH cannot manifest Himself which in turn contradicts the scriptures.

Whose word is it that GIVES life FM, yours or Jesus? Jesus says the Father is the ONLY - repeat, ONLY true God. YOU say Jesus, the SON, is ALSO God. I cast my lot with Jesus anytime my friend.

This line of reason bites back however. That is what is in view here. You contradict yourself several times even to the point of denying the *Father* as being 'Lord'. Inaccurate as I will demonstrate.

Jesus CANNOT be God who manifested himself in the flesh. The Bible teaches that there is ONLY ONE God. Jesus could NOT have been the ONLY ONE God who manifested huimself in the flesh.

A closer study of Jn17:3 will demonstrate that Jesus was merely contrasting the one genuine God with the surrounding 'pagan deities'. This does not exclude Jesus from ontological oneness with the Father in being God any more than does the Father being ONLY Savior exclude Jesus. Neither does Jesus being our 'ONLY Sovereign Lord' exlude the Father. This greatly contradicts many passages.

God the Father is the ONLY SAVIOR for the Israelites, His ancient nation. God MADE Jesus savior from His wrath (Acts 5:31).

Read the context:
>
Isa 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
>
Now just a few verses later within this context:
>
Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.
>
And what does this naturally extend into?:
>
Isa 45:22 Look unto ME, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
>
Which ties in rather nicely with:
>
Joe 3:12 Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.
>
This is certainly not limited to the Jewish nation. Now does the Father being "ONLY Savior" exclude Jesus?
>

God MADE Jesus savior from His wrath (Acts 5:31).

From the numerous routes YHWH could have taken to save all of mankind he chose to do so by means of His Son. So what is the argument with "made"? You may want to note that I MADE the Father MY 'Savior' when I confessed His Son Jesus Christ.

>
Rev 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face
of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day
of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

God GAVE Jesus a NAME by which men may be saved (Phil. 2:9).

I'm not seeing the point. In what way does this change the fact that it is YHWH who is to be our ONLY Savior? Secondly, unless you want to argue with me over whether or not Jesus went by the name "Jesus" i.e. "YHWH our Salvation" from eternity past, there really is no point to the objection you proposed.

God the Father is NOT my "Lord." He is my FATHER. And I am His SON. Apostle Paul wrote that for CHILDREN of God, there is ONLY ONE God, the Father and ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).

Well at least you have seen the problem. However note that even this contradicts.
>
Read:
>
In addition to Acts4:24..
>
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.
>
And I could go on..

These apostles were Israelites. Thus, they were TAUGHT from childhood to address God as "Lord." This was only a force of habit.

So are you implying that at one time the Father WAS 'Lord' only to later give this up? And what of Rev11:15 and the voices IN heaven? This was certainly not a mere "force of habit".

quote: FM
But as I have demonstrated, Jn17:3 does not exclude Jesus as God. It merely contrasts the one genuine God from amongst the surrounding 'pagain deities', and to demonstrate what Jesus was sent to earth to do.
quote: Edpobre
Regardles of what you THINK Jesus' reason was John 17:3 definitely EXCLUDES Jesus as the ONE genuine God. If the Father is the ONE genuine God, then Jesus would be COUNTED amongst the surrounding 'pagan deities' especially since Jesus has said that he is a MAN (John 8:40).

And if the Father is the ONE genuine Savior or if Jesus is the ONE genuine LORD does this exclude the other party? Not necessarily. Especially when you begin to undertand Trinitarianism. If Jesus is within this ontological equality with the Father then He is included with the ONE God. How else do you think he [Jesus] is the 'True Light' [Jn1:9]? Is the Father not?
>
See Heb9:16-17. How can Jesus be the one who 'Made and created the New Covenant' if He is *just* a 'man'? These are the things you must think about. :idea:

Apostle Paul wrote that those who are NOT "IN Christ" were CONSIDERED Gentiles and APART from Christ, WITHOUT hope and WITHOUT God in the world (Eph. 2:12).

ONLY the Israelite nation of God was COMMANDED to CALL Him "Lord." But about 700 years BEFORE the birth of Christ, Isarel BECAME God's ENEMY because of SIN, particularly, IDOLATRY. Hence, EVERYONE became a Gentile in God's eyes "hgaving NO hope and WITHOUT God in the world."

'Lord' is not just a way of referring to a being, but a statement of authority and power. e.g. 'Lord OVER the heavens and earth'. 'Lord' is not a *proper name* but a title which represents what that person is. Are you saying that the Father has lost this authority? Are you saying that Israel's rebellion caused God to no longer have any authority over the earth? No.

But when one BECOMES a member inidividually of the BODY of Christ (Rom. 12:4-5), one is REDEMED through Christ's blood and recieves FORGIVENESS of sins (Col. 1:13-14), one BECOMES a son of God. God then SENDS forth the spirit of His son into one's heart crying "Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:4-6).

Jesus TAUGHT his disciples to pray to the FATHER (Matt. 6:9) - not to the "Lord God." He prayed to God calling Him "Father" (John 17:1) - NOT "Lord."

By this line of reasoing I must cease to refer to the Father as 'God' as well!

I don't understand your question. At any rate, I have no problem with the "Triune" God. I understand the doctrine and KNOW that it is FALSE because it CONTRADICTS what the Bible teaches. Thus, according to the Bible, Trinitarians do NOT have God!

There are OTHER beliefs that are CONTRARY to what the Bible teaches and you find these in all the religions or churches you mentioned.

BTW, the SDAs believe the Trinity doctrine but they prefer to call it Triunity doctrine to separate them (???) from the rest. The JWs also believe that Jesus is God but NOT as Almighty as the Father. The Mormons believe that Jesus is a MAN that BECAME God and believe that ALL men can be God someday.

My point being; what is their common objection? How often do you see them attacking each other? How often do you see them attacking the Trinity? What is behind this?
_______________________
God bless you Edpobre--FM

Future Man · Mar 1, 2003

Hello Edpobre and God bless-

Sorry for the long delay. It's been pretty busy for me here lately. If you're still interested, read over the past few pages to refresh your memory (I know I'll have to!

) and we can continue with our discussion.

God bless you edpobre--FM

edpobre · Mar 1, 2003

2nd December 2002 at 04:06 PM Future Man said this in Post #52

When God manifested Himself as a pillar of fire, He was himself, the pillar of fire. The Israelites did NOT pray to any OTHER God while the pillar of fire was leading them. The ONENESS of the ONLY God was PRESERVED.

Click to expand...

And likewise Jesus was himself God incarnated as man. There is essentially no difference in principles of manifestation. Secondly, you wrongly assume again that I believe in a *plurality of 'gods*. Rather, I believe in a plurality of "persons" so to speak, who make ONE God.

There is NO Bilical proof that "Jesus was himself God" INCARNATED as MAN. The Bible says, "Jesus CAME in the flesh" or as a HUMAN being" (1 John 4:2-3). The Bible does NOT say, "Jesus came AS God in the flesh."

There is NO Biblical proof that the ONE God is MADE up of a "plurality of persons." On the contrary, the Bible teaches that the ONLY "person" of God is the Father (John 17:1,3).

If Jesus Christ were this SAME God who manifested himself as MAN, and this MAN prayed to ANOTHER God in heaven whom this MAN called Father, then it would appear that there were TWO Gods BEFORE Jesus Christ, the God TURNED himself into Jesus Christ, the MAN.

Click to expand...

Triunitarians do not believe in multimple 'gods' but rather *ontological oneness*.

No matter what Trinitarians say, the TRUTH remains that Jesus and the Father are SEPARATE and DISTINCT ftom each other like you and me. You cannot pretend we are ONE by saying that our oneness is "ontological."

I still believe that what Jesus SAID about himself (he is a MAN) and about God (the Father alone is God) is TRUE and NOTHING can CHANGE that!

Click to expand...

And yet I must ignore all else that states that He is also God. I have already explained how Jesus [God] became a part of mankind [Jn1:14; Phil2:6].

John 1:14 does NOT say that Jesus is God or Jesus WAS God that BECAME Jesus. And neither does Phil. 2:6 say that Jesus WAS God. It is ONLY a Trinitarian's INTERPRETATION of these verses that say Jesus is God.

When we talk of God being a SPIRIT, we are talking about His state of being (INVISIBLE) in CONTRAST to Jesus being FLESH and bones in state of being (VISIBLE). Thus, God is SPIRIT (John 4:24) while man is FLESH and bones (Gen. 6:3; Luke 24:39).

Click to expand...

Manifestation is not a problem for a God who is 'spirit'. This assumes that YHWH cannot manifest Himself which in turn contradicts the scriptures.

God is ABLE to MANIFEST Himself in any way He chooses. But MANIFESTING Himself as a MAN would CONTRADICT Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19 where God Himself says that "He is NOT a MAN."

Whose word is it that GIVES life FM, yours or Jesus? Jesus says the Father is the ONLY - repeat, ONLY true God. YOU say Jesus, the SON, is ALSO God. I cast my lot with Jesus anytime my friend. 

Click to expand...

 

This line of reason bites back however. That is what is in view here. You contradict yourself several times even to the point of denying the *Father* as being 'Lord'. Inaccurate as I will demonstrate.

Tell me how I contradict myself by saying that I cast my lot with Jesus anytime.

Jesus CANNOT be God who manifested himself in the flesh. The Bible teaches that there is ONLY ONE God. Jesus could NOT have been the ONLY ONE God who manifested himself in the flesh.

Click to expand...

A closer study of Jn17:3 will demonstrate that Jesus was merely contrasting the one genuine God with the surrounding 'pagan deities'. This does not exclude Jesus from ontological oneness with the Father in being God any more than does the Father being ONLY Savior exclude Jesus. Neither does Jesus being our 'ONLY Sovereign Lord' exlude the Father. This greatly contradicts many passages.

This is a RISKY position to take. You are ASSUMING that that is what Jesus HAD in mind. Suppose Jesus were to ask you, "FM, did I NOT tell you that I am a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God?" How would you answer him?

God the Father is the ONLY SAVIOR for the Israelites, His ancient nation. God MADE Jesus savior from His wrath (Acts 5:31).

Click to expand...

This is certainly not limited to the Jewish nation. Now does the ather being "ONLY Savior" exclude Jesus?

Hebrews 1:1-2 teaches that "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days SPOKEN to us by His SON..." And in Matthew 17:5, God COMMANDS that we LISTEN to Jesus.

Matthew 1:21 teaches that Jesus will SAVE God's people from their sins. Gal. 4:4 teaches that God SENT His Son to REDEEM those under the law that they may receive adoption as sons. And in Actys 5:31, the Bible teaches that God EXALTED Jesus to His right hand to be Prince and SAVIOR..."

God the Father is NOT my "Lord." He is my FATHER. And I am His SON. Apostle Paul wrote that for CHILDREN of God, there is ONLY ONE God, the Father and ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).

Click to expand...

Well at least you have seen the problem. However note that even this contradicts.
>
Read:
>
In addition to Acts4:24..
>
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.
>
And I could go on..

In Acts 4:24, the disciples addressed God, 'Lord' by force of habit. And in Rev. 11:15, those who addressed God, 'Lord' must NOT have heard Jesus and apostle Paul tell the disciples that for them, there is ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ.

These apostles were Israelites. Thus, they were TAUGHT from childhood to address God as "Lord." This was only a force of habit. 

Click to expand...

 

So are you implying that at one time the Father WAS 'Lord' only to later give this up? And what of Rev11:15 and the voices IN heaven? This was certainly not a mere "force of habit".

God WAS Lord to the fathers, the prophets and the Israelites. The Gentiles were NOT God's people. The Bible does NOT teach that God COMMANDS Christians to call Him 'Lord.' On the other hand, Jesus COMMANDS that we pray in this manner: "Our FATHER who is in heaven..." (Matt. 6:9). As to Rev. 11:15, these voices could have come from living creatures that NEVER set foot on earth.

quote: FM
But as I have demonstrated, Jn17:3 does not exclude Jesus as God. It merely contrasts the one genuine God from amongst the surrounding 'pagain deities', and to demonstrate what Jesus was sent to earth to do.
quote: Edpobre
Regardles of what you THINK Jesus' reason was John 17:3 definitely EXCLUDES Jesus as the ONE genuine God. If the Father is the ONE genuine God, then Jesus would be COUNTED amongst the surrounding 'pagan deities' especially since Jesus has said that he is a MAN (John 8:40). 

Click to expand...

 

And if the Father is the ONE genuine Savior or if Jesus is the ONE genuine LORD does this exclude the other party? Not necessarily. Especially when you begin to undertand Trinitarianism. If Jesus is within this ontological equality with the Father then He is included with the ONE God. How else do you think he [Jesus] is the 'True Light' [Jn1:9]? Is the Father not?
>
See Heb9:16-17. How can Jesus be the one who 'Made and created the New Covenant' if He is *just* a 'man'? These are the things you must think about.

Trust in the Lord and do NOT rely on your own understanding. That's what the Bible teaches. Jesus SAID that the Father is the ONLY genuine God. I TRUST Jesus enough to BELIEVE that what he says is TRUE - that the Father (alone) is the ONLY true God. 

Apostle Paul wrote that those who are NOT "IN Christ" were CONSIDERED Gentiles and APART from Christ, WITHOUT hope and WITHOUT God in the world (Eph. 2:12).

ONLY the Israelite nation of God was COMMANDED to CALL Him "Lord." But about 700 years BEFORE the birth of Christ, Isarel BECAME God's ENEMY because of SIN, particularly, IDOLATRY. Hence, EVERYONE became a Gentile in God's eyes "hgaving NO hope and WITHOUT God in the world." 

Click to expand...

'Lord' is not just a way of referring to a being, but a statement of authority and power. e.g. 'Lord OVER the heavens and earth'. 'Lord' is not a *proper name* but a title which represents what that person is. Are you saying that the Father has lost this authority? Are you saying that Israel's rebellion caused God to no longer have any authority over the earth? No.

I am NOT saying anything besides the TRUTH written in the Holy Scriptures that "for US (Christians), there is ....ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 8:6).

But when one BECOMES a member inidividually of the BODY of Christ (Rom. 12:4-5), one is REDEMED through Christ's blood and recieves FORGIVENESS of sins (Col. 1:13-14), one BECOMES a son of God. God then SENDS forth the spirit of His son into one's heart crying "Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:4-6).

Jesus TAUGHT his disciples to pray to the FATHER (Matt. 6:9) - not to the "Lord God." He prayed to God calling Him "Father" (John 17:1) - NOT "Lord."

Click to expand...

 
 
By this line of reasoing I must cease to refer to the Father as 'God' as well!

If that is written in the Holy Scriptures, why not? The problem is, that is NOT what the Bible teaches.

I don't understand your question. At any rate, I have no problem with the "Triune" God. I understand the doctrine and KNOW that it is FALSE because it CONTRADICTS what the Bible teaches. Thus, according to the Bible, Trinitarians do NOT have God!

There are OTHER beliefs that are CONTRARY to what the Bible teaches and you find these in all the religions or churches you mentioned.

BTW, the SDAs believe the Trinity doctrine but they prefer to call it Triunity doctrine to separate them (???) from the rest. The JWs also believe that Jesus is God but NOT as Almighty as the Father. The Mormons believe that Jesus is a MAN that BECAME God and believe that ALL men can be God someday. 

Click to expand...

 

My point being; what is their common objection? How often do you see them attacking each other? How often do you see them attacking the Trinity? What is behind this?

I cannot speak for the others, but for us, we attack the Trinity to make people realize that they belong to a FALSE church and should "come out of her, lest they share of her sins and receive of her plagues" (Rev. 18:4).

Ed

Future Man · Mar 1, 2003

Hello Edpobre and God bless-

There is NO Bilical proof that "Jesus was himself God" INCARNATED as MAN. The Bible says, "Jesus CAME in the flesh" or as a HUMAN being" (1 John 4:2-3). The Bible does NOT say, "Jesus came AS God in the flesh."

Actually it does. You need to address the context of John1. The Logos was with God, the Logos was God, the Logos was made flesh. Notice that the Logos was MADE flesh whereas it was not flesh before. Note the context. Especially vs10 and 12. We are speaking of a personal being in these verses. Also see: Cf. John1:1-3; Heb1:2..cf..11:3; Heb1:10-12; Eph3:9; Col1:15-16 etc,. These verses require preexistence.

There is NO Biblical proof that the ONE God is MADE up of a "plurality of persons." On the contrary, the Bible teaches that the ONLY "person" of God is the Father (John 17:1,3).

I believe that the bible does, in fact, teach a Trinity. However rather than spam you with a mutlitude of "proof-texts", I will place special attention on Christ's preexistence for the time being. Until you grasp the reality of Christ's preexistence, it will be best to demonstrate his deity afterwards. We're getting there.

No matter what Trinitarians say, the TRUTH remains that Jesus and the Father are SEPARATE and DISTINCT ftom each other like you and me. You cannot pretend we are ONE by saying that our oneness is "ontological."

I [and all Trinitarians for that matter] agree that the Father and Son are *distinct persons*. However, we do not believe them to be *distinct gods*. You believe the scriptures teach no such thing, I believe otherwise. We'll have to finish the current topic at hand [Christ's preexistence] before we can proceed further. Doing otherwise will only serve to complicate the process.

John 1:14 does NOT say that Jesus is God or Jesus WAS God that BECAME Jesus. And neither does Phil. 2:6 say that Jesus WAS God. It is ONLY a Trinitarian's INTERPRETATION of these verses that say Jesus is God.

And it is likewise only your interpretation that states that they do not. I believe that taking John1:14..cf..Phil2:6..cf..John17:5 in harmony demonstrate quite emphatically his preexistence and subsequent humiliation in *becoming* a man.

God is ABLE to MANIFEST Himself in any way He chooses. But MANIFESTING Himself as a MAN would CONTRADICT Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19 where God Himself says that "He is NOT a MAN."

Absolutely not. You are reading into the text. Hos11:9 and Num23:19 state that God is [at the time within that particular context] "..not a man". They say nothing of God's inability to *become flesh [Jn1:14]* [future tense]. Simply put; God was not a man *at the time that He spoke in Hos etc,.*.

Edpobre writes:

Whose word is it that GIVES life FM, yours or Jesus? Jesus says the Father is the ONLY - repeat, ONLY true God. YOU say Jesus, the SON, is ALSO God. I cast my lot with Jesus anytime my friend.

FM replies:

This line of reason bites back however. That is what is in view here. You contradict yourself several times even to the point of denying the *Father* as being 'Lord'. Inaccurate as I will demonstrate.

Edpobre responds:

Tell me how I contradict myself by saying that I cast my lot with Jesus anytime.

You deny the Father as our Lord! Let's quote where you deny this elswhere:

In Acts 4:24, the disciples addressed God, 'Lord' by force of habit.

How is it that the disciples who had walked, talked, eaten, and lived with Jesus have now brought upon us this confusion out of mere "habit"? Aren't you rather performing your own eisegesis with the text? Did Jesus Christ not make it clear that He only was their Lord?

Remember, Edpobre, this [Ac4:24] is a *post-resurrection passage* where Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father *in heaven*.

And in Rev. 11:15, those who addressed God, 'Lord' must NOT have heard Jesus and apostle Paul tell the disciples that for them, there is ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ.

This is rather flawed guess work on your part. We are afterall speaking of inspired scripture. Note the setting within the context - heaven. Are you implying that the heavenly host who live at the foot of God's throne do not realize that the Father is not our "Lord"?

God WAS Lord to the fathers, the prophets and the Israelites. The Gentiles were NOT God's people. The Bible does NOT teach that God COMMANDS Christians to call Him 'Lord.'

So what of those Jewish people who *convert* to Christianity? Are they no longer to refer to the Father as their "Lord" as they have done all along? So I repeat what I asked before; Did the Father "give up" his position of "Lord"? Remember, 'Lord' is not a "proper name" but a title of sovereignty. Think about what you will be implying with your response to this.

On the other hand, Jesus COMMANDS that we pray in this manner: "Our FATHER who is in heaven..." (Matt. 6:9).

As I believe I stated prior, if I am to take this line of reasoning in order to exclude 'what' and 'what not' to title the Father with, then I may as well use this as a basis for not referring to the Father as "God" as it is not used here. Your holding yourself to a double standard in citing Matt6:9 as a basis for *not* referring to the Father as 'Lord'.

As to Rev. 11:15, these voices could have come from living creatures that NEVER set foot on earth.

Relevance? If these "voices" are the Angelic host of heaven, then we can safely assume that they indeed have "set foot on earth". See Gen18-19 for example. Even if they had not, so what? Are you implying in the above that God is "Lord" in heaven, but not on earth?

Do you pray to Jesus, edpobre? Or is the below referrent to the Father?:

2Co 12:7-9 And by the superabundance of the revelations, that I not be made arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan, that he might buffet me, that I not be made haughty. Beyond this I entreated the Lord three times, that it depart from me. And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness. Therefore, I will rather gladly boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may overshadow me.

Hebrews 1:1-2 teaches that "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days SPOKEN to us by His SON..." And in Matthew 17:5, God COMMANDS that we LISTEN to Jesus.

You must have missed my point. Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3 This requires preexistence.

Matthew 1:21 teaches that Jesus will SAVE God's people from their sins. Gal. 4:4 teaches that God SENT His Son to REDEEM those under the law that they may receive adoption as sons. And in Actys 5:31, the Bible teaches that God EXALTED Jesus to His right hand to be Prince and SAVIOR..."

Simply grab your concordance and look up the word "Savior" as it pertains to Jesus Christ. Note again that 'God' is our ONLY Savior. Not a "temporal savior", but one for eternity. One to "..the ends of the earth." Re-read what I provided before. I also ask how being "exalted" as 'Savior' negates the fact that God is our ONLY Savior? This is a strawman. While we're at it, however:

Read the context:

Phi 2:8-11 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. WHEREFORE also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Cf. Rom14:11

One can clearly see that Jesus' exaltation was as a direct result of His humiliation. You can see where he had this glory alongside the Father prior to his humiliation in John17:5. See where he took upon himself the "form of a servant" in John1:14.

I cannot speak for the others, but for us, we attack the Trinity to make people realize that they belong to a FALSE church and should "come out of her, lest they share of her sins and receive of her plagues" (Rev. 18:4).

I simply find it interesting that every non-Christian religion/cult has a problem with the doctrine of the Trinity. Every single one. Yet rarely do I ever encounter them interacting with one another in trying to refute the others beliefs.

God bless-FM

Future Man · Mar 1, 2003

Hopefully, Edpobre, we can place all tangent arguments aside and place our focus upon the context of John1. I'm seeing an effort on your part to downplay the divinity of Christ, but little in responding to my points concerning His preexistence. It is the latter I would like to put emphasis on as of now. I have a set process I would like to return to, whereas the topic of the deity of Christ, specifically, is a must in being addressed afterwards. I think this is the most productive route to take. Thanks.

God bless you--FM

edpobre · Mar 4, 2003

2nd March 2003 at 04:55 AM Future Man said this in Post #55

There is NO Bilical proof that "Jesus was himself God" INCARNATED as MAN. The Bible says, "Jesus CAME in the flesh" or as a HUMAN being" (1 John 4:2-3). The Bible does NOT say, "Jesus came AS God in the flesh."

Click to expand...

Actually it does. You need to address the context of John1. The Logos was with God, the Logos was God, the Logos was made flesh. Notice that the Logos was MADE flesh whereas it was not flesh before. Note the context. Especially vs10 and 12. We are speaking of a personal being in these verses. Also see: Cf. John1:1-3; Heb1:2..cf..11:3; Heb1:10-12; Eph3:9; Col1:15-16 etc,. These verses require preexistence.

Think about this FM, apostle John had direct association with the Lord Jesus Christ. If apostle John BELIEVED that Jesus PRE-EXISTED as God, why didn't he write: "Jesus came AS God in the flesh?" Why did apostle John write: "Jesus CAME in the flesh or as a HUMAN being" instead (1 John 4:2-3)?

There is NO Biblical proof that the ONE God is MADE up of a "plurality of persons." On the contrary, the Bible teaches that the ONLY "person" of God is the Father (John 17:1,3).

Click to expand...

I believe that the bible does, in fact, teach a Trinity. However rather than spam you with a mutlitude of "proof-texts", I will place special attention on Christ's preexistence for the time being. Until you grasp the reality of Christ's preexistence, it will be best to demonstrate his deity afterwards. We're getting there.

As I said earlier, if apostle John BELIEVED like you do that Jesus PRE-EXISTED as God, why did he write that "anyone who does NOT confess that Jesus has COME in the flesh has the spirit of the AntiChrist?"

God is ABLE to MANIFEST Himself in any way He chooses. But MANIFESTING Himself as a MAN would CONTRADICT Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19 where God Himself says that "He is NOT a MAN."

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. You are reading into the text. Hos11:9 and Num23:19 state that God is [at the time within that particular context] "..not a man". They say nothing of God's inability to *become flesh [Jn1:14]* [future tense]. Simply put; God was not a man *at the time that He spoke in Hos etc,.*.

In Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19, it was God Himself talking. In John 17:1,3 it is Jesus himself who SAYS that the Father is the ONLY true God. I

On the other hand, it was apostle John talking in John 1:14 and he did NOT say that "God BECAME man." Your INSISTENCE on that SINGLE verse to defend your Trinitarian position that Jesus PRE-EXISTED as God demonstrates your complete DISREGARD of other MORE explicit scriptures.

You deny the Father as our Lord! Let's quote where you deny this elswhere:

In Acts 4:24, the disciples addressed God, 'Lord' by force of habit.

Click to expand...

How is it that the disciples who had walked, talked, eaten, and lived with Jesus have now brought upon us this confusion out of mere "habit"? Aren't you rather performing your own eisegesis with the text? Did Jesus Christ not make it clear that He only was their Lord?

Remember, Edpobre, this [Ac4:24] is a *post-resurrection passage* where Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father *in heaven*.

In Matthew 23:10, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he is their ONLY ONE master or Lord. And in 1 Cor. 8:6, apostle Paul wrote the disciples that their ONLY ONE Lord is Jesus Christ.

And in Rev. 11:15, those who addressed God, 'Lord' must NOT have heard Jesus and apostle Paul tell the disciples that for them, there is ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

This is rather flawed guess work on your part. We are afterall speaking of inspired scripture. Note the setting within the context - heaven. Are you implying that the heavenly host who live at the foot of God's throne do not realize that the Father is not our "Lord"?

To whom do Matt. 23:10 and 1 Cir. 8:6 apply? Not to everyone FM!

God WAS Lord to the fathers, the prophets and the Israelites. The Gentiles were NOT God's people. The Bible does NOT teach that God COMMANDS Christians to call Him 'Lord.'

Click to expand...

So what of those Jewish people who *convert* to Christianity? Are they no longer to refer to the Father as their "Lord" as they have done all along? So I repeat what I asked before; Did the Father "give up" his position of "Lord"? Remember, 'Lord' is not a "proper name" but a title of sovereignty. Think about what you will be implying with your response to this.

I only know what the Bible TEACHES. For US (disciples of Christ), we have ONLY ONE God, the Father and ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).

On the other hand, Jesus COMMANDS that we pray in this manner: "Our FATHER who is in heaven..." (Matt. 6:9).

Click to expand...

As I believe I stated prior, if I am to take this line of reasoning in order to exclude 'what' and 'what not' to title the Father with, then I may as well use this as a basis for not referring to the Father as "God" as it is not used here. Your holding yourself to a double standard in citing Matt6:9 as a basis for *not* referring to the Father as 'Lord'.

That's up to you FM. Remember though that John 17:1,3 TEACHES that the Father is OUR (John 20:17) ONLY true God (1 Cor. 8:6).

Jesus.Hebrews 1:1-2 teaches that "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days SPOKEN to us by His SON..." And in Matthew 17:5, God COMMANDS that we LISTEN to His Son."

Click to expand...

You must have missed my point. Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3 This requires preexistence.

Again I say, if apostle John BELIEVED that Jesus PRE-EXISTED as God, why didn't he say so in 1 John 4:2-3?

I cannot speak for the others, but for us, we attack the Trinity to make people realize that they belong to a FALSE church and should "come out of her, lest they share of her sins and receive of her plagues" (Rev. 18:4).

Click to expand...

I simply find it interesting that every non-Christian religion/cult has a problem with the doctrine of the Trinity. Every single one. Yet rarely do I ever encounter them interacting with one another in trying to refute the others beliefs.

Because this is the CLEAREST test whether the spirit that one has is of God or of the AntiChrist (1 John 4:2-3).

Ed

Future Man · Mar 4, 2003

Hello Edpobre and God bless-

Think about this FM, apostle John had direct association with the Lord Jesus Christ. If apostle John BELIEVED that Jesus PRE-EXISTED as God, why didn't he write: "Jesus came AS God in the flesh?" Why did apostle John write: "Jesus CAME in the flesh or as a HUMAN being" instead (1 John 4:2-3)?

I'm not seeing how you're having a problem with this. Let's compare John1:1 with 1John1:1-2..cf..John1:4..cf..1Jn5:11. See also Rev19:13. Jesus = Word. The Word was God [vs1]. The Word became flesh [vs14]. If Jesus is the 'Word' then John is indeed speaking of Jesus as a divine being [vs1] who became flesh [vs12]. Even Arians agree with this to a degree. Now let's read vs10:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his NAME. [Cf. John20:31]

Who are we speaking of? The Word. What is the 'Word's' name? Jesus. In light of this read the previous verses:

Joh 1:10-11 He [Jesus] was in the world, and the world was made through him [Jesus], and the world knew him [Jesus] not. He [Jesus] came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.

Edpobre, how is it that Jesus "made the world" if he did not preexist? Keep in mind that this very world He made "..knew Him not." If you still deny that this verse refers to Jesus, then simply re-read verses 11-12.

There is nothing in the prologue of John which contradicts or speaks differently from what you are implying. In fact with 1John4:2-3 you are simply misapplying scripture where it need not apply in this case. Now read:

1Jo 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

The above passage is aimed at the Gnostics or Doetics.

Robertson:

That Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (Ie¯soun Christon en sarki ele¯luthota). The correct text (perfect active participle predicate accusative), not the infinitive (ele¯luthenai, B Vg). The predicate participle (see Joh_9:22 for predicate accusative with homologeo¯) describes Jesus as already come in the flesh (his actual humanity,
not a phantom body as the Docetic Gnostics held). See this same idiom in 2Jo_1:7 with erchomenon (coming).

See also 2Jn1:17

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Adam Clarke:

2Jo 1:7 -
For many deceivers, etc. - Of these he had spoken before, see 1Jo_4:1, etc. And these appear to have been Gnostics, for they denied that Jesus was come in the flesh. And this doctrine, so essential to salvation, none could deny but a deceiver and an antichrist. Instead of εισηλθον are entered in, many excellent MSS. and versions have εξηλθον, are gone out. The sense is nearly the same.

Trinitarians *believe* that Jesus Christ *became flesh* while on earth and on. The Gnostics *denied such*, believeing that Jesus was *never* in a fleshly state at all, but merely *appeared* this way. They deny that He ever had a body! You are applying scripture in a case where it does *not* apply.

When you say:

"..why didn't he write: "Jesus came AS God in the flesh?" Why did apostle John write: "Jesus CAME in the flesh or as a HUMAN being" instead "

There is essentially no difference between the two at all! John1 states
that the 'Word' [Jesus] who was deity [God] became flesh whereas it was not before. In other words, Jesus came to earth in the flesh. Simply read Jn1:1-14..cf..Phil2:5-8. Read John1:10 11 again. He came to his own [in the flesh (vs14)] and they did not recieve him. The very world He made [this requires preexistence] did not recieve him [1Cor2:8].

In Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19, it was God Himself talking. In John 17:1,3 it is Jesus himself who SAYS that the Father is the ONLY true God.

John17:3 and Hos11:9/Num23:19 have nothing to do with one another. I stated that the latter two passages spoken in light of God's lack of humanity *within the time of that context* does not negate the fact that he could and did later become a man.

I On the other hand, it was apostle John talking in John 1:14 and he did NOT say that "God BECAME man."

John1:14 - The 'Word' [theos vs1] became flesh [man]. God became man. This is *precisely* what the text is stating.

8<

Your INSISTENCE on that SINGLE verse to defend your Trinitarian position that Jesus PRE-EXISTED as God demonstrates your complete DISREGARD of other MORE explicit scriptures.

1.] I have hardly relied on a "single passage" of scripture. In fact I provided many in my previous post. See:

John1:1-4..cf..1John1:1-2, 5:11..cf..Rev19:13
Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3..cf..Heb1:10-12
Eph3:9..cf..Col1:15-16
1Cor8:6 etc,. etc,.

2.] This is not merely a "Trintarian" interpretation in regards to Christ's preexistence. The JWs, SDAs, Mormons, etc, all hold that Christ preexisted prior to his birth in Bethlehem despite the fact that they are rabidly anti-Trinitarian.

In Matthew 23:10, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he is their ONLY ONE master or Lord. And in 1 Cor. 8:6, apostle Paul wrote the disciples that their ONLY ONE Lord is Jesus Christ.

Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.

And this is evidently not to the exclusion of the Father. See:

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

You also have yet to negate such passages as Acts4:24 and Rev11:15 etc,. with any viable argument.

The reason that Christ or the Father can be the referred to as the "only" of something and yet not to the exclusion of the other is because together they are inexplainably ONE God.

FM states:

This is rather flawed guess work on your part. We are afterall speaking of inspired scripture. Note the setting within the context - heaven. Are you implying that the heavenly host who live at the foot of God's throne do not realize that the Father is not our "Lord"?

Edpobre responds:

To whom do Matt. 23:10 and 1 Cir. 8:6 apply? Not to everyone FM!

So what of Acts4:24, a post-ascension passage? Remember Acts7. Christ is currently at the right hand of God IN heaven. See:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, ALL authority hath been given unto me IN heaven AND on earth. [See Phil2:10-11..cf..Rom14:11]

I only know what the Bible TEACHES. For US (disciples of Christ), we have ONLY ONE God, the Father and ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).

And your interpretation contradicts other scripture whereas I am simply harmonizing. Read this article on John17:3 to see where I am coming from.

-God bless you Edpobre--FM-

edpobre · Mar 5, 2003

Today at 05:34 AM Future Man said this in Post #58

[

Think about this FM, apostle John had direct association with the Lord Jesus Christ. If apostle John BELIEVED that Jesus PRE-EXISTED as God, why didn't he write: "Jesus came AS God in the flesh?" Why did apostle John write: "Jesus CAME in the flesh or as a HUMAN being" instead (1 John 4:2-3)?

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing how you're having a problem with this. Let's compare John1:1 with 1John1:1-2..cf..John1:4..cf..1Jn5:11. See also Rev19:13. Jesus = Word. The Word was God [vs1]. The Word became flesh [vs14]. If Jesus is the 'Word' then John is indeed speaking of Jesus as a divine being [vs1] who became flesh [vs12]. Even Arians agree with this to a degree.

Therefore, Jesus is NOT "God in the flesh!" Otherwise, apostle John would have written: "Jesus came AS God in the flesh," right?

Your problem is you see the WORD as Jesus. The WORD is NOT a "who" but a "what." There is NO scripture that says "Jesus is the WORD that WAS with God and WAS God BEFORE Jesus was born." Your belief that Jesus WAS the WORD that WAS God is purely SPECULATIVE as a result of CIRCULAR reasoning.

The proper question is: "WHAT was the WORD that WAS with God and WAS God?" The WORD of God is Isaiah 7:14 which was delivered to Mary in Matthew 1:21-23 and Luke 1:26, 30-33.

This (Is. 7:14) is the WORD of God that BECAME flesh (John 1:14; Gal. 4:4).

Now let's read vs10:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his NAME. [Cf. John20:31]

Who are we speaking of? The Word. What is the 'Word's' name? Jesus.

This is what I call CIRCULAR reasoning and you are wrong because the WORD doesn't have a name. Jesus is the NAME given to the FLESH into which the WORD of God BECAME (Matt. 1:21).

In light of this read the previous verses:

Joh 1:10-11 He [Jesus] was in the world, and the world was made through him [Jesus], and the world knew him [Jesus] not. He [Jesus] came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.

Edpobre, how is it that Jesus "made the world" if he did not preexist? Keep in mind that this very world He made "..knew Him not." If you still deny that this verse refers to Jesus, then simply re-read verses 11-12.

The verse says, "the world was made THROUGH him.." (cf. Col. 1:16) and this refers to Jesus, the FLESH that the WORD of God TURNED into. This means that the world was CREATED by God "BECAUSE of Jesus."

There is nothing in the prologue of John which contradicts or speaks differently from what you are implying. In fact with 1John4:2-3 you are simply misapplying scripture where it need not apply in this case. Now read:

1Jo 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

The above passage is aimed at the Gnostics or Doetics. Trinitarians *believe* that Jesus Christ *became flesh* while on earth and on. The Gnostics *denied such*, believeing that Jesus was *never* in a fleshly state at all, but merely *appeared* this way. They deny that He ever had a body! You are applying scripture in a case where it does *not* apply.

All scripture is profitable for doctrine... 1 John 4:2-3 is NOT only applicable to Gnostics, Doetics or Trinitarians. It applies to everyone. 

When you say:

"..why didn't he write: "Jesus came AS God in the flesh?" Why did apostle John write: "Jesus CAME in the flesh or as a HUMAN being" instead "

There is essentially no difference between the two at all! John1 states that the 'Word' [Jesus] who was deity [God] became flesh whereas it was not before. In other words, Jesus came to earth in the flesh.

There is a lot of difference between the two statements. The first says, "Jesus is God in the flesh." The second says, "Jesus is a human being" or as Jesus says in John 8:40: "he is a MAN."

Please show scripture showing Jesus as the NAME of the WORD that BECAME flesh. Again, I maintain, that Jesus is the NAME of the flesh (child/son) that the WORD of God TURNED into (Matt. 1:21).

The PRE-EXISTENCE theory does NOT have ny Biblical leg to stand on.

In Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19, it was God Himself talking. In John 17:1,3 it is Jesus himself who SAYS that the Father is the ONLY true God.

Click to expand...

John17:3 and Hos11:9/Num23:19 have nothing to do with one another. I stated that the latter two passages spoken in light of God's lack of humanity *within the time of that context* does not negate the fact that he could and did later become a man.

John 8:40 and John 17:1,3 NEGATE your theory that "God could and did later BECOME a man."

I On the other hand, it was apostle John talking in John 1:14 and he did NOT say that "God BECAME man."

Click to expand...

John1:14 - The 'Word' [theos vs1] became flesh [man]. God became man. This is *precisely* what the text is stating.

That is ONLY your INTERPRETATION of what apostle John wrote. Apostle John ONLY wrote: "And the WORD became flesh."  While it is true that earlier, apostle John  wrote that the "WORD was God," my question is: "WHAT was the WORD of God that WAS God and BECAME flesh?

Your INSISTENCE on that SINGLE verse to defend your Trinitarian position that Jesus PRE-EXISTED as God demonstrates your complete DISREGARD of other MORE explicit scriptures.

Click to expand...

1.] I have hardly relied on a "single passage" of scripture. In fact I provided many in my previous post. See:

John1:1-4..cf..1John1:1-2, 5:11..cf..Rev19:13
Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3..cf..Heb1:10-12
Eph3:9..cf..Col1:15-16
1Cor8:6 etc,. etc,.

2.] This is not merely a "Trintarian" interpretation in regards to Christ's preexistence. The JWs, SDAs, Mormons, etc, all hold that Christ preexisted prior to his birth in Bethlehem despite the fact that they are rabidly anti-Trinitarian.

The verses you quoted do NOT explicitly say that Jesus PRE-EXISTED as God. It is ONLY your INTRERPRETATION  that says he did PRE-EXIST as God.

JWs, SDAs, Mormons, are just as wrong as Catholics and Protestants in believing that Jesus PREE-EXISTED as God.

In Matthew 23:10, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he is their ONLY ONE master or Lord. And in 1 Cor. 8:6, apostle Paul wrote the disciples that their ONLY ONE Lord is Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.

And this is evidently not to the exclusion of the Father. See:

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Jesus SAYS "for ONE is your master, even the Christ." Why do you CONTRADICT what Jesus says? What proof can you show that what Jesus says does NOT exclude the Father? 

You also have yet to negate such passages as Acts4:24 and Rev11:15 etc,. with any viable argument.

The reason that Christ or the Father can be the referred to as the "only" of something and yet not to the exclusion of the other is because together they are inexplainably ONE God.

Why should I believe what you are saying when you CANNOT even EXPLAIN how the Son and the Father are ONE God? Have you been INSIDE the head of Christ that you know WHY, he said "ONLY" referring to him as the ONLY master and the Father as the ONLY true God?

FM states:

This is rather flawed guess work on your part. We are afterall speaking of inspired scripture. Note the setting within the context - heaven. Are you implying that the heavenly host who live at the foot of God's throne do not realize that the Father is not our "Lord"?

Edpobre responds:

To whom do Matt. 23:10 and 1 Cio. 8:6 apply? Not to everyone FM!

Click to expand...

So what of Acts4:24, a post-ascension passage? Remember Acts7. Christ is currently at the right hand of God IN heaven. See:
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, ALL authority hath been given unto me IN heaven AND on earth. [See Phil2:10-11..cf..Rom14:11]

And your interpretation contradicts other scripture whereas I am simply harmonizing.

HARMONIZING does NOT result in CONTRADICTION FM and you know it. Jesus says ONE, you say TWO. Jesus says ONLY, you say ALSO. How can that be called HARMONIZING?

Ed

Future Man · Mar 7, 2003

Hello Edpobre and God bless-

Therefore, Jesus is NOT "God in the flesh!" Otherwise, apostle John would have written: "Jesus came AS God in the flesh," right?

And as I have demonstrated, there is essentially no difference between "The Word [deity vs1] became flesh [man]" and Jesus came as God in the flesh. I'm not understanding where the problem lies.

Your problem is you see the WORD as Jesus.

Because the surrounding context of John1 demands it.

The WORD is NOT a "who" but a "what."

Then demonstrate this assertion from the surrounding context. Who did John the Baptist witness of? See vs7 You need to tell me where it stops speaking of the Word and begins to speak of Jesus Christ. You also need to tell me how this transition is convenient and does not interupt the natural flow of the context.

There is NO scripture that says "Jesus is the WORD that WAS with God and WAS God BEFORE Jesus was born." Your belief that Jesus WAS the WORD that WAS God is purely SPECULATIVE as a result of CIRCULAR reasoning.

There's nothing circular about my argument. Nor would I assert that basing my view on the immediate context of John's prologue as being "speculative". The context clearly states that the Christ is the 'Word' [vs12] and that the word was WITH God and WAS God [vs1] and that this 'Word' became flesh [man vs14]. This is precisely what the text says and is precisely what you insist I must produce.

The proper question is: "WHAT was the WORD that WAS with God and WAS God?" The WORD of God is Isaiah 7:14 which was delivered to Mary in Matthew 1:21-23 and Luke 1:26, 30-33.

This (Is. 7:14) is the WORD of God that BECAME flesh (John 1:14; Gal. 4:4).

This is rather inconsistent reasoning. Whatever meaning you apply to the 'Word' in John's prologue must by necessity fit with the immediate context.

So the prophecy given to Isaiah was the "Word" which God used in the beginning to make the heavens earth and universe? :

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through [the prophecy in Is7:14], and without [the virgin prophecy] not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Does this make sense? Not at all. Rather, I see direct parallels to Christ within the whole of the context:'

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (Genesis 1:26; 1Jn1:1-2) and the Word was God (Jn8:58; Jn20:28).
He was with God in the beginning (Prov8:30).
Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made (1Cor8:6; 1Col1:16; Heb1:2..cf..11:3; Eph3:9) . IN Him was life, (Jn5:26, Jn5:39; 1Jn5:11), and that life was the light of men (Jn3:36; Matt4:16; Is9:1-2). The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (Jn3:19).
There came a man who was sent from God (Isaiah40:3 Highway for God..cf..Mal3:1 "Ha Adon"..cf..Jn20:28). He came as a witness to testify concerning that light (Jn5:31-33), so that through him [Word] all men might believe. He himself [Baptist] was not that light; he came only as a witness to the light. The True Light that gives light to every man was coming into the world (1Jn1:8-9).
He [Word] was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him [Word] (1Cor2:8; 1Jn3:1). He came to that which was his own, but His own did not receive Him (Jn19:15-16). Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His [Word] NAME (Jn20:31), He gave the right to become children of God, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God (Jn3:16).
The Word became flesh (1Tim3:16 He [Jesus] appeared in a body Phil2:6) and made His [Word] dwelling among us. We have seen His [Word] glory, the glory of the One and Only.

This is what I call CIRCULAR reasoning and you are wrong because the WORD doesn't have a name. Jesus is the NAME given to the FLESH into which the WORD of God BECAME (Matt. 1:21).

This is hardly circular reasoning. The entire context of John1 leading up to verse 12 speaks of the Word. Therefore when it says "his name" who else could we be talking about? Not until vs14 is the Word said to be "made flesh". Read:

Rev19:13 And His [Jesus'] NAME is called 'The Word of God'. See
1John1:1-2 where Jesus is said to be 'The Word of Life'. John1:4 states "..in Him
[Word] was Life"..cf..1Jn5:11 "And this is the witness: that God gave us everlasting
life, and this life is IN His Son.

The verse says, "the world was made THROUGH him.." (cf. Col. 1:16) and this refers to Jesus, the FLESH that the WORD of God TURNED into. This means that the world was CREATED by God "BECAUSE of Jesus."

God creating the world "through [Gk: dia]" the Son is precisely what Trinitarians believe.

However your reasoning is neither consistent nor correct in regards to the Greek. When 'dia' is used with the genitive it means 'through' as in "intermediate agent". An example being a person doing something through someone else.

Robertson's WP:

By him (di' autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is Johns explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names Gods Son as the one through whom he made the ages. Paul pointedly asserts that the all things were created in him (Christ) and the all things stand created through him and unto him (Col_1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co_8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di' hou).

When John1:10 states that the 'World was made by Him', it means in the sense of 'co-creator'. E.g. Prov8:30 etc,. It's a simple fact of Greek grammar.

Here is where your reasoning is inconsistent. Read:

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through ['dia'] Him [Word], and without Him [Word] not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Notice the "without Him" as in "without his presence." Did all things come into being BECAUSE of God's "literal word" according to you interpretation? No, this makes little sense.

In light of the above, I ask again; How is it that Jesus "made the world" if He did not preexist?

1Jo 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

FM states:

The above passage is aimed at the Gnostics or Doetics. Trinitarians *believe* that Jesus Christ *became flesh* while on earth and on. The Gnostics *denied such*, believeing that Jesus was *never* in a fleshly state at all, but merely *appeared* this way. They deny that He ever had a body! You are applying scripture in a case where it does *not* apply.

Edpobre replies:

All scripture is profitable for doctrine... 1 John 4:2-3 is NOT only applicable to Gnostics, Doetics or Trinitarians. It applies to everyone.

You have missed the point. The above scripture is applicable to Gnostics because *they denied that Jesus was EVER flesh! In heaven, OR on earth. The scripture you cite does not apply to Trinitarians in any fashion, shape, or form! I BELIEVE that the Son of God came down from heaven and became flesh. See John17:5..cf..John6:62

I honestly do not see why my full agreement with the verse you cite eludes you.

FM states:

When you say:

"..why didn't he write: "Jesus came AS God in the flesh?" Why did apostle John write: "Jesus CAME in the flesh or as a HUMAN being" instead "

There is essentially no difference between the two at all! John1 states that the 'Word' [Jesus] who was deity [God] became flesh whereas it was not before. In other words, Jesus came to earth in the flesh.

Edpobre replies:

There is a lot of difference between the two statements. The first says, "Jesus is God in the flesh." The second says, "Jesus is a human being" or as Jesus says in John 8:40: "he is a MAN."

And Trinitarians hold that Jesus Christ is BOTH God AND man.

The 'Word' was God [vs1]. The 'Word' became FLESH [i.e. man].

Ergo

The Divine Word is a MAN in perfect compliance with John8:40!

Please show scripture showing Jesus as the NAME of the WORD that BECAME flesh. Again, I maintain, that Jesus is the NAME of the flesh (child/son) that the WORD of God TURNED into (Matt. 1:21).

Jn1:10..cf..Jn1:12 Note the parallels I presented in the above. You need to tell me where the context of John1 ends with the Word and begins with Jesus. You'll find that the context does not allow for this.

.......

John 1 and edpobre

Legend

Well-Known Member

Remnant

Remnant

Remnant

Remnant

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Well-Known Member

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Well-Known Member

Priest of God and the Lamb

Well-Known Member

Priest of God and the Lamb

Similar threads