Is Jesus God?

Lon

Well-known member
What lots of people miss is that most people who are unitarians speak and say things such as "Jesus isn't God" they aren't denying that he is a God/god in some sense since the scripture are clear at times his referred to as a God (Isa 9:6) like many others are referred to as God. When we say "Jesus isn't God" we are referring to him being "the God", namely the one God (1 Cor 8:4-6)as spoken of throughout the Bible, this understandably implied in our speech.
:nono: "was with" and "was" "God." There is no sense that I'm a god but a creation and always will be a creation. The ONLY sense of 'god' is 1) Godliness (like God in behavior) and 2) made in His image somehow. YET the Son is said to be the EXACT image of the Father. Colossians 1:15 If you miss these very important scriptures, you are missing the teaching of these scriptures. They are this clear.
 

Lon

Well-known member
It doesn't make sense because it's nonsense...It makes God a liar...
Incorrect. If you demand simpleton answers, YOU are a simpleton for it. There are algebraic expressions that are not solvable: 2w +1=n
It however is certainly NOT nonsense NOR makes God a liar. What it DOES mean is that He tells you something, like this simple yet unsolvable algebraic expression, and YOU simply believe it instead of being obstinate. Don't want to? Between you and your Creator. Try not to let JW's lead you down that road. It isn't between you and them. It is between you and your Maker and He holds us accountable to what He says. John 1:1 DOES say 'with God' AND 'was God.' Nonsense? The scriptures? You've something to answer for here, not to me, to your Maker.

God said that Jesus is his son...it makes Jesus a liar ...
:nono: It 'may' mean you failed algebra...
Jesus said that God is his father....
Yep "...was with God...." What is the next phrase? John 1:1

Jesus cannot be his own father and God cannot be his own son...
John 1:1 doesn't say that. Rather it says "was with God" "and" 'was God." It says it this clearly.

It also makes the Apostles liars because they testified that the father sent the son.
No, that is the lie you are rejecting, but it isn't necessary because I nor scripture are saying that either. The only scripture passage that would confuse the issue is Isaiah 9:6 I'd simply say (for me) "be careful how you then say what is and isn't possible." For you? You'll have to come to that between you and your Creator.

It makes John a liar because according to you John is saying that Jesus is God in one part of his writing then in another part he is saying that God sent Jesus to be the saviour of the world...
:nono: It isn't "John" lying. It is you, not understanding, saying "Liar!" That's a troubling place to be between you and your God. RATHER you shouldn't say "Liar" BUT "God I don't understand...." Saying "Liar" is jumping to conclusions AND neglecting what it actually says. I cannot change that scripture for you. It says what it says AND I agree, it is very troubling logically. I don't care, rather, to make a doctrine that "makes sense" if it does damage to the scriptures, and I believe anything BUT "was with" AND "was" God, is wrong. It says this verbatim.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings Lon,
:nono: "was with" and "was" "God." There is no sense that I'm a god but a creation and always will be a creation. The ONLY sense of 'god' is 1) Godliness (like God in behavior) and 2) made in His image somehow. YET the Son is said to be the EXACT image of the Father. Colossians 1:15 If you miss these very important scriptures, you are missing the teaching of these scriptures. They are this clear.
Another view of John 1:1 is that "The Word" here is not another title of a pre-existent Jesus, but a personification similar to the Wise Woman, Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Jesus is revealed as the Only Begotten Son of God in John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Greetings Lon,Another view of John 1:1 is that "The Word" here is not another title of a pre-existent Jesus, but a personification similar to the Wise Woman, Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Jesus is revealed as the Only Begotten Son of God in John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35.

Kind regards
Trevor
A personification has never turned a concept into a person, only given a concept human attributes.

Wisdom is not a person. Wisdom is wisdom, knowledge.

What wisdom is not is a person.

Jesus is, always was, and always will be a person. The Bible says He "tabernacled" among us. That's a very specific word to use.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings Lon,Another view of John 1:1 is that "The Word" here is not another title of a pre-existent Jesus, but a personification similar to the Wise Woman, Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Jesus is revealed as the Only Begotten Son of God in John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35.

Kind regards
Trevor
I began reading John when I was ten. I never missed the connection that John is about Jesus.

There is no 'Word' that would make sense in the context of John. It'd be 'poor' grammatical skills that would allow such an obfuscation.

It simply breaks up the book of John such that frivolous information would be thrown in and the Apostles would never write this way (and in verse14, the 'Word' became flesh, John 1:14 the same One that "was" AND 'was with.' The problem is obfuscation from what the text actually says, and that man/woman MUST answer to God for traveling that awkward direction. Why that direction? Because it ties up in a neat package, a problem of grasping 'with' and somehow also 'was.' MAYBE it needs to stay messy, especially if it means to take certain verses at face value (like these in John 1).

Another is John 20:28 - some have said Thomas exclamed 'My G--!" Which is blasphemy BUT some Unitarians (believe it or not) actually prefer the blasphemy to actually having to read it the other way and give up their unit-arian doctrine. I've heard this several times on TOL (usually proffered by JW's).
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
I began reading John when I was ten. I never missed the connection that John is about Jesus.
I have been reading John for many years and I have always considered John 1:14 is very much about Jesus, the only begotten of the Father Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35 and revealing the glory of being this Son of God, full of grace and truth. I rarely find a Trinitarian who understands or discusses what John 1:14 actually says. I have been aware that many try to read the pre-existent Jesus into John 1:1, but most in their minds simply replace the word “WORD” with Jesus without in any way trying to understand why the word “WORD” is used.
There is no 'Word' that would make sense in the context of John. It'd be 'poor' grammatical skills that would allow such an obfuscation.
I would be interested in how you understand a similar expression in John’s letter, “The Word of Life”:
1 John 1:1–3 (KJV): 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us) 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Do you use the above passage and terms in the same way that you use John 1:1?
It simply breaks up the book of John such that frivolous information would be thrown in and the Apostles would never write this way (and in verse14, the 'Word' became flesh, John 1:14 the same One that "was" AND 'was with.' The problem is obfuscation from what the text actually says, and that man/woman MUST answer to God for traveling that awkward direction. Why that direction? Because it ties up in a neat package, a problem of grasping 'with' and somehow also 'was.' MAYBE it needs to stay messy, especially if it means to take certain verses at face value (like these in John 1).
Who was the Wise Woman “Wisdom” who was with God in the creation in Proverbs 8?
Another is John 20:28 - some have said Thomas exclamed 'My G--!" Which is blasphemy BUT some Unitarians (believe it or not) actually prefer the blasphemy to actually having to read it the other way and give up their unit-arian doctrine. I've heard this several times on TOL (usually proffered by JW's).
I do not accept your view or the wrong suggestion of what “some have said”. I understand that the word “Elohim” usually translated “God” in the OT is also used for the Angels and Judges who represented God and spoke and acted on His behalf. Jesus speaks about this occurrence in John 10:30-36. John summarises what his purpose was in writing in John 20:30-31, that Jesus is the Christ, The Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings JudgeRightly
A personification has never turned a concept into a person, only given a concept human attributes. Wisdom is not a person. Wisdom is wisdom, knowledge.What wisdom is not is a person.
I also suggest that the following also gives God’s Wisdom and Word a partial personification, but it speaks of God’s spoken word that proceeded out of God’s mouth:
Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Jesus is, always was, and always will be a person. The Bible says He "tabernacled" among us. That's a very specific word to use.
Jesus is the name of the child that was to be born to Mary and the word Jesus does not appear before his conception and birth. Jesus is the living manifestation of all that is described in the Tabernacle in the wilderness. He is the Lampstand, The Shewbread, The Altar of Prayer, The Vail, The Ark, The Mercy Seat and many other aspects where The WORD became flesh. We beheld his glory, He was full of grace and truth. It is talking about character, and Jesus fully revealed God the Father’s character.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

betsy123

New member
But, you have to remember: NWL doesn't worship Jesus; NWL doesn't serve Jesus Christ.

Yes, they claim to worship God. Here is what they say about Jesus Christ:

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/believe-in-jesus/



No mention of serving Him.
Not acknowledging serving Jesus poses another dilemma for JW.
If asked, I wonder, how JW put a spin on Colossians 3?



Col 3

22 Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God.
23 And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men,
24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ.
25 But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.
 

betsy123

New member
Greetings again Lon, I have been reading John for many years and I have always considered John 1:14 is very much about Jesus, the only begotten of the Father Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35 and revealing the glory of being this Son of God, full of grace and truth. I rarely find a Trinitarian who understands or discusses what John 1:14 actually says. I have been aware that many try to read the pre-existent Jesus into John 1:1, but most in their minds simply replace the word “WORD” with Jesus without in any way trying to understand why the word “WORD” is used.

I would be interested in how you understand a similar expression in John’s letter, “The Word of Life”:
1 John 1:1–3 (KJV): 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us) 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:1-3 is making a declaration about Jesus Christ, not merely as a person - several times using "that WHICH" instead of "HIM" - but about everything that relates to Jesus (His Being, His Gospel, His Truth, His wisdom).

This comes from people (disciples), who'd had a personal interaction with Him ("which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled").

"WE," refers to EYEWITNESSES! As supported by Luke 1:


Luke 1 (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;



The disciples had seen with their own eyes - actual personal revelation - all that is meant by the Word of God in its fullest sense, in the HUMAN Person of Jesus Christ during His ministry.
That is is supported by John 14:

John 14
The Father Revealed

7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”

8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip?
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?






The "WORD OF LIFE," refers to the Word of the true life: God/Jesus.
Supported by: John 1:4; John 5:26; John 11:25; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:3

John 1:4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John 5:26
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;


John 11:25
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:


Col 1:16-17
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.


Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high







1 John 1:2 is a forceful reiteration of the intrinsic quality of God's relation to man (audible, visible, and tangible) in the person of Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:2
For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us



1 John 1 clearly supports John 1 in referring to The Word as Jesus (God).
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings betsy123,
1 John 1 clearly supports John 1 in referring to The Word as Jesus (God).
I appreciate your perspective. 1 John 1:1-3 clearly shows an extended concept to John 1:1, where instead of the Word, we have the Word of Life. The life started with God the Father and has now been entrusted and incorporated in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God as John 5:26 "given" shows.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Greetings JudgeRightly I also suggest that the following also gives God’s Wisdom and Word a partial personification, but it speaks of God’s spoken word that proceeded out of God’s mouth:

None of that changes the fact that a personification has never turned a concept into a person, only given a concept human attributes.

Jesus is THE WORD OF GOD. He's not a personification, because He was a Person to begin with.

Jesus is the name of the child that was to be born to Mary

Jesus is simply the name given to God the Son.

The application of a name has no bearing on whether God the Son existed prior to His conception in Mary's womb.

and the word Jesus does not appear before his conception and birth.

So what?

Doesn't mean He didn't exist prior.

In fact, we have multiple instances where Jesus is shown in the Old Testament.

Jesus is the living manifestation of all that is described in the Tabernacle in the wilderness. He is the Lampstand, The Shewbread, The Altar of Prayer, The Vail, The Ark, The Mercy Seat and many other aspects

Jesus is not a lampstand. He is the light.

He is not shewbread, He is the Bread of Life.

He is not an altar, He is the Lamb.

He is not a vail, because the Vail was torn in two.

He is not the ark of the covenant, because He MADE the covenant.

He is not the Mercy Seat, because He sits on the Throne of God.

where The WORD became flesh.

The Word only became flesh once, and He tabernacled among us.

Again, that is a very specific word to use.

Here's why:

In the Old Testament, God dwelt in the tabernacle. In the New Testament, Jesus tabernacled among us, literally putting on a flesh tent.

Edit: Which is why Jesus is literally Immanuel "God with Us."

Do you see the parallel?

We beheld his glory, He was full of grace and truth. It is talking about character, and Jesus fully revealed God the Father’s character.

This adds nothing to your position.
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon, I have been reading John for many years and I have always considered John 1:14 is very much about Jesus, the only begotten of the Father Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35 and revealing the glory of being this Son of God, full of grace and truth.
Good, its a done deal then :up:


I rarely find a Trinitarian who understands or discusses what John 1:14 actually says. I have been aware that many try to read the pre-existent Jesus into John 1:1, but most in their minds simply replace the word “WORD” with Jesus without in any way trying to understand why the word “WORD” is used.
Sorry, this is just such a backhanded comment I have a hard time addressing it without giving you the same backhand. I'm arrogant (working on it) because I'm well-educated. This is also the subject of one of my degrees. I could replace 'unit-arian' above but I think it much more important just to discuss the merits of the verses rather than insult your intelligence as 'lower' than mine. Such doesn't matter. It is education that makes the difference and one or the other of us needs the education. :e4e:

I would be interested in how you understand a similar expression in John’s letter, “The Word of Life”:
1 John 1:1–3 (KJV): 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us) 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Do you use the above passage and terms in the same way that you use John 1:1?
Yes. "This 'life' was manifest, we saw Him...."


Who was the Wise Woman “Wisdom” who was with God in the creation in Proverbs 8?
Here is the problem with awkward theology positions: They rationalize. They cannot stay in any one text to hear 'what God says' and must necessarily run off to other passages to 'rationalize' their position. Whenever you see this, it may not be 'wrong' persay, but make sure you realize it is shaky ground the further one gets from the actual passage. Here is the way inductive (vs. deductive) bible study goes: Read and understand the passage and text you are in and don't depart unless you have difficulty finding meaning. 2) read more of this book for more on the context of what you are studying. 3) Look at the author's other books of how he uses the same or similar 4) compare that to the rest of the scripture for consistency.

I've been an English teacher. Here is what I'd tell any student: Context drives meaning. Proverbs is about 'Wisdom.' John is about "Jesus." It is as clear as that. What you are doing is contextual stretching. If you understand the nature of grammar, you are not going to have these kinds of problems interpreting scripture.


I do not accept your view or the wrong suggestion of what “some have said”. I understand that the word “Elohim” usually translated “God” in the OT is also used for the Angels and Judges who represented God and spoke and acted on His behalf. Jesus speaks about this occurrence in John 10:30-36. John summarises what his purpose was in writing in John 20:30-31, that Jesus is the Christ, The Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor
I know you don't. You have something in your head and feel you must adhere to it and justify it. Here is the caution: When what you have believed, meets a difference in scripture, then allow the scripture to change you. Debate sites like this don't help with that. It makes us posture within ourselves rather than what scripture says. A debate site like this 'may' help in the sense that scripture makes and molds us into His image, thus the more we share the scriptures, the more we will be molded.

On this, I've come to learn the grace of God can reach us beyond our misconceptions. I've held to heresy even when I first came to TOL. This AFTER my degree, btw, there is hope. God can reach us. In the meantime, love and grace covers a multitude of wrongs. L

Look here a moment with me for my agreement with you: 1 Corinthians 15:28

I totally agree with you that the Lord Jesus Christ has not only a Father, but God as well. John 1:1 says this: "was with." Yet in the same sentence, next line: "and was God." I've no idea how that happens. It is just what is clearly says.

:e4e: -Lon
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again JudgeRightly,
None of that changes the fact that a personification has never turned a concept into a person, only given a concept human attributes.
Jesus is THE WORD OF GOD. He's not a personification, because He was a Person to begin with.
I believe that The WORD in John 1:1 is a personification and that all that is represented by God’s Plan, Purpose, Wisdom became a reality when the Holy Spirit was used by God the Father to conceive Jesus, the Son of God in the womb of Mary John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35. There is absolutely no suggestion that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was shrunk into the womb of Mary.
Jesus is simply the name given to God the Son.
Jesus is simply the name given to the child born of Mary, the Son of God.
Jesus is not a lampstand. He is the light. He is not shewbread, He is the Bread of Life. He is not an altar, He is the Lamb. He is not a vail, because the Vail was torn in two. He is not the ark of the covenant, because He MADE the covenant. He is not the Mercy Seat, because He sits on the Throne of God.
Yes, Jesus is the fulfilment of all that was typified in the Tabernacle.
The Word only became flesh once, and He tabernacled among us. Again, that is a very specific word to use. Here's why: In the Old Testament, God dwelt in the tabernacle. In the New Testament, Jesus tabernacled among us, literally putting on a flesh tent. Do you see the parallel? .
No, Jesus was the tabernacle, God the Father’s dwelling place amongst men..
This adds nothing to your position.
The Tabernacle had the Shekinah Glory, dwelling between or inhabiting the Cherubim. God the Father’s glory was revealed in Jesus, as He was the Son of God, He was full of the Father’s character, He was full of grace and truth. It is not speaking of the transmigrating of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, but how the character of God revealed in Exodus 34:5-7 “abundant in mercy and truth” is revealed in Jesus, the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
In post #470, you said:

I will not be discussing anything that the scripture does not say.

Obviously, you were lying through your teeth, there, for you have just now said, in post #473:

there is...not one God The Trinity

Scripture does not say there is not one God The Trinity. So, why are you discussing your not-said-by-Scripture belief that there is not one God The Trinity??

Since (as you and I both know well) you did not get your belief--that there is not one God The Trinity--from Scripture, it would be quite interesting to hear you tell us where you got it from. :)
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
You said, in post #470:

I will not be discussing anything that the scripture does not say.

You were lying when you said that. Just now, in post #472, you said:

Ananias was speaking to Peter and the other apostles. Therefore when he said.. you have not lied to men he was referring to himself and the other apostles

Scripture does not say Ananias was speaking to Peter and the other apostles. Why, then, are you discussing your not-said-by-Scripture belief that Ananias was speaking to Peter and the other apostles? Because of your hypocrisy is why.

To use your own words against you, I say to you, "You seem to have an understanding problem." You obviously cannot understand the difference between what Scripture says and what Scripture does not say:

  • Scripture says: "thou hast not lied unto men"
  • Scripture does not say: "thou hast lied unto men"

"thou hast not lied unto men" is in direct contradiction to "thou hast lied unto men". Do you want to believe that Ananias lied unto men, even though, very clearly, we read that Ananias had NOT lied unto men, and even though we do not read, in Scripture, that Ananias lied unto men, and even though we do not read, in Scripture, that Ananias lied unto "Peter and the other apostles"? If you think Ananias lied to "Peter and the other apostles", you must think that "Peter and the other apostles" were not men, for, clearly, the Bible says "thou hast NOT lied unto MEN".

So if you want to believe that Peter meant that Ananias was actually speaking with the holy Spirit and God

Since you obviously have a reading problem, I'll point out to you, here, that the Bible doesn't say

"thou hast not ACTUALLY SPOKEN unto men, but unto God."

Rather, the Bible says:

"thou hast not LIED unto men, but unto God."

Do you want to believe that Peter did NOT mean that Ananias LIED unto God?

That is the reason I brought up the particular passage that says if you did it unto them you did it unto me

In other words, you had no reason, whatsoever, to bring up the Matthew 25 passage. You fail, Professor!

Whatever a believer does to another believer it is done as unto Jesus.

Zero relevance to our discussion of the Acts 5 account of Ananias. You fail, Professor.

And whatever the unbeliever does to a believer it is done as unto Jesus.

Zero relevance to our discussion of the Acts 5 account of Ananias. You fail, Professor.

The father has committed all things to Jesus..

Zero relevance to our discussion of the Acts 5 account of Ananias. You fail, Professor.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Greetings again JudgeRightly, I believe that The WORD in John 1:1 is a personification and that all that is represented by God’s Plan, Purpose, Wisdom became a reality when the Holy Spirit was used by God the Father to conceive Jesus, the Son of God in the womb of Mary John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35. There is absolutely no suggestion that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was shrunk into the womb of Mary.
Jesus is simply the name given to the child born of Mary, the Son of God.
Yes, Jesus is the fulfilment of all that was typified in the Tabernacle.
No, Jesus was the tabernacle, God the Father’s dwelling place amongst men..
The Tabernacle had the Shekinah Glory, dwelling between or inhabiting the Cherubim. God the Father’s glory was revealed in Jesus, as He was the Son of God, He was full of the Father’s character, He was full of grace and truth. It is not speaking of the transmigrating of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, but how the character of God revealed in Exodus 34:5-7 “abundant in mercy and truth” is revealed in Jesus, the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

Notice what your fellow anti-Trinitarian wrote concerning the word 'person':

What is a distinct person??? A distinct person is an imaginary construct to support the Trinity. God the Father is a spirit... not a person... unless you are saying that a spirit is a person. The holy Spirit is the spirit of God... not a person... unless you are saying that a spirit is a person. See you have to make the most high God the Father... into a person in order to materialize your Trinity. I am not buying into your nonsense.

Would you approve of newbirth61's saying, "A distinct person is an imaginary construct to support the Trinity"? Would you say, in agreement with newbirth61, that "God the Father is...not a person"?

Here is what he is saying: "God the Father is...not [an imaginary construct to support the Trinity.]"
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
Good, its a done deal then :up:
Nevertheless if we both gave a brief summary of what John 1:14 is actually saying and teaching, then I suggest that we would have a different view. I would explain that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
Sorry, this is just such a backhanded comment I have a hard time addressing it without giving you the same backhand. I'm arrogant (working on it) because I'm well-educated. This is also the subject of one of my degrees. I could replace 'unit-arian' above but I think it much more important just to discuss the merits of the verses rather than insult your intelligence as 'lower' than mine. Such doesn't matter. It is education that makes the difference and one or the other of us needs the education. :e4e:
I am not tertiary educated, especially not in areas of English, History or Religion and Languages as my work has been in a technical area and I liked Physics and Maths. I still claim, similar to the concept of “The Clarity of the Scriptures” that each of us can come to a proper understanding of the Gospel and way of life in Christ. From my experience in the last few days, I have listened to a series of 5 talks by a well-educated exponent, and much that he stated was encouraging, interesting and some new matter to seriously consider, but there was a few areas where his exposition failed and was very unusual. Another example is that yesterday a couple visited. He is a university lecturer and she a high school teacher in science. One of his hobbies was to learn Hebrew and when he was in our meeting he would read and discuss directly from his Hebrew Bible. He also lived and worked in Israel for a year. But I would not go to him for a discussion on the Yahweh Name, and the meaning that I hold, that Exodus 3:14 should be translated as “I will be” as per Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins.
Yes. "This 'life' was manifest, we saw Him...."
The life was derived from the Father, not from a pre-existent 2nd Person of the Trinity. John saw Jesus’ moral glory in John 1:14, and here in 1 John 1:1-3 the “life” was manifest in and through Jesus, the Son of God.
Here is the problem with awkward theology positions: They rationalize. They cannot stay in any one text to hear 'what God says' and must necessarily run off to other passages to 'rationalize' their position. Whenever you see this, it may not be 'wrong' persay, but make sure you realize it is shaky ground the further one gets from the actual passage. Here is the way inductive (vs. deductive) bible study goes: Read and understand the passage and text you are in and don't depart unless you have difficulty finding meaning. 2) read more of this book for more on the context of what you are studying. 3) Look at the author's other books of how he uses the same or similar 4) compare that to the rest of the scripture for consistency.

I've been an English teacher. Here is what I'd tell any student: Context drives meaning. Proverbs is about 'Wisdom.' John is about "Jesus." It is as clear as that. What you are doing is contextual stretching. If you understand the nature of grammar, you are not going to have these kinds of problems interpreting scripture.
I suggest that Genesis 1:1-2 and Proverbs 8 and other passages form some ground ideas for John 1:1. By claiming John’s Gospel is about Jesus, you appear to justify inserting “Jesus” and replacing “The Word” in John 1:1.
I know you don't. You have something in your head and feel you must adhere to it and justify it. Here is the caution: When what you have believed, meets a difference in scripture, then allow the scripture to change you. Debate sites like this don't help with that. It makes us posture within ourselves rather than what scripture says. A debate site like this 'may' help in the sense that scripture makes and molds us into His image, thus the more we share the scriptures, the more we will be molded.

On this, I've come to learn the grace of God can reach us beyond our misconceptions. I've held to heresy even when I first came to TOL. This AFTER my degree, btw, there is hope. God can reach us. In the meantime, love and grace covers a multitude of wrongs. L
I have learnt many ideas and adjusted some of my previous positions by discussion. Yes, the Word of God is powerful to mould us.

Look here a moment with me for my agreement with you: 1 Corinthians 15:28
I read this to teach that there is One God the Father and that at the end of the 1000 years Jesus the Son of God will hand back the Kingdom to His Father and will be subject to him.
I totally agree with you that the Lord Jesus Christ has not only a Father, but God as well. John 1:1 says this: "was with." Yet in the same sentence, next line: "and was God." I've no idea how that happens. It is just what is clearly says. :e4e: -Lon
I see this as part of the confusion of the Trinitarian position.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Lon

Well-known member
I hold, that Exodus 3:14 should be translated as “I will be” as per Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins.
:idunno: Because you are a brilliant Hebrew scholar? Whatever preference you have, it certainly is driven by 'desire' at this point and has to be unless you had 1) the wherewithall and 2)an academic reason.

The life was derived from the Father, not from a pre-existent 2nd Person of the Trinity. John saw Jesus’ moral glory in John 1:14, and here in 1 John 1:1-3 the “life” was manifest in and through Jesus, the Son of God.
Hold on. John 17:5 Read with me before saying anything. It is just and only posturing otherwise. Go back to John 1:14. Don't just assert things. Every cult ever started just makes up ideas and believe them as simpletons neglecting what God says and just making it up as they go, believing a previous simpleton with charisma, or just made a big mistake. Let's discuss the scriptures. What you and I believe about them must be tested else it is just a posturing match going nowhere. Let's keep this a rule between us: Unless you've a scripture in John 1 (or the rest of John) let's not say anything but what we can substantiate from there.

I suggest that Genesis 1:1-2 and Proverbs 8 and other passages form some ground ideas for John 1:1. By claiming John’s Gospel is about Jesus, you appear to justify inserting “Jesus” and replacing “The Word” in John 1:1.
I have learnt many ideas and adjusted some of my previous positions by discussion. Yes, the Word of God is powerful to mould us.
1) You admit this isn't your degree and 2) it shows. This book, without controversy, is about the Lord Jesus Christ. The last lines: John 20:30-31

The whole book loses continuity if you don't see the connection of all the ideas. Your initial sentence loses power as an unrelated discussion, all because of your adherence and steadfastness to an 'odd' idea. By odd, I mean it doesn't fit the rest of the book and you must own that.

I read this to teach that there is One God the Father and that at the end of the 1000 years Jesus the Son of God will hand back the Kingdom to His Father and will be subject to him.
I see this as part of the confusion of the Trinitarian position.

Kind regards
Trevor
Again, just rationalization for your position. It doesn't help to read or know your mind. It doesn't help to read or know my mind. What will help, and the only thing that will help, is to read what the text says and to discuss why it is, it means that.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
:idunno: Because you are a brilliant Hebrew scholar? Whatever preference you have, it certainly is driven by 'desire' at this point and has to be unless you had 1) the wherewithall and 2)an academic reason.
No, I am not a Hebrew scholar. I have considered the context (compare your recommendation which I endorse) of Exodus 3:14 and considered the evidence as presented by various expositors and Hebrew scholars.
Hold on. John 17:5 Read with me before saying anything. It is just and only posturing otherwise. Go back to John 1:14. Don't just assert things. Every cult ever started just makes up ideas and believe them as simpletons neglecting what God says and just making it up as they go, believing a previous simpleton with charisma, or just made a big mistake. Let's discuss the scriptures. What you and I believe about them must be tested else it is just a posturing match going nowhere. Let's keep this a rule between us: Unless you've a scripture in John 1 (or the rest of John) let's not say anything but what we can substantiate from there.
I would be interested in your understanding of the various terms of John 1:14 before you use John 17:5 to support your understanding of John 1:14.
1) You admit this isn't your degree and 2) it shows. This book, without controversy, is about the Lord Jesus Christ. The last lines: John 20:30-31
Yes, John’s Gospel record is about Jesus and the very verses that you quote define what John believed concerning Jesus:
John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
We could discuss what these terms actually represent, but I claim that this does not teach the Trinity.
The whole book loses continuity if you don't see the connection of all the ideas. Your initial sentence loses power as an unrelated discussion, all because of your adherence and steadfastness to an 'odd' idea. By odd, I mean it doesn't fit the rest of the book and you must own that.
You still seem to be demanding that we replace the word “WORD” with “Jesus” in John 1:1. Where do we find the meaning of the word “WORD”?
Again, just rationalization for your position. It doesn't help to read or know your mind. It doesn't help to read or know my mind. What will help, and the only thing that will help, is to read what the text says and to discuss why it is, it means that.
Perhaps you may like to start with John 1:14 and my interest in the term “the only begotten of the Father”.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

betsy123

New member
Greetings betsy123,I appreciate your perspective. 1 John 1:1-3 clearly shows an extended concept to John 1:1, where instead of the Word, we have the Word of Life. The life started with God the Father and has now been entrusted and incorporated in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God as John 5:26 "given" shows.

Kind regards
Trevor

No difference between THE WORD (which is Jesus), and the The WORD of LIFE (which is God).
They're both God!

It says it clearly:



1 John 1

What Was Heard, Seen, and Touched

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and dour hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—

2 the life was manifested and we have seen, hand bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us

3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.





God manifested as human in Jesus Christ!
God appeared as a human (Jesus Christ)!

That's why John 1 says,


John 1

The Eternal Word

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 He was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.




John 1:1-4 is so rich in its declaration.
Just contemplate on every single statement it gives.
For a minute - forget the belief that you have. Ask the Holy Spirit for understanding.
Take it in with an open mind.



That was reinforced by John 1:14!



The Word Becomes Flesh

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




Compare John 1:1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


with John 1:14!

The Word Becomes Flesh

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






The Word is God, and he became flesh and dwelt with man.....and the witnesses (disciples) beheld Him as the only begotten Son of God. JESUS!

Who is the only begotten Son of God? JESUS!



If The Word was God - and The Word became flesh - who else could it be but JESUS CHRIST?

It's so clear. Jesus is God (as man)!

Why can't non-Trinitarians see?




Anyway....

Have you noticed the familiar pattern of the Scriptures providing reinforcements to this declaration?



I don't know the individual reasons why people embrace Christianity. But, if the ultimate purpose is salvation and eternal life (as promised by Christ), shouldn't we ascertain that we are following what is required from us by God/Jesus?

If we found the TRUTH, shouldn't we let go of the false, and instead - in all humility - embrace the TRUTH?

What good does clinging to the false brings us?
The false is a major part of this worldly life - it's a deception being used by Satan (IF some Christians even believe that Satan exists! Because there are some who deny Satan is real.)
We have been warned so many times against false teachings and false prophets!
If The Truth has been laid out to us - there is no longer any excuse to keep clinging to what's obviously false - what more when we help to spread it!

In the end, we'll have to answer for it.



This life, is the only one life we get to live in this world.

And......


......... IT IS NOT A TRIAL RUN.



(this is posted with love).
 
Last edited:
Top