Charles' Jesus is God Proof Texts

[carmel]

Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 16 2011,06:34)

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,03:37) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 16 2011,01:38) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,01:12) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 08 2011,19:07) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 07 2011,17:07) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,18:03) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 06 2011,08:42) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 06 2011,03:45) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 05 2011,15:12) Quote (carmel @ Dec. 05 2011,03:23) …Jesus used the term I AM in order to prove that He was the God of the old testament… Hi Charles, If that is what you believe, tell me then, why did Jesus say this… Take heed lest any deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, {i am}; and shall deceive many. (Mark 13:5-6) Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English. God bless Ed J Quote Hebrew has no such wording as εγω ειμι {ego eimi} in Geek and {i am} in English. Edj, Hebrew not,they has no such wording . This is “אני הווה” Hi Charles, “אני הווה” means “I present”, NOT 'i am'; try again. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Charles? Edj, After all christ spoke ARAMAIC. Now what did Jesus Said when they came to arrest HIm and they all fell to the ground and WHY?? Hi Charles, I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement' between YHVH and satan before the world began; and the reason why we are all here as human beings. Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Quote I believe it has to do with a 'forced agreement' between YHVH and satan before the world began; and the reason why we are all here as human beings. Edj, I believe you did watch The passion of The Christ, no? Can you remember what the words were, when they came to arresst Him, they were on the screen in English    “I AM” ,and they were spoken in Aramaic no?? REMIND ME PLEASE AS I CANNOT REMEMBER. PEACE AND LOVE IN JESUS CHARLES Hi Charles, What point are you trying to make? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Quote What point are you trying to make? Edj, I think I was clear enough  No. Is the pronounciation of I AM in Aramaic from the Hebrew language different?? YES since it originated in Syria I suppose! SO if Jesus spoke and wrote Aramaic therefore He could do both. No? So I was wondering whether you noticed it while watching the film since you are so keen. I myself was not so interested, infact I was quite an evil person in comparison to now, although I don't consider myself much better yet. peace and love in Jesus Charles Hi Charles, The Hebrew/Aramaic has no equivalent to the Greek {εγω ειμι} ego eimi ? So I repeat, “what point are you trying to make? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Quote

The Hebrew/Aramaic has no equivalent to the Greek {εγω ειμι} ego eimi ?

Edj,

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

The above scripture occurred 2000 years ago.

Whether Jesus spoke ,Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and God knows what,

Definitely offended the Pharisees by pronouncing the words I AM, which was the name of God for them, but for Jesus, the truth,  either  wasn't, or else confirmed that from then on it could be pronounced, since He came and fulfilled and seal
ed the OT.

WE AS CHRISTIANS ARE SUBJECT TO WHAT JESUS ESTABLISHED AND THE ONLY NAME WHICH GOD THE FATHER IS WELL PLEASED IN IS JESUS CHRIST.

 Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily

WELL PLEASED IN,   AND IN HIM ALL THE FULNESS DWELL.

INCLUDE HIS NAME AS WELL.

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[mikeboll64]

Charles,

Hold off a minute. I'll respond to your last post soon. It seems there will now be three of us in the classroom, and I'm giving jammin a chance to catch up with the lesson plan.

[carmel]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 18 2011,02:36)

Charles, Hold off a minute.  I'll respond to your last post soon.  It seems there will now be three of us in the classroom, and I'm giving jammin a chance to catch up with the lesson plan.

Quote

Hold off a minute.  I'll respond to your last post soon.  It seems there will now be three of us in the classroom, and I'm giving jammin a chance to catch up with the lesson plan.

Well come

jammin!!

Mike,

Is he here to learn or to teach??

Is he here to support you??

peace and love in Jesus,

Charles

[mikeboll64]

He is on your side, Charles. He actually is here to learn…….he just doesn't know it yet. He thinks he's here to teach so far.

[jammin]

i will be reading for now the page 70 and will post tom. because it's already midnight here. i need to take some rest. but dont worry mike, ill be joining this forum and share some ideas tom.
thanks

peace and love in Jesus,

jammin

[mikeboll64]

Glad to have you, jammin.

And Charles, I misspoke before. jammin believes like you that Jesus is God Almighty. He does not believe that Jesus is the Father.

But I truly hope we can carry on with our current discussion one point at a time. That way, we can all learn together.

From what we learn, we can then at least be basing our understanding on all the facts, even if we end up disagreeing in the end.

[Ed J]

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 18 2011,02:35)

Quote  The Hebrew/Aramaic has no equivalent to the Greek {εγω ειμι} ego eimi ? Edj, Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. The above scripture occurred 2000 years ago. Whether Jesus spoke ,Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and God knows what, (1)Definitely offended the Pharisees by pronouncing the words I AM, (2)which was the name of God for them, but for Jesus, the truth,  either  wasn't, or else confirmed that from then on it could be pronounced, since He came and fulfilled and sealed the OT. WE AS CHRISTIANS ARE SUBJECT TO WHAT JESUS ESTABLISHED AND THE ONLY NAME WHICH GOD THE FATHER IS WELL PLEASED IN IS JESUS CHRIST.  Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily WELL PLEASED IN,   AND IN HIM ALL THE FULNESS DWELL. INCLUDE HIS NAME AS WELL. Peace and love in Jesus Charles

Hi Charles,

1) Could it be because he said he was before Abraham,
    as in importance, not in any time-line scheme?
    “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” (John 14:1)

2) They knew the name of God is [יהוה] YÄ-hä-vā,
    as you too should know his name by now as well!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[jammin]

so we are talking here about john 1:1
and according to page 70 mike there are 3 possble translation. you know what ?? the right translation for john 1:1 is GOD not a god. you know why?? most of the translation is GOD and not a god. second, thomas also said GOD! not a god
John 20:28

Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

28 Thomas answered, and said to him, My Lord and my God.

also GOD the father said to his SON, GOD! not a god!

[terraricca]

Jammin

Quote

also GOD the father said to his SON, GOD! not a god!

so it is GOD SAYS TO GOD YOU ARE MY SON ?????

[Lightenup]

Amen jammin, and welcome! It is God not god you are absolutely correct!

Kathi

[Lightenup]

Pierre,
Can man say to man, “You are my son?” My husband can say that to four men…he has four sons. Why is that hard for you?

Kathi

[carmel]

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 18 2011,16:21)

Jammin Quote also GOD the father said to his SON, GOD! not a god!     so it is GOD SAYS TO GOD YOU ARE MY SON ?????

Quote

so it is GOD SAYS TO GOD YOU ARE MY SON

Pierre,

I am still waiting for your answer regarding the first born of every creature.

Now to this one!

Can't you see the diferrence between GOD and GOD you are my Son.??

Now read:

Luke 1:16  And he shall convert many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God

In Luke 1:16 above the angel said this senrence,and the significant piece which the angel utterred was :

to the Lord their God.

Now Why he didn't say to the Lord only??

What is in this statement which makes you ponder??

personally to the Lord would have been more then enough.

What the word THEIR is referring to??

Did it referred to the Jews??

Or did it referred to all humanity???

I am convinced that it referred to all humanity No.???

Since the Jews didn't believe in Him,and crucified Him.

So since it was referring to all humanity,the angel meant that their God is to specify that for the first time ever in the world there is going to be somebody who is  true GOD and also MAN, like them that's why their God. in their substance,He came all  the way through nature,from the abyss up,carnal wise, in the body of the virgin MARY,the substance He required.

Before Jesus came, there were many gods,and it was quite easy for Satan to manipulate humans and even himself become the god of the world for the simple reason that both God Almighty,and Satan had something in common, which was that they were both spirits.

reflect a bit,

Jesus confirmed in :

John 3:And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

So humans could never accept an invisible God except the evil one Satan since they were his remnants and loved him.

So God the Father meekly and patiently waited for the time to be fulfilled and sent His God Son in flesh, the only God in flesh JESUS CHRIST to be THEIR  UNIQUE PARTICULAR GOD FOR ALL THOSE WHO ACCEPT HIM AND HEAR HIM!!

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;

I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Notice the same expression: I will be to them a God,

but A GOD,not GOD,For the simple reason that when Jesus came as a human being He was only in that state temporary,and also He was subject to death therefore He wasn't a normal spiritual GOD, but two different entities in ONE.

In fact He couldn't remain in that state more then three years,asThe spirit of GOD in full within a carnal body(not that the Father wasn't capable of,but unless He prevent it,His Spirit was too powerful for that kind of flesh and blood body,in the garden of Getsemany Jesus demonstrated the first signs of body deterioration  !) Even Paul confirmed in:

hebrews 2:14  Therefore because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner hath been partaker of the same: that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil:

Corinthians 1:15Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; …..

And the Father was pleased to abide in His fullness  within Him,TEMPORARY TILL HE DESTROYS THE MORTAL FLESH BODY AND GLORIFY IT.

So first the Father as a pure spirit abided within a corrupted flesh as ours but without sin in (HIS) JESUS soul, to destroy it as a sacrifice for our sins ( light shines out of darkness) two opposite entities in one, spirit and flesh in one body.

Then to be united, and glorified  both the Father and the Son as one entity and become a spiritual flesh body for eternity in JESUS CHRIST.

ALL IN HIM,ALL BY HIM, ALL FOR HIM.

The above statement is both for the Father and for the Son, since they became ONE.

PEACE AND LOVE IN JESUS CHRIST OUR FATHER GOD.

CHARLES

[carmel]

Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 18 2011,03:37)

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 18 2011,02:35) Quote  The Hebrew/Aramaic has no equivalent to the Greek {εγω ειμι} ego eimi ? Edj, Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. The above scripture occurred 2000 years ago. Whether Jesus spoke ,Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and God knows what, (1)Definitely offended the Pharisees by pronouncing the words I AM, (2)which was the name of God for them, but for Jesus, the truth,  either  wasn't, or else confirmed that from then on it could be pronounced, since He came and fulfilled and sealed the OT. WE AS CHRISTIANS ARE SUBJECT TO WHAT JESUS ESTABLISHED AND THE ONLY NAME WHICH GOD THE FATHER IS WELL PLEASED IN IS JESUS CHRIST.  Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily WELL PLEASED IN,   AND IN HIM ALL THE FULNESS DWELL. INCLUDE HIS NAME AS WELL. Peace and love in Jesus Charles Hi Charles, 1) Could it be because he said he was before Abraham,     as in importance, not in any time-line scheme?     “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” (John 14:1) 2) They knew the name of God is [יהוה] YÄ-hä-vā,     as you too should know his name by now as well! God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Quote

Could it be because he said he was before Abraham,     as in importance, not in any time-line scheme?

Edj,

That's your interpetation?

I downloaded The Passion.

And I noticed that Jesus said: “Eno no”. when they told Him that they are looking for Jesus of Nazaeth and He answered
I AM!

I cheked it on answers.com

and it says that I am is either ena na, or  eno no

How does it sound to you??

peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ Dec. 17 2011,21:48)

so we are talking here about john 1:1 and according to page 70 mike there are 3 possble translation.

Hi jammin.  It seems that you know more today than you knew yesterday, and that was the point.  At least now, even if you don't agree with the NWT's “a god” translation, you are aware that it is one of THREE possible interpretations of John 1:1c.

And that is important for me, because now, even if you disagree with their “a god” translation, I shouldn't have to hear you say, “they are just adding their own words into the scriptures”, because now you know it IS a possible translation of the Greek words.

You didn't comment on the rest of the information from the 25 NETNotes scholars.  What do you think about them eliminating only ONE of those three possibilities?  How did you feel when these Trinitarian scholars eliminated the one possibility that YOU like?  Can you refute their logic?  Can you argue against their reasoning that “the person of God” could not possibly be WITH “the person of God”?

And another point they don't even bring up is:  WHERE WAS GOD #3 AT THIS POINT?  Where was the Holy Spirit during this “in the beginning”?  

Anyway, Charles read my post, and then posted some information of his own on page 71, 6th post from the top.  If you read the info he posted, you will be caught up with us in this discussion.  We are now in the process of going through the info he posted with a fine toothed comb, and seeing if it is truly accurate and logical information.

I will now continue by addressing his last post.  Catch up and join in if you would like.

peace,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 17 2011,23:22)

Amen jammin, and welcome!  It is God not god you are absolutely correct! Kathi

Actually, Kathi agrees that there are TWO completely different gods spoken of in John 1:1 – one of whom was WITH the other.

In fact, Kathi and I once agreed to the Father being “GOD”, with all caps, Jesus being “God”, with only the “G” capped, and all others like Satan being “gods”, with no caps.

And I can definitely live with, “and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was a God”, because at least it distinguishes Jesus from HIS OWN GOD.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,12:53)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 16 2011,07:53) carmel,Dec. wrote: Mike I have posted this writing regarding your point. I would mostly apprciate it if you were to  comment . Absolutely, Charles.  There are many flaws in it, and many conclusions that are jumped to when the scriptures don't bear those conclusions out.  I will take this piece apart with a fine toothed comb with you, but not just for my own enjoyment.  I will do it ONLY if you are right there with me, learning along with me as we go.  I will assume you are willing and will therefore begin. First up from the piece you quoted: Some people ask how to understand John 1:1, since some sects claim that this verse should read that the Word was “a God”—or “a god.” This claim is based on the fact that in the original Greek text the word theos in the last clause of John 1:1 does not have the definite article as it does in the second clause, which refers to the Father. The bolded part above is completely true.  The Greek words of John 1:1 say:  in beginning was THE word and THE word was with THE god and god was THE word You'll notice that THE word was not called “THE god”, but just “god”.  Do you acknowledge that John 1:1 has one DEFINITE god (THE god), and one INDEFINITE god (god)?  Do you acknowledge that the Word was NOT called “THE god”? (Charles, I won't move forward with this unless you DIRECTLY comment on each of these points as we go.  I already know this stuff, so I am doing this for YOUR benefit.  But it will be of no benefit to you unless you comment along with me as we go, showing me that you are understanding the stuff we are learning.  So please address each bolded question or point I make.) Continuing with the piece you quoted: This argument is based on ignorance of Greek grammar and syntax.  It is not true that John 1:1 could be translated: “and the Word was a God.” This translation is possible in a pagan Greek work, but utterly impossible in a Christian or Hebrew work. The reason is that the Bible teaches there is only one God. As for the words above, they are completely false.  Firstly, the indefinite “god” is tranlsated as “a god” two other times in the NT.  So unless they're calling the NT a “pagan Greek work”, they have spoken inaccurately. Secondly, “Jesus is God” believers have been falsely claiming the Biblical belief in only one god for years, in an attempt to be able to say, “Well, Jesus is called “god”, and there is only ONE God mentioned in the Bible, so Jesus must be Him”. The problem is that this is a complete fabrication.  There are many other gods mentioned in the Bible.  Satan was called a god by both Paul AND Jehovah Himself.  Molech, Dagon, Chemosh, and Ashtoreth were also recognized by the Hebrews as gods.  Not “false gods”, but “gods”.  And Paul clearly tells us in 1 Cor 8 that there are “many who are called gods, both in heaven and on earth, as indeed there ARE many gods”.  Was Paul lying?  How about Jehovah when he called Satan a god?  Was He lying?   Charles, do you acknowledge that the Bible speaks of MANY gods, both in heaven and on earth?  YES or NO? Okay, that should be enough for now.  I have much more to say about the piece you qouted, but this will suffice for now.  Charles, please DIRECTLY comment on all three of my bolded points.  Only then will I go forward with the rest of the piece. peace, mike

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,12:53)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 16 2011,07:53) Do you acknowledge that John 1:1 has one DEFINITE god (THE god), and one INDEFINITE god (god)?  Do you acknowledge that the Word was NOT called “THE god”? Mike, Yes

Thank you for your acknowledgment, Charles.  John surely knew what he was writing.  And John clearly taught us that the Word was “god”, or “a god”, who was WITH “THE God”.  That clearly speaks of TWO, one of whom was WITH the other in the beginning.

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,12:53)

But how are we to distinguish between the “WORD” AS A PERSON, AND THE FATHER AS ANOTHER ?? Since they are in the same sentence.

I don't understand.  If I say, “Mike was WITH Charles”, I am speaking of TWO persons in one sentence, one of whom was WITH the other.  It is the same in John 1:1.

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,12:53)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 16 2011,07:53) Charles, do you acknowledge that the Bible speaks of MANY gods, both in heaven and on earth?  YES or NO? Yes

Okay.  Then that is the first of many things the information you posted is wrong about.  Their claim is basically, “It can't be 'a god', because there is only ONE god in scripture.”  And we both know that is an inaccurate statement, right?  So now you can start to see how these “Jesus is God” believers are twisting the scriptural truth to force their doctrine to fit.  If Jesus was truly God Himself, then the scriptures ought to bear that out all by themselves.  There is no need to fabricate things to force the point, right?

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 16 2011,12:53)

But you are referring to the Old Testament. Many times I quoted that the Old Testament is fulfilled by Jesus, and also that it is a complete confusion. We as Christians are more subject to the New testament since Jesus is the truth,and fulfilled and sealed the OT once and for all.

That argument isn't accurate, as we still need both Old and New Testaments to gain the truth of scriptures.  Also, your argument doesn't erase the fact that Satan was called “the god of this world” in the NT.  And it doesn't erase the fact that Paul said “as indeed there ARE many gods in heaven and on earth” in the NT.

So far, the scorecard for the info you posted is:

1.  One correct statement:  TWO gods are mentioned in 1:1, but only ONE of those two are called “THE
god”.  The Word is NOT that one.

2.  One incorrect statement:  There is only ONE god in the whole of scripture.  We both know that is NOT the truth.

I will move on to the rest of the info you posted in my next post.

peace,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ Dec. 15 2011,08:39)

The clause “and the Word was God” is translated from the Greek “theos en ho logos.” In Greek it is not necessary to use the definite article with a predicate nominative in this kind of sentence. In fact, doing so would change the meaning in a way that would confuse what John was saying. Using the definite article in this case would make the clause mean that the Word was the same person as the Father. However, John wanted to point out that the Word was God, but not the same person as the Father, who is the one commonly referred to when we just use the word God.

The above is the next paragraph from your source, Charles.

They say that using the definite article in 1:1c would “change the meaning in a way that would confuse what John was saying.”
I agree.  They say that when we just use the word “God”, it is commonly understood that the Father is who is meant.  I agree with this too.

And they say that “Using the definite article in this case would make the clause mean that the Word was the same person as the Father.”  

Are you following their logic, Charles (and jammin)?

They are being perfectly logical here.  They are saying that John knew what he was doing by using the definite article only once – because he didn't want us to think the Word was “THE god”, who is “the Father”.  They are saying that by inserting the definite article into 1:1c, making it seem as if the Word was the SAME person as “THE god”, the translators are messing up the meaning John was trying to convey.  (This is exactly the same thing the NETNotes scholars also said.)

But then they willingly jump head first right into the very thing they just warned us AGAINST!    They insist that the translation should be “and the Word was God”, DESPITE the fact they just told us that “God”, by itself, would make us think of THE FATHER.  So they lead us into the very confusion they just warned against.

Charles, this is how ALL “Jesus is God” propaganda is.  It depends upon some very smart men saying perfectly logical things, and then going against the very things they just said to force their doctrine on us.  I'll give you a perfect example from that same NETNotes info I posted some of before:

The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos is one in essence with God the Father.

Do you see it, Charles?  These guys did a SURVEY and found out that what they thought was the best wording didn't fully convey to their readers that Jesus was “God Himself – equal to the Father”.  So they added in their own word “fully”, (which is no where in the Greek text), just to FORCE their readers to come to the conclusion THEY wanted them to come to.

Professor and Greek expert Jason BeDuhn says this in his book, where he compared the translations of nine prominent Bibles:
“Surprisingly, only one, the NW, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates ‘a god’.  Translators for the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV, and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word, and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs.

“John himself has not formulated a Trinity concept in his Gospel.  All that we can ask is that a translation be an accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation.  Only the NW achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader.  The other translations cut off the exploration of the verse’s meaning before it has even begun.

“To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their ‘truth’ enough.  To let the Bible have its say, regardless of how well or poorly that say conforms to expectations of accepted forms of modern Christianity is an exercise in courage or, to use another word for it, faith.”

Charles, the last thing Professor Be Duhn says is exactly what the NETNotes scholars did.  They didn't believe that the words of scripture themselves “backed up their truth enough”, so they changed the text to FORCE their “truth” on their readers.

Anyway, back to your source.  They conclude that John wanted to convey that Jesus was God, but just not the Father.  But John says towards the end of his gospel, These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Notice that John didn't say, “Son of God the Father”, but “Son of GOD”.  And he didn't say, “God the Father so loved the world”, he said “GOD so loved the world”.

So while your source correctly identifies John's intention of listing the Word as someone OTHER THAN “God the Father”, it incorrectly tries to twist the meaning into saying that Jesus is a PART OF God – something that the text doesn't come close to saying.  Like Professor Be Duhn said, they started with their own notion of what the scriptures SHOULD teach, and are trying desparately to FORCE the scriptures to teach that notion, despite the fact that they don't.

Charles, on an ending note, consider this:  Your source logically realizes that John wanted to convey the Word as someone other than “the Father”. Unfortunately, they must have forgotten this scripture:
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live;

peace,
mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 18 2011,09:39)

Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 17 2011,23:22) Amen jammin, and welcome!  It is God not god you are absolutely correct! Kathi Actually, Kathi agrees that there are TWO completely different gods spoken of in John 1:1 – one of whom was WITH the other. In fact, Kathi and I once agreed to the Father being “GOD”, with all caps, Jesus being “God”, with only the “G” capped, and all others like Satan being “gods”, with no caps. And I can definitely live with, “and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was a God”, because at least it distinguishes Jesus from HIS OWN GOD.

Hi Jammin',

Actually, I do believe that both the Father and the Son are each God, yet they are inseparable and interdependent to each other and their Holy Spirit as a unity forming the one God. There is a scripture that speaks of two sticks that are one stick because of the unity of two people groups.

Ezekial 37:
16“And you, son of man, take for yourself one stick and write on it, ‘For Judah and for the sons of Israel, his companions’; then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions.’ 17“Then join them for yourself one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand. 18“When the sons of your people speak to you saying, ‘Will you not declare to us what you mean by these?’ 19say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will put them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand.”’ 20“The sticks on which you write will be in your hand before their eyes. 21“Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; 22and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms.

The idea of two yet one is a common teaching in scripture and I believe applies to the Father and the Son as two Gods, yet forming one God in their always existent unity. I believe that the Son was always in existence but not always begotten and always with the Father whether within Him or along side Him.

God bless,
Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 18 2011,12:39)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 18 2011,09:39) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 17 2011,23:22) Amen jammin, and welcome!  It is God not god you are absolutely correct! Kathi Actually, Kathi agrees that there are TWO completely different gods spoken of in John 1:1 – one of whom was WITH the other. In fact, Kathi and I once agreed to the Father being “GOD”, with all caps, Jesus being “God”, with only the “G” capped, and all others like Satan being “gods”, with no caps. And I can definitely live with, “and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was a God”, because at least it distinguishes Jesus from HIS OWN GOD. Hi Jammin', Actually, I do believe that both the Father and the Son are each God, yet they are inseparable and interdependent to each other and their Holy Spirit as a unity forming the one God.

Don't be shy, Kathi. Tell jammin that you think we have TWO God Almighties.

(jammin, Kathi believes we have TWO God Almighties, and is happy worshipping TWO Gods)

[jammin]

did i say two GODS mike??? GOD is nature according to phil 2:6
paul said that. i am just obeying what the bible says. just like you and me, our nature is one. we have the nature of man.

mike i am waiting for your answer about phil 2:6. where did you find your words in phil 2:6?

[Author]

Posts