- This topic has 25,955 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 6 hours ago by
.
- Posts
john 1:1 is God the Father and God the Son IMO. Why? Because of other Scriptures like Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 I do not listen or even look at other Humans that only try to confuse the issue. The Holy Spirit that tells us if it is true or not, by the Word of God and not man.
The Scriptures that I have given you over and over again is prove enough. 1 These. says to prove all things. Not by man but scriptures. As far as calling others name, bring it on I just do not care what others call me, I know what I am, and what I believe. And it is not whatever you said and I thank you for that compliment. I guess John 17:5 tells you nothing?
You can believe what you want I can not tell you and neither can any other man, Adam
Proverb 8:22 Some may say that it is wisdom, but that is not a He that would be a it. The LORD capital Letters is always the Father, speaking through the Spokes Word who later became Jesus and is considered to be the Son of God. He is the only one that came forth from the Father, while all others were created by Him, (Jesus) Col. 1:15 and Rev.3:14 Study it and prove it. At least have an open mind too.
Peace and Love IreneHi Irene,
God the Son?
Is such a being shown in scripture?
The Son of God, Jesus Christ is but nowhere is there a god the son.And the Word became Flesh. He was God and was with God. John 1:1 Col. 1:12-19 Here He is called the image of the invisible God. Proverbx 8: 22, Rev. 3:14 Like you don't know. Others just have to look it up. End of story.
IreneQuote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 26 2008,05:18) Hi Irene,
God the Son is from the mouth of trinitarian tradition, not the mouth of God.
How can you say that? The Word became flesh, who is that? Not the Father. You are really grasping for straws when you cant find no way out. I do not believe in a trinity I do not belong to the W,W,Church of God, what else are you going to come up with. If the Word was not a being with the Father who is God, who was it IYO?
IreneQuote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 26 2008,05:52) Sigh..
So what is sigh…. Das kann ich nicht verstehen….
Just tell me how you understand John 1:1Hi Nick,
Is the Son ever referred to as “theos”? If the answer is yes then the inverse would also be true. If the Son is referred to as theos then theos is inadvertently referred to as the Son. Just like if Nick is the doctor then the doctor is Nick. Simple.
God bless,
LUHi LU,
We do not apply titles to the Son of God that do not appear in scripture.
Those who have done so have used those titles to press for foolish trinity ideas.Hi Nick,
Ok, granted God the Son is not a title found in scripture, nevertheless, the teaching is found in scripture that the Son is the unique theos and that makes John 1:1 easily understood. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God (unique theos) see John 1:18. Whether you say “the unique theos” or “a unique theos” the Son is still taught in scriptures as theos albeit a unique one.
LUHi LU,
If we are to discern essential truths from Scripture then we must treat it with respect and let it reveal itself. Adding human concepts will only muddy the water and allow for deception.Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 25 2008,20:03) If the Logos was another person and also Jesus then we are Hellenizing Christianity as James Still rightly told. Please go through this article you yourself can understand. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/gospel_john.html
Hi GMIts good to see that you have given the source, being that rarely you show the source of your post and info for others to check out.
Your beloved James on his sight totally seeks to destroy the validity and the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. The following is a quote of his that denies the virgin birth of Jesus….
The virgin-birth story which is attributed to Jesus, is a later pagan addition interpolated for the sole purpose of adding support for the Christian savior. Not having been based upon a solid textual foundation like the Jews, early Christians needed to attribute the characteristics and events of existing gods to their savior in order to legitimize him as a god worthy of worship. Jesus represents a crossover from Messianic Judaism and Graeco-Roman paganism; an embodiment of the best of both worlds.
Basically this guy completely destroys the validity of the scriptures.
GM, so is this the kind of source you would put your trust in to explain or articulate Christian doctrine?
WJ
Hi GM,
This is the site you quote
http://www.infidels.org/INFIDELS?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 25 2008,14:54) Hi LU,
If we are to discern essential truths from Scripture then we must treat it with respect and let it reveal itself. Adding human concepts will only muddy the water and allow for deception.
Hi Nick,
Do you respect that the scripture reveals that Son is the monogenes theos??? And this truth is revealed merely 17 verses after John 1:1.LU
Hi brothers WJ and Nick,
When Christian brothers and sisters fight themselves with dogma of Trinity and non-trinity I have to choose other means of understanding the real meaning of scriptures. Because the so called Christendom is not answering many questions on the mystery of Christ. I am sorry to say that Greek Hellenism had certainly influenced the Jewish Monotheism of the Bible and the religion of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.Thanks and peace to you
AdamQuote So what is sigh…. Das kann ich nicht verstehen….
Just tell me how you understand John 1:1Hi Tiffany. I was confused by your conversation with Nick. I believe he was sighing because of you using the phrase “God the Son:”
Quote john 1:1 is God the Father and God the Son IMO. While the phrase “son OF God” occurs many many times in scripture, some trinitarians repeat the phrase “God the son” so much you'd think it existed somewhere in scripture. It doesn't. (I know you're not a trinitarian.)
“God the Father” does occur many times in scripture.Hi David
You said…
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19) Well, WJ, you have yet to enlighten us as to the actual meaning of the word “god.” What is it? Do tell.
Then you quote me in part…Quote The Biblical definition is “One True God”
Then you say…Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2008,10:28) SERIOUSLY? The Biblical definition of “God” is “One True God.” That's the meaning of the word “god”? Really WJ?
You're starting to seem to me like those people that say God's name is God.
First of all it is a little disingenuous for you to make half quotes and cut out parts that clarify the quote.Here is the conversation…
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19) Well, WJ, you have yet to enlighten us as to the actual meaning of the word “god.” What is it? Do tell. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 21 2008,02:04)
It sure isn’t what you and watchtower try to portray i.e., “Mighty One” or “Strong One” or “Powerful One.” That would mean that anyone or anything that is a “Mighty One” or a “Strong One” or a “Powerful One.” can be considered “a god”.The Biblical definition is “One True God”, all others are “so-called gods” or “false”
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was “no God” formed, neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:10
Secondly, God is a title and not a name and I never said it was a name.The definition to a Monotheistic believer of God (theos) is that he is “One” and that he is “True”, therefore to the believer there is no other god or gods, period. How hard is it to understand these words…
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are “so called gods”, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords.. 1 Cor 8:4, 5
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was “no God” formed, neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:10
Your religion teaches that there are more than one god, and in fact that Jesus is “a god”.
Scriptures say…
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exod 20:3
Now if Jesus is your only lord and master…(For certain men whose condemnation was written about* long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord, Jude 4), and he is considered “a god” by you and Watchtower and not “The God” then you break Exod 20:3 and…
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and MAKE NO MENTION OF THE NAME OF OTHER GODS, NEITHER LET IT BE HEARD OUT OF THY MOUTH. Exod 23:13
This makes you a “Polytheist”, Polytheism
Now as I said before… The Biblical definition is “One True God”, all others are “so-called gods” or “false”
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was “no God” formed, neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:10
However, here is what you say the Biblical definition of god is…
Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,16:17)
We know, or should know that the word “god” means “Mighty One” or “Strong One” or “Powerful One.”
Yet you say…Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2008,18:19) Once again, obviously they are not really mighty, for they are “false” gods, remember. They are viewed as gods, but are really nothing. They are viewed as powerful ones, but really, have no power.
PSALM 115:4-8
“Their idols are silver and gold, The work of the hands of earthling man. A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes they have, but they cannot see; Ears they have, but they cannot hear. A nose they have, but they cannot smell. Hands are theirs, but they cannot feel. Feet are theirs, but they cannot walk; They utter no sound with their throat. Those making them will become just like them, All those who are trusting in them.”So they are powerless. Yet, they are viewed as having power, by those who foolishly put their trust in them.
So, here, in this case, the definition of “god” (mighty/strong/powerful one) fits.
They are viewed as mighty ones, but are not.
This is simply double talk in order to support your belief that Jesus is “a god” but not “The True God”. They are mighty but they aren’t.
If Jesus is your Savour and Lord and he is “a god (theos)”, then that means that he is your Lord and Savour and your god (theos).
Even your own bible the NWT again contradicts itself when it says…
My reason is that certain men have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by the Scriptures to this judgment, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude 4 NWT
Is Jesus your “only Owner and Lord”?
Jesus clearly teaches you cannot have more than “One Master”, yet he himself claims he is our Lord and Master.Its simple David, you believe there is “One True God, Jehovah” and yet you believe there are many “true gods” (of which you have not a single scripture for) and yet you claim Jesus is one of them. That is Polytheism!
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was “no God” formed, neither shall there be after me. Isa
43:10Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2008,10:28)
So, if I were to insert the phrase “one true God” into all the places where that word “god” appears, it would make sense?NOPE!
That is the point David. There is only “ONE TRUE GOD” (el, elohiym, theos) found in the scriptures, all others are false. So what do you do with Jesus?Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2008,10:28)
WJ, Gene has tried to earlier explain that the word “god” means “power.” Well, when applied to a being, it means “powerful one.”
You're belief that the definition of “god” is “true God” is a little revealing.WJ, I'm not asking for what God means in the Bible, or the different ways it is used. I'm asking you for the meaning of that word, which you seem unable to provide.
Yes, the Biblical definition of the word “god“ (Theos) is revealing.David’s definition of the word “god” (theos)…
Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2008,16:17)
We know, or should know that the word “god” means “Mighty One” or “Strong One” or “Powerful One.”Keith’s definition of the word “God” (Theos)…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 21 2008,02:04)
The Biblical definition is “One True God”, all others are “so-called gods” or “false”Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 21 2008,02:04) Agreed! And he is nothing to a believer but as an enemy, a roaring lion with no teeth. So he is not a god at all. Quote (david @ Nov. 21 2008,10:28) And yet, the inspired Bible writer wrote that he was a god, the god (mighty one) of this world. (2 Cor 4:4) The Bible backs this up in many places showing the influence and control and power he has over the people of the world. So when the Bible says that he is the “god of this world” it is correct. He actually is.
No the Bible only speaks of “The Only True God” and “false gods”. Paul was not contradicting himself or the Hebrew scriptures.Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was “no God” formed, neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:10
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are “so called gods”, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords.. 1 Cor 8:4, 5
So again David, what do you do with John 1:1c and others?
WJ
Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 27 2008,16:44) Hi brothers WJ and Nick,
When Christian brothers and sisters fight themselves with dogma of Trinity and non-trinity I have to choose other means of understanding the real meaning of scriptures. Because the so called Christendom is not answering many questions on the mystery of Christ. I am sorry to say that Greek Hellenism had certainly influenced the Jewish Monotheism of the Bible and the religion of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.Thanks and peace to you
Adam
GMOf course this is a normal response for someone who cannot explain, understand or accept the written scriptures as they are, or as being inspired or authoritative, especially when they disagree with their doctrine.
Why not just stick with the scriptures rather than seek out antagonist of the scriptures or apologist who disagree with the scriptures?
What proof do you have that the 1000,s of manuscripts that we have, have been altered or influenced by Greek Hellinism.
If you believe this then how do you know anything in the scriptures are true?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
