JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[NickHassan]

Hi KW,
To every man his logic is flawless.
But there are deeper truths

[kerwin]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2014,08:13)

Hi KW, To every man his logic is flawless. But there are deeper truths

Nick,

It does not care if a man thinks his logic is flawless as logic is like math. A man may think his math is flawless but that does not mean 1 + 1 = 7.  The trinitarians who claim their teaching not ” not capable of logical demonstration once revealed” are using illogical logic to make even that point and never the less there claim is still untrue.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
The Word WAS God.
The Word is not God

The Word is the Spirit of Christ

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Jn8
12Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. 14Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

The Word and the Father, in Jesus, witness to truth

[Wakeup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2014,14:05)

Hi, The Word WAS God. The Word is not God The Word is the Spirit of Christ

Nick.

There was a time when nothing was created.
This was the time when the Word was in God's mind,
For God has not spoken.

wakeup.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (Wakeup @ Mar. 15 2014,03:39)

***for that which is conceived in her is of the HolyGhost***. And you say he has not the Holy Spirit before His baptism? Please explain. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Because the Holy Spirit is always in the Word;and Jesus *is the Word*. And the Holy Spirit will glorify Him.(john 16). Unless you believe that Jesus is *NOT* the Word of God. When Jesus was 12 yrs old He already started to debate the scribes in the synagogue. The Word was *with* God during creation days. The Word *was* God before creation. The dove is just a sign for John; that He/Jesus is the the Messiah. Are you saying that Jesus is not devine? Is the Word of God that created all things NOT devine? Did God create the man Jesus, or did God transformed His Word into flesh? wakeup.

Wakeup……….All thing in the earth were brought forth by the Spirit of GOD, does that make them DIVINE or the word of God themselves also.

The word “HOLY” SPIRIT means a Special or set aside SPIRIT, and being conceived “by” it does not make you Holy Spirit, God used his Power (holy spirit) to supply a certain DNA in MARY to produce a Son that would “LOOK” Just as he described in Isaiah, He wanted Jesus to have a certain kind of flesh appearance.

The words, “that which is conceived in her is “OF” the Holy Ghost”, simply means it was brought about by the holy spirit of God. God supplied the Male part of the DNA, Which did make his physical Father God, Just as ADAM and Eves FATHER was GOD in a physical sense . But that has nothing to do with the Spiritual.  Spiritual is a completely different matter.  You can't cross a physical berth to a Spiritual berth, they are different one is from below while the other is from above. Those who have received the holy Spirit are born from above. It worked the the exact same way for Jesus the Anointed or Christ also.

Also notice the angels said “THAT WHICH” , this shows the angel never had any PREEXISTENCE Knowledge of Jesus in a Past existence either. Or why would he say “THAT” which? Another scripture says as i recall, “IT” shall be. Which shows the “IT” which was the baby never Preexisted either, or why would the angel say “IT, if he had a foreknowledge of Jesus.

Also Scripture does not say the Spirit that abides on him was “just” for a 'sign', for John alone, you added that part, in fact it does not say it was a Dove either, but it descended “like” it and it abide or remained on him. John was given the ability to see what was taking place at Jesus' baptism is all. And indeed it was a sign for John to see , of what was actually taking place.

That is when he became the Messiah or anointed one of GOD, and after that he was sent into the Wilderness, to be tried and tested for forty days and nights. And when he came back, he then was sent out into the world, to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God , none of that took place before he was anointed and became the Messiah of GOD.

It was at his baptism, that a voice came from heaven and said “ thou art my son “THIS DAY” I have BEGOTTEN YOU. God using his spirit to form Jesus appearance in Mary womb, never made Jesus “the word” ,or “divine” nor MORPHED from a preexistence either, It made him look a certain way is all. It was not until He was Baptized and received the holy Spirit in him, He became a Son of God.

This applies to all mankind also, it is when we are Baptized and receive the Holy Spirit that we become SONS OF GOD. Even though all our flesh existences came from God also.

John said , Brethren know you not, that   “NOW” you “ARE” the Sons of the Living GOD”

Wakeup think about this. and quite being on the side of those that are separating Jesus' identity from his human brothers and sisters. The doctrine of the trinity and Preexistence is of Satan, it is not of the truth brother.

Think about these things and come out of those false teachings while there is time.  Time is short we need to get this right brother.

peace and love to you and yours……………………gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 13 2014,18:38)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2014,10:44) ….. and the Word was with God…… 1.  Who is the underlined “God” in part b, Nick?  Is it “Father God”?  YES or NO? …….. and the Word was God. 2.  Who is the underlined “God” in part c?  Is it “Father God”?  YES or NO? Hi MB, God makes it very plain by saying the WORD WAS GOD that there were not two Gods together despite your urgings from logic to say so.

Part b makes it plain that the Word was WITH God – which DOES make it sound like there were TWO entities, one of whom was WITH the other.

But if you give DIRECT answers to the two questions in the quote box above, we can slowly get to the bottom of it.  

So please do that at this time.

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
MAKES IT SOUND LIKE is not useful when speaking of the things of God

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wakeup @ Mar. 13 2014,19:10)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2014,07:54) So you agree that there was ONLY God at first? There was no separate “word” who was with God at first, right? Mike B. 1.**Before creation** started there was only God.

Good.  We agree on that part.

Quote (Wakeup @ Mar. 13 2014,19:10)

3.This person's word is not another person.This person's   mind is not another person.This person's love is not   another person. **This person's word is not *A* second   person**.

Again, I agree with you that a person's love, thoughts, or words are not “a second person”.

So, is it your understanding that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, was ALWAYS God Himself, and not “a second person”?

Or do you still claim that when God brought this Word forth, it WAS “a second person” who obeyed God?

Which one do you now believe, Wakeup?  Because your current statement #3 goes AGAINST the things you've been telling me for months.

[carmel]

mikeboll64,Mar. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

No Charles…………… If I was going to tell you that God is granting me “eternal life”, do you suppose I could say it this way:  Hey Charles!  God said He was going to grant me Jesus! ?

Mike,

UNAWARE OF IT, YOU'VE GOT IT RIGHT THIS TIME!

READ YOUR OWN WORDS:

Hey Charles!  God said

HE WAS GOING TO GRANT ME JESUS

FOR SURE MIKE,

GOD GRANTED YOU JESUS, OBVIOUS NOT AS A REDEEMER  HUMAN BEING ONLY! BUT AS

THE WORD THE ETERNAL LIFE GIVING SPIRIT FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD REV13:8 TO MAINTAIN ETERNAL LIFE WITHIN YOU TILL YOU ARE REDEEMED, NO MATTER  HOW MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS IT WOULD TAKE!

SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR:

John17:2 As thou hast given him power AUTHORITY over all flesh,  THAT HE MAY GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL WHOM YOU HAS GIVEN HIM.

3Now this is eternal life:  CLEAR NO? DECLARED BY JESUS,

THIS IS ETERNAL LIFE

A REFERENCE TO HIMSELF SINCE HE WAS ABOUT TO BE SACRIFICED!

That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ Mar. 14 2014,08:24)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2014,08:04) 1.  There exists only one Most High God, jammin.  Do you agree with that?  YES or NO? 2.  In the beginning, the Word was with that one Most High God.  Do you agree with that?  YES or NO? 1. if you are talking about the God the father then YES. 2.YES………

1.  Which other God would I be talking about?  Of course I'm talking about the Father.  I accept your answer of “YES”.

2.  So if the Word was WITH the Most High God, and there exists only ONE Most High God, then it is clear that the Word wasn't that Most High God he was WITH.

You can't just say “YES”, and then offer your imagination and wishes that “Jesus was also God”.  Your wishes and imaginations don't amount to anything but wishes and imaginations.

You imagine that John 1:1 says that the Word was with “ONE PERSON OF THE GODHEAD” (why you guys say “one person” ,and don't also include “the Holy Spirit person of the Godhead” is beyond me), and the Word was “ONE OF THE OTHER PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD”.

But that is just your wishful thinking, and cannot be discerned from the words John actually wrote.

Quote (jammin @ Mar. 14 2014,08:24)

let me post what barclay said about NWT. Barclay: Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: “The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '…the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.” poor mike. you have no idea about the greek grammar.

Let's look at what some other people say, jammin:

1.  Your own source, Daniel Wallace, a Trinitarian, says that John wrote 1:1 in such a way as to keep anyone from identifying “the Word” with “the person of God”.  Who is “the person of God”, jammin?  Doesn't your doctrine say there are THREE “persons of God”?  So why did Wallace only say “the person of God”?  

2.  The 25 scholars from NETNotes, also Trinitarians, say:  Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.

This tells us that “a god” IS INDEED one of the possibilities.  They go on to say:  The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)……….

Again, they mention this mysterious “person of God”.  And again, that confuses me because Trinitarians believe there are THREE “persons of God”.  So what do they mean when they say the Word is not “the person of God”?  

3.  Scholar William Arnold III says, “You could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology.”

4.  Scholar and Greek professor Jason BeDuhn says, “Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, New American Standard Bible, AB, Good News Bible 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….

Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the New World Translation (NWT) with “doctrinal bias” for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek.

It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek.

“In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] (Kingdom Interlinear Translation) explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject..“

5.  Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris wrote, “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….”

6.  Trinitarian scholar C. H. Dodd says, “……a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”

You see, jammin, the Trinitarian scholars USED TO slam the NWT, and claim that there is NO WAY IN HELL that “the Word was a god” was even possible.  But even as they were saying these things, they knew full well that it WAS in fact one of the possible translations of those Greek words.  

The later Trinitarian scholars also knew that “the Word was a god” was a completely viable translation of the Greek words.  The difference is that these more recent Trinitarian scholars also know that regular people like you and me now have access to that information from the internet – where we DIDN'T have access to it before.  So these later scholars can no longer just flat out LIE about it like the earlier ones did.  They still throw their jabs at the NWT, saying that while it is possible, it is not the “correct” translation.  But they only say that because they are like you, and nonsensically believe that the Son OF God can BE the very God he is the Son OF.  They believe this absurdity, and want other knuckleheads to believe it too.

So they still slam the NWT translation, but they no longer can get away with saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE to translate it as “the Word was a god”.  And why they all take aim ONLY at the NWT, is beyond me, since there are many other people and translations that have rendered 1:1 similarly:

1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: “…and he was the same as God.”

1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: “…and what God was, the Word was.”

1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: “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”

1808 “and the Word was a god” – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.

1864 “and a god was the Word” (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 “and the Word was divine” – The Bible—An Americ
an Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1955 “so the Word was divine” – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

1822 “and the Word was a god.” – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);

1863 “and the Word was a god.” – A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);

1885 “and the Word was a god.” – Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);

1879 “and the Word was a god.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);

1911 “and the Word was a god.” – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);

1958 “and the Word was a god.” – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed” (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1829 “and the Word was a god.” – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);

1975 “and the Word was a god.” – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

I hope you have learned something from this research I did for you.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 14 2014,19:22)

Quote (jammin @ Mar. 14 2014,20:29) kerwin, no verse that tells us that MAN HAS NATURE OF GOD. Jammin, Since you have not answered my question about whether God has a divine nature I am assuming you are afraid it will compromise your position.   My question is why do you choose to take a position that you feel can be compromised that easily?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 14 2014,19:30)

Quote In Christian tradition the Trinity is a mystery of faith revealed in scripture, historically being deemed unknowable by unaided human reason and not capable of logical demonstration once revealed, being above reason without being incompatible with the principles of rational thought.

Nick and Wakeup,

Please copy and save the bolded part of that statement Kerwin posted.  That way you can just paste it to your post as a “fancy way” of telling us that your doctrines are nonsensical BECAUSE the “spiritual truth” shouldn't make sense to human beings.

Here are some more quotes you can copy and save:

The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.”

Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.”

Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.”

And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.”

Now all you guys have to do is to substitute “The Trinity Doctrine” with whatever nonsensical doctrine you are currently preaching, and use the rest of the words on us.

That way, you guys can sound “learned” when telling us that, although your doctrine is ludicrous, it doesn't “have to make sense to us humans”.  

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 14 2014,21:05)

Hi, The Word WAS God. The Word is not God

So then “God” became something OTHER THAN “God”, Nick?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
So theology is enough for you?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 15 2014,12:12)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 13 2014,18:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2014,10:44) ….. and the Word was with God…… 1.  Who is the underlined “God” in part b, Nick?  Is it “Father God”?  YES or NO? …….. and the Word was God. 2.  Who is the underlined “God” in part c?  Is it “Father God”?  YES or NO? Hi MB, God makes it very plain by saying the WORD WAS GOD that there were not two Gods together despite your urgings from logic to say so. Part b makes it plain that the Word was WITH God – which MAKES IT PLAIN there were TWO entities, one of whom was WITH the other. But if you give DIRECT answers to the two questions in the quote box above, we can slowly get to the bottom of it.   So please do that at this time. Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2014,12:13) Hi MB, MAKES IT SOUND LIKE is not useful when speaking of the things of God

Okay, game-player.  I've changed my words to align with the words you used.

Now answer the two questions with DIRECT answers.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ Mar. 15 2014,12:40)

mikeboll64,Mar. wrote: [/quote] Quote No Charles…………… If I was going to tell you that God is granting me “eternal life”, do you suppose I could say it this way:  Hey Charles!  God said He was going to grant me Jesus! ?   Mike, UNAWARE OF IT, YOU'VE GOT IT RIGHT THIS TIME!

Okay, let's try this one:

Satan was originally created with “JESUS”, but God will soon destroy him.

Can we substitute “JESUS” for “eternal life” in that one? Does the word “JESUS” actually MEAN “eternal life”, Charles?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2014,13:28)

Hi MB, So theology is enough for you?

That is nothing but mindless tripe, Nick.

You have questions waiting for your answers. Better get to it.

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Have you always tried to dominate dialogue and demand answers to cover insecurity or is this new?
Foolish questions do not get answered

[mikeboll64]

Are you unable to answer those easy questions, Nick?

Should you preach to others a doctrine that you cannot even answer questions about?

[Author]

Posts