JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[malcolm ferris]

Quote

listen carefully to what I am saying…..and equally carefully to what I am not saying… I am NOT saying that Jesus is not the Son of God…. I am saying that He is NOT the Son of God 1) in the same we any other human is called a son or daughter of the most high and 2) that He is not the Son in the same way a human has a Son…..

Sounds good in theory – but how can I have any concept of a son that is not like any son or offspring in the natural except that the dissimilarities be explicitly outlined to me. I don’t see statements in the scripture to that end, indicating that he is the son of God in some ways but in others not a son like us.
Perhaps it would be helpful to examine these dissimilarities as you say
(1) Dissimilar in the sense that he is not the son of God in the same way we (the sons of God) are called sons.
By this I assume you are meaning that because Jesus is the uniquely begotten son he is different.
I would say that this denotes a difference in the way he came to be manifest in flesh – i.e. he (unlike us) had a pre-existence in the form of Spirit, and a former knowledge of his Father which we lacked until the rebirth. Also he came into flesh without the need of sexual reproduction which was introduced after the fall when man took on the nature of beasts. Adam was formed by God apart from sex as was Eve. Christ was of the same pattern as are the reborn – who are not born of the will of the flesh or of man but born of God by the Spirit of God.
Also this uniqueness extends to his status as that of a firstborn and as such the principle heir to his Father. (A difference of role – not an intrinsic difference)
In any other sense I see no dissimilarity – he is a son not of Flesh but manifest in flesh, as are the sons of God, born in this world but not of it, born of the same Spirit of God.
Jesus in fact removes most of the obstacles that we as humans would tend to place before ourselves as a way of distancing ourselves from him as a son.
He unashamedly calls us brethren, not servants.
He teaches us that we can have an intimate relationship with the Father as he has.
We obtain a degree of equality with him that is likened to that of Eve – the bride of Adam, who was equal with him before the transgression. She was taken from his side, and was given to him. So is Christ the head of the Church. But this is a difference of role, not an intrinsic difference.
(2) that He is not the Son in the same way a human has a Son
Obviously we understand that any true son of God is not born by the regular human way of reproduction but by the Spirit of God. How are we different to him in this respect? Remember we are speaking here of sons of God, we are not born in flesh as sons of God but with a contrary spirit and nature to God. This is why we must be born again of the Spirit.
Only difference here between us and Jesus as a son was that he did not require a rebirth to be son of God, but was (as Adam) a son of God from birth. (imo)
So GOD does not require a process of sexual reproduction in order to produce a son of God. Instead of begetting sons by sex he begets us by His Spirit. That stands to reason considering God is Spirit and not flesh and bone.
It was GOD who set the pattern for life natural as well summarized in Gen 1:11 and whether by sex or botanic reproduction we see this pattern applies. Why did God set such unchanging patterns into His physical creation?
Because the natural shadows and types to the Spiritual. Thus we are able to draw upon natural analogies as scripture does to illustrate the way of God. (imo)
It was God who chose this use of language: Father and Son, and nowhere does he show us that this relationship is exceptional to that of a natural Father and Son, except it is obvious that there are differences in the way God achieves the bringing forth of sons, and human beings or other animals do.
Also there are differences of role and therefore position and status.
Blessings

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Ken

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 10 2008,10:51)

While I know that it is convenient to concoct such a weak unbiblical definition in order to be able to try and refute others views, unfortunately however, according to your definition, there must be literally millions of gods… and you still have a problem of the Bible saying that there is only one true God, and yet Jesus is merely “a god”…. now if He is not God in the way Jehovah is God, then Jesus is not the true God, for Jehovah is the one true God, and therefore Jesus a false God. Its not logic twisting, its simply the application of good logic to the situation. For example, if P is the proposition: Jehovah is the one true God then the law of excluded middle holds that the logical disjunction: all other gods are false gods is true by virtue of its form alone. That is, the “middle” position, that Jesus (or any other so-called god) is both god and a true god, is excluded by logic, since the claim is made that there is only 1 true God, namely Jehovah, and therefore either the first possibility (Jehovah is the one true God) or its negation (all other gods are false gods) must be true.

Exactly!  

WJ

[epistemaniac]

Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:40)

Quote So how many Gods or gods are there for you brother David; one is almighty and other is small 'god' or mighty god. Am I correct ? Golli, I think if we understood what “god” means, this would be easier to understand.  It is a word that means “strong one” or “powerful one.” And while many have certain degrees of power, some more than others, there is only one who is above all, only one who is AL mighty.  Hence, while Jesus is called a god, he is not the God of Jehovah.  Rather, it is the reverse.  Compared to Jesus, Jehovah is mighty and hence, God.  In the days of Israel, the judges were called gods (compared to the other Israelites because of the power they had.)  The angels were called gods, because they obviously have more power or strenght than humans.  And Jesus, of course, if these ones have power and strength, Jesus has a lot more and hence, can obviously be called a God.  But this doesn't make him the Almighty God, “the” God of the Bible. I think we often think of a

To address some of your other points more specifically…. as far as Psalm 86 where human judges are called “gods”, it seems to me that Asaph must be using irony here, as these men who thought they were so powerful will die… the Psalm is not very long, and if you look at it in it's entirety, I think its pretty easy to see the irony that is being used:
Psa 82:1-8 esv  God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:  (2)  How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah  (3)  Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.  (4)  Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.  (5)  They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.  (6)  I said, You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;  (7)  nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.  (8)  Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!”

These men who presume to be gods, those who deal unjustly with the people, and show partiality to the wicked, who fail to give justice to the weak and fatherless, nevertheless, they will fall, they will die, just like any other human prince, so they are not really gods at all.

A second reason I believe this is the case is because of these passages:

Deu 4:35 esv  To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.

Isa 43:10 esv  You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isa 44:8 esv  Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.

Isa 45:5 esv  I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,”

Here we are told in clear unambiguous terms that there is no other god besides Jehovah, God knows of no other gods, and He, being omniscient, would seem to be in a good position to know if there were actually other gods or not.

So in light of these clear didactic passages, when the bible refers to other “gods”, the term is used either of false gods, eg demons, powers and principalities, or is used sarcastically, as a literary device.

blessings,
Ken

[epistemaniac]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,22:16)

Quote A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!! John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Once again it is the failure to realize the GOD in Christ principle that gives rise to such arguments as this. The simple fact is that Jesus as a man was representing two people – Himself and his Father. Therefore sometimes it was the Father speaking and sometimes it was the son. Remember Jesus was the temple of GOD – he was HIS body. He spoke HIS Fathers words and also (obviously) at times his own words. It was GOD who raised Christ from the dead as his disciples preached after receiving the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit contradict the words of Jesus? There is no contradiction this was GOD speaking when Jesus said 'I will raise it up again'. imo

There is no contradiction because Jesus is God. There WOULD be a contradiction if Jesus was not God. The Holy Spirit would not contradict the words of Jesus, I never said otherwise. But, if Jesus is not God, then Jesus specifically and directly contradicts the other passages of Scripture which say that it was God who raised Him from the dead. Either Jesus is God, or the Scriptures contradict themselves.

This is not Jesus “speaking for the Father”. The text nowhere indicates any such thing, although in some instances in other passages that may be the case, but there is no evidence in this passage of Jesus speaking for His Father. It simply says, that is, Jesus simply says, “I will raise this temple in 3 days” and John goes on to relate how after Jesus' resurrection, the disciples realized that Jesus was actually referring to His own body.

So this is no failure to recognize the “God in Christ” principle at all. Jesus did represent the Father to us, He only did the Father's will, He spoke for God…. all these things are true, but they do not change the fact that the Scriptures say on the one hand that God will raise Jesus from the dead, and on the other, that Jesus will raise Himself from the dead. Those who deny Jesus' divinity do not want to accept this plain passage of Scripture because it so clearly evidences His deity.

So you are right, “it was God who raised Christ fromt he dead as his disciples preached after receiving the Holy Spirit”, and I want to thank you for pointing this fact out and being so clear about it. And more importantly, Jesus was right when He said that He would raise Himself from the dead. QED, Jesus is God.

blessings,
Ken

[Tiffany]

Since you believe that the Holy Spirit is a person, is He then Jesus's Father? It is by God's Holy Spirit that Maria became with Child?

[Lightenup]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 10 2008,03:34)

Quote listen carefully to what I am saying…..and equally carefully to what I am not saying… I am NOT saying that Jesus is not the Son of God…. I am saying that He is NOT the Son of God 1) in the same we any other human is called a son or daughter of the most high and 2) that He is not the Son in the same way a human has a Son….. Sounds good in theory – but how can I have any concept of a son that is not like any son or offspring in the natural except that the dissimilarities be explicitly outlined to me. I don’t see statements in the scripture to that end, indicating that he is the son of God in some ways but in others not a son like us. Perhaps it would be helpful to examine these dissimilarities as you say (1) Dissimilar in the sense that he is not the son of God in the same way we (the sons of God) are called sons. By this I assume you are meaning that because Jesus is the uniquely begotten son he is different. I would say that this denotes a difference in the way he came to be manifest in flesh – i.e. he (unlike us) had a pre-existence in the form of Spirit, and a former knowledge of his Father which we lacked until the rebirth. Also he came into flesh without the need of sexual reproduction which was introduced after the fall when man took on the nature of beasts. Adam was formed by God apart from sex as was Eve. Christ was of the same pattern as are the reborn – who are not born of the will of the flesh or of man but born of God by the Spirit of God. Also this uniqueness extends to his status as that of a firstborn and as such the principle heir to his Father. (A difference of role – not an intrinsic difference) In any other sense I see no dissimilarity – he is a son not of Flesh but manifest in flesh, as are the sons of God, born in this world but not of it, born of the same Spirit of God. Jesus in fact removes most of the obstacles that we as humans would tend to place before ourselves as a way of distancing ourselves from him as a son. He unashamedly calls us brethren, not servants. He teaches us that we can have an intimate relationship with the Father as he has. We obtain a degree of equality with him that is likened to that of Eve – the bride of Adam, who was equal with him before the transgression. She was taken from his side, and was given to him. So is Christ the head of the Church. But this is a difference of role, not an intrinsic difference. (2) that He is not the Son in the same way a human has a Son Obviously we understand that any true son of God is not born by the regular human way of reproduction but by the Spirit of God. How are we different to him in this respect? Remember we are speaking here of sons of God, we are not born in flesh as sons of God but with a contrary spirit and nature to God. This is why we must be born again of the Spirit. Only difference here between us and Jesus as a son was that he did not require a rebirth to be son of God, but was (as Adam) a son of God from birth. (imo) So GOD does not require a process of sexual reproduction in order to produce a son of God. Instead of begetting sons by sex he begets us by His Spirit. That stands to reason considering God is Spirit and not flesh and bone. It was GOD who set the pattern for life natural as well summarized in Gen 1:11 and whether by sex or botanic reproduction we see this pattern applies. Why did God set such unchanging patterns into His physical creation? Because the natural shadows and types to the Spiritual. Thus we are able to draw upon natural analogies as scripture does to illustrate the way of God. (imo) It was God who chose this use of language: Father and Son, and nowhere does he show us that this relationship is exceptional to that of a natural Father and Son, except it is obvious that there are differences in the way God achieves the bringing forth of sons, and human beings or other animals do. Also there are differences of role and therefore position and status. Blessings

Good posts Malcolm,
I am wondering though, how do you see the Son of God to be different than the angels who are also said to be sons of God?
LU

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2008,03:05)

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 10 2008,08:41) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 09 2008,04:45) Hi David Quote (david @ Oct. 09 2008,11:52) IT IS FALSE LOGIC AND JUST WRONG THINKING TO ASSUME THAT BECAUSE THERE IS “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD” THAT EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS CALLED GOD IS EITHER A PART OF THAT GODHEAD OR FALSE. Ok, but I have asked you and t8 to present your unambiguous scriptural evidence for this statement without any reply. Here Ill post it again… Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,13:14) Can you tell me where this definition for “theos” comes from? Since t8 believes the same as the JWs here then maybe you can list some scriptures to prove these statements. t8 only list John 10 which can be read as a derogatory statement about evil and wicked kings. Ambiguous. I would like to see how you come to this opinion using scriptures. Thanks! WJ Please spare me of pages of apologetics and just give me some scriptures. Thanks WJ WJ and all, A definition of Theos on a trinitarian site is below (note the part about whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way God's representative or viceregent of magistrates and judges ): Strong's Number:  2316 qeo/v Original Word Word Origin  qeo/v   of uncertain affinity Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling  Theos   theh'-os     Parts of Speech TDNT     a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity Definition  a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities the Godhead, trinity God the Father, the first person in the trinity Christ, the second person of the trinity Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity spoken of the only and true God refers to the things of God his counsels, interests, things due to him whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way God's representative or viceregent of magistrates and judges Translated Words KJV (1343) – God, 1320; God-ward + (4214), 2; god, 13; godly, 3; misc, 5; NAS (1312) – God, 1267; God's, 27; God-fearing, 1; Lord, 1; divinely, 1; god, 6; godly, 1; gods, 8; LU Hi LU So in other words then there are millions of “true gods”. Do you think the scholar was contradicting himself when he says “theos” means “the only and true God” and then infers that there are other “true Gods”? No I think the scholar has in mind an example of the word being used like this… He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and “as if you were God to him“. Exo 4:16 Moses was as a “God” to Pharoah, but Moses was not called God here by YHWH. There are many lords and many gods but there is only “One True God”, all the rest are not gods at all or are false. Why is it you would take that meaning of the word over the use of the word defining the Trinity? Nevermind, I know the answer. Now lets see if you can find the word “theos” ascribed to any other being with qualities of God or his attributes with the definite article. You will find only Yahshua is. WJ

Hi WJ,
Yes you are using “other words” and not mine. I would say using capitalization to show the differences that there is:

THEOS-the one true God-the Father
John 17
1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

And then there is:
Theos-the only true begotten God who shares the nature of His Father-that would be the Son

Heb 1:1-3

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature…
NASU

Heb 1:8-9

8 But of the Son He says,

“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”
NASU

And then there are:

theos-those called to act as gods but are not by the nature Gods.

John 10:33-37
33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ' I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? 35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, ' I am the Son of God'?
NASU

and finally theos-those mythological “gods” made with hands:

Acts 19:26
…this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all.
NASU

Gal 4:8

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
NASU

1 Cor 8:4-6

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
NASU

John 17:1-12

Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 ” I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

In conclusion, the word theos represents more than one type. What remains important is that we worship the One True God and the One whom He has se
nt, Jesus Christ.

3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

LU

[epistemaniac]

More info in John 1:1

The Names of God
Did the authors of the New Testament ever use the Greek terms for God (θεὸς, κύριος etc.) in reference to Jesus? If they believed that He was divine, then we would expect them to do so. They would also use Hebraic terms such as “I Am.” But if they did not believe that He was God, then we would not expect them to apply such terms to Jesus.

Jesus as θεός

The liberal attempt in the nineteenth century to deny that Jesus was referred to as θεός “God” in the New Testament was refuted by their own scholars such as the Unitarian Greek scholar Joseph Thayer. No one today bothers to deny that the word θεός is applied to Jesus in the New Testament. Such passages as John 1:1 preclude any attempt to deny this grammatical reality.
Where the disagreement comes in is the issue of the meaning and significance of the word θεός when it is applied to Jesus. Is He really called “God” as in the full sense of Deity or only a “god” in a metaphorical sense like the devil or some pagan deity? This means that we must understand how the word θεός was used in the Greek New Testament.
Dr. Murray Harris has done the most extensive and exhaustive analysis of the usage of the Greek word θεός in ancient extra-biblical and biblical literature.68 It would helpful to summarize his work at this point.
First, the Greek word θεός is used in the Septuagint as the translation of the following Hebrew names of God.
θεός In The Septuagint
Heb. equivalent
number of times
אֱלֹהִים (Elohim)
2,280
יְהוָה (YHWH)
353
אֵל (El)
163
אֲדֹנָי (Adonai)
11

The New Testament’s Usage of θεός
The Septuagint’s usage of the word θεός formed the basis of its usage in the New Testament as a generic term indicating any and all deities in general, including the true God. It was a title of deity and not personal name of God. Thus, it is used of Satan (2 Cor. 4:4), men (Acts 4:11), pagan deities (1 Cor. 8:4), and even the belly, i.e., fleshly appetites (Phil. 3:19).
One question frequently asked is “If the word θεός does not have a definite article, does this mean that something less than true deity is in view? Could Jesus be θεός but not ὁ θεὸς?”
The word θεός appears 1,315 times in the New Testament. Seventy-eight percent of the time it appears with a definite article and 21.6% times without an article. Those unfamiliar with the Greek language often assume that when the true God is in view, the word θεός will have the article. When θεός appears without the article, the word θεός does not refer to the true God. Thus, the typical Jehovah’s Witness defends his organization’s translation of John 1:1c, “the Word was a god,” on the basis that the word θεός does not have the article.
After his detailed analysis of the presence or absence of the article, Murray Harris concludes that generally speaking:
ὁ θεὸς and θεός are often used interchangeably.69 It is therefore not possible to maintain that whenever θεός is anarthrous [without the article], it differs from ὁ θεὸς in meaning or emphasis.70
The statistical evidence bears this out. For example, the Father is referred to as θεός without the article in such places as John 1:6, while Jesus is referred to as θεός with the article in such places as John 20:28. If the presence or absence of the article indicates whether true deity is in view, then the Father is only “a god” and Jesus is the true “God!”
But this does not mean that the presence or absence of the article never has any meaning. There are times when it has a grammatical significance. For example, in those cases where both ὁ θεὸς and θεός appear with the connecting word καὶ in the same verse, the Granville Sharp rule may apply. We will develop this thought later on in the chapter.
There are a few other times when the absence or presence of the article before the word θεος does have a grammatical significance. But these are rare exceptions to the general rule that in the vast majority of cases, the absence or presence of the article before θεός has no significance whatsoever.
With this brief introduction, we will now examine the passages in the New Testament were Jesus is addressed as θεός “God.”
The Logos
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
John used an early Aramaic Christian hymn to Christ as God as the introduction to his Gospel. It has three stanzas each having ὁ λόγος “the Word” in focus.
The Meaning of λόγος
When the dust finally cleared on the nineteenth century controversy over whether the meaning of the word λόγος is to be sought in ancient Greek philosophy or in the Old Testament and in early Judaism, it became clear the John was referring to Jesus as the “Word of the Lord” mentioned so many times in the Old Testament, the Targums, and in other early Jewish works. Hendriksen concludes, “It is rooted not in Greek but in Semitic thought.”71 Modern commentators agree with him.72
The nineteenth century liberals had tried to inject an element of philosophic sophistication into John’s use of the λόγος which was nothing more than eisegeses on their part. They forgot that John was a simple man writing to a simple people and not to Greek philosophers. John’s point is quite simple: Just as your words reveal what is in your mind, even so the pre-incarnate Word is the revelation of the mind of the Father (John 1:18).
Of course, there are those who are still caught in a nineteenth century time warp and think that John was referring to pagan Greek concepts of the Logos. They have yet to read the Targums or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They need to break free from the erroneous pre-archeological speculations of nineteenth century German rationalism.

In the Beginning Was the Word
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

We have already demonstrated that the first phrase, refers to the eternal pre-existence of the Word. Godet explains:
The imperfect ἦν, was, must designate, according to the ordinary meaning of the tense, the simultaneousness of the act indicated by the verb with some other act. This simultaneousness is here that of the existence of the Word with the fact designated by the word beginning. “When everything which has begun began, the Word was.” Alone then, it did not begin; the Word was already. Now that which did not begin with things, that is to say, with time, the form of the development of things, belongs to the eternal order…The idea of this first proposition is, therefore, that of the eternity of the Logos.73
The modern Greek schola
r Randy Yeager concludes:
Thus the Word existed before the beginning, since He has always existed. With Him there is no beginning. He is eternal and everlasting.…It is impossible to avoid the force of John’s grammar.74
Since the deity of the Word is already established in the first phrase of John 1:1, the next two phrases in this hymn to the deity of Christ expand upon what has already been established:
…and the Word was with God
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
John 1:1 describes the relationship of the Word first to the Creation and then to the Father. When we think of the relationship between the Word and the Creation, the Word is not a part of the Creation because He existed “before” it. And since He is “before” it, He is not “with” it. Since the Word is not “with” the Creation, then He must be “with” the Father from all eternity. John’s logic is simple and straight forward on this point.
John’s use of the preposition πρὸς “with” is significant. It implies that the Father and the Son had an intimate as well as eternal relationship. Lenski explains:
The preposition πρὸς, as distinct from ἕως, παρὰ, and σὺν, is of the greatest importance.…The idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an attribute inferring in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God and God turned equally toward him. He was another and yet not other than God.75
John’s use of the preposition πρὸς is also significant in that it shows that he did not view the Logos and the Father as being the same person. They are two distinct persons in an intimate eternal relationship of fellowship and communion.
In the biblical world and life view, there are only two realties: The Creator or the Creation (Gen. 1:1). The two are qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from one another. The following chart illustrates the differences between the two:

The Creator
infinite
eternal
omnipresent
omnipotent
omniscient
immutable
perfect

The Creation
finite
temporal
limited in presence
limited in power
limited in knowledge
mutable
imperfect

Under which column do we put the Father, angels, man, rocks, etc.?

The Creator
the Father

The Creation
angels, man, rocks, etc.

Angels, man, rocks, etc., are not put under the left column “with” the Father. If we made the mistake of putting them “with” the Father, they would be have to be God as much as He is. No, they have to be placed “with” all other created things under the right column.
Where do we put the pre-incarnate Word? Under which column? Do we put Him “with” the Father or “with” angels, man, rocks, etc? Does He belong under the Creator column or under the Creation column?
In the second phrase of John 1:1, John clearly places the pre-incarnate Word under the Creator column πρὸς “with” the Father:
The Creator
the Father
the Word

The Creation
angels, man, rocks, etc.

Given the grammar of the Greek text and the verses which follow, we have to place the pre-incarnate Logos “with” the Father under the column marked “the Creator.” That this is true is seen from verse 3.
All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:3)
πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
With this said, let us now examine John 1:1c.
…and the Word was God.
…καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Since the deity of the Logos was already set forth in the first two phrases of the hymn, the third phrase should not be that difficult to accept. Indeed, the hymn has been building to the climax “the Word was GOD.”
In Greek syntax, when you want to emphasize a word, you take it out of its normal word order and put it as the first word of the sentence. This is particularly true with the New Testament because it was intended to be read out loud.
This is the exact situation with John 1:1c.76 When you read John 1:1 out loud, you should emphasize the word “GOD” by raising your voice. Instead of “the Word was God,” the word order of the Greek text is “God was the Word.”
John assumed that the reader would put the emphasis on the word “GOD” as the climax of the hymn: “the Word was God.” Any attempt to water down the word θεός “God” into something less than true deity is due to a failure to observe the syntax. It would be anti-climactic to say that the Logos was “a god.”
Why No Article Before θεός
The word θεός in John 1:1c does not have a definite article in front of it. This does not mean that we should follow the Jehovah’s Witnesses and downsize it to “a god.” We have already pointed out that the word “Father” is modified by θεός without the article. Do the Arians downsize Him into “a god” because of this? No. Then on what grounds do they do this to Christ?
The article was not placed in front of θεός for two very good reasons. First, in terms of Greek grammar and syntax, Colwell’s Rule 20 states that when a noun is taken out its normal word order and placed before its verb, 97% of the time it does not have an article.77 This is what we find in John 1:1c.
What this means is that instead of beginning with the a priori assumption that θεός should have the article and then seeking to explain why it does not have one, we should begin the other way around and assume that it should not normally have the article. Thus, anyone who thinks that it should have the article will have to justify that assumption.
The second reason θεός does not have the article is that it would lead the reader to the mistaken idea that the Word was the Father. Murray Harris explains:
Having just distinguished the Logos (the Son) from ὃ θεὸς in verse 1b, would he be likely immediately afterward to dissolve that personal distinction? For him to have used ὃ θεὸς in the predicate of verse 1c would have implied either that subject and predicate were identical or coextensive or that this predicate referred to none other than the ὃ θεὸς of the preceding clause. As it is, in verse 1c John maintains the distinction between the Logos and the Father that he has drawn in verse 1b, while at the same time affirming the participation of the Logos in the divine essence (ὃ θεὸς).78
John did not place the article ὃ in front of θεός in order to maintain the distinction between the Father and the Son. This is why he made that distinction once again in John 1:2.
He Was in the Beginning with God
οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
The futile attempts of nineteenth century liberals to dilute the meaning of θεός in John 1:1c down to something less than true deity or to reduce it to the mild adjective “divine” were successfully refuted by the best Greek scholars of that day. Arian cults, such as the Jehovah’s Wit
nesses, the Way International, The Assemblies of Yahweh, etc., are the only ones who still use old nineteenth century arguments as if they were still valid.
Morey, R. A. (1996). The Trinity : Evidences and Issues (318). Iowa Falls, IA.: World Pub.

blessings,
Ken

[epistemaniac]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 08 2008,15:51)

Hi Ken Re Phil 2:4-8 it speaks to Jesus as to his relinquishing of position and authority. Once again (probably through fault of my not being clear enough) I have not managed to get across what I was meaning. I will attempt to clarify. When looking at GOD in whatever context I do not believe we are able to do so and come to any definitive understanding unless we follow the pattern of access prescribed by God Himself. Namely we cannot approach Him apart from coming via Jesus Christ. For how can the finite even begin to comprehend the infinite, the temporal to even scratch the surface of the eternal? How? Through the disclosure given via Jesus Christ. So GOD does pour Himself into expression through Christ (imo) This scripture in Philippians outlines a point of transition of state from the Heavenly into the earthly. GOD who until this point was fully manifest in SPIRIT form only through HIS son was now going to move towards full expression in flesh. Once again via HIS son who was now in the form of flesh. For this to happen there had to be a process of transformation of the Son from a Spirit form into a fleshly. Of necessity for this to happen God had to 'vacate' for want of a better word His residence in this Son. Then at the time appointed by GOD, HE came down (as symbolically represented in the form of a dove) and indwelt that fleshly tabernacle for the work of redemption. Immediately the ministry of God for the work of salvation began, God now being present to execute it. Imo. What also bears noticing in my mind is that this mind that was in Christ Jesus in heaven was not the mind of an omnipotent, autonomous being but that of a servant, of one willing and well pleased to be in subjection and perfect harmony to the will and purpose of God. And this same attribute of the son – shown before his earthly incarnation is carried through so that we see he was the faithful servant willing to be obedient even unto death in his flesh. This imo is the mind of the Son – and sets him apart even when in the ‘form’ of God as being distinct from him. Hardly co-equal, co-eternal, co-omnipotent or co-omniscient. Also it is this mind and attitude that we are encouraged to emulate for this is the mind of a true Son of God. Imo. Furthermore we see a repeat of this display of subjection from the Son as stated in I Corinthians 15:14-8 It would seem that the Son himself refuses any position of co-equality… Blessings

well I guess, “imo”, is the best any of us can do…. that is, unless, you can consult Greek and Hebrew experts to back up our “imo”…. else we would all be relegated to helpless and hopeless subjectivity where we cannot decide between “imo”'s and one person's “imo” is just as good and just as bad as any other. While I have tried to do that in other places, here I would just like to counter your opinion with one of my own, including verses that I feel back up my position, of course, so its not merely “opinion” but “opinion” on steroids, eg in so far as I accurately understand the Scriptures and in so far as they actually do support my views.

First, its probably good to point out that we were able to at least “scratch the surface of the eternal” for we have several thousand years of God's manifesting Himself and His will to the prophet, so, IOW, we have several thousand years of knowing God and knowing about God prior to Jesus' incarnation. I do not believe we could “scratch the surface” of knowing God had He not deigned to reveal Himself through the Scriptures. We know that nature does reveal some aspects of God's nature, special revelation itself tells us this is the case as in Ps. 19:1 and Ro. 1:18ff, but had God not told us how to reconcile with Him, what pleases Him and what doesn't, we would be a lost race. That being said, Jesus is certainly the fullest expression of God's nature and will that we humans have had, and will ever have.

Secondly, I do agree that there is no way to approach the Father but by the Son.

Third, I would say that God is disclosed to us through Jesus because Jesus is God.

Fourth, it is not wholly true that God, prior to Jesus, fully manifested only by the Spirit, eg there theophanies/christophanies. But yes, primarily is was via spirit.

Fifthly the biggest problem with your theology, imo, is your contining to read far too much into the baptism of Jesus. You say that God came down upon Jesus at that time and indwelt Him, but this is wrong, for it is not present in any of the texts recounting the baptism of Jesus.

Mat 3:16-17 esv And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; (17) and behold, a voice from heaven said, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.

Mar 1:10-11 esv And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. (11) And a voice came from heaven, You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.

Luk 3:21-22 esv Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, (22) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.

Joh 1:32-33 esv And John bore witness: I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. (33) I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

So firstly, since we have God's voice coming down from heaven, we know that God is not “in” Christ in the sense that modalists of various stripes want to maintain, the 2 (the Father and the Son) are constantly spoken of as distinct persons, Jesus does not suddenly “become” God at His baptism. Jesus already was God, from all eternity.

Secondly, in any case, John does not say that it was God the Father who came down on Jesus and “indwelt” Him, rather it was the Spirit.

Thirdly it is wrong to say that from the baptism God was “in” Jesus in a way that He was not before such that it should be inferred that prior to this God was not already “in” Jesus. (of course, I am phrasing it this way for the sake of argument, Jeus did not have God indwell Him in some special way post-baptism simply because Jesus was and is and always has been God) From the moment of Jesus' conception on He was “indwelt”. I believe this is proven by the simple fact that Jesus was without sin. He, as a mere man, or whatever kind of creature people want to say He was, as if He was one kind of being prior to His baptism and another after His baptism, unless He were the God-Man, unless God was “in” Him in a very special way throughout His entire life, He would not have been an acceptable sacrifice for our sins, for He would have been a sinner just like any of us. But we know that Jesus was without sin, a perfect blameless sacrifice.
2Co 5:21 esv For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
1Pe 2:22 esv He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.
I believe this following verse shows that Jesus was God prior to His baptism, and, for that matter, prior to his birth, or His incarnation:
Isa 9:6 esv For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called…. Mighty God……'

He was God before His birth, He w
as God before His baptism, He was God before His crucifixion, He was God before His resurrection, and He was and is still God after His ascension. He did not start being God after His baptism, and then stop being God on the Cross.

IMO

blessings,
Ken

[Lightenup]

Hello E,
Why only two columns? Why only two options true or false? Why do things have to fit into only one of only two categories? Can someone be unique and not fit into one of the columns?

Light WAS in the BEGINNING and WAS the fulfillment of the WORD “Let there be light.” The light from day one was not eternal however. That Light of day one was WITH God yet not eternal. So therefore just because it says that in the beginning WAS the WORD and the WORD WAS WITH God, that doesn't make it eternal.

Do you think that it is not possible for the eternal God to give birth to a son of His own nature? Show me why that is impossible. Is it impossible for One with a God nature to give birth to another with a God nature? Do you think that the One who was the designer of reproduction couldn't reproduce Himself? Didn't the designer of reproduction establish it to be that which was to be reproduced of another was the exact same nature from whom he is from?

For the sake of argument, let's think that God did reproduce one with the same nature of Himself. There still would not be any gods BEFORE him whether chronologically or supremely. Therefore to say “Thou shall have no other gods before me” would not be in violation if one with the nature of God was reproduced and thus had a beginning. The one with a beginning would not be above the always existent One nor equal in supremecy yet He would be equal in nature.

To have the same divine nature does not mean to have the same eternal power. IMO Nature is different than power. Where does it say that the Son of God had eternal power? I can't recall that being written anywhere. He has been given all that He has, He is not the source.

LU

[epistemaniac]

Quote (david @ Oct. 09 2008,11:32)

While in the ministry, I've only met a few priests, ministers, etc.   Rather than discuss scripture, they often seem to like to state what they believe and then point to the pile of books they've read as confirmation that what they believe is right. At that point, I feel like suggesting that perhaps he had been reading the wrong books.

That criticism would perhaps hold some water if and only if you stopped reading Watchtower publications…. if you stopped carrying Watchtowere publications with you when you are out doing “missionary” work, and stop referring to the book “Reasoning From The Scriptures”, the handy dandy little reference book all good JW's carry with them 😉 .

As it is, everyone reads books, and just because some people do not read the same books you do, it does not automatically make it wrong to read books. That is, of course, unless you are a JW, where you are not allowed to read non-JW material…. what are they afraid of anyways with this crazy man-made rule…? That some JW somewhere might actually read the truth and leave their organization? That must be it ehhh?

Further, what you are saying is actually CONTRARY to your own organization's teachings.

Quote

“From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude…They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago…” The Watchtower, August 15, 1981.

So it is the Witnesses who are actually AFRAID of people reading only thier bibles!!!

Quote

Russell maintained in the “Watchtower”, 15.9.1910, p298 that his writings, namely his series of books titled, “Studies in the Scriptures”, were more important than the Bible to keep one spiritually 'alive'. He said that if one just read the Bible he would go off into darkness within six months

It is they who believe that people cannot possible accurately interpret the Scriptures unless they do the interpreting FOR THEM. The JW organization is so very much like Rome at this point, except that instead of a Pope who must do the authoritative interpretation for them, instead they have the people at Bethel doing it for them, merely substituting one kind of Pope for another.

Quote

“We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the ‘faithful and discreet slave' organization.” The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981.

In other words, you have your own “pile of books” you either implicitly or explicitly point at…

blessings
Ken

[epistemaniac]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 09 2008,20:32)

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 08 2008,15:24) Hi WJ, I just wanted to clear something up.  If I understand you correctly, you do not believe in all the statements of the trinity doctrine, right?  If so, then you would agree that the trinity doctrine is false, right?  If it is only partly correct and not completely correct, it has to be false, IMO. LU Hi LU That is a good question? But your logic is flawed. In fact if you will check Ken's And Pauls writings, (who goes by the name Isa 1:18), against mine you will find that we agree about 99.9 percent of the time on the concept of the Trinity. Can you show me any others on this sight that have this kind of unity in the faith conerning the nature of the Father, the Son and the Spirit? Is there any better than that? You have Jesus is an Angel incarnate, he is a mere man like the rest of us, he is a begotten God, God had sex with Mary, God imparted his own semon or DNA, Jesus is a god like other gods, he is a demi-god (part man and part god), he was born from the Fathers womb, and on and on. How many Henotheist, Unitarians, Arians, or Polytheist accept the Jesus you teach as your Lord and God who is to be bowed down to and worshipped? How many agree with your doctrine? Whats funny is all those who do not agree concerning which view of Jesus is right, still give each other high fives against a Trinitarian. Even when we speak on other subjects that they agree on they dare give credit where credit is due because they may appear to be associating with a Trinitarian. How sad. You may notice that I give credit to anyone including t8 when I believe somewone is speaking truth, no matter what their doctrinal differences are. But Trinitarians are marked as being false no matter what. I wonder why? David a JW who is against most everything any of you believe gets a free pass on most of what he writes here. So by your reasoning then your doctrine on the nature of God and the Son is false also, because others do not believe as you do. The main point of the Trinity is Yeshua is “The True God”, (John 1:1, John 1:18, 1 John 5:20)one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Heb 1:3, Col 1:17) and that this “One True God”, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is our God. There is One God, Three persons and One Spirit! No other conclusion can be drawn using all scriptural data. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.  2 Peter 1:1 NET …as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13 Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have “no other gods” before me. Exd 23:13 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”. Blessings WJ

Amen

[epistemaniac]

Quote (theodorej @ Oct. 10 2008,08:35)

Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,22:40) Quote As far as the whole Jesus had a father,  Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us  lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something? Nope not a Mormon The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. That's right and these illustrations used by Jesus to show us his role – as a gateway an accessway , a portal, as the source of revelation regarding GOD (rock). Tell me did Jesus use these metaphors constantly to refer to himself? Or did others? Did his disciples say 'hey look here comes the door, here comes the gate' or 'hello rock'? As you say these illustrate the role. But when questioned as to who they thought he was (not what he represented) it was a statement of a dual revelation: The CHRIST the Son of the Living GOD. (Father and Son) As for Jesus not being an actual Son of GOD in any sense than illustratively – sorry have to disagree on that one. re the whole sex with Mary idea – you never heard that from me GOD does not need to resort to sexual reproduction to produce a son, how do you think the first Adam was formed? as ever imo and most likely contrary to yours 😉 Greetings Malcolm…….I can't help notice your agility with respect to debating and making a point…I agree that one must be able to sort out the symbolic references from the literal ones so as to learn from scripture…

Isn't it amazing how bright others seem to be when they agree with us?

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 10 2008,11:32)

Hi E, So sorry about all you have to deal with in this physical state.  Have you read the book “90 Minutes in Heaven”? You might like to check it out, it is by Don Piper.  It is a remarkable story and you might like it particularly because it is from a trinitarian point of view. Anyway, you say that the Son of God is “God of God” and I agree with that.  I think that this distinction helps when we say God#1 and God #2.  God #2 is of God #1.  God #2 came from God #1 since He (God #2) is “of” Him (God #1) hence, God #1 existed before God #2.  Now since God #1 existed first, He is the Father and God #2 is the Son.  Also since God #1 existed before God #2, God #1 is greater and the source of God #2.  Since God #1 is greater and the source of God #2, God #1 is the true God in the fullest sense of the idea of always existing and being the source of all things.  Since God #2 is of God #1, God #2 would be the same nature as the One He is of/from. I think that God #1 is the Light and God #2 is the receiver and reflector of that light.  God #1 is the source of light, God #2 is not the source of light but God #2  received that light on day one of creation and in that light was life which gives us the firstborn of all creation, the Son of God, the true Light (as a receiver and reflector) that comes into the world.  The Father is also the true light (as the source) but does not come into the world like His Son did.   Well, anyways this seems simple to me and please don't let your bias tie you up on this, think on this with an open mind.

I might check it out… I have so many books that I want to badly to read, I am not sure when I could get to it… is it just a general book on suffering? Never mind, I will just google it and check it out that way…

I think you are misunderstanding the phrase “God of God” or as Nicene puts it:

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father”

That is to say, Jesus is fully God, always has been. They are both co-eternal, that is why the creed speaks of Jesus specifically not being “made”, but rather “begotten”. Or to put it like theologicans life to put it: There was never a time when the Son was not.

There is no God#1 and God#2 etc… there is only 1 God, and this God is 3 in person. The beauty of Trinitarianism is that avoids the polytheism that you seem to be advocating. God made it clear, there are no other gods.
Isa 43:10 You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.”
Isa 44:6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
Isa 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
etc etc
There may be false gods, there may be epople that the Scripture somewhat sarcastically calls “gods”, but there are no other “real” gods, they are either figments on one's imagination or idols… mere objects made out of wood and/or stone, or in our day, plastic.

As to your saying, in particular

Quote

Well, anyways this seems simple to me and please don't let your bias tie you up on this, think on this with an open mind.

I would have to say the same to you, this seems quite simple to me, there is only 1 God, really straightforward. And you must realize this: there is no one without bias. You are every bit as biased as I am, you have no more of an open mind on this issue than I do, we both have our beliefs, our biases, our influences…. be they cultural, or be they teachers from within religion (I do not want to say “Christianity” here in place of the word “religion” because I believe the Trinity doctrine is an essential element to Christianity and that anyone who denies it is not in fact really a Christian, no offence.) Anyhow…. No one is a blank slate, standing before the Scriptures in a perfectly neutral way, just proclaiming what they say. What we have to do is to recognize our biases and as best as we can, by the grace of God, more and more conform our biases to the Scriptures. But it is just frankly sloppy a priori AND circular reasoning that says that just because I believe in the Trinity and you do not that I am therefore close minded or biased, while you, on the other hand, simply because you do not believe in the Trinity, are unbiased and open minded.

blessings,
Ken

[epistemaniac]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 10 2008,12:02)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 10 2008,10:51) Quote (david @ Oct. 09 2008,11:28) Quote The important thing to ask is: is the principle [of the trinity] taught in Scripture, even if the word is not? Nope. wow.. profound…I will definitely have to change my views now…. LOL Mohammed is not mentioned in scripture either, so it would be right to question the principle as we do with the Trinity. Not profound but common sense stuff that should be the norm .

pity that common sense seems to go out the window when people start trying to assert that there is more than one God when we know the bible tells us that it just ain't so….

once again, members of the Heavens Net staff erect straw men…. you guys are really going to have to invest in some goof extinguishers as I have to constantly go around burning down all these straw men.

Once again, what I was NOT saying is NOT that we shouldn't check to see if principles are in fact scriptural. Please do not put words in my mouth or presume or assume what I am not and have not ever said. Every principle must pass before the bar of Scripture, every single one. There. Is that clear enough?

I realize it is convenient to write out these pithy little statements, (or questions, if you happen to be Nick and think that you are a modern day Socrates or something 😉 lol ) you do not really have to interact in any meaningful way and you can just do a “fly by” and write something out and think that you have responded, but it just isn't always the case, nor is it always the best thing to do. In the end, such statements often end up being insulting, as if Trinitarians just believe the Trinity because someone told us to, and we are mindless little robots and just do as we are told ROFLOL!!! I could the same for non-trinitarians then….

Quote

you guys have never really studied this subject for yourselves, have you? You just deny the Trinity because it seems fashionable to do so, kinda cutting edge… but really you do it because some4 teacher somewhere said it was true, and you just kinda followed along, never really checking to see if it was true or not.

Like that stuff? Like having all kinds of assumptions and presumptions made about what you do and do not believe and how you arrived at those beliefs? I bet not. Well believe it or not, we Trinitarians are not too fond of it either.

blessings,
Ken

[Tiffany]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 11 2008,09:01)

Quote (david @ Oct. 09 2008,11:32) While in the ministry, I've only met a few priests, ministers, etc.   Rather than discuss scripture, they often seem to like to state what they believe and then point to the pile of books they've read as confirmation that what they believe is right. At that point, I feel like suggesting that perhaps he had been reading the wrong books. That criticism would perhaps hold some water if and only if you stopped reading Watchtower publications…. if you stopped carrying Watchtowere publications with you when you are out doing “missionary” work, and stop referring to the book “Reasoning From The Scriptures”, the handy dandy little reference book all good JW's carry with them 😉 . As it is, everyone reads books, and just because some people do not read the same books you do, it does not automatically make it wrong to read books. That is, of course, unless you are a JW, where you are not allowed to read non-JW material…. what are they afraid of anyways with this crazy man-made rule…? That some JW somewhere might actually read the truth and leave their organization? That must be it ehhh? Further, what you are saying is actually CONTRARY to your own organization's teachings. Quote “From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude…They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago…” The Watchtower, August 15, 1981. So it is the Witnesses who are actually AFRAID of people reading only thier bibles!!! Quote Russell maintained in the “Watchtower”, 15.9.1910, p298 that his writings, namely his series of books titled, “Studies in the Scriptures”, were more important than the Bible to keep one spiritually 'alive'. He said that if one just read the Bible he would go off into darkness within six months It is they who believe that people cannot possible accurately interpret the Scriptures unless they do the interpreting FOR THEM. The JW organization is so very much like Rome at this point, except that instead of a Pope who must do the authoritative interpretation for them, instead they have the people at Bethel doing it for them, merely substituting one kind of Pope for another. Quote “We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the ‘faithful and discreet slave' organization.” The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981. In other words, you have your own “pile of books” you either implicitly or explicitly point at… blessings Ken

e The W.J. that come around our House are very nice and carry the Bible around, and their Literature.
They are very nice and so is David. He has some good understanding of the truth.
I am not a W.J. and do not believe in the trinity,and believe that Jesus preexsisted his birth as a man. So I share some of their believes.
As far as keeping the Sabbath, I think I will go back and study my tread where a former member has a dialog with me on the Sabbth. I am a former Catholic, I do not share their Theology any more,no thank you. My Husband has that big Book from Mr. Russell, do you even know that those are seperate Bible Student that teach from the Bible.
I believe if I can get some truth from a J.W. I will.
To say that they are so much like Rome is not so. The Mass in the Catholic Church is the abomination. J.W. do not have anything like that.
You like to take peoples believes apart, you did it to me and now you are doing it David.
Nice work.
Irene

[Lightenup]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 10 2008,17:27)

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 10 2008,11:32) Hi E, So sorry about all you have to deal with in this physical state.  Have you read the book “90 Minutes in Heaven”? You might like to check it out, it is by Don Piper.  It is a remarkable story and you might like it particularly because it is from a trinitarian point of view. Anyway, you say that the Son of God is “God of God” and I agree with that.  I think that this distinction helps when we say God#1 and God #2.  God #2 is of God #1.  God #2 came from God #1 since He (God #2) is “of” Him (God #1) hence, God #1 existed before God #2.  Now since God #1 existed first, He is the Father and God #2 is the Son.  Also since God #1 existed before God #2, God #1 is greater and the source of God #2.  Since God #1 is greater and the source of God #2, God #1 is the true God in the fullest sense of the idea of always existing and being the source of all things.  Since God #2 is of God #1, God #2 would be the same nature as the One He is of/from. I think that God #1 is the Light and God #2 is the receiver and reflector of that light.  God #1 is the source of light, God #2 is not the source of light but God #2  received that light on day one of creation and in that light was life which gives us the firstborn of all creation, the Son of God, the true Light (as a receiver and reflector) that comes into the world.  The Father is also the true light (as the source) but does not come into the world like His Son did.   Well, anyways this seems simple to me and please don't let your bias tie you up on this, think on this with an open mind. I might check it out… I have so many books that I want to badly to read, I am not sure when I could get to it… is it just a general book on suffering? Never mind, I will just google it and check it out that way… I think you are misunderstanding the phrase “God of God” or as Nicene puts it: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father” That is to say, Jesus is fully God, always has been. They are both co-eternal, that is why the creed speaks of Jesus specifically not being “made”, but rather “begotten”. Or to put it like theologicans life to put it: There was never a time when the Son was not. There is no God#1 and God#2 etc… there is only 1 God, and this God is 3 in person. The beauty of Trinitarianism is that avoids the polytheism that you seem to be advocating. God made it clear, there are no other gods. Isa 43:10  You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Isa 44:6  Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Isa 45:5  I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, etc etc There may be false gods, there may be epople that the Scripture somewhat sarcastically calls “gods”, but there are no other “real” gods, they are either figments on one's imagination or idols… mere objects made out of wood and/or stone, or in our day, plastic. As to your saying, in particular Quote Well, anyways this seems simple to me and please don't let your bias tie you up on this, think on this with an open mind. I would have to say the same to you, this seems quite simple to me, there is only 1 God, really straightforward. And you must realize this: there is no one without bias. You are every bit as biased as I am, you have no more of an open mind on this issue than I do, we both have our beliefs, our biases, our influences…. be they cultural, or be they teachers from within religion (I do not want to say “Christianity”  here in place of the word “religion” because I believe the Trinity doctrine is an essential element to Christianity and that anyone who denies it is not in fact really a Christian, no offence.) Anyhow…. No one is a blank slate, standing before the Scriptures in a perfectly neutral way, just proclaiming what they say. What we have to do is to recognize our biases and as best as we can, by the grace of God, more and more conform our biases to the Scriptures. But it is just frankly sloppy a priori AND circular reasoning that says that just because I believe in the Trinity and you do not that I am therefore close minded or biased, while you, on the other hand, simply because you do not believe in the Trinity, are unbiased and open minded. blessings, Ken

Hi E,
You are correct in saying that I have a bias as well as you. I once had a bias towards belief in the trinity doctrine and then, being open minded, I sought out the meaning of “firstborn” from Col 1, asking God to show me what He meant by that title and He turned my attention to day one of creation where, in the beginning, He spoke His first words of the Bible, “Let there be light.” That is where my open mind got me…I believe that God developed a new understanding within me. Now of course, I have a bias towards this new understanding.

As you say, there is but one God and Jesus unambigiously tells us who that is here:

John 17:1-4

Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
NASU

Here Jesus is speaking to the Father and saying that He is the ONLY TRUE GOD.

Also, do you think that you have to believe in the trinity doctrine to be saved? Can you believe in most of the doctrine or do you have to believe all of the doctrine?

LU

[malcolm ferris]

Hi Ken

Quote

This is not Jesus “speaking for the Father”. The text nowhere indicates any such thing, although in some instances in other passages that may be the case, but there is no evidence in this passage of Jesus speaking for His Father. It simply says, that is, Jesus simply says, “I will raise this temple in 3 days” and John goes on to relate how after Jesus' resurrection, the disciples realized that Jesus was actually referring to His own body.

Who refers to themselves as ‘this temple’?
Jesus plainly declared that the words he spoke were not his but those of his Father.
Where there is an exception it is usually quite evident for he addresses his Father in dialog.
It is interesting that you are able to state so absolutely that this is not the Father speaking through the son – there is no text to indicate it is not.

JOHN 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

So the words of Jesus were the words of the Spirit of God  – the words of His Father.

JOHN 14:9-11
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Jesus did not speak of Himself but the father that DWELT IN him was speaking through the son revealing Himself and His will.

JOHN 8:28
Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he],
and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Jesus did nothing (including speaking) of himself but as he had been taught by the Father that dwelt in him.

JOHN 8:17-19
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

There was only one visible man standing before them, only one speaking…

Quote

So this is no failure to recognize the “God in Christ” principle at all. Jesus did represent the Father to us, He only did the Father's will, He spoke for God….

So Jesus represented the Father to us only doing the Father’s will which is God’s will right?
But he is supposedly God so big deal he is doing his own will then – not his Fathers’
Or do they have different wills?
If he was God then of course he spoke for God it would be ridiculous to think he would not.
The fact that he points out that he is not speaking for himself but for his Father suggests he is not God.
As I said if you cannot see the God in Christ principle which is the key revelation (imo) then God remains shrouded in a mystery.

[malcolm ferris]

Hi LU

Quote

I am wondering though, how do you see the Son of God to be different than the angels who are also said to be sons of God?

Could you please give me the verses in scripture you are referring to here, thanks
Malcolm

[Lightenup]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 10 2008,19:40)

Hi LU Quote I am wondering though, how do you see the Son of God to be different than the angels who are also said to be sons of God? Could you please give me the verses in scripture you are referring to here, thanks Malcolm

Hi Malcolm,
Sure, here are the verses:

Job 38:7
7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
NASU

Job 2:1-2
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.
NASU

Job 1:6-7
6 Now there was a day when thesons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
NASU

Gen 6:1-2
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
NASU

Gen 6:4
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
NASU

I am interested in your understanding of how the “sons of God” in the above verses are different in origin than the Son of God who became flesh and was called Jesus.

LU

[Author]

Posts