JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[Tiffany]

Why is this verse so hard to understand?
First we see that the Word was there in the beginning. That Word was with God. Not that it was God. A separate being. The Word was with God.
Then we see that that Word became flesh. Now that being is who became Jesus. Then when we look at other Scriptures like Rev. 3:14 and Co. 1:15-16-16-17 it becomes clear that Jesus was very much aware of what was happening. In John 17:5 it shows us that indeed He had a glory like the Father. Precept upon precept, line upon line to show what the truth is.
Not my interpretation, the Bible interpretes itself, in many places.
Peace and Love Irene

[pulivarthy]

1st john 5:7 There are three that give witness about Jesus. 8 They are the Holy Spirit, the baptism of Jesus and his death. And the three of them agree.
babu

[Not3in1]

Quote (pulivarthy @ Nov. 03 2008,20:12)

1st john 5:7 There are three that give witness about Jesus. 8 They are the Holy Spirit, the baptism of Jesus and his death. And the three of them agree. babu

What makes you think that the witness of the “water” is his baptism? Any proof?

[GeneBalthrop]

Irene………Scholars have been debating that scripture for two thousand years, it not as easy as you would think. I believe it is important to understand what the meaning of the word GOD is and from what i have read most Hebrew scholars say it means (strength or power) a descriptor about a person but not the person himself. When we refer to the person himself we should use the word LORD (He Exists) and when we say the LORD GOD, it should be rendered (HE EXISTS WITH POWERS). Notice Jesus quoted it this way “Hear O Israel the LORD our GOD is ONE LORD”, notice Jesus describes Him as LORD, OUR GODis ONE LORD.
Anyway Irene i think its more complicated then you may think.

love to you and yours…………………..gene

[Tiffany]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 04 2008,00:43)

Irene………Scholars have been debating that scripture for two thousand years, it not as easy as you would think. I believe it is important to understand what the meaning of the word GOD is and from what i have read most Hebrew scholars say it means (strength or power) a descriptor about a person but not the person himself. When we refer to the person himself we should use the word LORD (He Exists) and when we say the LORD GOD, it should be rendered (HE EXISTS WITH POWERS). Notice Jesus quoted it this way “Hear O Israel the LORD our GOD is ONE LORD”, notice Jesus describes Him as LORD, OUR GODis ONE LORD. Anyway Irene i think its more complicated then you may think. love to you and yours…………………..gene

Gen Maybe it it is complicated to you, but not to me. With God's Holy Spirit all is possible. So what you are saying every time it says God you worry if it is the power of God etc.? We are not debating what God is, but that He is present in this verse with the flesh is with God. So if I say Peter is with God, you would understand. But not when I say the Word that became flesh was with God? That is ridiculous. I do not listen to men, no matter what kind degree they have. I am not a respecter of men, but of God. Johm does not desribe what God iis in these verses , only that He is present. And even if He did, would that make a diffrenence, it still would be God. The Almighty God, the Lord God. The Word was still with Him and He (Word) became flesh.
Besides Rev. 3:14 and Col. 1: 15-16-17. And then it says in verse 18 that He had preeminece in all. First to be born and first to be resurrected.
Peace and Love Irene
P.S. If you still not agree, that its for me.

[Not3in1]

Perhaps John was out in the wilderness too long? Or stranded on that island long enough to lose his sense?
John 1:1 means something different to nearly everyone who reads it.
I say it was meant to confuse.
God hasn't cleared it up yet.
Therefore we are not responsible to know……

It's quite ridiculous, imo, to try and decifier these old words of ancient men.
Did Paul even have two witnesses? Maybe he just wanted more power and killing Christians wasn't enough for him.

This is Mandy throwing in the towel…………..

[Proclaimer]

Quote (pulivarthy @ Nov. 03 2008,20:12)

1st john 5:7 There are three that give witness about Jesus. 8 They are the Holy Spirit, the baptism of Jesus and his death. And the three of them agree. babu

You quote: 1st john 5:7 which is called the Comma Johanneum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum.

Not to divert the discussion away, I will replicate a post made on this quite a while ago. If you feel to talk about it, then you can do so here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….7;t=736

Taken from
http://www.tegart.com This is for reference only, and I am not endorsing the conclusion found at the end of this article.

========

A Simple Outline regarding I John 5:7 by Doug Kutilek I John 5: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost:  and these three are one. It is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted. Two questions: 1. What does this note mean?  and, 2. Is Scofield right? Scofield is stating that this verse was not an original part of I John, that the Apostle did not write these words and the Holy Spirit did not inspire them, but that they were inserted into the text of I John at a later date.  This opinion is the view of the vast majority of experts on the subject of the original text of the New Testament. Is Scofield right?  To answer this, we must ask, what is the evidence? First, some essential background information I John and all of the NT was originally written in the Greek language. from the 1st century until the printing of the NT in the early 16th century (more than 1,400 years), all copies of the NT were hand-written manuscripts. Scribes, subject to human limitations, made various mistakes in producing copies, most being accidental changes, though some were intentional. While God did not preserve the copists from making any mistakes, He did providentially limit the degree of variation so that the doctrinal content of the NT was not affected by the variations introduced.  The doctrinal teaching of all 1,500 printed editions of the Greek NT is identical. Most scribal errors are immediately recognizable, and the text of the NT can be established with 99.5% certainty, and the remaining .5% does not affect doctrine. We have a much higher degree of certainty of the exact original wording of the NT than any other writing from the ancient world.  More than 5,000 Greek manuscripts have been preserved (one less than 50 years later than the original writing of John), plus translations into nearly a dozen ancient languages, plus more than 85,000 quotations in Christian writers from the 1st to the 10th centuries. The evidence regarding I John 5:7 Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John.  Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7.  All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin. Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers. Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words.  Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period. The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D. Ancient translations: the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the NT made in the 2nd-10th centuries A.D.–Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavic–except in Latin. The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest). Conclusion: the evidence of every kind is consistent and clear: the disputed words of I John 5:7 have no claim as an original part of John's letter, but were introduced into Greek from Latin in the very late Middle Ages. How did the disputed words arise in Latin? Some Latin-speaking scribe or preacher in North Africa in the 3rd or 4th century probably drew an analogy between the three witnesses of I Jn. 5:8 (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood), and the three persons of the Trinity, and wrote out his idea in the margin of his manuscript.  A later scribe inserted the words from the margin into the text, and from there the insertion gradually spread to other manuscripts until they were included in a majority of medieval Latin manuscripts of I John. How did the disputed words find there way into printed copies of the Greek NT? The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words.  A revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticised by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well-known to them from the Latin.  Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript. An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus' requirement.  This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words.  The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript.  On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine. Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus' 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion.  Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words. How did the disputed words find their way into English Bibles? The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads “son” instead of “word.” Tyndale's translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus' 3rd edition and so it included the words.  In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale's assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed. Jugge's 1552 edition of Tyndale's NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza's 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus' 4th edition). Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John's letter.  [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus' 4th edition] Conclusion: Yes, Scofield is right. Question: If the words are not genuine, does this affect the doctrine of the Trinity? Answer: not in the least.  Those Christian writers of the 2nd-4th centuries who compiled from Scripture the true orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (namely, that the one true God exists in three equal persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) did so without any reference to the disputed words.  If their biblical proofs were correct and sufficient and based on undisputed passages, and they certainly were, then the doctrine stands unmoved.

========

Note: I am not necessarily endorsing all that is contained in this writing, I offer it as a reference only. In particular I do not agree with the last paragraph.

[gollamudi]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 03 2008,11:10)

Adam….if we apply Jeff Benners interpretation to John 1:1……> it would be like this …> in the beginning was the word and the word was with Elohim (powers) and the word was Elohim (powers). Elohim simple means (POWERS) we need to remember things were spoken into existence, in the beginning. Benner adds an interesting point to what John may have meant. love and peace to you and yours……….gene

Amen to that post brother Gene and I agree with that explanation on Jn 1:1. The 'word' belongs the same One God which is nothing but His own expression to show His power in this universe.

Thanks and peace to you
Adam

[pulivarthy]

gene, adam &n31
Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, [both] of man and of beast: it [is] mine.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

as we see in rom 8:29, jesus was before adam.It means hewas before all creation.As we carry children in our blood (semen produced out of blood) God was carrying his only child/son in his spirit(as blood and flesh can not inherit heaven, only spirit can inherit).Therefore God had already begotten his invisible son in his spirit and God was carrying him all the time and allowed him to put on flesh and live among us.God displayed his handiwork throgh jesus,his word, as now also God displays through prophets, gospel preachers etc..
babu

[GeneBalthrop]

pv…….you quote….> Col 1:15…> who is the image of the (invisible) God, the firstborn of every creature, is not quoted right. It should read …..> He is “the image the image of the invisible God”, the firstborn (OVER) all creation. First image is (NOT) the REAL Person themselves but one who images Him, second Jesus is said to be firstborn (OVER) all creation, that means He is at the head of all, a position, and has nothing to do with time of his berth. And even if you applied it to His berth it simply would mean He was first to be born from the dead over all creation, but does not imply first ever born, to be born is not the same as being created. Being born shows a human process. imo

peace……………………..gene

[Tiffany]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 05 2008,02:00)

pv…….you quote….> Col 1:15…> who is the image of the (invisible) God, the firstborn of every creature, is not quoted right. It should read …..> He is “the image the image of the invisible God”, the firstborn (OVER) all creation. First image is (NOT) the REAL Person themselves but one who images Him, second Jesus is said to be firstborn (OVER) all creation, that means He is at the head of all, a position, and has nothing to do with time of his berth. And even if you applied it to His berth it simply would mean He was first to be born from the dead over all creation, but does not imply first ever born, to be born is not the same as being created. Being born shows a human process. imo peace……………………..gene

Gen  You are interpeting it the way you like and not how it is wtitten. Firstborn is firstborn nothing else and nothing less.
Just as Rev. 3:14 ' These says the Amen the Faithful and True Witness, the beginnning of the creation of God.”
How are ypu going to interpet this verse?
Irene

[gollamudi]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 05 2008,02:00)

pv…….you quote….> Col 1:15…> who is the image of the (invisible) God, the firstborn of every creature, is not quoted right. It should read …..> He is “the image the image of the invisible God”, the firstborn (OVER) all creation. First image is (NOT) the REAL Person themselves but one who images Him, second Jesus is said to be firstborn (OVER) all creation, that means He is at the head of all, a position, and has nothing to do with time of his berth. And even if you applied it to His berth it simply would mean He was first to be born from the dead over all creation, but does not imply first ever born, to be born is not the same as being created. Being born shows a human process. imo peace……………………..gene

Hi brother Gene,
You have uttered my words on Col 1:15 stating that Jesus is the true image of God and he is not God himself but a man made in the image of God. Also 'he is first born' means he is first in rank means our elder brother in God's family. I hope others will understand this simple truth.

Thanks and love to you
Adam

[pulivarthy]

Gene
you have not read fully what I wrote.I was explaining the meaning of rom:8-29.It implies he was before adam.More over, if you are believing in born again (answer for Nicodamus question to our Lord), Jesus was born in spirit in the beginning and born as flesh again
(reborn) by God's plan/love/grace.There are two births for any man, as such Jesus has also two birhts one in spirit and one in flesh.
babu

[GeneBalthrop]

PV……..if you understood the term firstborn in the Hebrew mind set is a position, and not necessarily the order of berth. The expression of Jesus being firstborn (OVER) all creation is a positional statement, not a time of berth, the word (OVER) should make that clear.imo

peace to you……………..gene

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 23 2008,08:13)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 21 2008,12:05) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 21 2008,11:04) WJ……Jesus said He had a God, do you think it was Himself? He said I am going to (MY GOD) and YOUR GOD, (MY FATHER) and YOUR FATHER. He also said for (THOU) art the (ONLY) true GOD. The word (ONLY) means no other, The word (THOU) means not the person saying it. How many plain scriptures do you have to through away to try to get your Theology across? peace……….gene   Hi GB I guess he is not your Lord and God either. But he was Thomas's, Peter's and Paul's And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God“. John 20:28 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 while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of 'our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” will be revealed. Titus 2:13 I think I would rather believe them. WJ John 1:1 and other Scriptures in John show us that the Word is called God.  But He is not the Almighty God. The Father who is above all, is. Ephesians 4:6 Peace and Love Irene

(Rev 1:7-8 ESV) Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. (8) “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”, ….. “this says that someone “is coming.” Who? Verse 7 says it is someone who was “pierced.” Who was it that was pierced when he was nailed up to die? Jesus! But verse 8 says that it is Jehovah God who “is coming.” Could it be that there are two who are coming? No! Verse 8 refers to “the One who … is coming.”
Revelation 1:8 states clearly that Jehovah God is the Alpha and the Omega. Now note what he says at Revelation 22:12–13: “ ‘Look! I am coming quickly … I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.… ’ ” So, Jehovah God is coming quickly. But notice the response when he says it again: (Rev 22:20 ESV) He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!”
Who is speaking in Revelation 2:8? “These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again.… ” Obviously, it is Jesus. Who was Jesus identifying himself as being, when he called himself “the First and the Last”? This is how Almighty God described himself in the Old Testament. Jesus knew that the apostle John, who wrote the Revelation, and later Bible readers would all remember these verses: “ ‘… I am the same One. I am the first. Moreover, I am the last. Moreover, my own hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my own right hand extended out the heavens … ’ ” (Isa. 48:12–13). And: “ … I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior” (Isa. 43:10–11).
Note, too, that the expression the first and the last is used this way to refer to the Jehovah God in Revelation 22:13: “ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.’ ” Yet John also records: “.… And he laid his right hand upon me and said: ‘Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever … ’ ” (Rev. 1:17–18)….
Remember, we have read that Jehovah God is the One who is coming, the One who is coming quickly, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, and the only Savior. We have also read that our Savior Jesus Christ is the one who is coming, the One who is coming quickly, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.
We should have no problem reaching the right conclusion, namely that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, eg (Col 2:9 ESV) For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” Or, according to the New International Version, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
Reed, D. A. (1997, c1986). Jehovah's Witnesses : Answered verse by verse. (102). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 23 2008,09:56)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 23 2008,09:30) Hi WJ, So from the principle of sons are always exactly like their father in nature you sidestep to sons behave like their father? Why? NH The question was… Can you give me one example in scripture where the “Sons of God” who have divine qualities or attributes are called 'Theos”, God, other than the Father and Yahshua? But you can't even find one example of a being with any divine qualities or charactoristics of God in the scriptures that is called “Theos” or God. Not even an Angel of God? WJ

no… they/he can't…. and, btw, good point!!

Jesus is THE monogenes….. 3439 μονογενής [monogenes /mon·og·en·ace/] adj. From 3441 and 1096; TDNT 4:737; TDNTA 606; GK 3666; Nine occurrences; AV translates as “only begotten” six times, “only” twice, and “only child” once. 1 single of its kind, only. 1a used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents). 1b used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God.” (Strong, J.)

He is the monogenes/only begotten son in that he is a unique son of God…. this is what the Scripture simply says… there are other sons of God, true, but they are not sons (and daughters) in the same way Jesus is, He is one of a kind, utterly unique, sui genris…. you will not find any other being in Scripture ever referred to as monogenes, like Jesus is. There are adopted sons and daughters, and then there is like begetting like, the monogenes Son, God eternally begetting a Son, who is God, just like His Father.

“1. In the NT μονογενής (monogenes) occurs only in Lk., Jn. and Hb., not Mk., Mt. or Pl. It is thus found only in later writings. It means “only-begotten.” Thus in Hb. Isaac is the μονογενής of Abraham (11:17), in Lk. the dead man raised up again at Nain is the only son of his mother (7:12), the daughter of Jairus is the only child (8:42), and the demoniac boy is the only son of his father (8:42).11

2. Only Jn. uses μονογενής to describe the relation of Jesus to God. Mk. and Mt. have ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός; Pl. uses τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν at R. 8:3, τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ at R. 8:32, and πρωτότοκος at R. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18, but not μονογενής. The further step taken by Jn. to describe Jesus corresponds to the fact that believers who as children of God are called υἱοὶ θεοῦ—the same word as is applied to Jesus—in Mt., Pl. etc., are always called τέκνα θεοῦ in Jn., 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn. 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2, while υἱός is reserved for Jesus. Jn. emphasizes more strongly the distinction between Jesus and believers and the uniqueness of Jesus in His divine sonship. It is not that Jesus is not unique in this sonship for Mt., Pl. etc. also. His Messiahship proves this. But Jn. puts it in an illuminating and easily remembered formula which was taken up into the baptismal confession and which ever since has formed an inalienable part of the creed of the Church. To μονογενής as a designation of Jesus corresponds the fact that God is the πατὴρ ἴδιος of Jesus, “Jn. 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”; for ἴδιος means to be in a special relation to Jesus which excludes the same relation to others.

μονογενής occurs in Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9. What is meant is plainest in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 4:9. Because Jesus is the only Son of God, His sending into the world is the supreme proof of God’s love for the world. On the other side, it is only as the only-begotten Son of God that Jesus can mediate life and salvation from perdition. For life is given only in Him, Jn. 5:26. But the fact that He is the only-begotten Son means also that men are obligated to believe in Him, and that they come under judgment, indeed, have done so already, if they withhold faith from Him, 3:18. μονογενής is thus a predicate of majesty. This is true in Jn. 1:18. Here we are to read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. As the only-begotten Son Jesus is in the closest intimacy with God. There is no other with whom God can have similar fellowship. He shares everything with this Son. For this reason Jesus can give what no man can give, namely, the fullest possible eye-witness account of God. He knows God, not just from hearsay, but from incomparably close intercourse with Him. In 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9; 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. Similarly in Jn. 1:14: δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρὸς, (And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.) His glory is not just compared with that of an only child; it is described as that of the only-begotten Son. Grammatically both interpretations are justifiable. But the total usage of μονογενής is very emphatically against taking ὡς μονογενοῦς as a mere comparison.

In Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 μονογενής denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In Jn. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten.
What Jn. means by ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός in detail can be known in its full import only in the light of the whole of John’s proclamation. For ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is simply a special form of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. When Jn. speaks of the Son of God, he has primarily in view the man Jesus Christ, though not exclusively the man, but also the risen and pre-existent Lord. The relation of the pre-existent Lord to God is that of Son to Father. This comes out indisputably in 17:5, 24. Jesus is aware that He was with God, and was loved by Him, and endued
with glory, before the foundation of the world. This is personal fellowship with God, divine sonship. It is true that neither in the prologue, nor 8:58, nor c. 17 does Jn. use the term “son” for the pre-existent Lord. But He describes His relation to God as that of a son. (note 16: One can hardly argue from expressions like “God sent his Son,” 3:17; 1 Jn. 4:9, 10; cf. Jn. 3:16, since here the term “son” might be used proleptically, with ref. only to the man. But we see from 1 Jn. 4:14: “The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world,” that by His sending He who was already the Son became the Saviour, so that there is no room for doubt that the pre-existent Lord was already the Son. The fact that Jn. also uses ὁ λόγος for the pre-existent Lord gives us no right to assume that this λόγος was for him a power of God standing in an impersonal relation to Him). To maintain that in Jn. the pre-existent Lord is only the Word, and that the Son is only the historical and risen Lord, is to draw too sharp a line between the pre-existence on the one side and the historical and post-historical life on the other. In Jn. the Lord is always the Son. Because He alone was God’s Son before the foundation of the world, because the whole love of the Father is for Him alone, because He alone is one with God, because the title God may be ascribed to Him alone, He is the only-begotten Son of God.

It is not wholly clear whether μονογενής in Jn. denotes also the birth or begetting from God; it probably does, Jn. calls Jesus ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, 1 Jn. 5:18 “We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.” Though many will not accept this, he here understands the concept of sonship in terms of begetting. For him to be the Son of God is not just to be the recipient of God’s love. It is to be begotten of God. This is true both of believers and also of Jesus. For this reason μονογενής probably includes also begetting by God. To be sure, Jn. does not lift the veil of mystery which lies over the eternal begetting. But this does not entitle us to assume that he had no awareness of it. Johannine preaching and doctrine is designed to awaken faith, 20:30f., not to give full and systematic knowledge. Hence it does not have to dispel all mysteries.
Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976.(G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (4:739-741). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

blessings,
Ken

[pulivarthy]

Hi Gene,
I think you are carrying your children not in your blood, but in your mind only.I think you are not born again like a child in spirit.There is a birth in spirit and in flesh as well.
babu

[epistemaniac]

Quote (david @ Oct. 21 2008,19:29)

Quote And Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God”. John 20:28 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 while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of 'our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” will be revealed. Titus 2:13 Out of the 7 or 9 scriptures trinitarians take to understand that Jesus is being called God, why is it that 7 or 8 of them are like this, with the word “and” in the middle, as though it could be speaking of God “and” Jesus?   Doesn't it bother you that there are literally a thousand scriptures that say in no uncertain terms that Jehovah is God, and yet, almost all the scriptures trinitarians use to support Jesus is God, could be taken more than one way?  It seems we're just playing with comma's here.   It seems there should be more scriptures that say: “our God Jesus.”  or, “Jesus, our God.”  Instead, we find these Jesus “and” God scriptures.   I'm not saying Jesus is never called God.  I'm saying that he is only called “god” in no uncertain terms a few times in scripture.  (And of course, that word fits him.)

Thank you for openly and honestly admitting that the Scriptures do in fact say that Jesus is God. And you know what….? I have such a high regard and respect and reverence for God's word that all it has to do is say something 1 time, and I am bound to accept it…. so if the Scriptures only said Jesus was God once, then guess what? That's it…. Jesus IS God.

As far as the “and” business is concerned, kai has some nuances that don't always mean we must think of it as a rigid disjunction…. eg “2532 καί [kai /kahee/] conj. Apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; GK 2779; 9280 occurrences; AV translates as “and” 8182 times, “also” 515 times, “even” 108 times, “both” 43 times, “then” 20 times, “so” 18 times, “likewise” 13 times, not translated 354 times, translated miscellaneously 46 times, and “vr and” once. 1 and, also, even, indeed, but. Additional Information: Frequency count based on 1894 Scrivener Greek New Testament
(Strong, J.)

So to use your example of Thomas we could put it “My Lord also my God.” or “My Lord even my God.” or “My Lord also my God.” or “My Lord likewise my God.” or since kai is often not translated at all it could read “My Lord my God.”

In any case, the word “and” itself in the English to not be a separator of concepts, but rather to build on or to say the same thing as a rhetorical device of repetition. For instance (2 Peter 1:11 ESV) For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
In this case “and” is not separating 2 different concepts, as if 'Lord” is one person and “Savior” has to be someone else. So Jesus can be (and is!!) both Lord and God. And, since other Scripture plainly calls Jesus God, this agrees with other Scripture and is sound exegesis and interpretation.

blessings,
Ken

[david]

Quote

(Rev 1:7-8 ESV) Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. (8) “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”, ….. “this says that someone “is coming.” Who? Verse 7 says it is someone who was “pierced.” Who was it that was pierced when he was nailed up to die? Jesus! But verse 8 says that it is Jehovah God who “is coming.” Could it be that there are two who are coming? No! Verse 8 refers to “the One who … is coming.” Revelation 1:8 states clearly that Jehovah God is the Alpha and the Omega. Now note what he says at Revelation 22:12–13: “ ‘Look! I am coming quickly … I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.… ’ ” So, Jehovah God is coming quickly. But notice the response when he says it again: (Rev 22:20 ESV) He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” Who is speaking in Revelation 2:8? “These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again.… ” Obviously, it is Jesus. Who was Jesus identifying himself as being, when he called himself “the First and the Last”? This is how Almighty God described himself in the Old Testament. Jesus knew that the apostle John, who wrote the Revelation, and later Bible readers would all remember these verses: “ ‘… I am the same One. I am the first. Moreover, I am the last. Moreover, my own hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my own right hand extended out the heavens … ’ ” (Isa. 48:12–13). And: “ … I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior” (Isa. 43:10–11). Note, too, that the expression the first and the last is used this way to refer to the Jehovah God in Revelation 22:13: “ ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.’ ” Yet John also records: “.… And he laid his right hand upon me and said: ‘Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever … ’ ” (Rev. 1:17–18)…. Remember, we have read that Jehovah God is the One who is coming, the One who is coming quickly, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, and the only Savior. We have also read that our Savior Jesus Christ is the one who is coming, the One who is coming quickly, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. We should have no problem reaching the right conclusion, namely that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, eg (Col 2:9 ESV) For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” Or, according to the New International Version, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” Reed, D. A. (1997, c1986). Jehovah's Witnesses : Answered verse by verse. (102). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Irene, he's wrong, and didn't spend too much thought on this. See the Alpha/Omega thread:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=380

[david]

Quote

Thank you for openly and honestly admitting that the Scriptures do in fact say that Jesus is God. And you know what….? I have such a high regard and respect and reverence for God's word that all it has to do is say something 1 time, and I am bound to accept it…. so if the Scriptures only said Jesus was God once, then guess what? That's it…. Jesus IS God.

But, at the same time, Eppy, wouldn't you find it odd that the holy spirit who is also equally “god” is never called “god” or that Jehovah who is also equally God, is very very clearly called God thousands of times?
If someone is constantly referred to as God, and someone else very very rarely has that word applied to them, this should at least make you wonder enough to try to understand what that word means, how it is used in all the scriptures (including the unique ones where it is applied to Jesus, angels, human judges, etc)

Quote

so if the Scriptures only said Jesus was God once, then guess what? That's it…. Jesus IS God.

Here's what I think:

JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.

(How did the angel announcing his birth refer to him?)

LUKE 1:32
“This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High.”  (Compare Ps 83:18, where it says that Jehovah alone is the Most High.)
LUKE 1:34
“For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.”

(Who does Jehovah God’s testimony tell us Jesus is?)

MATTHEW 3:17
“Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.””

(What did John the Baptist bear witness to regarding Jesus?)  

JOHN 1:34
“And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.””

(How did Nathanael identify Jesus?)

JOHN 1:49
“Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.””

(Jesus himself asked who they thought he was.  With this response of Peter, Jesus pronounced him happy, because his Father had revealed this to him.)

MATTHEW 16:16
“In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.””

(What did Martha believe about Jesus?)

JOHN 11:27
“She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.””

(Why did John write what he did?  What did he want us to believe?)

JOHN 20:31
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.”  

(Did John bear witness that Jesus was God Almighty, or God’s Son?)

JOHN 1:34
“I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.”

(According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess?)

1 JOHN 4:15
“Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .”

(According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God?)

1 JOHN 5:5
“Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?”
(It seems that John bore witness that Jesus was the “Son of” God, that he wrote what he did so that we would believe that Jesus was the “Son of” God, telling us to have faith that Jesus is the “Son of” God, and to confess that Jesus is the “Son of” God.)

(What did the apostle Peter preach about Jesus?)

ACTS 9:20
“he [Peter] began to preach Jesus, that this One is the Son of God.”

(The demons certainly knew “exactly” who Jesus was: the Holy One “of” God, and hence, not God Almighty himself.)

MARK 1:24
“What have we to do with you, Jesus you Nazarené? Did you come to destroy us? I know exactly who you are, the Holy One of God.”  
MATTHEW 8:29
“What have we to do with you, Son of God?”
MARK 3:11
“Even the unclean spirits, whenever they would behold him, would prostrate themselves before him and cry out, saying: “You are the Son of God.”“
LUKE 4:41
“Demons also would come out of many, crying out and saying: “You are the Son of God.”

(He was not saying that he was equal to God, but rather “he was also calling God his own Father,” and in the minds of the Jews, this was tantamount to making himself equal with God.)

JOHN 5:18
“On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also CALLING GOD HIS OWN FATHER, making himself equal to God.”

(What did the chief priest charge Jesus as saying he was? Surely if there was indication that he was claiming to be God or those around him believed this, then that accusation would have been made. These were the ones who were accusing them of anything they could, making stuff up, bringing in false witnesses.  Surely if he was claiming to be God himself, they would have capitalized on this.)

MATTHEW 26:59-63
“So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!”“
LUKE 22:70
“Are you, therefore, the Son of God?”
MATTHEW 27:43
“let Him [God] now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’”

(What did the Jews tell Pilate Jesus had made himself?  If Jesus was claiming to be God, surely they who wanted him done away with would have charged him with this.)

JOHN 19:7
“The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son.””

(So they were charging him with saying he was the “Son of” the God, and Jesus himself said: “I am.”)

MARK 14:61,62
“Again the high priest began to question him and said to him: “Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?” Then Jesus said: “I am.”  

(Who did Jesus himself say he was?)

JOHN 10:36
“do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?”

(Miraculously walking on water and calming the winds moved his disciples to what conclusion?)

MATTHEW 14:33
“Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: “You are really God’s Son.””

(How did those mocking him while he was dying refer to him?)

MATTHEW 27:40
“If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake!”

(What conclusion did the army officer there at Jesus death reach?)

MATTHEW 27:54
“when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: “Certainly this was God’s Son.”“
MARK 15:39
“Now, when the army officer that was standing by with him in view saw he had expired under these circumstances, he said: “Certainly this man was God’s Son.””

(What was Jesus declared to be?)

ROMANS 1:4
“but who with power was declared God’s Son.”

So we have an angel, demons, Jehovah, Jesus, John the Baptist, Nathanael, Peter, Martha, John, Paul, mockers of Jesus, an army officer who saw Jesus die, the Jews, all making very plain what they believed Jesus to be, the “Son of” God, or “God’s Son,” and hence, not God, but someone related to God, the “Son of” God.

And yes, obviously, the very Son of God, who has been granted all authority and power, by his Father, is “mighty” hence, the word “god” (MIGHTY ONE/POWERFUL ONE) obviously fits.  

But, simply being called “God” does not in itself equate Jesus with Jehovah God Almighty.

[Author]

Posts