JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2008,10:19)

WJ.

Scripture promotes one God, you promote a triune God, one that is alien to scripture.
Scripture promotes One God the Father, you promote one God the Father, Son, Spirit.

John 1:1 promotes God and the Logos, you say it backs up the Trinity which is 3 persons. But John 1:1 is not talking about 3 persons as God. It is talking of God and the Logos.

You are adding and taking away from scripture to suit your own understanding. That is not a good thing WJ.

Does the scriptures call Jesus God?

You live with the contradictions or just white out the scriptures that do!

You continue teaching Jesus is less than the Father in nature, therfore you make the “visible image of the invisble God” as less than God and in doing so cause men to create a false image of God!

Anathema!

November 14, 2008 at 12:45 am#111844

Participant

Hi WJ,
Does scripture calling Jesus GOD confuse you?
Surely not a man of such great knowledge as you told us.
You really should align with the Lord Jesus and worship his God.

November 14, 2008 at 5:34 am#111851

charity

Participant

Seriously the gospel of Johns IS a bad companion, and eventually will Make fools of many
-charity

November 14, 2008 at 5:38 am#111852

gollamudi

Participant

Ummm You are right Charity John's Gospel is the most misunderstood Gospel in whole N.T.

November 14, 2008 at 6:30 am#111854

charity

Participant

I feel the writer has projected much Hate and rejection throughout generations.
I first noticed that Most of the verses that are hurled at people in retaliation were coming from the gospel John

eg…
your father is the father of Lies, because you don't interpret the same as I.

November 14, 2008 at 11:12 am#111856

TimothyVI

Participant

Quote (charity @ Nov. 14 2008,17:30)

I feel the writer has projected much Hate and rejection throughout generations.
I first noticed that Most of the verses that are hurled at people in retaliation were coming from the gospel John

eg…
your father is the father of Lies, because you don't interpret the same as I.

The hate and rejection comes from the belief that every word in the bible is the inspired word of God, and yet no one can agree on what that word says.

Tim

November 14, 2008 at 4:10 pm#111858

Participant

Tim…..thats why i think it takes God's Spirit to guide us through scriptures, and come to some kind of unity of the Faith.

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

November 14, 2008 at 6:26 pm#111861

Participant

Hi Charity,
But many sacred books upset you.
They should not as they all come from the mouth of God.

November 14, 2008 at 9:48 pm#111866

Participant

To All………> HEAR “O” ISRAEL THE LORD (HE EXISTS) OUR GOD ( POWER) IS (ONE) LORD. Not two or three triune anythings. If you don't believe this then you don't believe JESUS, and the (OUR) included Jesus HIM ALSO.

love and peace to you all……………..gene

November 16, 2008 at 9:59 am#111946

gollamudi

Participant

Yes brother Gene,
You are right in saying that Jesus our Lord is included in “our” because his God is our God and His Father is our Father.

November 16, 2008 at 4:06 pm#111951

Participant

Hi All!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Matt 11:27

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. Luke 10:22

Indeed our fellowship is with the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit who takes from the Son and gives to us an understanding of who God is.

That which we have seen and heard (the Word/God John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1, 2), declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Jesus said…

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

The way to God the Father is through Jesus. Likewise, Jesus has been given all things and everything that we receive from God comes from or through Jesus. He who has the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:23, 2 John 1:9

The very life that we have is in Jesus.

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:11, 12

Since having Jesus means we have life, then that would make Jesus the source of our life.

Therefore Jesus is the focus. The Father has declared with his own words…

But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever“, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. Heb 1:8

Therefore…

…let all the angels of God worship him. Heb 1:16

And the Father says…

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

Paul as well as all the Apostles understood that the focus of the Gospel was Jesus Christ.

But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the Excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ Phil 3:7, 8

This kind of servitude to any man or being would be idolatry if he were not God. The kind of focus, love and devotion that Paul had toward Jesus could only be reserved for God alone.

Our purpose as temples of the living God is to show the world “who God is”. Yet Paul’s focus was to show the world who Jesus was…

“To reveal his Son in me“, that I might “preach him” among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Gal 1:16

Why didn’t Paul say “to reveal God in me”, or “preach God among the heathen”? Because in the mind of Paul (as the verses in my previous post to David below shows), JESUS IS GOD. For him to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ was preaching the Gospel of God.

The writer of Hebrews shows the same focus and devotion toward Jesus.

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Heb 12:2

Here we see that Jesus is not only the author (or source) of our faith but he is the perfecter of our faith. I challenge the reader to do a study on the name of Jesus and the Greek word “kyrios” which is translated Lord (applied to Jesus most of the time), as apposed to the title “Father” in the scriptures.

You will began to see why I speak so much about Jesus, because in honoring and exalting the Son I am obeying the Father who has told me to and the words of my Lord that commands the same honor to himself as God.

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. John 5:23

Since the focal point is Jesus who is the “visible image of the invisible God” (2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15) and the exact representation of God’s being (Heb 1:3), and since everything to God or from God is by or through Jesus, and that all of my devotion even to being a bond slave is to be toward him, then that makes Jesus my God.

Wherever a mans main devotion and heart is that is where his God is. Idolatry comes in many forms. A mans focus can be sex, drugs, food, or as Jesus said “the unrighteous mammon” (money).

Jesus said “No one can serve two masters“. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. Matt 6:24

The same can be said of sex, drugs, food, relationships or whatever you put “FIRST” in your life above God.

That is Idolatry. Yet, we are told to make Jesus the first in our lives just as and equal to the Father. Jesus is our focus because he is our bridegroom our head our love and our God.

We are to leave everything and become bond slaves to Jesus making him first in everything. If he is not the True God, then that would be Idolatry!

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is first and everything to us, and apart from him their is no knowing the Father or God.

Search the scriptures for they testify of Jesus.

Since no one can know or come to the Father apart from him and that everything they can ever know or receive from God comes by or through Jesus, then that would mean he can be no less than God. To have an understanding or image of Jesus as less than God is to have a false understanding and image of the “visible image of the invisible God”.

To honor Jesus less than the Father is to dishonor the Father.

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. John 5:23

Recently I made a post in response to David that I thought I would bring over to this thread for all those who seek to reduce the nature of who Jesus is and in so doing reduces their image and understanding of who the Father is.! Without Jesus you cannot come to the Father or know who or what the Father is and IMO you are serving a false god.

Here it is…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 15 2008,02:29)

Hi David

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 11 2008,22:59)

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

Are men to be slaves of a man or a demigod? Are men to be slaves of a man or a demigod?

Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:17)

How can we be sure it's even calling Jesus “God” here? The comma between “Savior” and “Jesus” did not exist in the manuscripts.

So is it: “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”

“Our God, and Savior Jesus Christ”?

I only bring this up because A THOUSAND TIMES JEHOVAH IS CALLED “GOD” without question or having to interpret where the comma should be. Yet, Jesus is only clearly called God a few times. To me this seems so strange if they are one and the same.

Apparently you haven’t heard of the “Grandville Sharp” rule?

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

The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.

Source

This rule is also found in the following scripture…
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

Paul confirms who it is that will appear in this verse…
Now Enoch, the seventh in descent beginning with Adam, even prophesied of them, saying, “Look! The Lord is coming with thousands and thousands of his holy ones, Jude 1:14

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 11 2008,22:59)

You accuse me of not speaking the truth while at the same time you reject clear scriptures that teach Yeshua is God.

Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:17)

I'm just saying that perhaps you should take that one scripture out of your “CLEAR scriptures that teach Yeshua is God” list.

No it is very clear to those who see that Yeshua's nature is no less than the Fathers.

Why is this a problem for you David? Even your own Bible interprets John 1:1 as “the Word was a god”?

Source.

Blessings WJ

November 16, 2008 at 4:22 pm#111952

Participant

Hi all.

Here is the rest of that post to David, dealing with John 1:1.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 11 2008,22:59)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. John 1:1 NET

Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25)

And neither is this one clear. It is the most debates scripture on the planet. Please remove it from your “clear” scripture list.

To you it is not clear. In light of other scriptures that John penned like John 1:18, 1 John 5:20, and the witness of Thomas in John 20:28, and the previous scriptures mentioned, 2 Peter 1:1, Phil 2:6 and Titus 2:13 by both Peter and Paul and others, it is very clear.

Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25)

If the word is 'with' God, as the context suggests, he is not the same one he is with.

That is true. John is not a “modalist”, neither are Trinitarians. Hence the reason for the lack of the definite article in John 1:1c. But you have to ask the question, “why did John use the same word “theos” in John 1:1c as in John 1:1b? He could have used another word to show that the Word was not God. He could have used the word “theios” which is an adjective that was used in 2 Peter 1:4 describing the divine nature of which we “partake” or share. He could have used the word “theiotes” which is a greek word for “divine or divinity” found in Rom 1:20. But he didn't did he?

Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25)

Hence, this can of course, be translated different ways.
What does “fully God” even mean?

It is highly unlikely that John would have used the same word “theos” in John 1:1b and John 1:1c if he wanted to convey that Yeshua was not God. If you say that it should be qualitative then you have to ask the question how is Yeshua qualitatively less in nature than the Father since he is the express image of his person or substance, Heb 1:3, and he is the “Image of the invisible God”, Col 1:14.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. John 1:1 NET

The Net which was interpreted by 25 scholars who had access to over 60,000 translators notes explains why they interpreted it “fully God”.

Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

Source

Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25)

If he's “the” God, then of course he's obviously fully God. But why say it that way? Isn't “God” a word that means “mighty one; strong one” as used in scripture?

Yes of course you could say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are mighty and strong, but that is not the greek definition of the word “theos”. Since “true, strict, Biblical Monotheism” demands that there is only “One True God” and all other so-called gods are false or opposites of God and are not “gods” at all, and since the word “theos” is never found in the mouth of the Apostles referring to any other being other than Yeshua, except the obvious opposite of God, satan, and that qualitatively in nature Yeshua is no less than God, then the term “fully God” is a correct term in referring to Yeshua.

Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25)

Question: Have you been ignoring the Alpha Omega thread? I bring it up about once a week, but no one wants to discuss it. Being that Is 1:18 (and someone I've recently talked to in real life) has said it's one of the greatest trinity proofs, I'd think you'd want to discuss it.

Of course, in reality, it's about as clear as these others scriptures.

I will look again. But as you know, even if “Alpha and Omega” is a name that describes both the Father and the Son, it would not contradict the Trinitarian view at all, since Trinitarians believe the term “Alpha and Omega” is a name that belongs exclusively to YHWH.

November 16, 2008 at 5:05 pm#111954

Participant

WJ…..why does it take so much intense understanding to get your ideology into a persons mind, when just a few true scripture gives complete understanding without trying to TORK scriptures to meet you Trinitarians ideologies. Why can't the simple truth be enough without all the word games you and other trinitarians seem to need to meet you falsely convinced trinitarian theologies.

WJ…..Here is all you need to Know just the way it's said…….”.Hear “O” Israel the LORD our GOD is (ONE) LORD.”, I am going to (MY) GOD and YOUR GOD , MY FATHER and YOUR FATHER”> And another simple understanding, A FATHER CAN NOT BE A SON. Jesus Called His Father FATHER, and Himself the SON. Jesus said he did not come to do (HIS) WILL, but the WILL of HIM WHO SENT HIM. Not to mention the Hundreds of other (SIMPLE to UNDERSTAND) Scriptures the Show plainly Jesus is Not Part of any triune anything.

We don't to Tork or Twist anything to understand that , no mystery, just plain truth, and understanding scripture just as it is written, nothing complicated about it at all, no long special reasoning needed. Just except the words at (FACE) value and you would not have such a problem understanding them.IMO

peace to you and yours…………………..gene

November 16, 2008 at 5:41 pm#111958

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 17 2008,04:05)

peace to you and yours…………………..gene

Interesting that you say I am “torking scriptures”.

Yet you cannot respond to anything that I have written to show me what is not true or unscriptural.

Just more of your patronizing!

Does the scriptures call Jesus God GB?

If so, then who is torking or denying or ignoring the scriptures?

November 16, 2008 at 6:02 pm#111961

Participant

Hi GB

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 17 2008,04:05)

…A FATHER CAN NOT BE A SON.

Really? My Father was a son to my grandfather!

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 17 2008,04:05)

…Jesus Called His Father FATHER, and Himself the SON.

Yes and look what the Father calls the Son…

But unto the Son he saith, “Thy throne, O God“, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Heb 1:8

You see GM, Jesus is the “monogenes” Only unique Son.

Of course the son of a Father cannot be the Father.

But the son of the Father is “as human” as the Father, they have the identical same nature!

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,*,*who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18

November 16, 2008 at 6:07 pm#111962

Participant

WJ,
You teach what Jesus did not teach.
Yet you say you worship him?

November 17, 2008 at 2:38 am#112045

Participant

WJ……You just showed how you TORK the Things said, I Said A Father can not be the son a very obvious understanding, is that I meant a Father can not be HIS (OWN SON)., But the way your mind works is to try to TORK what was plainly meant. I am sure everyone else here knew full well what i was referring too. Then you proceed to TORK Scripture try to make it fit your Trinitarian theology.

WJ….. The word God can apply to anyone God has empowered to do His work, in fact the word God < Elohim means (POWERS) and only pertains to the Almighty GOD as the Father. Jesus plainly said " FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD" HE ALSO QUOTED "HEAR O ISRAEL THE (LORD) OUR GOD IS (ONE LORD), notice it says THE LORD (he exists or the self existence one) is OUR GOD (POWER) is ONE, not two or three triune anythings. WJ, we don't need to TORK and TWIST scripture we simply believe them as they are plainly written , not having to add anything to them. We don't need a complete page to explain a simple scripture.

peace………………..gene

November 17, 2008 at 4:33 am#112058

epistemaniac

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Nov. 17 2008,04:05)

peace to you and yours…………………..gene

just “understanding Scripture” huh….? oh.. you mean understanding it the way YOU do… isn't that what you really meant?

the Scripture calls Jesus God….

Jesus Is God: Specific Examples Where Greek Theos (“God”) Is Applied to Jesus
John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:18No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
John 20:28Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Rom. 9:5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Titus 2:13. . . waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ . . .
Heb. 1:8But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.”
2 Pet. 1:1To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ . . .

that's pretty simple too…. but you antitrinitarians have to explain these references away…. go figure….

anyway…. if you ask how and why trinitarians believe they do, please don't turn around and complain about getting the very thing you asked for… if you think the explanations a little difficult, that's ok… we can try to continue to break it down into simpler and simpler sentences and concepts for you.. ultimately though, usually its not so much a matter of the explanations being too long, too wordy, or too anything else, rather its a simple matter of your disagreement. And since you disagree, you will likely find something to complain about, no matter if the explanation be long or short.

Personally I do not worry about complaints like this, they are red herrings, and more than anything else, totally irrelevant. If an explanation is true, its true regardless of how long or short, or how many words or few words were used to convey the concept. All these complaints that “oh the Trinity is too complicated” mean nothing really…. the truth can be complicated. It can be simple too. But its a fact that the Scripture tells us that there are in fact some things in Scripture that are hard to understand…. 2 Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand….” Of course antitrinitarians … some being ignorant or unstable… twist these Scriptures to their own destruction…. as the rest of the verse states… but the main point here is that whether a truth be complicated or simple, this has no bearing on whether or not it is true or false….. if everything pertaining to God, and how to live for Him were that simplistic, we would not have 66 books in our Bible filled with information from all different perspectives and all different levels of difficulty…..

so it takes “intense understanding” because we are to meditate, contemplate, in other words, give intense understanding to the Scriptures all the time… the fact that the Trinity requires this is a hallmark of it's truthfulness….

blessings,
Ken

November 17, 2008 at 4:39 am#112059