- This topic has 698 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 24 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi davidl,
Do you not realise that this theory about God is grossly insulting to him?
Come out of her my people.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Jehovah Witnesses re-interpret this verse to say, “…and the Word was a god” to suit their own teaching…. (that Jesus was really Michael the archangel)…
If you don’t agree with this definitive verse, how would you re-word it to explain what you believe concerning the deity of Jesus Christ…?
The Scripture clearly says, “with God – was God”…which is wording that perfectly describes and defines the trinity – separate yet the same.!
Firstly, there are no JWs here so who are you talking to?
Secondly, the Trinity is not taught in John 1:1. What it teaches is the Logos and God. The Holy Spirit as the third member of the Trinity doesn’t get a mention. Why is that? Because God is not a Trinity. If there were three members that make up God, then why are they not in John 1:1?
Thirdly, you need to study the Word of God, not parrot off the traditions and doctrines of men. If you delve even a little into the original language it becomes clear that Jesus is not God in John 1:1. Even Trinitarian scholars admit that John 1:1 does not teach that Jesus is God himself.
Finally, John states the whole purpose of his book. While you may say it is to teach that Jesus is God, in John’s own words he says in John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “Clearly the above is what many here believe and teach while you oppose us for believing that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. Instead you teach from a third century doctrine that states that he is God.
Even Paul says, “For us there is one God the Father” and you oppose us for saying the same thing.
More importantly, Jesus said: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.“.
This is a powerful 3-fold witness from John, Paul, and Jesus Christ himself, yet you still oppose us for believing what they have written. I don’t really need to mention that when you oppose us for believing these scriptures, you oppose John, Paul, and Jesus. Clearly your argument here is not really about us or me, but the scripture itself.
This is something you need to get sorted before your depart this world DavidL. Jesus said that the truth about knowing the only true God and his son is eternal life. If you do not even know who the only true God is, then can you really claim to know the only true God? That is a valid question right. If I claimed to know the president of the USA, and then later said that he was actually a committee of three people, then would you believe that I actually know him and play golf with him?
DavidL
So before the Heavens and Earth were created God didn’t exist? Now I understand what you believe God is.
Isaiah 55:9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Oh By the way here is the answer to the question:
Isaiah 42:5 This is what God the LORD says– the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
So God was God before the heavens and earth and giving power over these things does not make you the creator of them or God
t8 –
…no JWs here so who are you talking to?
JW’s are example of how people are forced to redefine this verse in order to deny the plurality of God..
Trinity is not taught in John 1:1.
John 1:1 reveals the divinity of Jesus Christ with wording that perfectly describes the tri-unity, “with God..was God” – separate yet same.!
..parrot off the traditions and doctrines of men
Feel free to show where I am merely reiterating dogma..(!)
..you oppose us for believing that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God
Wrong – I oppose you for teaching cult doctrine, and denying the true deity of Jesus Christ.
If you do not even know who the only true God is, then can you really claim to know the only true God? That is a valid question right..?
Wrong again – “Anyone who denies the Son doesn’t have the Father, either..” – 1 John 2:23… Just like the JW’s, you are teaching a dead, uninspired religion that re-defines Scripture according to your own understanding – and not according to the Spirit of God who alone gives life to the Word.
NickHassan
“But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater”
3 equal persons??
…is the wife equal to the husband..??
P.S. Still waiting for anyone’s re-wording of John 1:1 – (that is, if you disagree with how it stands in every major Bible translation).
ie. do you think it should read, the Word was god, or a god…etc, etc..???
..and if Jesus, existing as the Word, was merely some god with God, but completely separate to God – please explain how this could make any sense with the rest of Scripture..?
You simply misunderstand John 1:1 it is not saying what you think it is and it is not in the context you are putting it in. John is starting his Gospel with “in the beginning” and the Word of God was something that was given to many men:
John 10:35
If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),Once you place everything in context you get a clearer picture. So the Word of God is exactly what it is “The Word of God” it is not Jesus directly it is the message of John that the Word of God was made flesh so look:
John 14:24
He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent MeNow remember that to whom the word is given?
John 10:34-36New King James Version (NKJV)
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?[a] 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’?
The Word of God was sanctified and sent into the world not Jesus per se, Jesus was the instrument:
Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—So the biggest mistake is when people link John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 these are totally different things:
Please understand the difference it will help the conversation develop so here is more proof:
1 John 2:24
Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father.Can you see that this is John and his usage of the term “the beginning” obviously he is not talking about the beginning that is genesis….look:
2 John 1:6
And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.It is a writing style to him life begins from the Gospel so “In the beginning” refers to the start of the Gospel
John 14:10
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.Hi DavidL, (part 1)
I don’t believe precisely as what Christian denominationalists label as “The Trinity”.
But God *IS* revealed to everyone through Past, Present, and Future realities.For example: “YHVH is God” and it’s “The Father” that is our ever present “GOD”.
It was Jesus Christ who revealed “God The Father” to us in the past and it’s the
HolySpirit that is revealing “the Father” to all future-words. (ref. Psalms 48:14)“For this God (the HolySpirit) is our God for ever and ever:
he will be our guide even unto death.” (Psalms 48:14)___________
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
”Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.” – JEHOVAH GOD(part 2)
But to suggest that the idea for “The Trinity” did not come from the bible is unwarranted.
For example: there are “FIVE” Major Prophetic Books in the bible. They are:
(and the meanings of these words are actually quite profound)1. Isaiah means: ……………. “YA is Salvation”
2. Jeremiah means: …………. “YHVH is High”
3. Ezekiel means: …….. “EL (God) will strengthen”
4. Lamentations means: …….. what, where, how.
5. Daniel means: …………. “GOD (EL) is Judge”Now if we take closer look at the first THREE, a pattern of
“The Trinity” (which is encoded in Scripture) clearly emerges.Isaiah represents Jesus because YA-shua (Jesus Hebrew name) means the same as Isaiah: “YA is Salvation” (ref. Isaiah 12:2)
And the name Jeremiah would represent JEHOVAH because JEHOVAH *IS* the most high over all the earth. (ref. Psalms 83:18)
And the name Ezekiel would represent the HolySpirit, because the HolySpirit strengthens all us believers in God. (ref. Isaiah 26:4)
And in case you think this idea is all washed up, this idea is CONFIRMED using “Gematria” (a numerical encoding system)Isaiah=47
Jeremiah=69 JEHOVAH=69 – “JEHOVAH is High” is what Jeremiah’s name means (Note: same Gematria value)
Ezekiel=73YHVH is (יהוה) God’s name transliterated directly into English and YHVH has a Gematria value of 63. Well guess what
47+69+73= 63×3 – or YHVH x3, or YHVH represented as “The Trinity”. DavidL, I hope you like these bible FACTS.___________
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
”Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.” – JEHOVAH GODDavidL,
Trinitarianism is clearly an illogical teaching. In other words it is what Jesus calls broken. A logos argument cannot support it so what remains is either an ethos or pathos. The first does not work with me as I am not prone to go for appeals to my emotion and second one depends and I just do not truth others that much.
The bottom line is that I am neither going to accuse God of being tempted by evil nor am I going to deny Jesus was tempted even as is common to man in General.
Scripture teaches is a human because he came to save humanity. He does not need to be God as God does not need saving any more than the angels of God do.
ie. do you think it should read, the Word was god, or a god…etc, etc..???
The word WAS God, not “a god”
miia,
Technically it is the word is god as there is one case in Koine Greek. It also does not have a corresponding word to “a”. They accomplish the same thing in other ways.The translators are the ones who make the decision whether it is correct to put an “a” there and to emphasize any word by capitalizing it. As far as I can tell it is purely a subjective call. The verse itself is open to interpretation because it has a cultural dependency. Jews are neither trinitarians nor do they believe the Messiah to come is an angel. John’s audience was the Jews of that age that believed the same things on those issue that the Jews today do.
I agree with you as I believe that the word that comes out of God’s mouth has all the qualities of Yahweh even though it is not Yahweh. I do not believe the Christ is being called the Word in John 1 though I do believe he is later called by the name of the word of God as he has all the qualities of the Word of God.
When did Jesus first take on the qualities of the Word of God? It clearly occurs when the Word of God takes on the qualities of flesh.
I believe that once a person actually understands how people used a certain language it can help them from constantly utilizing that language from a self determined context to fit their theological leanings
http://newtestamentresearch.com/NT%20Research-Mk%202/Son%20of%20God.htm
2. Old Testament and Jewish Sonship
On the other hand, the concept of sonship in Hebrew family life, which underlies all OT and Jewish thought on the subject, is that a son is one designated or acknowledged as such by a father, without the Hellenistic emphasis upon relationship by procreation. Thus the father-son relationship is not primarily physical but rather an interpersonal one created by a sovereign act of the father. The son is to be obedient to, submissive to an dependent upon his father. The perfect son then is the incarnation and extension of his father’s will and character, and he points to his father, not to himself. If he is the Son of God in the unique sense that the NT claims for Jesus, then he will incarnate the demands of God’s righteousness, and he will present the demand for discipleship, the demand for obedience, obedience however not to the Son as such but to God the Father, that is, to the Father’s will as made manifest by the Son. Thus the concept of Son of God on OT-Jewish lines is basically moral, interpersonal and theocentric.
Apart from the angels as sons of God, it is clear that all the OT and intertestamental Jewish use of the term, whether applied to Israel, the King, righteous men, or the Messiah, presupposes that this sonship is within the Covenant – it is not something apart from the Covenant.
Hi Kerwin.
So Jesus is the mouthpiece of God (as the Son of God), God’s word made flesh?
I believe (as I am guessing you do) that God’s Spirit reveals John 1:1 to be “In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God.”
Adding the “a” (as the JW “New World Translation” does) and turning the subject (The only true God and His spoken word) into a second smaller god seems wrong somehow. Since when is someones spoken word a separate being? Just as the Spirit.
Bod, you don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, because Islam states “God has no son”. Or have you changed your mind 🙂
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55)Miia,
It is technically wrong and the JW’s and others doe because it is favorable to their interpretation but the bottom line is even if it said a god it still does not mean that the Christ is an angel. Jews are know the call ideas archangels and know that they are talking about ideas. Philo is an example of a Jew that has done that.
Jesus did not come to create a new religion he came to establish a new covenant. He stated very few teachings, if any, that are not taught among the Jews of today.
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55)Hi Miia
Just because God’s word accomplishes what he wants it to,
it does NOT make his word his son; did you somehow think it does?___________
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
”Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.” – JEHOVAH GODCould you keep your 5-fold doctrine out of this topic and leave it in one of the dedicated topics instead. I think it will only confuse things here and force people off topic. Thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
