Who is this Jesus?

[Sultan]

Quote (Bastian @ Jan. 24 2006,15:26)

Jesus had his Father’s nature. That did not make him a divine being. Jesus Christ had a perfect human nature the way God intended. Jesus truly did reflect a man made in the image of God. We humans need to make Jesus something he is not. It is difficult for us to believe that a human being could be perfect because of our own shortcomings, and imperfections. We have the nature of the first Adam whom did not remain sinless. If Jesus was born a divinity, or divine, I am not sure how you are using the term. He would not have had to receive the anointing of the Holy Spirit. John 14:10 Do you 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 initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works. Then he goes on to say if you do not believe that about me, then in the least believe because of the works themselves. Truly, I say to you he who believes in me the works I do he will do also, and greater works then these he will do. Jesus had the ability to sin. God, not he himself, performed his miracles. That makes him one hundred percent human. Man as the image bearer of God finds complete fulfillment it the glorification of Christ. All who believe in him will one day be made like him. Isaiah 53:10 He will see his offspring and prolong his days. Their will be enmity between your seed, and her seed. He will bear much fruit after his kind. The last Adam became a live giving spirit after his resurrection and glorification. The book of Hebrews speaks of the Christ in the present tense. Now he is the exact image of God. Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Adam made from the dust of the ground was the first born of the old creation. Jesus the Christ the second Adam at his resurrection became the first born of the new creation. Was Jesus a man? Yes, a unique man, there was only one other like him, and he failed were our Lord succeeded. Is he still a mere man? Hardly, He is highly exalted. On the earth, and in the Heavens, only the Almighty Himself does not bow the knee to our Lord, and Savior Jesus the Christ.

You say Jesus had His Fathers nature. What kind of nature was that? Maybe my use of the Word divine is causing confusion. I apologize. Let's use the Word deity since Col. 2:9 says that in Him dwelt all the fulness of deity in bodily form. I don't believe I said that Jesus was born divine, I only quote the scriptures that testify that in Jesus dwells deity. I agree that He received the anointing of the Spirit, and where did that Spirit dwell? Where does the Spirit of God dwell today? I noticed in your quote of John 14:10 you skipped the part that says,” Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.” The Father who dwells in Him. What does that mean Bastian?

[david]

1 CORINTHIANS 8:5-6
“For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in HEAVEN or on earth, just as there are MANY “gods” and many “lords,” THERE IS ACTUALLY TO US ONE GOD the FATHER, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”

What does this mean to you?

[WhatIsTrue]

Sultan,

You wrote:

Quote

The scriptures testity that in the beginning there was God, His Word, and His spirit (Gen1:1 and John 1:1). I believe that.

To me, that sounds very much like an affirmation of the Trinity.  Is that what you meant to imply here?

Then you wrote:

Quote

Now when you begin to talk about Yashua that's a different story. The text does not say that Yashua was in the beginning with God it says the Word. Yes the Word became Yashua, but in the beginning there was no SOn of God standing on the right hand of the father.

This sounds like the Trinitarian concept of incarnation: that one “part” of a triune god became a human being for a limited time, and thereby took on the title “Son”.  Is that what you are getting at?

Thanks for answering my questions.

[Sultan]

Quote (david @ Jan. 24 2006,16:57)

1 CORINTHIANS 8:5-6 “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in HEAVEN or on earth, just as there are MANY “gods” and many “lords,” THERE IS ACTUALLY TO US ONE GOD the FATHER, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” What does this mean tou you?

It means what it says David, and I am in total agreement. I think I've mentioned several times already that the use of the term God is not a problem for me, but I do feel that the term “a god” in John 1:1 of the NWT is not correct. I explained that in an earlier post on how it creates an issue of context. Don't get me wrong many in Christiandom will take John 1:1 and place a different context on it also and say that the Word was the Father. Yet the scripture clearly affirms that the Word was God, Speaking of the nature of the Word. a god describes the Word as being a person, and I don't see that in the context, and neither do the majority of translations that interpret this text outside of a trinitarian context. I will post them all if you feel it's necessary.
I am still waiting for your reply on the issue of deity and the trexts that I presented to you.

[Sultan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 24 2006,17:33)

Sultan, You wrote: Quote The scriptures testity that in the beginning there was God, His Word, and His spirit (Gen1:1 and John 1:1). I believe that. To me, that sounds very much like an affirmation of the Trinity. Is that what you meant to imply here? Then you wrote: Quote Now when you begin to talk about Yashua that's a different story. The text does not say that Yashua was in the beginning with God it says the Word. Yes the Word became Yashua, but in the beginning there was no SOn of God standing on the right hand of the father. Thanks for answering my questions.

No and no. The first part has nothing to do with Trinity. Go back to Genesis. Who is at work in creation? God the Father, He's speaking His Word (Let there be light etc.), and The Spirit was hovering above the waters. That's all I was stating. Simply what the scriptures state, but not implying a trinity of co-equal and co-eternal, etc.

Quote

This sounds like the Trinitarian concept of incarnation: that one “part” of a triune god became a human being for a limited time, and thereby took on the title “Son”. Is that what you are getting at?

No. Many trinitarians will take John 1:1 and place Jesus' name there, but that is not what it says. It says the Word. Then in John 1:14 it says the Word became flesh, at that point in time we know Him as Yashua.
I understand that Yashua had glory with the Father before the World began, and the scriptures testify that He was slain before the foundation of the world, but when dealing with context I like to stick to context. without context we could easily affirm a trinitarian doctrine, but context helps us to realize that if there is only one true God, he can't be three.I hope this answers your questions.

Thanks to all of you for your participation. If we could get all who profess to love God to actually study the Bible, and be willing to dialogue, we could turn the world upside down. Most simply have opinions and will kill to defend them.

[kenrch]

Quote (Bastian @ Jan. 24 2006,20:26)

Jesus had his Father’s nature. That did not make him a divine being. Jesus Christ had a perfect human nature the way God intended. Jesus truly did reflect a man made in the image of God. We humans need to make Jesus something he is not. It is difficult for us to believe that a human being could be perfect because of our own shortcomings, and imperfections. We have the nature of the first Adam whom did not remain sinless. If Jesus was born a divinity, or divine, I am not sure how you are using the term. He would not have had to receive the anointing of the Holy Spirit. John 14:10 Do you 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 initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works. Then he goes on to say if you do not believe that about me, then in the least believe because of the works themselves. Truly, I say to you he who believes in me the works I do he will do also, and greater works then these he will do. Jesus had the ability to sin. God, not he himself, performed his miracles. That makes him one hundred percent human. Man as the image bearer of God finds complete fulfillment it the glorification of Christ. All who believe in him will one day be made like him. Isaiah 53:10 He will see his offspring and prolong his days. Their will be enmity between your seed, and her seed. He will bear much fruit after his kind. The last Adam became a live giving spirit after his resurrection and glorification. The book of Hebrews speaks of the Christ in the present tense. Now he is the exact image of God. Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Adam made from the dust of the ground was the first born of the old creation. Jesus the Christ the second Adam at his resurrection became the first born of the new creation. Was Jesus a man? Yes, a unique man, there was only one other like him, and he failed were our Lord succeeded. Is he still a mere man? Hardly, He is highly exalted. On the earth, and in the Heavens, only the Almighty Himself does not bow the knee to our Lord, and Savior Jesus the Christ.

Hello,

Jesus was born without sin and therefore the fullness of the Father dwelt in Him. Nevertheless Jesus was human and tempted more than us.

Jesus, human without sin.
The fullness of the Father dwelt in Him.
Jesus was Jesus full of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore Jesus as He said did not perform any miricles it was the Father that dwelt in Him.

But what about this scripture:
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
“I had with thee before the world”
How about this one.
Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:

“For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained”

“to the image of his Son”

That was the Word which was in the beginning with God.
This is the mystery what was the Word. The Word was God!
That's what John 1:1 says; isn't it?

In the very beginning some one had to speak the Word. Yes the Word is the beginning of creation. Rev 3:14 ….the beginning of the creation of God:
Isn't that the way God creats by speaking things into existance? Everything was created through the Word. The Word became flesh. The way God creats became flesh (human). When the Word became flesh (human) through Mary (human) the Word took on a nature of His own and had free will to sin. As a child the Word was able to teach the teachers! When baptized Jesus received the Spirit of His Natural Father! And of course became the second Adam and God of the New Kingdom the first born of a New Creation. THE FIRST BORN SON OF GOD.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass:

and he sent and signified it by his [Jesus'] angel unto his servant John;
Who was this angel by which Jesus sent GOD's message to John? I don't know. Was it Michael?

Ok tear it up guys

I still say Father and Son in the same Spirit.

[david]

Sultan, did you know that the symbol of the cross, the one on your Bible and on your podium on your avatar is a pagan symbol, and a false one?

Because I'm kindof under a time crunch here, I'll answer your question as you answered mine:

It means what it means.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Sultan @ Jan. 25 2006,00:02)

Yet the scripture clearly affirms that the Word was God, Speaking of the nature of the Word. a god describes the Word as being a person, and I don't see that in the context, and neither do the majority of translations that interpret this text outside of a trinitarian context.

Hi Sultan,
Here are the two prominent NT passages dealing with Christ's existence pre-incarnation:

JOHN 1 (NASB)
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

Personal pronouns are used in reference to the preincarnate Christ. Personal pronouns designate that it is a person that John is describing. Also consider Phil 2:5-7.

PHILIPPIANS 2
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

In this passage, not only is a personal pronoun used of Christ pre His incarnation but He is described as having existed in the form (Morphe) of God. Can a non-person do this?

Linguistically, the Word described in John 1 and Phil 2 could only have been a person. What are your thoughts?

Be well.

[Sultan]

Quote (david @ Jan. 24 2006,23:03)

Sultan, did you know that the symbol of the cross, the one on your Bible and on your podium on your avatar is a pagan symbol, and a false one? Because I'm kindof under a time crunch here, I'll answer your question as you answered mine: It means what it means.

Yes David I know, but It was my test avatar and pretty cool to have it animated, but I am going to change it. I knew you would mention it, and you're 100% correct.

[Sultan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 25 2006,01:41)

Quote (Sultan @ Jan. 25 2006,00:02) Yet the scripture clearly affirms that the Word was God, Speaking of the nature of the Word. a god describes the Word as being a person, and I don't see that in the context, and neither do the majority of translations that interpret this text outside of a trinitarian context. Hi Sultan, Here are the two prominent NT passages dealing with Christ's existence pre-incarnation: JOHN 1 (NASB) 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. Personal pronouns are used in reference to the preincarnate Christ. Personal pronouns designate that it is a person that John is describing. Also consider Phil 2:5-7. PHILIPPIANS 2 5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. In this passage, not only is a personal pronoun used of Christ pre His incarnation but He is described as having existed in the form (Morphe) of God. Can a non-person do this? Linguistically, the Word described in John 1 and Phil 2 could only have been a person. What are your thoughts? Be well.

The topic I was discussing was the New World Translations interpretation of John 1:1. Saying a god. Please re-read my post to be sure that you understand what is being said. I was not addressing the point of a person, but discussing the context of the term “the Word was a god” vs “the Word was God.

[Sultan]

Quote (Sultan @ Jan. 25 2006,07:16)

Quote (david @ Jan. 24 2006,23:03) Sultan, did you know that the symbol of the cross, the one on your Bible and on your podium on your avatar is a pagan symbol, and a false one? Because I'm kindof under a time crunch here, I'll answer your question as you answered mine: It means what it means. Yes David I know, but It was my test avatar and pretty cool to have it animated, but I am going to change it. I knew you would mention it, and you're 100% correct.

David,
I think you're a little jealous because my avatar moves.

[Is 1:18]

Hi Sultan,
I came to the conclusion that you didn't believe the Word to be a literal person, but rather the Father's spoken word. But I admit I have been skimming through most of the posts lately, not having the time to read them thoroughly. Perhaps you can clarify your position for me. Do you believe the Word was a literal person? Yes or no.

[Is 1:18]

Edited for clarity.

Hi Sultan,
My conclusion that you didn't believe the Word to be a literal person, but rather the Father's spoken word was based on a number of comments you have made. But I admit I have been skimming through most of the posts lately, not having the time to read them thoroughly. Perhaps you can clarify your position for me. Do you believe the Word was a literal person? Yes or no

[WhatIsTrue]

Sultan,

In addition to Is 1:18's question, I would like some further clarification as well.  Despite your efforts at explanation, your beliefs still seem rather ambiguous.  Let me see if I can summarize your beliefs, and also interject any questions that may arise as a result.  Here goes:

1.  You believe that, in the beginning, there was “God the Father, “His Word”, and “The Spirit”.  None of these are distinct, separate beings.  These are all “god”.  So, are these three that you mentioned independent “parts” of the Almighty in your view, or are they all strictly analogous to a man, a man's word, and a man's “spirit”?  In other words, why list them separately unless you believe they are separable in some way?

2.  You believe that the “Word” became Yahshua.  You don't believe that Yahshua existed before this time, and you don't believe that the “Word” was a distinct being from the Almighty.  Therefore, you believe that a “part” of the Almighty became human.  Is that correct?

Thanks.

[Bastian]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 25 2006,06:41)

Quote (Sultan @ Jan. 25 2006,00:02) Yet the scripture clearly affirms that the Word was God, Speaking of the nature of the Word. a god describes the Word as being a person, and I don't see that in the context, and neither do the majority of translations that interpret this text outside of a trinitarian context. Hi Sultan, Here are the two prominent NT passages dealing with Christ's existence pre-incarnation: JOHN 1 (NASB) 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. Personal pronouns are used in reference to the preincarnate Christ. Personal pronouns designate that it is a person that John is describing. Also consider Phil 2:5-7. PHILIPPIANS 2 5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. In this passage, not only is a personal pronoun used of Christ pre His incarnation but He is described as having existed in the form (Morphe) of God. Can a non-person do this? Linguistically, the Word described in John 1 and Phil 2 could only have been a person. What are your thoughts? Be well.

The word logos was translated “he” when in fact the Greek word logos, though masculine in gender, is neither male nor female. William Tyndale, who provided the English translation that formed the basis for the King James Bible translated logos as “it”, not “he” The word was with God in the same sense that wisdom was what God. It is a personification. The translators choose a feminine pronoun for wisdom. Hebrew and Greek assign gender to nouns. For example
In the Hebrew language the word menorah, is feminine. The alter is masculine. In Greek, teaching is feminine, and a leather strap is masculine.

When translated into English we would not say, “Where is my leather belt”? He is in the hall closet.
The gender of a pronoun is determined by the gender of the noun. The word Spirit in Hebrew is feminine and must have feminine pronouns. Thus, if I were to build a theology based on the gender of nouns and pronouns, I would find myself in an awkward situation when the Spirit of God changes genders from the Old Testament, to the New Testament.

[WhatIsTrue]

Is 1:18,

A couple of random questions for you based on a post by Adam Pastor and my own reflections:

1.  In your opinion, when singular pronouns are used of the Almighty, in most cases, do they refer to a triune god as a whole, or do they refer to a single person within that triune god?  Can you give me an example of the former, if that is your belief?

2.  In your opinion, does the usage of the Greek “theos”, (or English “god”), in the NT ordinarily refer to a triune god or to a single person?  Can you give me an example of the former, if that is your belief?

And to be completely random:

3.  When you “get to heaven”, do you anticipate bowing down before one supreme being, or do you expect to bow down before three distinct persons?  (Or, do you expect to worship before two, as in Rev 21:22?)

Thanks.

By the way, I found this argument of yours, (shown below) very interesting.  It reminds me of something from a long ago debate.  

Quote

Well……….? Where is the verse that unambigiously states that God is one person. I don't see it. Some of them appear to infer this, but I was after an explicit statement that God is one person…..shouldn't be too hard to find one…..right?

[Sammo]

“In the beginning was the word”… – read Genesis 1

More here.

[Sultan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 25 2006,12:42)

Hi Sultan, I came to the conclusion that you didn't believe the Word to be a literal person, but rather the Father's spoken word. But I admit I have been skimming through most of the posts lately, not having the time to read them thoroughly. Perhaps you can clarify your position for me. Do you believe the Word was a literal person? Yes or no.

Why does everything in the Bible have to be a person? Define person for me in the context of your question. Yes I believe the Logos is the spoken Word of God. That's exactly what the word LOGOS means. Strongs # 3056 From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): – account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

[Sultan]

Quote (Bastian @ Jan. 25 2006,13:58)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 25 2006,06:41) Quote (Sultan @ Jan. 25 2006,00:02) Yet the scripture clearly affirms that the Word was God, Speaking of the nature of the Word. a god describes the Word as being a person, and I don't see that in the context, and neither do the majority of translations that interpret this text outside of a trinitarian context. Hi Sultan, Here are the two prominent NT passages dealing with Christ's existence pre-incarnation: JOHN 1 (NASB) 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. Personal pronouns are used in reference to the preincarnate Christ. Personal pronouns designate that it is a person that John is describing. Also consider Phil 2:5-7. PHILIPPIANS 2 5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. In this passage, not only is a personal pronoun used of Christ pre His incarnation but He is described as having existed in the form (Morphe) of God. Can a non-person do this? Linguistically, the Word described in John 1 and Phil 2 could only have been a person. What are your thoughts? Be well. The word logos was translated “he” when in fact the Greek word logos, though masculine in gender, is neither male nor female. William Tyndale, who provided the English translation that formed the basis for the King James Bible translated logos as “it”, not “he” The word was with God in the same sense that wisdom was what God. It is a personification. The translators choose a feminine pronoun for wisdom. Hebrew and Greek assign gender to nouns. For example In the Hebrew language the word menorah, is feminine. The alter is masculine. In Greek, teaching is feminine, and a leather strap is masculine. When translated into English we would not say, “Where is my leather belt”? He is in the hall closet. The gender of a pronoun is determined by the gender of the noun. The word Spirit in Hebrew is feminine and must have feminine pronouns. Thus, if I were to build a theology based on the gender of nouns and pronouns, I would find myself in an awkward situation when the Spirit of God changes genders from the Old Testament, to the New Testament.

Bastian,
I appreciated this insight that you shared. It is refreshing to see someone going back to the original intent of the writers and not the meaning of the theologians. We have been passed down alot of stuff from the church fathers that has none of the original intentions of those that created them. For instance Calvin never had five points(Tulip). Yet this is taught as foundational. What a joke.

[Sultan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 25 2006,13:36)

Sultan, In addition to Is 1:18's question, I would like some further clarification as well. Despite your efforts at explanation, your beliefs still seem rather ambiguous. Let me see if I can summarize your beliefs, and also interject any questions that may arise as a result. Here goes: 1. You believe that, in the beginning, there was “God the Father, “His Word”, and “The Spirit”. None of these are distinct, separate beings. These are all “god”. So, are these three that you mentioned independent “parts” of the Almighty in your view, or are they all strictly analogous to a man, a man's word, and a man's “spirit”? In other words, why list them separately unless you believe they are separable in some way? 2. You believe that the “Word” became Yahshua. You don't believe that Yahshua existed before this time, and you don't believe that the “Word” was a distinct being from the Almighty. Therefore, you believe that a “part” of the Almighty became human. Is that correct? Thanks.

Quote

1. You believe that, in the beginning, there was “God the Father, “His Word”, and “The Spirit”. None of these are distinct, separate beings. These are all “god”. So, are these three that you mentioned independent “parts” of the Almighty in your view, or are they all strictly analogous to a man, a man's word, and a man's “spirit”? In other words, why list them separately unless you believe they are separable in some way?

I would like to first clarify that it is not what I believe it is what the Bible says.The Bible says,”1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
Do you see it. In the beginnig God, and then the spirit of God hovering, and then God said. What did He say? God spoke His Word. That is why John says,“In the begining was the Word..,and all things were made through Him” (paraphrased).

I am unable at this time to answer your other questions. You said

Quote

So, are these three that you mentioned independent “parts” of the Almighty in your view?

I am not trying to clarify my view, but rather deal with the scriptures for what they say.

Quote

In other words, why list them separately unless you believe they are separable in some way?

Again I list them not based on what I personally believe, but based on how the Bible defines them. If you find error please point it out so I can further clarify.

Quote

2. You believe that the “Word” became Yahshua.

The Bible says,“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14). Who is the only begotten of the Father? Yashua.

Quote

You don't believe that Yahshua existed before this time

Yashua says,“And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.. Sounds like He existed before that time to me.

Quote

you don't believe that the “Word” was a distinct being from the Almighty. Therefore, you believe that a “part” of the Almighty became human. Is that correct?

What do you mean by distinct being? Please see the definition of LOGOS from the Strongs that I posted, and explain to me how you define it.
The Word of Yahweh comes from Yahweh. So it is a part of Him. Do you disagree? If you do please explain to me where Yahwehs words come from.

[Author]

Posts