John 1:1c -:- Is Jesus God or a god?

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

I know you have consistently said that "the Father and the Son are distinct individuals and that the Son is true God from true God." Now tell me apostoli, WHO is your ONLY one true God?

As the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit, he receives the accolade first. As the Son is an exact replica of the Father (Heb 1:3) and only does as the Father does, then he is, from a human perspective, whatever the Father is (John 1:1c). As the Spirit proceeds from the Father and by the Son samewise.

I repeat my question apostoli: WHO is your ONLY one true God? Is the Father your ONLY one true God? Is the Son your ONLY one true God? Is the Holy Spirit your ONLY one true God? ARE the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit your ONLY one true God? You are ashamed to say it apostoli, aren't you?

Of course, "was" is NEVER "past-future" NOR "past-present continuous." The word "was" is past tense. The phrase "the word WAS God" refers to the past. What the word WAS in the past does NOT continue into the present NOR into the future.

If John 1:1 is talking in the past and that didn't continue into the present, then A.John and John the baptist, in your opinion, must have been deluding themselves. John 1:4 tells us "In [the Logos] was life; and the life was the light of men". From John 1:7-10 we learn "[John the baptist] came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He [the Logos] was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (cp. John 1:19-34)

You are NOT telling the truth! John 1:4 says, "In HIM (referring to Jesus - NOT to the logos or word) was life, and the life was the light of men." The light that John the Baptist was SENT to witness of is Jesus - NOT the logos or the word that was MADE flesh or BECAME flesh.

"was" is not exclusively past tense. Technically it is past indicative, and thus can be past-present continuous.

For instance: "Obama was the first American President of Afro-American heretige.' Last I heard he still is, and will remain so into eternity! (ie: the first Afro-American President).

You are still striving to insert a square peg into a round hole! Your example to prove your point that there can be "past-present continuous" is preposterous! Why would anyone with a RATIONAL mind say, "Obama WAS the first American President of Afro-American heritage?" Can Obama's position as FIRST American President of Afro-American heritage CHANGE? Never! Obama will always be the FIRST. Today, we STILL say that George Washington IS the FIRST President of the United States.

Perhaps, what the NEB translators meant to write was "what God IS the word WAS" which would convey exactly what the phrase "the word WAS God" means.

Nope! "is" is passive tense. Plus the word "ēn" A.John used is imperfect indicative, and doesn't lend itself to be translated "is". A.John was telling us more.

Have it your way.

You are like saying, "and the egg yolk BECAME a chick and walked among the brood!"

Last I heard egg yolks of birds develop into chicks, though egg yokes of platypuses turn into pups ;-)

And we DON'T say "the egg yolks fly or swim," don't we?

And you would want me to believe that it is the "egg yolk" that walked among the brood, don't you?

Nope!

But you are saying the "logos" or "word" dwelt among us, don't you? The "logos" or "word" BECAME a man, isn't it?

How can you expect me to believe such absurdity?

You the one that makes up the absurdities to resist what the scriptures clearly say. And they don't talk about eggs, sperm or anything only a fleshly mind can relate to.

Isn't the "logos" dwelling among us an absurdity?

Thus the Logos remained what he was, but added flesh to himself. A.Paul says more or less the same thing...

Now your manipulation of what apostle John wrote only makes apostle John look stupid! Why would apostle John think that "the logos ADDED flesh to himself" when he wrote CLEARLY that the "logos BECAME a human being or was MADE flesh?"

I have no need to manipulate anything! A.John says "καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν". "σὰρξ ἐγένετο"="flesh became" and 'ἐσκήνωσεν"="to live in a tabernacle/tent".

You did say, "the logos ADDED flesh to himself," didn't you??

Apostle John did NOT mean that Jesus is "God" or a "god."

Thats true: he didn't write "o theos ēn o logos" nor "o logos ēn theos"

Then why do you substitute Jesus for "logos" or "word?"

That's why he wrote "the word WAS God."

A.John wrote "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος"= literally "God was the Logos.

John did NOT write "God was the Logos," did he? What I read is, "the word WAS God" not "God was the logos."

It was the "word" of God that apostle John was talking about in John 1:1.

Actually A.John wrote about the Logos. We get "the word" from Jerome. When he was preparing the Latin Vulgate around 382CE, latin didn't have an exact equivalent to the Greek.

Whatever, John was NOT talking about Jesus but the "logos" or "word," right?

And apostle John did NOT intend to convey the WRONG idea that "Son of God" EQUALS "true God from true God." Apostle John knew that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3) and the Son of God is a MAN (John 8:40).

You have offered no biblical or scholarly proof of A.John's intention.

I am NOT talking of John's intention. I am talking of John's KNOWLEDGE that Jsus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

The "word" that was in the beginning with God was NOT Jesus.

And yet A.John says, John the baptist "bore witness of him" (vs15) = the Logos made flesh (vs14). vs17 names "him" Jesus Christ.

John the Baptist "bore witness of him" (vs 15) = the flesh that the logos BECAME. When the "logos" was "MADE flesh" or "BECAME flesh," it ceased to exist. In its place, the flesh or man, Jesus existed. Jesus was NEVER referred to as "logos made flesh." Only Trinitarians do that.

Rather, Jesus was referred to a Christ, Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus or Son of God.

Jesus, who is the subject of John 1:4, is the human being into whom the "word" BECAME. As we can read in other chapters of the book of John, Jesus - NOT the "word" is the light.

Indeed. And this is because concerning the Logos A.John tells us "in him was life, and the life was the light of men" and "was made flesh" becoming Jesus.

Not concerning the logos. Rather, concerning Jesus, John said, "In him was life..."

[QUOTE=apostoli;2631560]

It does not make a difference whether the Bible says, “there is NO God beside God” or “there is NO other God besides YHWH. We know that YHWH is God. Therefore, there is NO other God besides YHWH or God.
And yet scripture calls YHWH, God of gods.

The word "gods" refers to IDOLS (Psalm 96:5).

You are MISREPRESENTING when you say that John “said the Son HAD all the characteristics that make God what he is” because John did NOT say, NEITHER did he IMPLY such thing.

He sure did (John 1:1c) and throughout the Gospel he goes on to prove it.

You are NOT telling the truth! John did NOT say NOR imply in John 1:1c that "the Son HAD all the characteristics that make God what he is."

In his letter to Timothy, apostle Paul wrote that Jesus is a MAN (1 Tim. 2:5). This was a COMMANDMENT of Jesus for apostle Paul to write.

And your point is?

The point is, Jesus is NOT God because "God is NOT a MAN (Num. 23:19).

The Bible teaches that "Holy men SPOKE as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

Therefore, I CANNOT make myself to accept the HERETICAL idea that apostle John meant to convey that the Son of God (Jesus) is “God" that BECAME a MAN whom his mother called Jesus. This was NOT what Jesus TAUGHT and the Holy Spirit would NOT move apostle John to CONTRADICT his Lord and Savior.

That is probably why A.John and A.Paul using different words say the same thing John 1:1, Heb 1:2, Phil 2:6 = the Son is identical in characteristics to the Father.

That’s just your own INTERPRETATION of these verses. The Son is NOT identical in characteristics to the Father. The Son, Jesus is flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), the Father is spirit (John 4:24). The Father is GREATER than the Son (John 14:28). The Father is “unbegotten” (your word). The Son is “begotten.” The Son tires and grows weary. The Father doesn’t tire.

When Jesus says ""He who has seen me has seen the Father" he was not talking about his fleshly being but his spiritual being.

What is Jesus' "spiritual being" that his disciples saw? How does Jesus' "spiritual being" make Jesus "God that BECAME a man?"

Apostle John could NOT have meant to tell us that as his Father is the only true God, so is the Son of God ALSO the only true God. This is CONTRARY to what Jesus said about himself and God. As I said earlier, apostle Paul spoke as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, apostle John could NOT have been moved to CONTRADICT his Lord and Savior.

I agree! However, there is nothing that precludes him quoting Jesus words that if you see the Son you see the Father. My understanding of John 1:1c explains how this is possible.

How does your understanding of John 1:1c make it possible to "see Jesus' spiritual being?" Can anyone "see" a "spiritual being?"

Whatever you mean by “the Father is the only true God, he of himself” does NOT change the meaning of the word ”ONLY”. And the sayings of Jesus recorded in John 14:9 and 12:45 do NOT change the meaning of the word ”ONLY” either. The TRUTH is, the Son CANNOT be “true God” because the Father is the ONLY true God.

Sure is. That is why the creed says Jesus is "true God, of true God".

Earlier, you said the Nicean Creed says, "true God FROM true God." Now, it's "true God OF true God." Which is it apostoli? Why the change?

As I said, John 12:45 does NOT change the meaning of the word ”ONLY”. The TRUTH remains that the Father is the ONLY true God. You better look for another interpretation of John 12:45.

I don't need an interpretation. I take Jesus at his word. As for your "only" excuse John 17:3 does not say "only God", but "only true God". As the Father is the source and cause of everything Jesus did, says and promises, the Father is accoladed as the only true God. The Father and the Son are true God by attribution but the accolade of John 17:3 is exclusive to the Father.

As the saying goes, "Tell that to the marines!"

A.John and A.Paul inspired by the Spirit witness that the Logos/Son/Jesus is the creator of all things (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

It is NOT true that apostles John and Paul were inspired to write that “the Logos/Son/Jesus is the creator of all things.

Sure is true.

John 1:3 "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made." Him refers to the "same one" who was with God in the beginning (ie: the Logos).

That's absurd! How can "him" refer to the "logos that (not WHO) was with God in the beginning" BEFORE the "logos BECAME a human being?"

Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 8:6 of the Today’s English Version that God the Father is the CREATOR of all things.

As usual you omit scripture. The TEV at 1 Cor 8:6 says...

"there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live. "

However A.Paul wrote "ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ" where

"ἐξ οὗ" means "out of/from whom"
"δι’ οὗ" means "through/by whom"

Thus actual translations (rather than interpretative bibles such as the TEV) render...

"yet for us there is one God, [b]the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live"

I prefer the rendition of the Today's English Version of 1 Cor. 8:6 because it conforms with what is wriotten in the Old Testament that it was God ALONE who vreated the heavens and the earth.

And apostle John did NOT say in John 1:1 that the “word” or “logos” of God was Jesus.

The context of 1:14-17 requires it. Otherwise, you would have two seperate indivuals = the Logos made flesh whom John the baptist bore witness (vs15; 6-11) and Jesus Christ (vs17) whose origins are otherwise not revealed, whom A.John also bore witness.

I understand A.John as speaking of one (a single) individual. The Logos made flesh who became named Jesus Christ.

Again, your understanding is FALSE! The "logos WAS made flesh" or "the logos BECME a human being" is what is written in the Bible. There is NO such individual called "logos made flesh." Jesus Christ is the human being INTO whom the "logos" BECAME. Jesus Christ is the man or human being INTO whom the "logos" was MADE.

The scriptures attribute to Jesus everything the OT attributes to YHWH. Conclusion, in some way Jesus is God, but not God of himself, as he affirms his Father is the only true God.

Your CONCLUSION that Jesus is God, but not God of himself is FALSE. Jesus AFFIRMS that the Father is the ONLY true God. Who are you to say otherwise?

Firstly I didn't say Jesus was God absolute, but "in some way Jesus is God, but not God of himself, as he affirms his Father is the only true God".

"God of himself" refers to the first principle (source and cause), which for Christians, the Father is always considered the primary source and cause of everything, including our redemption.

I suggest you keep your OPINION to yourself. If Jesus says the Father is the ONLY true God, any OPINION you have to justify your belief that Jesus is God, whether absolute or not, is simply HERETICAL.

Jesus AFFIRMS that the Father is the ONLY true God. Neither John, Paul nor you have any authority to CONTRADICT Jesus.

And I/we don't contradict Jesus but you "inadvertantly" do.

Unfortunately you don't comprehend what John fully says = to gain eternal life we must develop a relationship with both the Father and the Son. That to understand that the Father keeps his promises (eg: eternal life) and Jesus is the one he sent to establish eternal life is our assurance.

That's your TWISTED interpretation of John 17:3.

As for A.Peter and Jesus' conversation the disciples saw Jesus but didn't understand him. See John 14:9, the disciples ask Jesus to show them the Father and Jesus replies if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father. How is that possible?

As A.Paul says at Roman 8:9 "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit". As you are fixated on fleshly things I presume you have no idea what he is talking about.

I am NOT fooled by your diversionary tactics. It’s plain as day that the Son of God is Jesus himself - NOT a spirit ENCASED in the flesh of Jesus.

I never said anything about "a spirit ENCASED in the flesh". As I said: "As you are fixated on fleshly things I presume you have no idea what [the scriptures are] talking about."

Earlier you said the Son of God is within the flesh of Jesus or the logos ADDED flesh to himself, didn't you? I see that you are again reneging on your previous statement, aren't you?

[apostoli]

Hellow barnasha,

Post #157
You say "the son of God" as if there can only be one. in the bible Jesus preached from, we find there are many.

Actually there are very few. There is the nation of Israel, David as the first amoungst equals, and angels. But only one individual who is said to be sent by God from heaven and is to be believed in as Son of God in a unique sense.

"to all who believed him and accepted him [Jesus], he gave the right to become sons of God" [John 1:12].

It should be noted the NKJV and most modern versions render "sons of God" as "children of God', the Greek word "teknon" primarily means "offspring/chirldren". Usually it refers to male offspring, though in the KJV it is rendered "daughters" at 1 Peter 3:6.

That aside you should note that "sons of God" (and "daughters of God') is a collective term. There is no occurance in the scriptures that uses the phrase "Son of God" in regard to individuals in the collective. The phrase, "Son of God", in scripture is exclusively applied to Jesus Christ.

John 1:12 seems to align with Hosea 1:10 (imu, the only time the phrase "sons of God" is applied to man in the OT). Hosea 1:10 applies the phrase to "the children of Israel". Thus again the phrase "sons of God" refers to the collective and cannot in jewish tradition be individuated.

In Jewish thought to claim that God was your Father, and you were the Son of God was blasphemy, a claim to be equal to God (John 4:17-18; 10:29-33).

In the NT (NKJV) the phrase "sons of God" is rendered only twice = Romans 8:14,19 (nb: KJV renders it 6 times, in the NKJV the phrase is rendered "children of God" at John 1:12; Phil 2:15; 1 John 3:1,2).

I think Galatians 4:6 illustrates the distinction between the believers sonship and that of Jesus "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

It should be noted that according to A.Paul the believers sonship is via adoption through Jesus Christ (the collective as the bride of Christ).

Peace

[BurntOffering]

Of course there are many sons, but Jesus Christ is GOD's only begotten one...duh But I'm quite sure that GOD also had one begotten Daughter. Now She like Eve was formed from the Eath along with the water and blood that fell from Jesus's side as slept on the cross

So instead of GOD using the body of a normal virgin woman and holy hostess; GOD just used the Mother of Harlots

Peace out

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

I repeat my question apostoli: WHO is your ONLY one true God? Is the Father your ONLY one true God? Is the Son your ONLY one true God? Is the Holy Spirit your ONLY one true God? ARE the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit your ONLY one true God? You are ashamed to say it apostoli, aren't you?

Given I've repeated it over and over again throughout the posts I can hardly be ashamed to say The Father of the Son is the only true God. The one Jesus prayed to at John 17:3, referred to at John 20:17 and A.Paul says of at Ephesians 3:14,15 "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named..."

As I've told you over and over again: the Father of the Son is the only true God, is core to Trinitarian belief! One of the big reasons we pray the Lord's prayer "Our Father who..."

For those out there with an interest in the teaching of Christianity I recommend Novatian's treatise "On the Trinity" written in the third century, especially his concluding paragraphs...

"The true and eternal Father is manifested as the one God, from whom alone this power of divinity is sent forth, and also given and directed upon the Son, and is again returned by the communion of substance to the Father. God indeed is shown as the Son, to whom the divinity is beheld to be given and extended. And still, nevertheless, the Father is proved to be one God; while by degrees in reciprocal transfer that majesty and divinity are again returned and reflected as sent by the Son Himself to the Father, who had given them; so that reasonably God the Father is God of all, and the source also of His Son Himself whom He begot as Lord. Moreover, the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put before all Him whom He begot. Thus the Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, having the power of every creature subjected to Him by His own Father, inasmuch as He is God; with every creature subdued to Him, found at one with His Father God, has, by abiding in that condition that He moreover was heard, briefly proved God His Father to be one and only and true God."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm

If John 1:1 is talking in the past and that didn't continue into the present, then A.John and John the baptist, in your opinion, must have been deluding themselves. John 1:4 tells us "In [the Logos] was life; and the life was the light of men". From John 1:7-10 we learn "[John the baptist] came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He [the Logos] was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (cp. John 1:19-34)

You are NOT telling the truth!

I cited scripture in its inspired order. Is it your opinion that the scriptures and the their inspired order are not the truth?

John 1:4 says, "In HIM (referring to Jesus - NOT to the logos or word)

A.John's referee is the Logos from verses 1-16. From versus 14-17, verse 4 refers to the Logos who became flesh (vs14) and is then identified as Jesus (vs17).

was life, and the life was the light of men." The light that John the Baptist was SENT to witness of is Jesus - NOT the logos or the word that was MADE flesh or BECAME flesh.

Indeed John the Baptist was SENT to witness of Jesus as/is the true light. Though contrary to your opinion A.John explicitly in verses 4-8 is refering to the Logos. We don't encounter Jesus until verse 17, and via 14-17 the Logos is identified as being Jesus.

I'm amazed you can actually see that John 1:4 is refering to Jesus and not see A.John is also speaking of the Logos. Rather than fabricate and re-arrange scripture to suit your opinion why won't you just read what is clearly written by A.John, in the inspired order that A.John wrote his inspired Gospel?

"was" is not exclusively past tense. Technically it is past indicative, and thus can be past-present continuous. For instance: "Obama was the first American President of Afro-American heretige.' Last I heard he still is, and will remain so into eternity! (ie: the first Afro-American President).

Your example to prove your point that there can be "past-present continuous" is preposterous! Why would anyone with a RATIONAL mind say, "Obama WAS the first American President of Afro-American heritage?" Can Obama's position as FIRST American President of Afro-American heritage CHANGE? Never! Obama will always be the FIRST. Today, we STILL say that George Washington IS the FIRST President of the United States.

Nope! All histories refer to George Washington as "was" not "is". The reason for this is that though he continues in his ranking, his ranking originated in the past.

In #178 you remarked "The phrase 'what God was the word was' of the NEB gives the impression that what God was in the beginning is no longer what God is today, just as what the word was in the beginning is no longer what the word is today." To which I replied: "In English 'was' is past tense or past-present continuous, never past-future. So the NEB is simply teaching 'what God is and contunues to be, so the Word'." And to which I add: Just as your example of George Washington remaining today what he was, the first president of the USA.

Perhaps, what the NEB translators meant to write was "what God IS the word WAS" which would convey exactly what the phrase "the word WAS God" means.

Nope! "is" is passive tense. Plus the word "ēn" A.John used is imperfect indicative, and doesn't lend itself to be translated "is". A.John was telling us more.

Have it your way.

It's not my way, it is the nature of English word usuage. In any case the Greek word "ēn" translated "was" is not past indicative but imperfect indicative which throws cold water on your earlier speculations.

And apostle John did NOT say in John 1:1 that the “word” or “logos” of God was Jesus.

The context of 1:14-17 requires it. Otherwise, you would have two seperate indivuals = the Logos made flesh whom John the baptist bore witness (vs15; 6-11) and Jesus Christ (vs17) whose origins are otherwise not revealed, whom A.John also bore witness.

I understand A.John as speaking of one (a single) individual. The Logos made flesh who became named Jesus Christ.

Again, your understanding is FALSE! The "logos WAS made flesh" or "the logos BECME a human being" is what is written in the Bible. There is NO such individual called "logos made flesh."

Thats true. He simply remained the Logos though becoming flesh and according to vs15 "John bore witness of him".

Jesus Christ is the human being INTO whom the "logos" BECAME.

All here will understand your words to mean that Jesus existed and the Logos became flesh by going into Jesus (?)

Jesus Christ is the man or human being INTO whom the "logos" was MADE.

How does a metaphor (your "plan") get made into anything? Wouldn't it have been more logical for A.John to have said and "the Logos was fulfilled" if he meant your "plan"? But he doesn't! Instead he tells us that, that which made all things (vs2) "became flesh and dwelt amoungst us".

And you would want me to believe that it is the "egg yolk" that walked among the brood, don't you?

Nope!

But you are saying the "logos" or "word" dwelt among us, don't you? The "logos" or "word" BECAME a man, isn't it?

It is A.John that identifies the Logos as becoming flesh and dwelling amoungst us, and then associates Jesus and the logos as the same identity that John the baptist bore witness (John 1:14-17). I believe him.

How can you expect me to believe such absurdity?

You are the one that makes up the absurdities to resist what the scriptures clearly say. And they don't talk about eggs, sperm or anything only a fleshly mind can relate to.

Isn't the "logos" dwelling among us an absurdity?

No. I have to assume you also think it absurd to believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing [we] might have eternal life" (John 20:31). Or that "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him" (John 4:9).

Thus the Logos remained what he was, but added flesh to himself. A.Paul says more or less the same thing...

Now your manipulation of what apostle John wrote only makes apostle John look stupid! Why would apostle John think that "the logos ADDED flesh to himself" when he wrote CLEARLY that the "logos BECAME a human being or was MADE flesh?"

I have no need to manipulate anything! A.John says "καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν". "σὰρξ ἐγένετο"="flesh became" and 'ἐσκήνωσεν"="to live in a tabernacle/tent".

You did say, "the logos ADDED flesh to himself," didn't you??

Sure did!

Apostle John did NOT mean that Jesus is "God" or a "god."

Thats true: he didn't write "o theos ēn o logos" nor "o logos ēn theos"

Then why do you substitute Jesus for "logos" or "word?"

I don't substitute the IDs, according to John 1:14-17 they are equivalent.

A.John wrote "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος"= literally "God was the Logos.

John did NOT write "God was the Logos," did he? What I read is, "the word WAS God" not "God was the logos."

A.John's word order is ""θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος", "θεὸς=God ἦν=was ὁ λόγος=the Logos". From John 1:1b,2 we know that the Logos wasn't the God whom he was with, so when taken in context of the whole verse we know A.John is not saying "God was the Logos" but something else. In most grammarians opinion A.John was not defining the individual but the quality of the individual.

It was the "word" of God that apostle John was talking about in John 1:1.

Actually A.John wrote about the Logos. We get "the word" from Jerome. When he was preparing the Latin Vulgate around 382CE, latin didn't have an exact equivalent to the Greek.

Whatever, John was NOT talking about Jesus but the "logos" or "word," right?

In verse 1:1-16 definitely, though the association of verses 14-16 with verse 17 equates Jesus with the Logos.

And apostle John did NOT intend to convey the WRONG idea that "Son of God" EQUALS "true God from true God." Apostle John knew that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3) and the Son of God is a MAN (John 8:40).

You have offered no biblical or scholarly proof of A.John's intention.

I am NOT talking of John's intention. I am talking of John's KNOWLEDGE that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

A.John also had the knowledge that Jesus was the Logos made flesh, and Jesus came down from heaven and returned to heaven, and Jesus was the Son of God, and eternal life comes from "knowing" both Jesus' Father and Jesus as the Son of the Father, and that we are to honor the Son as the Father etc.

The "word" that was in the beginning with God was NOT Jesus.

And yet A.John says, John the baptist "bore witness of him" (vs15) = the Logos made flesh (vs14). vs17 names "him" Jesus Christ.

John the Baptist "bore witness of him" (vs 15) = the flesh that the logos BECAME.

He bore witness of the Logos, of the Light (vs6-8) which is identified by A.John as being in the Logos (vs4-5).

When the "logos" was "MADE flesh" or "BECAME flesh," it ceased to exist.

Scripture does not in anyway suggest such. In fact the opposite. As vs14-17 makes plain.

In its place, the flesh or man, Jesus existed. Jesus was NEVER referred to as "logos made flesh." Only Trinitarians do that.

Nope! Non-trinitarians, binitarians, most unitarians, trinitarians and everyone who reads scripture plainly, because of John 1:14-17, recognise that A.John is saying the Logos made flesh refers to Jesus.

Rather, Jesus was referred to as Christ, Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus or Son of God.

Sure was! And Jesus even tells us he literally came from heaven and that he had glory with his Father before the world was!

Jesus, who is the subject of John 1:4, is the human being into whom the "word" BECAME. As we can read in other chapters of the book of John, Jesus - NOT the "word" is the light.

Indeed. And this is because concerning the Logos A.John tells us "in him was life, and the life was the light of men" and "was made flesh" becoming Jesus.

Not concerning the logos. Rather, concerning Jesus, John said, "In him was life..."

John 1:1-16 refers exclusively to the Logos. There is no other nominee mentioned other than the Logos. We encounter the Logos' association with Jesus from vs14-17.

It does not make a difference whether the Bible says, “there is NO God beside God” or “there is NO other God besides YHWH. We know that YHWH is God. Therefore, there is NO other God besides YHWH or God.

And yet scripture calls YHWH, God of gods.

The word "gods" refers to IDOLS (Psalm 96:5).

You've misused scripture as usual. Ps 96:5 refers specifically to the gods of the nations. A.Paul calls Satan the God of this world etc. Linguistically "God" is not an exclusive term. Basically, anything that someone makes their god (even their stomach) is an idol, including YHWH God. This was the mistake of the Israelites. YHWH became an idol to them and thus they were rejected. So, he sent his only begotten Son to reveal him, not as God to be idolised, but as our Father who desires to draw us into a familiar relationship.

You are MISREPRESENTING when you say that John “said the Son HAD all the characteristics that make God what he is” because John did NOT say, NEITHER did he IMPLY such thing.

He sure did (John 1:1c) and throughout the Gospel he goes on to prove it.

You are NOT telling the truth! John did NOT say NOR imply in John 1:1c that "the Son HAD all the characteristics that make God what he is."

According to most grammarians at John 1:1c he did! An opinion that is affirmed by Jesus words at John 12:45 & 14:9.

In his letter to Timothy, apostle Paul wrote that Jesus is a MAN (1 Tim. 2:5). This was a COMMANDMENT of Jesus for apostle Paul to write.

And your point is?

The point is, Jesus is NOT God because "God is NOT a MAN (Num. 23:19).

Pointedly, apart from Jesus, no man is ever refered to as Son of God in the scriptures, nor does any man in scripture, apart from Jesus, declare that his Father is God. Nor does anyone in scripture, apart from Jesus, ever declare himself as having literally come from heaven. So Jesus was more than only a man. A.Paul says he was God manifest in the flesh (Col 2:9; 1 Tim 15-16)

...A.John and A.Paul using different words say the same thing John 1:1, Heb 1:2, Phil 2:6 = the Son is identical in characteristics to the Father.

That’s just your own INTERPRETATION of these verses. The Son is NOT identical in characteristics to the Father. The Son, Jesus is flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), the Father is spirit (John 4:24). The Father is GREATER than the Son (John 14:28). The Father is “unbegotten” (your word). The Son is “begotten.” The Son tires and grows weary. The Father doesn’t tire.

When Jesus says ""He who has seen me has seen the Father" he was not talking about his fleshly being but his spiritual being.

What is Jesus' "spiritual being" that his disciples saw?

John 1:1c

How does Jesus' "spiritual being" make Jesus "God that BECAME a man?"

Jesus was not the God with whom he had glory before the world was (John 17:5). A.John says the Logos became flesh and then identifies the same as Jesus. At John 1:1c all grammarians agree that the Logos is attributed with the qualities/characteristics/attributes of the God he was with in the beginning, before the world was.

Apostle John could NOT have meant to tell us that as his Father is the only true God, so is the Son of God ALSO the only true God. This is CONTRARY to what Jesus said about himself and God.

I agree! That is why the Nicene creed teaches Jesus is true God from true God.

As I said earlier, apostle Paul spoke as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, apostle John could NOT have been moved to CONTRADICT his Lord and Savior.

I agree! However, there is nothing that precludes him quoting Jesus words that if you see the Son you see the Father. My understanding of John 1:1c explains how this is possible.

How does your understanding of John 1:1c make it possible to "see Jesus' spiritual being?" Can anyone "see" a "spiritual being?"

Yep! Jesus says no man had seen God but he had (John 6:46). As for us we can perceive his activity. (cp Rom 1:19-20)

Earlier, you said the Nicean Creed says, "true God FROM true God." Now, it's "true God OF true God." Which is it apostoli? Why the change?

No change, the two phrases mean the same thing.

As I said, John 12:45 does NOT change the meaning of the word ”ONLY”. The TRUTH remains that the Father is the ONLY true God. You better look for another interpretation of John 12:45.

I don't need an interpretation. I take Jesus at his word. As for your "only" excuse, John 17:3 does not say "only God", but "only true God". As the Father is the source and cause of everything Jesus did, says and promises, the Father is accoladed as the only true God. The Father and the Son are true God by attribution but the accolade of John 17:3 is exclusive to the Father.

As the saying goes, "Tell that to the marines!"

They already know! It is interesting that in your zealousness for your opinion you ignore the fact that John 17:3 does not teach that the Father is the "only God". That little interruption "true", qualifies what the Father is as God, which is the "only true God".

It is NOT true that apostles John and Paul were inspired to write that “the Logos/Son/Jesus is the creator of all things.

Sure is true. John 1:3 "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made." Him refers to the "same one" who was with God in the beginning (ie: the Logos).

That's absurd! How can "him" refer to the "logos that (not WHO) was with God in the beginning" BEFORE the "logos BECAME a human being?"

A.John wrote at John 1:3: "All things were made by autos; and without autos was not any thing made that was made." Translate autos as "him" ,"her' or "it" as you desire, but it is obvious that the entity being spoken of is the Logos who was with the God spoken of in verses 1 & 2.

Also see John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6.

I prefer the rendition of [i Cor 8:6 in] the Today's English Version of 1 Cor. 8:6 because it conforms with what is written in the Old Testament that it was God ALONE who created the heavens and the earth.

The TEV rendition is not what A.Paul wrote (you demand I stick to what the apostles wrote. I therefore demand the same of you).

Though I have no complaint with the TEV renderings, it must be realised that it intentionally has Catholic bias in the interpretation of scripture, thus it is to be understood from a Catholic viewpoint. You should note that at 1 Cor 8:6 in the TEV, God does not create alone but through our Lord, Jesus Christ. Thus, Even the TEV offers no support for your opinion when it is read in full.

The scriptures attribute to Jesus everything the OT attributes to YHWH. Conclusion, in some way Jesus is God, but not God of himself, as he affirms his Father is the only true God.

Your CONCLUSION that Jesus is God, but not God of himself is FALSE. Jesus AFFIRMS that the Father is the ONLY true God. Who are you to say otherwise?

I don't! It is A.John and A.Paul who indicate otherwise. As Thomas said, Jesus is "my Lord and my God".

"God of himself" refers to the first principle (source and cause), which for Christians [is the Father]. The Father is always considered the primary source and cause of everything, including our redemption.

I suggest you keep your OPINION to yourself.

It is not exclusively my opinion. It is the opinion of all those who nominate themselves Christians. Whether they be non-trintarians, binitarian, unitarian or trinitarian. So it matters nothing if I remain silent. Its the one thing all divergent groups (apart from you) have agreed upon for nearly two thousand years!

If Jesus says the Father is the ONLY true God, any OPINION you have to justify your belief that Jesus is God, whether absolute or not, is simply HERETICAL.

Heretical to you maybe. But not to every professing Christian on the planet.

Jesus AFFIRMS that the Father is the ONLY true God. Neither John, Paul nor you have any authority to CONTRADICT Jesus.
And I/we don't contradict Jesus but you "inadvertantly" do.

Unfortunately you don't comprehend what John fully says = to gain eternal life we must develop a relationship with both the Father and the Son. That to understand that the Father keeps his promises (eg: eternal life) and Jesus is the one he sent to establish eternal life is our assurance.

That's your TWISTED interpretation of John 17:3.

No twist or turns. That is plainly what the Greek says, what A.John says. As discussed previously, ginōskō translated as "knowledge" does not mean intellectual knowledge. It refers to intimate knowledge. The type of knowledge a husband and wife has of each other.

There are about 6 Greek words the KJV renders "knowledge" and 22 Greek words the KJV renders "know" each has its own connotation.

As for A.Peter and Jesus' conversation the disciples saw Jesus but didn't understand him. See John 14:9, the disciples ask Jesus to show them the Father and Jesus replies if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father. How is that possible?

As A.Paul says at Roman 8:9 "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit". As you are fixated on fleshly things I presume you have no idea what he is talking about.

I am NOT fooled by your diversionary tactics. It’s plain as day that the Son of God is Jesus himself - NOT a spirit ENCASED in the flesh of Jesus.

I never said anything about "a spirit ENCASED in the flesh". As I said: "As you are fixated on fleshly things I presume you have no idea what [the scriptures are] talking about."

Earlier you said the Son of God is within the flesh of Jesus or the logos ADDED flesh to himself, didn't you? I see that you are again reneging on your previous statement, aren't you?

I have no need to renege on anything I've said. As usual you imitate your father (Jn 8:44) and make false witness. I said at post #179 "the Logos remained what he was, but added flesh to himself. A.Paul says more or less the same thing [at Phil 2:6-8]..."

Peace

[apostoli]

Of course there are many sons, but Jesus Christ is GOD's only begotten one...duh But I'm quite sure that GOD also had one begotten Daughter. Now She like Eve was formed from the Eath along with the water and blood that fell from Jesus's side as slept on the cross

So instead of GOD using the body of a normal virgin woman and holy hostess; GOD just used the Mother of Harlots

Peace out

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

Response to your post to me #188

You ASSUME that because of the word "came" Jesus "existed BEFORE becoming flesh." Your ASSUMPTION is FALSE. John 1:6 states that John was SENT from God. Do you also ASSUME that John "existed BEFORE God sent him?"

Nope! "came" is just one verbal proof, there are many others (see below for a couple more).

Unlike John the Baptist, Jesus says he came from heaven. John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven"

Actually, as long as Jesus did NOT pre-exist as God, it does NOT matter if Jesus LITERALLY "came" from heaven of not. The TRUTH remains that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Sure does matter! Especially as you ignore Jesus' testimony of himself and prefer a man inspired mythology, believing that the Son of God's existence only began at his conception in Mary, just as Hercules and others of pagan legend.

John 8:40 and John 17:3 are NOT man-inspired mythology. And whether Jesus' existence began at his conception or not, the TRUTH remains that Jesus is NOT God because he said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

When Jesus said he "came" from God, that was his other way of saying that he was SENT from God just as John was SENT from God.

Nope! Jesus is repetative in both his assertions. They mean different things. And like the unbelieving Jews you misunderstand him (see John 6).

However one may INTERPRET the other sayings of Jesus, what CANNOT be interpreted any other way is the TRUTH that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus did NOT literally “come” from heaven just as one is NOT literally “born again.”

Believers are literally born again. But sadly, "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him" 1 Cor 1:14.

What? You are telling me that "believers are LITERALLY born again?" How can a man be LITERALLY born again when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be LITERALLY born again?

So asked Nicodemus. As I said you only think in terms of the flesh. Note Jesus' reply to Nicodemus "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" John 12:12-13

Like you, Nicodemus THOUGHT that Jesus meant he must be LITERALLY born again. That's why Nicodemus asked the same questions I asked you. The TRUTH is, Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that he must be LITERALLY born again. And of course, Jesus did NOT mean to IMPLY that one must be LITERALLY born again.

The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus was someone BEFORE he was born.

Jesus certainly taught he had a real existence before becoming flesh, and his words are recorded in the bible. eg: John 6:58; 8:23,42,58; 13:3; 16:28; 17:5 etc

I see that in you, the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: "Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive...These verses you cited do NOT explicitly tell us that Jesus pre-existed. This idea is a result of your INTERPRETATION to make these verses fit your pre-conceived belief (belief conceived prior to actual knowledge) that Jesus "pre-existed as God" and BECAME a man..

No interpretation, I take his words as he says them.

As I said, the verses you cited do NOT explicitly say that Jesus pre-existed. You take Jesus' words as he says them then let your imagination run wild WITHOUT thinking. If Jesus pre-existed his birth, what was he?

God says there is NO other God beside Him (Isaiah 44:2; 45:6; 46:9). Therefore, Jesus could NOT have pre-existed as God.

Jesus was NOT a literal bread that came down from heaven (John 6:58).

Hmm. Not a bread made by man, but the literal true bread of God. "Bread" here refers to that which sustains life.

Cut out the BS please! You know what a "literal" bread is, don't you? What you are saying is a metaphor, and you know that, don't you?

Anyone who lives according to the spirit is ABOVE or NOT in this world, while anyone who lives according to the flesh is BENEATH or in this world (John 8:23).

A Buddhist and/or Moslem interpretation if the text is taken out of context as you have.

Jesus says "It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me. Then they said to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also...Then Jesus said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come." So the Jews said, "Will He kill Himself, because He says, 'Where I go you cannot come'?" And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins." Then they said to Him, "Who are You?" And Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning.

As usual you MISINTERPRET what Jesus was saying. Jesus was NOT implying that he is God. Rather, Jesus was telling the Jews who "lived according to the flesh" that they CANNOT enter the kingdom of heaven as he does because he lives NOT according to the flesh.

I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him." They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father." John 8:17-27

Two of the"things which Jesus HEARD from Him who SENT him and spoke to the world" are John 8:40 and John 17:3. The words that Jesus SPOKE will judge you in the last day (John 12:48).

Literally Jesus said before Abraham existed, I existed and continue to exist.

Jesus did NOT "literally" say that "before Abraham existed, I existed and continue to exist." That's your MANIPULATION of John 8:58 to make it look like Jesus pre-existed as God. As I said, Jesus could NOT have pre-existed as God because God said, BEFORE any Trinitarian was ever born, there is NO other God beside Him (Isaiah 44:2; 44:24; 45:6; 46:9) and that God is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8).

Thats why the Jews wanted to stone him - they perceived him as a man, as again making a claim that he was equal to God.

The Jews, like Trinitarians, ERR in thinking that Jesus CLAIMED equality with God when he said God is his Father (John 5:18). And Trinitarians REFUSE to open their eyes to the TRUTH that Jesus did NOT claim equality with the Father. On the CONTRARY, Jesus EXPLICITLY said that "he can of himself do NOTHING" (John 5:19) and "the Father is GREATER than he" (John 14:28).

In John 17:5, Jesus did NOT say that he was LITERALLY with the Father when the Father glorified him. You only ASSUME that he was. God could honor and glorify Jesus even without him LITERALLY with the Father (2 Peter 1:17 cf. Matt. 17:11-5).

Indeed the Father could be at some distance to glorify the Son but as Jesus says the glory he had was before the worlds existed, then it would seem he was "with" the Father. Otherwise, you need to believe your idea of "the Plan" was not "with" God at John 1:1&2.

Jesus was in the mind or plan of God BEFORE the foundation of the world. That was how Jesus HAD glory with God BEFORE the foundtaion of the world. Jesus did NOT literally or physically exist when he HAD glory with God.

If ever Jesus existed BEFORE he was born, what was he?

The wisdom and power of God. The Logos. The son of God.

NOT God. Otherwise, you would have said so!

We only know God as God by our perception of his wisdom and power, therefore the Son is our God, but not his own Father whom the NT tells us is his and our God (John 20:17).

Trinitarians make Jesus look like a FALSE God and a LIAR to boot!

The ONLY true God does NOT recognize any other God besides Him (Isaiah 44:2; 44:24; 45:6; 46:9). Jesus recognizes the Father as his God and Father. Besides, Jesus said the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, Jesus could NOT be a TRUE God.

Neither does the Bible teach that Jesus was the "logos" that BECAME flesh.

Sure does and even you seem to acknowledge that the Logos at John 1:14 refers to Jesus.

The "logos" that BECAME the MAN, Jesus in John 1:14, is analogous to an egg yolk that BECOMES a chick. The "logos" was NOT Jesus before it became Jesus just like the egg yolk was NOT a chick before it BECAME a chick.

There is no analogy to the egg yoke and the chick, thats a simpleton's analogy - technically an egg yoke is flesh, so you have flesh becoming flesh.

You say "that's a simpleton's analogy" because it is true! I have yet to come across some literature which says that "an egg yoke is flesh." Now, that's a simpleton's rationalization for a very FALSE Beliief!

A.John indicates the Logos was fully formed and functional before becoming flesh and dwelling with us, and his name became Jesus.

Again, this is a BASELESS statement. Where in the Bible does apostle John indicate that "the logos was fully formed and functional BEFORE becoming flesh? And as far as what the Bible teaches is concerned, it is NOT the "logos" but the "flesh" into whom the logos BECAME (John 1:14) that was named Jesus (Matt. 1:21).

And this "MAKING flesh" of the "word" or "logos" PRECEDES the statement, "and dwelt among us," agreed?

Nope! They are simultanteous. The Greek word rendered "dwelt" in the KJV literally means tabernacled/tented. It isn't refering to his walking about and living daily life per se, merely as residing with the community of man.

The Today's English Version says, "LIVED among us (John 1:14)." This shows that the "logos" was MADE flesh first BEFORE the "flesh" LIVED among us. Therefore, what you are saying is FALSE!

Let me ask you apostoli, when I say, "the flour was MADE bread, and got eaten by us," you haven't heard anyone saying, we ate flour," have you?

In anycase your analogy is no comparison to what John 1:14 is saying. Would you say the fetus in a woman's womb is not dwelling with us, not one of us (human)? I wouldn't.

Again, your analogy is FLAWED. A "fetus" is the "flesh" that the sperm and egg, joined together, have BECAME. The "sperm and egg joined together" is analogous to the "word" or "flour" and the "fetus" is analogous to the bread being baked. Once the "fetus" is born and becomes a "man" or the "bread is fully cooked" then we can say that the "word" or "logos" BECAME man and the "flour" BECAME bread.

Jesus Christ, or Christ, or Christ Jesus is the “He” who was FOREORDAINED as messiah or savior. Christ is NOT an office but the NAME given to Jesus (Phil. 2:9; Acts 2:38).

Christ is not a name but a title. Christ is simply the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew/Aramaic Messiah. Many others held the title, David and even Cyrus. The Jewish expectation was 'the coming Christ" would be "Christ" just as David had been Christ to Israel (the annointed one of God). A.Paul names the Son, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ and just Christ. The reason for the addition of "Christ" is, "Jesus" is and was a very common name. It specifies which Jesus we are talking about.

The Bible teaches that God GAVE Jesus a name which is ABOVE every NAME (Phil. 2:9). Jesus acknowledged that God GAVE him a NAME (John 17:11-12 TEV). Apostle Paul called Jesus (the name given to the child that was born to Mary - Matt. 1:21), CHRIST. Therefore, the NAME that God GAVE Jesus is CHRIST (Acts 2:36). Believe it or not!

The word of God says “And the word BECAME flesh/human being” (John 1:14 NKJV/TEV). – NOT your belief that “the Son of God “came from heaven and became a man” (incarnated).

A.John didn't use the words "human being", but the Logos became flesh and dwelt amoungst us. Though I trust we agree he is talking of Jesus becoming man.

Apostle John was NOT talking of Jesus BECOMING a man.

In which case, on the basis of your opinion, we would have to hold that A.John never speaks of the origin of Jesus. As I noted in a previous post we don't encounter Jesus until vs17.

Obviously, you DON'T know hat "opinion" means. The "word" BECOMING a human being" is NOT an opinion. It is waht is WRITTEN in the Bible.

Apostle John was talking of the "word" or "logos" BECOMING a man or human being. John means that the "word" or "logos" of God concerning a savior, was FULFILLED with the birth of Jesus.

Apostle John does NOT identify Jesus as the “word that was with God in the beginning and was God and BECAME a man.”

Sure does. John 1:15-17.

John 1:15-17 is about Jesus, the MAN that the "word" or "logos" BECAME.

Son of God is NOT equal to God because the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God. Jesus, the Son of God is a MAN.

He can't be both! In the OT Sons of God is always a collective, never individual. Nowhere is anyone ever called a Son of God, until the NT.

Jesus says he is the Son of God (John 19:36). Jesus ALSO says he is a MAN (John 8:40). Therefoire, what you say is FALSE!

If Christ were true God, why am I “joint-heir with him?

Heb 2:14

You are grabbing at straws! Heb. 2:14 doesn't tell us why Jesus is "joint-heir" with us. The reason why I am "joint-heir" with Christ is because I am his brother (John 20:17). If Jesus were God because he is the Son of God, then it follows that I should also be God because Jesus is my brother! But that would be an absurdity, don't you think?

Why would God need to inherit eternal life or anything for that matter? Absurd, don’t you think?

Jesus didn't inherit eternal life, he already had it. We on the other hand inherit theios which goes beyond mere eternal life (2 Peter 1:4)

But the Bible teaches that we are "joint-heirs" with Christ. If we "inherit eternal life," Christ, as "joint-heir" should ALSO inherit eternal life, wouldn't he? Therefore, the TRUTH that Christ is "joint-inheritor" of eternal life PROVES beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus is NOT God, isn't that right?

Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “You worship WHAT you do NOT know.” Therefore, the Samaritan woman worshiped someone other than the ONLY true God.

Yes & No. The Samaratians in the time of Jesus worshipped the same God as the Jews,

Again, you go AGAINST what Jesus EXPLICITLY said to the woman. The Today's English Version of John 4:22 says, "You Samaritans do NOT really know WHOM you worship; but we Jews know WHOM we worship...."

Therefore, the Samaritans did NOT worship the SAME God as the Jews.

Why did Jesus NEED to prove it if the Jews already knew their God is the ONLY true God? The TRUTH is, by the time Jesus began his ministry, the Jews had already turned their back on the ONLY true God and were worshiping other Gods besides the Father.

Not in the time of Jesus. The numerous Jewish wars after the return from babylon waged to preserve the purity of the temple prove they worshipped one God, the God of Abraham.

Your ASSUMPTION that the Jews at the time of Jesus worshiped the God of Abraham is FALSE. There is NO Biblical proof that God's anger toward Israel for worshiping idols was gone when He sent Jesus.

Read the Old Testament and discover that God got angry with ancient Israel worshiping trees, graven images, creeping things, etc. which they considered “true Gods” besides the Father.

I suggest you read the OT! What you say was true before the exile into Babylon as punishment. After the return from Babylon the temple was rebuilt, rededicated and the temple sacrifices according to the Mosiac Law were re-established to the one God of Israel.

The Bible does NOT support your argument. The following are Biblical accounts of idol-worship AFTER the temple was rebuilt.

The prophet Jeremiah wrote: " The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven (cf. Jer. 44:17), and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger" (Jer. 7:18). "And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, because of all the houses whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods" (Jer. 19:13).

The prophet Ezekiel wrote: "And he said unto me, Go in, and behold the wicked abomination that they do here. So I went in and saw; and behold every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel portrayed upon the wall round about." (Eze. 8:10).

"He said also unto me, Turn yet again and you shall see greater abominations that they do. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tam-muz " (Eze. 8:14).

"Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than this. And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, betweeen the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east" (Eze. 8:15-16).

2 Kings 23:5 relates that the kings of Judah had ordained priests to burn incense unto Baal, to the sun, to the moon, and to the planets and to all the hosts of heaven (cf. 2 Kings 21:3).

I find your objection strange: "one true God" via the Shema is affirmative that there is only one God, and all other things called god are false gods.

This is NOT what Nicean Trinitarians believe. To Nicean Trinitarians, “one true God” does NOT mean “there is only one God, and all other things called god are false gods.”

Sure do. It is just you have no idea regarding what they teach, nor what John 17:3 is telling you.

Then the Nicean Trinitarian belief that Jesus, the Son of God is "true God from true God" does NOT conform with whAt you are saying!

Otherwise, they would NOT believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is “one true God from ANOTHER one true God.”

Trinitarians don't believe such..

If it's true that Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is "one true God from ANOTHER true God," are you telling me that Jesus, the Son of God is "one true God from the SAME true God?"

Again, you MISS what Jesus was saying. If you listened to Jesus instead of yourself, you would hear him tell the woman, “the hour is coming when you will NEITHER on this mountain, NOR in Jerusalem, WORSHIP the Father” (John 4:21).

Note "the hour is coming". Thus such arrangement was future. At the time of Jesus talking with the Samaritan woman, the arrangement was the Temple in Jerusalem. Wouldn't hurt if you listened to Jesus instead of trying to refute me with absurdities.

Jesus NEVER worshiped in the temple. The early Christians met in houses - not in temples. Jesus and his apostles went into the temples ONLY to preach - NOT to worship.

Where did you get the FALSE teaching that Jerusalem is “God appointed center for worship?”

The OT. Remember Jesus is also the son of David, Jerusalem was the capital of his kingdom and it is this kingdom (the spiritual side of his kingdom) that God promised would last forever and ever. David wanted to build a house for the tabernacle, God forbade him but allowed Solomon to build the first temple etc.

Why don't you listen to Jesus for a change! Jesus said, "you will NEITHER on the mountain NOR in Jerusalem worship the Father." Don't you understand simple english?

The Biblical phrase that refers to the Father is “ONLY true God.” That means that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God. This means that there is NO other God but the Father.

Actually it doesn't mean "NO other God but the Father".

Jesus meant to declare that the Father is the ONLY true God among the “MANY other gods” that the Jews worshiped and recognized as God.

Both scripture and secular history prove your delusions wrong. In Jesus' time the religious Jews limited their worship to one God, the God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaac and Moses.

Read the verses I quoted bove on this subject of idol-worship.

If that was A.John's intention he would have simply have heard Jesus saying "you, the only God" but instead he says "you, the only true God". That adjective "true" gives credence that other G/gods exist, but the Father of the Son is the only one that is truthful/reliable/keeps his promises.

It is NOT true that other Gods exist...

A.Paul says Satan is the god of this system of things. Did he lie?

The ONLY true God that exists is the God who CREATED the heavens and the earth and everything in them (Neh. 9:6). Satan is "god" of evil and "father of lies" (John 8:44).

Your belief also DESTROYS the truthfulness and reliability of the Son of God whom Nicean Trinitarians recognize and worship as “true God from true God” because the Father (the other true God) is the ONLY God that is truthful/reliable/keeps his promises.

Nope. My opinion affirms it!

You think this is what the Bible teaches, don't you? Aren't you being arrogant to ASSUME that "your opinion" AFFIRMS what you think is what the Bible teaches?

[BurntOffering]

Jesus as the Son of GOD did exist before the foundations of the world; because GOD, Jesus and Satan, are pure positive and negative energies; that Cannot be Created or Destroyed....and GOD thought this master plan up every since S/He aid to herself and two kids "Let us make man in our own Image, after our own likeness and let them have dominion.......Male and Female made He Them. Jesus made Adam 1st to look like Him; and then made Eve 2nd to look like His Mother and GODs Daughter

Peace out

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

RE-READ THE THIRD POST ON THIS LAST PAGE AGAIN!

As for you BurntOffering. I will say this one more time, but make it a little bit clearer.

Jesus was not part of the "gods system" that you seemed to have invented. Let me out it this way. If Jesus was part of the "gods system" you have invented...HE WOULD HAVE STOMPED A MUDHOLE THOUGH SATAN RIGHT THEN AND THERE!

In fact!!!!! satan was not even part of anything except himself!

The Lamb of God, Jesus as you wish to call Him, did not exist until Elohim Himself recreated the flesh that He Himself was and sat it at His right hand to become THE LORD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT and Archangel of Elohim over all...especially!!! Michael and company...this includes his little Eve who he had eat from the tree of life to become a goddess of sorts!!!

So I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to poison My Father's sheep with your doctrine of devils; trying to tie Jesus and Satan together from henceforth GET THEE BENEATH ME SATAN!

The Word was? Nay but I say The Word IS!
The Word was with God? Nay but I say The Word IS with God!
The Word was God? Nay but I say The Word IS God
ELOHIM IS STILL THE WORD!

IncRus? Private message me...what you say has a lot of The Truth to it!

The Lamb

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

Response to your post to me #189

I'm tired of repeating myself to you, so I'll just refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia which explains our belief.

You keep repeating FALSEHOOD that you learned fom your Catholic Encyclopedia.

I speak the truth from scripture. Which I learned from scripture. The Catholic Encyclopedia is simply a convenient reference to refer school children.

The doctrine that Jesus, the Son of God is "true God from true God" is NOT learned from scripture. This is man-made doctrine.

No wonder you get tired explaining your FALSE beliefs.

I don't get tired of explaining the truth. Merely tired of people who ignore and distort scripture. And think they achieve something by asking the same question over and over, and getting the same answer over and over.

The doctrine that Jesus, the Son of God, is "true God from true God" is a DISTORTION of scripture. Hence, this is a man-made doctrine.

Why don’t you give a hoot to Jesus' revelation that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3)?

Oh I do give a hoot. That is why your misuse of scriptures irritates me! Your need to take John 8:40 out of context thinking you prove something.

There's nothing out of context in repeating what Jesus said about himsef in John 8:40. Jesus said, ".....ME a MAN..." and that's what I say.

All Christians agree that Jesus was a man, but as the Logos become flesh as John 1:14-17 says.

The doctrine that Jesus is "the logos made flesh" is a DISTORTION of scripture. Scripture teaches that Jesus is the "flesh that the logos or word BECAME."

And all Christians agree that the Father is the only true God, but obviously you don't know what that means.

The doctrine that the Father is the ONLY true God but Jesus, the Son of God is ALSO true God from the ONLY true God," is a big JOKE!

First, you say that the Father is the ONLY true God. Then you say "the Son of the Father is true God from true God." What happened to the word "ONLY? You meant to say "the Son of the Father is true God from the ONLY true God," didn't you?

I'm getting bored with IncRus' petulance.

What a way to go! You accuse me of being rude for asking a question you CANNOT answer!

Petulance does not mean "rude" but "contemptuous in speech or behavior", which you are! Read your posts and the tantrums you chuck "such and such is FALSE!" etc. It takes a great deal of patience to deal with people with no manners such as yourself.

Equally frustrating is one who goes around in circles to EVADE a question to cover up one's IGNORANCE.

Why don't you just answer my question if you can and admit your IRRATIONALITY if you can't? When you say, "the Son of the Father is true God from true God, how does this line up with Jesus' declaration that the Father is the ONLY true God? What happened to the word ONLY?

I answered your question (in bold above).

As for your concluding question: the issue at Nicea (from whose creed I quoted) wasn't whether the Father was the only true God, that was covered in the opening clause "We believe in one God, the Father". Nor was the issue whether the Son was God from God, all bishops agreed (including the Arians). The issue was whether or not the Son was a creation of the Father or begotten of the Father. Which is what "true God from true God" deals with. Such I have pointed out in this thread a couple of times.

You haven't explained how your doctrine that "the Son of the Father is true God from true God," lines up with Jesus' declaration that the Father is the ONLY true God. This doctrine can only line up with what Jesus said IF the word "ONLY" is cut out from John 17:3 or, as you seem to have done, PRETEND that the word "ONLY" is NOT there..

The words of the Nicene Creed, which I used, are also translated "very God from very God". They were inserted as an effort to refute the Arians who spoke of the Son as God (agreed with the phrase God from God) but believed the Son to have been begotten ex nihilo. Of interest amoung the Arian groups there were even those that were happy with the phrase "true God from true God", but explained it peculiarly. Hence the insertion of the homoousia clause.

Whatever reason there is for the INSERTION of the phrase "very God from very God" or "true God from true God" in the Nicean Creed, this Trinitarian belief makes it appear that Trinitarians have TWO Gods but HYPOCRITICALLY insist that the Father is their ONLY true God.

Nope! The creed plainly says there is one God , the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.

Are you being truthful? First, you say you believe that the Father is your ONLY one true God. Then you say that Jesus, the Son of God is "true God from true God." How can you believe that the Father be the ONLY true God, when you ALSO believe that the Son is "true God from true God?"

As any rational person can see, the Trinitarian belief that (1) the Son is true God AND (2) the Father is ALSO true God CONTRADICTS Tinitarian CLAIM that Trinitarians AFFIRM that the Father is the ONLY true God and makes them more of a HYPOCRITE than anything else!

Nope. It is because the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, that he is the only true God.

What a bizarre argument! Why can't you accept the TRUTH that the reason the Father is the ONLY true God is because Jesus Christ SAID it?

Second, you say "as the Father is IN the Son and the Son is IN the Father there is ONLY one true God. Who is this ONLY ONE true God, is it (1) the Father, or is it (2) the Son or is it (3) BOTH the Father and the Son?

The Father being the only true God, and being the source and cause of the Son and Spirit, causes the Godhead of the Father, Son and Spirit. Thus we obey Jesus' words equally glorifing the Son as we do the Father (John 5:23), through the guidence of the Spirit (John 16:13).

At this instance, I DON'T care whether you obey Jesus' words or not. What I would like to hear is your straight answer to my question. Who is this ONLY ONE true God, is it (1) the Father, or is it (2) the Son or is it (3) BOTH the Father and the Son? Please note that the Bible does NOT talk of "ONLY true Godhead" and neither do I.

I've answered this same question numerous times. no matter how you want to rephrase it, I'll always answer the Father of the Son is the only true God.

Granted that you are truthful in your answer that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God, do you then ACCEPT that the Son and the Spirit are NOT true Gods?

Third, if the Father is the ONLY (ONE) true God, and you say that the Son is IN the Father, you are saying then that Jesus and the Father are ONE and the SAME, aren't you?

In respects to our salvation, they are one and the same in respect of will. As the Father is our saviour so the Son (Titus 1:3&4). But they are not the prosopon of the one hypostasis/individual/person as the sabellianisers say. The Father and Son are distinct in their hypostases/individuality/personage as Hebrews 1:1-3 and other scriptures clearly show.

When you say, "they are one and the same in respect of will," you mean to say the Son and the Father are of the SAME mind and the SAME judgment

Yep! But to clarify, by judgement I was speaking of the judgement of the living and the dead.

Since the Father and the Son are "one and the same" ONLY in mind and judgment, but are TWO separate and distinct hypostases/individualities/personages, yet BOTH are "true Gods," isn't it true that Trinitrarians recognize TWO "true Gods?"

NOT "one and the same God," don't you?

They are the same God to us. Whatever action we perceive whether it be by the Father, Son or the Spirit we perceive only the action of the one God.

They (the Father, the Son and Spirit) ARE one God to you but the reality is you call each of them, individually "God" don't you? Therefore, you are ONLY pretending that the Father is the ONLY true God while recognizing THREE individual Gods, aren't you?

However, since you believe that the Son is "very God" or "true God" FROM the Father who is ALSO "very God or true God," and these TWO persons or "prosopon"

They are not prosopon but distinct hypostases. Don't try your father's tricks on me! You have again provided a false witness. My words are clearly stated a few lines above (in bold).

Whatever you want to call them, the TRUTH remains that there are THREE distinct entities, beings, persons, hypostases who are each called "God" individually. Yet, Trinitarians FOOL people into believing that the Father is the ONLY true God.

...are "distinct in their hypostases, individuality, personage, then you must believe that the Son and the Father are TWO different "true Gods," don't you?

Nope! Jesus says "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men. For I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you." (John 5:37-42). Note it is not to the Father that believers are to go but to the Son, for in the Son is found the Father (John 14:10). And it is the Spirit that guides us into the truth of the Son (John 16:13). Thus, as all things that belong to the Father belong to the Son, so also with the Spirit (John 16:14-15)

I DON'T see how these verses make TWO Gods merge into the Father as the ONLY true God.

I understand that the "church" is ONE "body" although there are MANY members because this is what the Bible teaches. But this CANNOT be used as an analogy to justify the Nicean Trinitarian belief that the ONLY ONE true God is composed of the Father AND "persons" OTHER than the Father because the Bible teaches that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Scriptures also teach that Jesus prayed "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one" (John 17:23) But I assume you do not understand what this actually means.

I understand perfectly what Jesus prayed for in John 17:23.

Tell me your understanding of John 17:23 and we'll see if we agree.

John 17:23 des NOT justify the Nicean Trinitarian belief that the ONLY ONE true God is composed of the Father AND "persons" OTHER than the Father because the Bible teaches that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). John 17:23 CANNOT make John 17:3 USELESS.

This does NOT mean that "the ONLY true God is composed of the Father AND "persons OTHER than the Father," as Trinitarians want people to believe.

You are sprouting Sabellianism again, not Trinitarianism. Trinitarians believe the Father alone, is the "only true God" of John 17:3, that the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and each is distinct in hypostasis, but not in activity, power etc.

Trinitarianism is NO different from Sabellianism in that they BOTH believe that Jesus is God. This belief NULLIFIES Jesus' declaration that the Father is the ONLY true God.

As A.Paul says "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." (1 Cor 8:5-6).

The Nicean Creed follows A.Paul saying "We believe in one God the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ...and the Holy Spirit." The teaching is that the three make up the Godhead (not God), and each are God in essential nature. The Father is unbegotten and God in himself, the Son is begotten by the Father and God in essence, as he is an exact copy of the Father's hypostasis (the word used at Hebrews 1:3), and the Spirit is God in essence as he proceeds from the Father. Thus there are not three Gods but one. The Godhead is God to us. It is the source and cause of our salvation (eg: Rom 8:9-11). Thus Godhead is abbreviated to God in common speech.

The Nicean Creed does NOT follow apostle Paul's saying written in 1 Cor. 8:6. that for apostle Paul and his fellow Christians, "there is but (only) ONE God, the Father..... (1 Co. 8:6).

You seem to have forgotten Ephesians 4:4-6: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Notice Eph. 4:6 which says, "ONE God and Father who is ABOVE all." The Father who is the ONLY true God does NOT have any equal!

For Nicean Trinitarians, there is but (only) ONE Godhead, the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit; and these THREE (Gods) are ONE true Godhead."

Individually they are the one God to us.

Even gramatically, this belief stinks! How can you say without tongue in cheek that "individually THEY (plural) ARE (plural) the ONE (singular) God to us?"

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

IncRus...who do you think that The Only True "God" is that is being referred to in John 17:3?

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the Only True God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

Nicodemus THOUGHT that Jesus meant he must be LITERALLY born again.

I presume you mean reborn in the flesh (?)

That's why Nicodemus asked the same questions I asked you.

Is that because you can only think in earthy terms?

The TRUTH is, Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that he must be LITERALLY born again. And of course, Jesus did NOT mean to IMPLY that one must be LITERALLY born again.

Jesus was quite literal in his meaning. He just wasn't talking about earthly things. He spoke of heavenly things as he later told old Nic = John 12:12-13.

As I said, the verses you cited do NOT explicitly say that Jesus pre-existed.

Sure do!

You take Jesus' words as he says them then let your imagination run wild WITHOUT thinking.

I don't use imagination, merely the literal word of inspired scripture.

If Jesus pre-existed his birth, what was he?

The Son of God, by whom God made the worlds (Heb 1:2).

The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus was someone BEFORE he was born.

Sure does. John 6:58; 8:23,42,58; 13:3; 16:28; 17:5 etc

God says there is NO other God beside Him (Isaiah 44:2; 45:6; 46:9). Therefore, Jesus could NOT have pre-existed as God.

Possibly. However, he did exist as the Son of God, by whom God made the worlds. (Heb 1:2)

Jesus was NOT a literal bread that came down from heaven (John 6:58).

Hmm. Not a bread made by man, but the literal true bread of God. "Bread" here refers to that which sustains life.

Cut out the BS please! You know what a "literal" bread is, don't you? What you are saying is a metaphor, and you know that, don't you?

Not a metaphor but analogeous. Bread in the time of Jesus was the staple food product that sustained life. Manna was that which sustained the Israelites in the desert. Jesus is that which sustains eternal life.

Jesus says "It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me. Then they said to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also...Then Jesus said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come." So the Jews said, "Will He kill Himself, because He says, 'Where I go you cannot come'?" And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins." Then they said to Him, "Who are You?" And Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him. They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father." John 8:17-27 "

As usual you MISINTERPRET what Jesus was saying.

(?) I didn't offer an interpretation. For your benefit I merely quoted what he said.

Jesus was NOT implying that he is God.

(?) No one said he did.

Rather, Jesus was telling the Jews who "lived according to the flesh" that they CANNOT enter the kingdom of heaven as he does because he lives NOT according to the flesh.

Nope! Read what he said. the clause ends "if you do not believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins."

Two of the"things which Jesus HEARD from Him who SENT him and spoke to the world" are John 8:40 and John 17:3.

Nope! Jesus didn't hear such from the Father. The first he lived, the second he proved.

The words that Jesus SPOKE will judge you in the last day (John 12:48).

Given all Christians believe Jesus was a man, and that his Father is the only true God, we haven't a worry on that score. But those who reject the myraid of other things he tells us should have concern - such as having glory with the Father before the world was and that he came down from heaven and would return from whence he came.

Literally Jesus said before Abraham existed, I existed and continue to exist.

Jesus did NOT "literally" say that "before Abraham existed, I existed and continue to exist." That's your MANIPULATION of John 8:58

Nope! That is the meaning of the Greek that A.John used. Which I've already provided several times.

That's your MANIPULATION of John 8:58 to make it look like Jesus pre-existed as God.

Nope! John 8:42 proves Jesus was not claiming to be God. Merely that he existed before Abraham.

As I said, Jesus could NOT have pre-existed as God because God said...there is NO other God beside Him

And yet A.Paul says at 1 Cor 8:6 all things are of God and by Jesus. At Heb 1:2 it says God by the Son created the worlds. At Col 1:16 we read "For by him [the son] were all things created". Do you now reject the NT?

Isaiah 44:2; 44:24

"formed thee from the womb". In your opinion is this refering to the flesh or the spirit?

Isaiah 45:6

So you now deny that Jesus is our Lord, and he sits at the right hand of God (?)

Isaiah 46:9

So you now say the NT scriptures are a fabrication when they say at Heb 1:2 that the Son is an exact replica of the Father's very being (hypostasis) (?)

that God is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8)

These texts refer to YHWH as the father of the nation of Israel, not God as relationally Father of us as the NT witnesses.

Thats why the Jews wanted to stone him - they perceived him as a man, as again making a claim that he was equal to God.

The Jews...ERR in thinking that Jesus CLAIMED equality with God when he said God is his Father (John 5:18). And Trinitarians REFUSE to open their eyes to the TRUTH that Jesus did NOT claim equality with the Father. On the CONTRARY, Jesus EXPLICITLY said that "he can of himself do NOTHING" (John 5:19) and "the Father is GREATER than he" (John 14:28).

And yet Jesus openly claimed full authority over all things, and claimed that all that his Father had were his, including the day dedicated to God = the Sabbath. Indeed his Father is greater than him, it was his Father that gave him authority over all that exists!

Jesus was in the mind or plan of God BEFORE the foundation of the world. That was how Jesus HAD glory with God BEFORE the foundation of the world. Jesus did NOT literally or physically exist when he HAD glory with God.

According to Jesus he did! In fact he requests that he receive the same glory that he had before the world was. Is it now your opinion that Jesus has ceased to physically exist? because that is what your opinion requires!

In anycase you should be aware that your "ideas" of potentiality have a basis in primitive Trinitarian apology: one of the Arian arguments was that before the Son was begotten in eternity he was not. One of the early Trinitarian arguments was the Father was never without his wisdom and power (1 Cor 1:24), so the Son existed potentially.

The Arian argument collapsed when Athanasius pointed out that conceptually there is no "before" or "after" in eternity.

We only know God as God by our perception of his wisdom and power, therefore the Son is our God, but not his own Father whom the NT tells us is his and our God (John 20:17).

Trinitarians make Jesus look like a FALSE God and a LIAR to boot!

So now you are calling the scriptures false. Thomas called Jesus "My Lord and my God" and Jesus said "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed." Compare Jesus words to A.Peter "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Mt 16:16-17)

The ONLY true God does NOT recognize any other God besides Him (Isaiah 44:2; 44:24; 45:6; 46:9). Jesus recognizes the Father as his God and Father. Besides, Jesus said the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, Jesus could NOT be a TRUE God.

But there is nothing to preclude him from being true God from true God. Not another God apart from the Father, but the Son of God in full communion with the Father as the scriptures clearly state (eg: John 14:10).

Where in the Bible does apostle John indicate that "the logos was fully formed and functional BEFORE becoming flesh?

John 1:3-5.

And as far as what the Bible teaches is concerned, it is NOT the "logos" but the "flesh" into whom the logos BECAME (John 1:14) that was named Jesus (Matt. 1:21).

So now your saying Jesus was possessed by the Logos (?)

A.John says "the Logos became flesh and dwelt amoungst us". vs 15 says "John bore him witness" vs16 says "And his fullness have all we received'. To this point (verse 1-16) the referee is the Logos, there is no other mentioned. Then in verse 17 Jesus Christ is introduced and from the witness given it is clear that the Logos and Jesus are one and the same individual.

And this "MAKING flesh" of the "word" or "logos" PRECEDES the statement, "and dwelt among us," agreed?

Nope! They are simultanteous. The Greek word rendered "dwelt" in the KJV literally means tabernacled/tented. It isn't refering to his walking about and living daily life per se, merely as residing with the community of man.

The Today's English Version says, "LIVED among us (John 1:14)." This shows that the "logos" was MADE flesh first BEFORE the "flesh" LIVED among us. Therefore, what you are saying is FALSE!

Nope! The becoming flesh and dwelling are simultaneous (cp Heb 2:14,17). I gave you A.John's words and the literal Greek. Jesus had a full on communion with the people that went beyond merely "living among us". As A.Paul tells us and we see in the gospels, he suffered emotionally and physically, and underwent personal torments.

Jesus Christ, or Christ, or Christ Jesus is the “He” who was FOREORDAINED as messiah or savior. Christ is NOT an office but the NAME given to Jesus (Phil. 2:9; Acts 2:38).

Christ is not a name but a title. Christ is simply the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew/Aramaic Messiah. Many others held the title, David and even Cyrus. The Jewish expectation was 'the coming Christ" would be "Christ" just as David had been Christ to Israel (the annointed one of God). A.Paul names the Son, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ and just Christ. The reason for the addition of "Christ" is, "Jesus" is and was a very common name. It specifies which Jesus we are talking about.

The Bible teaches that God GAVE Jesus a name which is ABOVE every NAME (Phil. 2:9).

Phil 2:10 says that name is Jesus.

Of interest: Jesus was already known as the Christ before his exaltation. And all authority had already been granted to him. Even spirits were being cast out in his name before his death and resurrection. Thus Acts 2:38.

From Rev 19:12 apparently there is another name given to Jesus that is unknown to us = "he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself".

Jesus acknowledged that God GAVE him a NAME (John 17:11-12 TEV)

The NKJV notes NU-Text and M-Text read "keep them through Your name which You have given Me". The TEV renders "Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me". Look at what is being said, Jesus has the same name as the Father!

Apostle Paul called Jesus CHRIST. Therefore, the NAME that God GAVE Jesus is CHRIST (Acts 2:36).

Nope! See Phil 2:9-10. However, it is revealed "that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:23 etc). Such was so before the Son's death and resurrection.

Obviously, you DON'T know what "opinion" means. The "word" BECOMING a human being" is NOT an opinion. It is what is WRITTEN in the Bible.

It isn't in the Greek! The TEV renders "The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son." Which substantiates my argument. "became" implies "to undergo change".

The TEV rendering of vs15 is worth noting: "John spoke about him. He cried out, “This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘He comes after me, but he is greater than I am, because he existed before I was born.’” At this point John the baptist is refering to the Logos. However, at vs30 we find the same thing spoken of Jesus.

Apostle John was talking of the "word" or "logos" BECOMING a man or human being.

Agreed

John means that the "word" or "logos" of God concerning a savior, was FULFILLED with the birth of Jesus.

Please show me where A.John in his gospel directly says or implies such.

If Christ were true God, why am I “joint-heir with him?

Heb 2:14

Heb. 2:14 doesn't tell us why Jesus is "joint-heir" with us.

Thats true. Heb 2:14 does not say why Jesus is "joint-heir" with us (we have nothing), it tells us why we are "joint-heirs" with Jesus. (cp. Rom 8:17)

The reason why I am "joint-heir" with Christ is because I am his brother (John 20:17).

Which is what Heb 2:14 teaches. So you contradict yourself again.

If Jesus were God because he is the Son of God, then it follows that I should also be God because Jesus is my brother! But that would be an absurdity, don't you think?

2 Peter 1:4; Ephesians 3:19 (cp. Col 2:9)

Why would God need to inherit eternal life or anything for that matter? Absurd, don’t you think?

Jesus didn't inherit eternal life, he already had it. We on the other hand inherit theios which goes beyond mere eternal life (2 Peter 1:4)

But the Bible teaches that we are "joint-heirs" with Christ. If we "inherit eternal life," Christ, as "joint-heir" should ALSO inherit eternal life, wouldn't he?

The inheritence is the kingdom. We already have eternal life if we believe Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (John 20:31). According to A.Paul, eternal life is a free gift. (Rom 5:15-18)

Therefore, the TRUTH that Christ is "joint-inheritor" of eternal life PROVES beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus is NOT God, isn't that right?

Nope! The inheritence is not eternal life.

Again, you go AGAINST what Jesus EXPLICITLY said to the woman. The Today's English Version of John 4:22 says, "You Samaritans do NOT really know WHOM you worship; but we Jews know WHOM we worship...." Therefore, the Samaritans did NOT worship the SAME God as the Jews.

Nope! As I explained to you previously: the Greek word translated "know" does not mean simple intellectual knowledge, it means having the knowledge and being skilled in it. Thus they worshiped the same God as the Jews but did not do so according to YHWH's instructions.

Your ASSUMPTION that the Jews at the time of Jesus worshiped the God of Abraham is FALSE. There is NO Biblical proof that God's anger toward Israel for worshiping idols was gone when He sent Jesus.

Sure is! There was the rebuilding of the temple commenced by Ezra on his return from exile etc and God sent his only begotten Son, to the Jews first. In scripture God only intervened on Israel's behalf when they were repentant.

Read the Old Testament and discover that God got angry with ancient Israel worshiping trees, graven images, creeping things, etc. which they considered “true Gods” besides the Father.

I suggest you read the OT! What you say was true before the exile into Babylon as punishment. After the return from Babylon the temple was rebuilt, rededicated and the temple sacrifices according to the Mosiac Law were re-established to the one God of Israel.

The Bible does NOT support your argument. The following are Biblical accounts of idol-worship AFTER the temple was rebuilt.

After the first temple was built, but not after the second temple period ie: From the time of Ezra.

Your references to Jerimiah, Ezekiel and 2 Kings all date to a hundred or so years before Ezra.

Of interest: the division between the Jews and Samaritans originate from Ezra's refusing their request to assist in building the second temple.

I find your objection strange: "one true God" via the Shema is affirmative that there is only one God, and all other things called god are false gods.

This is NOT what Nicean Trinitarians believe. To Nicean Trinitarians, “one true God” does NOT mean “there is only one God, and all other things called god are false gods.”

Sure do. It is just you have no idea regarding what they teach, nor what John 17:3 is telling you.

Then the Nicean Trinitarian belief that Jesus, the Son of God is "true God from true God" does NOT conform with whAt you are saying!

Sure does!

Otherwise, they would NOT believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is “one true God from ANOTHER one true God.”

Trinitarians don't believe such.

If it's true that Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is "one true God from ANOTHER true God," are you telling me that Jesus, the Son of God is "one true God from the SAME true God?"

Nope! Just as the creed states "true God from true God". The Father and Son are distinct individuals, who are fully unified in all things concerning their fellowship and towards us, and equal in all things in respect of us.

Again, you MISS what Jesus was saying. If you listened to Jesus instead of yourself, you would hear him tell the woman, “the hour is coming when you will NEITHER on this mountain, NOR in Jerusalem, WORSHIP the Father” (John 4:21).

Note "the hour is coming". Thus such arrangement was future. At the time of Jesus talking with the Samaritan woman, the arrangement was the Temple in Jerusalem. Wouldn't hurt if you listened to Jesus instead of trying to refute me with absurdities.

Jesus NEVER worshiped in the temple. The early Christians met in houses - not in temples. Jesus and his apostles went into the temples ONLY to preach - NOT to worship.

Where does it say so in scripture?

Interestingly, your INC meeting place is a temple by definition. Unless of course when you and your fellows meet you don't worship God (?)

Where did you get the FALSE teaching that Jerusalem is “God appointed center for worship?”

The OT. Remember Jesus is also the son of David, Jerusalem was the capital of his kingdom and it is this kingdom (the spiritual side of his kingdom) that God promised would last forever and ever. David wanted to build a house for the tabernacle, God forbade him but allowed Solomon to build the first temple etc.

Why don't you listen to Jesus for a change! Jesus said, "you will NEITHER on the mountain NOR in Jerusalem worship the Father." Don't you understand simple english?

Jesus was speaking at a time future to the arrangement that prevailed when he was speaking to the woman. Which was the topic of our conversation. "Jesus said to her, 'Believe me, woman, the time will come...'" (TEV John 4:21)

The ONLY true God that exists is the God who CREATED the heavens and the earth and everything in them (Neh. 9:6).

Compare Neh 9:6 and Col 1:16. What Nehemiah says of YHWH, A.Paul says of the Son.

You think this is what the Bible teaches, don't you?

I humbly submit to the full teaching of the scriptures, without addition or omission.

Aren't you being arrogant to ASSUME that "your opinion" AFFIRMS what you think is what the Bible teaches?

It is not my opinion, but the teaching of the Church for over nineteen hundred years. In my unitarian days I was arrogant and resisted the scriptures, prefering the wisdom of men. But I was chastened by reading the scriptures in full and have repented my prior error. And now adhere to the teaching taught in scripture and handed down from the days of the apostles and their successors.

Peace

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

Response to your post to me #204

The doctrine that Jesus, the Son of God is "true God from true God" is NOT learned from scripture. This is man-made doctrine.

Nope! If one reads the NT fully (especially Jesus' witness of himself) the idea that Jesus is just a man like any other (albeit one who remained sinless), whose only existence was established at his conception in Mary, is definitely a man-contrived doctrine that denies the plain witness of the NT.

Col 1:16 without ambiguity says refering to the Son "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible". Which corresponds to Nehemiah 9:6 "You alone [are YHWH]; You have made heaven...with all their host, The earth and everything on it". Heb 1:2 without ambiguity affirms Col 1:16. At John 1:3, A.John says the same of the Logos, who via vs14-17 is identified as the Logos made flesh, as Jesus. Numerous times Jesus himself affirms having pre-existence. So scripture shouts that the Son had a real existence prior to his becoming as man (cp Phil 2:6-8).

If God is identified as the creator of all things then without a full reading of scripture it would be evident that the Son is solely the creator God! However, A.Paul qualifies telling us "All things were created through the Son and for Him" and all things are by God through the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 8:6). By the will of the Father, all things in heaven and earth (other than the Father) are subject to the Son. Thus the Son is not God of himself, but God in himself (John 14:11; 17:21) - God from God. And scripture declares all that the Father does and says is in truth and his promises are fulfilled, and declares that what the Father does so the Son, then the Son is true God from true God. And as he was begotten but unlike other things that are begotten, and not made as all things created were made, he is very God from very God. As Thomas realised "my Lord and my God" and Jesus encouraged declaring "Blessed [are] those who have not seen [me] and believe" (John 20:28-29). Thus the Son is our Lord and our God, to the glory of his Father.

There is a huge weight of scriptural evidence against the opinion that Jesus was just a man (albeit a special man), who had not glory with the Father before the world was!

There's nothing out of context in repeating what Jesus said about himsef in John 8:40. Jesus said, ".....ME a MAN..." and that's what I say.

Indeed! But you do not put his words into their context. If you read the entire gospel of John you'll notice "a man" is a Jewish idiom and occurs about 19 times in this gospel. For example: the phrase is used of John the baptist, Nicodemus and even circumcision. So as you should realise Jesus is not declaring his humanity at John 8:40. At most, he could be construed as declaring his masculinity.

Using your understanding of scripture we would be forced to assume Jesus' Father is a man also. Jesus says the law requires two men as witnesses and he has the Father and himself as his witnesses. (John 8:17-18).

The fact that the pharisees saw Jesus as just a man, caused them to assume that when he spoke of his father, he likewise spoke of a male Jew. Thus they asked "where is your father?" Jesus then confuses them saying "you neither know me, nor my father..." (vs19). The Greek word translated "know" is "eidon"="to see with the eyes and so have knowledge". Obviously the Pharisees could see Jesus but their perception was clouded, thus they could not see past his manhood. At John 8:40 Jesus is stating the obvious, which was the pharisees viewpoint! This "a man" perception was the reason the pharisees wanted to stone Jesus! We find the same viewpoint at John 5:18 and 10:33.

All Christians agree that Jesus was a man, but as the Logos become flesh as John 1:14-17 says.

The doctrine that Jesus is "the logos made flesh" is a DISTORTION of scripture. Scripture teaches that Jesus is the "flesh that the logos or word BECAME."

Nope! A.John at vs14-17 equates Jesus with the Logos made flesh. He does not in the slightest way suggest that "Jesus is the flesh that the Logos became". Verse 15 says John the baptist bore witness of the Logos made flesh who dwelt amongst us, there is no other nominee until verse 17. From vserse 17 this one is identified as Jesus.

The doctrine that the Father is the ONLY true God but Jesus, the Son of God is ALSO true God from the ONLY true God," is a big JOKE!

So say all Muslims and Jews! And so they refuse to accept the Christian scriptures.

Equally frustrating is one who goes around in circles to EVADE a question to cover up one's IGNORANCE.

I make plain statements such as the Father of the Son is the only true God and you find that circular (?). And I give a full witness of scripture rather than rely on two isloated phrases and you find that circular (?). And I give a brief statement of the meaning of the Christian belief and you find that circular (?). I offer you my other cheek. Your slights fall without injury.

You haven't explained how your doctrine that "the Son of the Father is true God from true God," lines up with Jesus' declaration that the Father is the ONLY true God.

You hadn't asked me to! But briefly I have done so in other posts, and again do so above and below.

This doctrine can only line up with what Jesus said IF the word "ONLY" is cut out from John 17:3 or, as you seem to have done, PRETEND that the word "ONLY" is NOT there..

Nope! the Church and I insist that the word "ONLY" is emphatically there, and is absolutely applied exclusively to the Father and to no other. The complete phrase "only true God" in exclusive reference to the Father is essential to Trinitarian belief! It is because the Father is the only true God, that his Son can be deemed true God from true God (true God from the only true God).

Are you being truthful? First, you say you believe that the Father is your ONLY one true God. Then you say that Jesus, the Son of God is "true God from true God." How can you believe that the Father be the ONLY true God, when you ALSO believe that the Son is "true God from true God?"

Because the Son is very Son of the Father, begotten not made. An exact replica of his Father's hypostasis (the word used and what is said at Heb 1:2).

What a bizarre argument! Why can't you accept the TRUTH that the reason the Father is the ONLY true God is because Jesus Christ SAID it?

Oh I accept Jesus words! But apparently you have not considered, on the basis of scripture, why Jesus said the words or what they mean.

I've answered this same question numerous times. no matter how you want to rephrase it, I'll always answer the Father of the Son is the only true God.

Granted that you are truthful in your answer that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God, do you then ACCEPT that the Son and the Spirit are NOT true Gods?

They are not God of themselves but in themselves. The Son begotten is true God from the only true God, and the Spirit proceeding from the only true God and sent by the Son, is true God from the only true God. The Father, Son and Spirit are not God to us severally, but in unity. If we see the Son we see the Father, and if we are in the Spirit we have the Son and therefore the Father in us. (Rom 8:9-11)

Since the Father and the Son are "one and the same" ONLY in mind and judgment, but are TWO separate and distinct hypostases/individualities/personages, yet BOTH are "true Gods," isn't it true that Trinitrarians recognize TWO "true Gods?"

Nope! As with the church, though many members in each congregation there be but one congregation, and though there be many congregations there be but one body. The head of the body is Christ, and the head of Christ is his Father. Not many but one.

Pagan influenced religions and their conception of God cause people to find the Trinity difficult to understand. However, consider 2 Samuel 7:24 and 1 Chronicles 17:22 which both say "For You have made Your people Israel Your very own people forever; and You, LORD, have become their God" (cp Ezekiel 37:23). Now compare Exdodus 6:7 "I will take you as My people, and I will be your God". In Moses' account YHWH is not the identity "God" but rather he who became God to the Israelites. As any Rabbi or Hebrew scholar will tell you, in Hebrew, "God" is a man made concept, and in the OT, YHWH competes with all other G/gods to prove himself above such man made concepts as G/god. in fact according to scripture God can choose not to be God = Hosea 1:9 "you are not My people, And I will not be your God."

As any Rabbi or Hebrew scholar will tell you, in Hebrew, in the OT, God is an accolade, not an identity statement. Thus very rarely is the word "God" used without qualification or specification so as to distinguish Israel's God from the G/gods of the nations. In the NT the accolade is always attributed to the the Father of the Son. And thus by association with the Son - for to perceive the Father we must receive his Son. And though A.Paul says: to us there is one God, the Father. He also says, to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. To be Lord (master/owner) in the OT was exclusive to YHWH. YHWH was he who became God of Israel and so the Son as our owner and judge is God to us, to the glory of his Father.

They (the Father, the Son and Spirit) ARE one God to you but the reality is you call each of them, individually "God" don't you? Therefore, you are ONLY pretending that the Father is the ONLY true God while recognizing THREE individual Gods, aren't you?

Nope! There is no division where there is unity.

Whatever you want to call them, the TRUTH remains that there are THREE distinct entities, beings, persons, hypostases who are each called "God" individually. Yet, Trinitarians FOOL people into believing that the Father is the ONLY true God.

Nope! The Father is the only true God, and the Son is an exact replica of him, as is the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The Father is God of himself, and the Son and Spirit are God in themselves. Each in respect of us united and equal in wisdom, power, action, purpose, judgement of us etc. And in respect of each other united - each neither desiring to upsurp the authority of the other, nor wrestling for our attention. Each attesting to the other. There is no division where there is unity.

...are "distinct in their hypostases, individuality, personage, then you must believe that the Son and the Father are TWO different "true Gods," don't you?

Nope! Jesus says "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men. For I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you." (John 5:37-42). Note it is not to the Father that believers are to go but to the Son, for in the Son is found the Father (John 14:10). And it is the Spirit that guides us into the truth of the Son (John 16:13). Thus, as all things that belong to the Father belong to the Son, so also with the Spirit (John 16:14-15)

I DON'T see how these verses make TWO Gods merge into the Father as the ONLY true God.

Nor do I! Thats an idea exclusive to yourself. However, reflecting on these verses with the overall testimony of the OT & NT I can readily see how the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father.

I understand perfectly what Jesus prayed for in John 17:23.

Tell me your understanding of John 17:23 and we'll see if we agree.

John 17:23 des NOT justify the Nicean Trinitarian belief that the ONLY ONE true God is composed of the Father AND "persons" OTHER than the Father because the Bible teaches that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). John 17:23 CANNOT make John 17:3 USELESS.

Indeed! But you said you understood "perfectly what Jesus prayed for in John 17:23". Please share your insight with me.

Trinitarianism is NO different from Sabellianism in that they BOTH believe that Jesus is God. This belief NULLIFIES Jesus' declaration that the Father is the ONLY true God.

Nope! Sabellians hold the Father and the Son are the same individual who are God absolute, the one and only true God in different modes of manifestation. In contrast Trinitarians hold the Father is exclusively the only true God, and the Son being begotten of the Father is thus true God from the only true God.

Notice Eph. 4:6 which says, "ONE God and Father who is ABOVE all." The Father who is the ONLY true God does NOT have any equal!

In terms of rank, there is none greater than the Father. But all things, other than the Father, are subject to the Son (1 Cor 15:27) and in this point and time the Son has all the privileges of the Father, and is not subject to the Father (1 Cor 15:27-28). And when the kingdom is established the throne of God and the Lamb will reside with us and from it will flow the river of water of life (Rev 22:1-3).

For Nicean Trinitarians, there is but (only) ONE Godhead, the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit; and these THREE (Gods) are ONE true Godhead."

Individually they are the one God to us.

Even gramatically, this belief stinks! How can you say without tongue in cheek that "individually THEY (plural) ARE (plural) the ONE (singular) God to us?"

Thus in your opinion grammatically English and most other languages stink! For instance: We might say there are three men but in reality there is only one humanity. Or these (plural) people (plural) are ONE church (singular).

One can only deduce multiplicity if there is division. Where there is unity there is only singularity.

Peace

[popaface]

Greetings Allan -

I just noticed your post amidst the apostoli/incrus intercourse, and think that you are touching onto to something quite interesting.

In reading your quote though, I do not understand exactly what you are saying - perhaps if you offered a definition of memra theology?

The reason this caught my eye is because an understanding of the Word of God or Logos exists in multiple religious traditions - it is foundational to Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, but in what I consider ignorant arrogance, what other religions say about the Word is typically ignored by Christian theologists.

What I am wondering is about the similarities between Memra theology and the 'Aum' theology of the above mentioned religions.

I for one do not exclude other religious understandings of the Word of God, and actually wonder why others do not find it curious that an understanding of the Logos is not exclusively Christian or Judaic.

Please, I am interested in what you have to say.


Shalom.

Viv

I haven't quite studied into other religions, I'm more familiar with Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and I'm dabbling in Judaism. I have yet to touch on Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, et al.

I've read parts of Daode Jeng though and can say that some concepts are very similar to Christianity, the emphasis on the Way and peace. Though, some concepts are very different from Christianity, the idealization of the King, and other such things. The minute details though, I don't know of yet.

To my defense, I'm studying a degree in theology not religion or anthropology. Though, I will be starting post-graduate work in anthropology next year and I'll hopefully be working mostly in religious issues.

What I can tell you though is that there was virtually no correspondence between the Orient and the Western world during the time we're talking about. The similar ideas are possibly because these are innate ideas to humankind? Perhaps, like with the rise of philosophy in the 6th century BCE, it was just a time when humankind began to develop into these forms of thinking?

The matrix in which Memra/Logos theology existed was within Palestinian Targumic Judaism of course influenced by Hellenistic culture - as Judaism itself was a species of Hellenism. The translation in the Palestinian Targum of Genesis 1 was "the Memra of H. said 'let there be light'" a personified "Word" which can be best described as deuteros theos, a second god. The Genesis allusion in the prologue to John would make this even more obvious. To many scholars see a huge dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism, further, too many scholars concentrate on seeing a continuity between the Christian Old Testament and the Christian New Testament without concentrating on the reception of texts during the period in which the Christian New Testament was written. It's more important to enter the discourses of the first century in order to understand Christian literature than to look at it from the perspective of the Old Testament, even given explicit quotations of the Jewish Scripture.

Is it right to ignore the similarities between religions? No. I will definately look into the similarities as I further my studies. Is it right to see the similarities in Judeo-Christianity with Buddhism/Hinduism/Daoism as being central to their possible meanings? No. They must each be seen in their own light, in their own matrix, in their own episteme.

Allan

[Vivian]

I haven't quite studied into other religions, I'm more familiar with Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and I'm dabbling in Judaism. I have yet to touch on Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, et al.

I've read parts of Daode Jeng though and can say that some concepts are very similar to Christianity, the emphasis on the Way and peace. Though, some concepts are very different from Christianity, the idealization of the King, and other such things. The minute details though, I don't know of yet.

To my defense, I'm studying a degree in theology not religion or anthropology. Though, I will be starting post-graduate work in anthropology next year and I'll hopefully be working mostly in religious issues.

What I can tell you though is that there was virtually no correspondence between the Orient and the Western world during the time we're talking about. The similar ideas are possibly because these are innate ideas to humankind? Perhaps, like with the rise of philosophy in the 6th century BCE, it was just a time when humankind began to develop into these forms of thinking?

The matrix in which Memra/Logos theology existed was within Palestinian Targumic Judaism of course influenced by Hellenistic culture - as Judaism itself was a species of Hellenism. The translation in the Palestinian Targum of Genesis 1 was "the Memra of H. said 'let there be light'" a personified "Word" which can be best described as deuteros theos, a second god. The Genesis allusion in the prologue to John would make this even more obvious. To many scholars see a huge dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism, further, too many scholars concentrate on seeing a continuity between the Christian Old Testament and the Christian New Testament without concentrating on the reception of texts during the period in which the Christian New Testament was written. It's more important to enter the discourses of the first century in order to understand Christian literature than to look at it from the perspective of the Old Testament, even given explicit quotations of the Jewish Scripture.

Is it right to ignore the similarities between religions? No. I will definately look into the similarities as I further my studies. Is it right to see the similarities in Judeo-Christianity with Buddhism/Hinduism/Daoism as being central to their possible meanings? No. They must each be seen in their own light, in their own matrix, in their own episteme.

Allan

Indeed I agree, Allan, that each religious tradition must be looked at in the light of their own episteme.

I experienced a Road to Damascus type of experience which eventually caused me to let go of mainstream Christianity, which in retrospect, was so that I could step out of the cultural episteme that was keeping me blinded to higher understandings.

In the years following the 'opening' of my mind and heart to whatever God chose to reveal to me, I came to find a thread of truth in all or many religious traditions - often in the founding teachings while not in the present day practices of each religion. And in following these threads of truth, I found behind each religious practice an inner practice, just like moving from the outer court of the temple into the inner court. And then in continuing to follow the thread, I found the Holy Place of religious practicing behind each tradition and then the Most Holy of Holies behind each tradition.

And so I came to see that many religions at the heart or essence taught the exact same thing, just colored in their outer forms by each's episteme. It is like at the heart of each is true manna, although the outer food has been spiced and presented differently, based on the culture and language of that tradition.

So I encourage you in your seeking, never saying no to what Christ wants to teach you.

May you be rich with his abundant blessings. Amen.


Viv

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

I repeat my question apostoli: WHO is your ONLY one true God? Is the Father your ONLY one true God? Is the Son your ONLY one true God? Is the Holy Spirit your ONLY one true God? ARE the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit your ONLY one true God? You are ashamed to say it apostoli, aren't you?

Given I've repeated it over and over again throughout the posts I can hardly be ashamed to say The Father of the Son is the only true God. The one Jesus prayed to at John 17:3, referred to at John 20:17 and A.Paul says of at Ephesians 3:14,15 "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named..."

I hope you truly understand what you are saying. Do you realize that by saying, "the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God," you are in effect saying that any OTHER being, person, entity, or hypostasis, who is recognized by Trinitarians as God is a FALSE God? You can redeem yourself by being HONEST about your TRUE belief.

As I've told you over and over again: the Father of the Son is the only true God, is core to Trinitarian belief! One of the big reasons we pray the Lord's prayer "Our Father who..."

Yes, you have told me over and over that the Father of the Son is the only true God. But I don't believe you are being truthful because in the next instance, you ADD that Jesus, the Son is "true God from true God." This DESTROYS what you call, the core of Trinitarian belief entirely.

For those out there with an interest in the teaching of Christianity I recommend Novatian's treatise "On the Trinity" written in the third century, especially his concluding paragraphs...

"The true and eternal Father is manifested as the one God, from whom alone this power of divinity is sent forth, and also given and directed upon the Son, and is again returned by the communion of substance to the Father. God indeed is shown as the Son, to whom the divinity is beheld to be given and extended. And still, nevertheless, the Father is proved to be one God; while by degrees in reciprocal transfer that majesty and divinity are again returned and reflected as sent by the Son Himself to the Father, who had given them; so that reasonably God the Father is God of all, and the source also of His Son Himself whom He begot as Lord. Moreover, the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put before all Him whom He begot. Thus the Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, having the power of every creature subjected to Him by His own Father, inasmuch as He is God; with every creature subdued to Him, found at one with His Father God, has, by abiding in that condition that He moreover was heard, briefly proved God His Father to be one and only and true God."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm

What a convoluted treatise! Who can understand this????

If John 1:1 is talking in the past and that didn't continue into the present, then A.John and John the baptist, in your opinion, must have been deluding themselves. John 1:4 tells us "In [the Logos] was life; and the life was the light of men".

You are NOT telling the truth!

I cited scripture in its inspired order. Is it your opinion that the scriptures and the their inspired order are not the truth?

You are NOT telling the truth because you DISTORTED John 1:4 by SUBSTITUTING the phrase, "the Logos" in lieu of "Him" which was what is actually written.

John 1:4 says, "In HIM (referring to Jesus - NOT to the logos or word)

A.John's referee is the Logos from verses 1-16. From versus 14-17, verse 4 refers to the Logos who became flesh (vs14) and is then identified as Jesus (vs17).

Apostle John referred only to the “word” or “logos” in verses 1 and 14.

All other verses refer to Jesus, the MAN that the “word” or “logos” BECAME. Jesus is NOT the “logos that BECAME flesh.”

"was" is not exclusively past tense. Technically it is past indicative, and thus can be past-present continuous. For instance: "Obama was the first American President of Afro-American heretige.' Last I heard he still is, and will remain so into eternity! (ie: the first Afro-American President).

Your example to prove your point that there can be "past-present continuous" is preposterous! Why would anyone with a RATIONAL mind say, "Obama WAS the first American President of Afro-American heritage?" Can Obama's position as FIRST American President of Afro-American heritage CHANGE? Never! Obama will always be the FIRST. Today, we STILL say that George Washington IS the FIRST President of the United States.

Nope! All histories refer to George Washington as "was" not "is". The reason for this is that though he continues in his ranking, his ranking originated in the past.

Your reasoning is absurd! Centuries from now, the question will still be, “who is the FIRST president of the United Sates?” or “who IS the FIRST American President of Afro-American heritage?”

And apostle John did NOT say in John 1:1 that the “word” or “logos” of God was Jesus.

The context of 1:14-17 requires it. Otherwise, you would have two seperate indivuals = the Logos made flesh whom John the baptist bore witness (vs15; 6-11) and Jesus Christ (vs17) whose origins are otherwise not revealed, whom A.John also bore witness.

I understand A.John as speaking of one (a single) individual. The Logos made flesh who became named Jesus Christ.

Again, your understanding is FALSE! The "logos WAS made flesh" or "the logos BECAME a human being" is what is written in the Bible. There is NO such individual called "logos made flesh."

Thats true. He simply remained the Logos though becoming flesh and according to vs15 "John bore witness of him".

I repeat, Jesus is NOT the “logos made flesh.” Jesus is the “flesh that the logos BECAME.” Jesus - NOT the "logos" - is "him" whom John bore witness of.

Jesus Christ is the human being INTO whom the "logos" BECAME.

All here will understand your words to mean that Jesus existed and the Logos became flesh by going into Jesus (?)

You are correct. There’s nothing better than NOT reading beyond what is written, thus: “the logos was made flesh” or “the logos became a human being.” That “flesh” or “human being” that the “word” or “logos” became is named Jesus.

The “word” or “logos” is analogous to a pupa which turns into a butterfly. The butterfly – NOT the pupa, flies among the flowers just as the “human being” or “flesh” – NOT the “logos” or “word” dwelt among us.

Jesus Christ is the man or human being INTO whom the "logos" was MADE.

How does a metaphor (your "plan") get made into anything? Wouldn't it have been more logical for A.John to have said and "the Logos was fulfilled" if he meant your "plan"? But he doesn't! Instead he tells us that, that which made all things (vs2) "became flesh and dwelt amoungst us".

This is God’s wisdom which is hidden in mystery (1 Cor. 2:7). This is where God TESTS who believes the messenger He SENDS or not.

And you would want me to believe that it is the "egg yolk" that walked among the brood, don't you?

Nope!

But you are saying the "logos" or "word" dwelt among us, don't you? The "logos" or "word" BECAME a man, isn't it?

It is A.John that identifies the Logos as becoming flesh and dwelling amoungst us, and then associates Jesus and the logos as the same identity that John the baptist bore witness (John 1:14-17). I believe him.

The phrase, “and the word became a human being and dwelt among us” is analogous to, “and the pupa became a butterfly and flew among the flowers.” You wouldn’t think that it is the pupa that flew among the flowers, would you?

How can you expect me to believe such absurdity?

You are the one that makes up the absurdities to resist what the scriptures clearly say. And they don't talk about eggs, sperm or anything only a fleshly mind can relate to.

Isn't the "logos" dwelling among us an absurdity?

No. I have to assume you also think it absurd to believe that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing [we] might have eternal life" (John 20:31). Or that "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him" (John 4:9).

Believing John 20:31 and John 4:9 is not absurdity because these are clearly written in the Bible. But believing that the “logos” in John 1:1 is the Son of God is an absurdity because there is NO verse in the Bible that says it. Apostle John says, “the word BECAME a human being.” This human being – NOT the logos – is the Son of God.

Thus the Logos remained what he was, but added flesh to himself. A.Paul says more or less the same thing...

Now your manipulation of what apostle John wrote only makes apostle John look stupid! Why would apostle John think that "the logos ADDED flesh to himself" when he wrote CLEARLY that the "logos BECAME a human being or was MADE flesh?"

I have no need to manipulate anything! A.John says "καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν". "σὰρξ ἐγένετο"="flesh became" and 'ἐσκήνωσεν"="to live in a tabernacle/tent".

You did say, "the logos ADDED flesh to himself," didn't you??

Sure did!

You are saying then that the “logos” ENCASED itself with flesh, aren’t you? And that's a far cry from what is actualy written, whch is, "and the 'logos' BECAME flesh or human being, don't you agree?

Apostle John did NOT mean that Jesus is "God" or a "god."

Thats true: he didn't write "o theos ēn o logos" nor "o logos ēn theos"

Then why do you substitute Jesus for "logos" or "word?"

I don't substitute the IDs, according to John 1:14-17 they are equivalent.

You MISINTERPRET John 1:14-17 then substitute Jesus for “logos” or “word.” Just because Jesus is the name of the human being that the logos turned into does not mean that Jesus is a “God” or a “god.”

A.John wrote "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος"= literally "God was the Logos.

John did NOT write "God was the Logos," did he? What I read is, "the word WAS God" not "God was the logos."

A.John's word order is ""θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος", "θεὸς=God ἦν=was ὁ λόγος=the Logos". From John 1:1b,2 we know that the Logos wasn't the God whom he was with, so when taken in context of the whole verse we know A.John is not saying "God was the Logos" but something else. In most grammarians opinion A.John was not defining the individual but the quality of the individual.

You are correct in saying that Apostle John was defining the quality of something but NOT the “quality of the individual.” The “logos” is NOT an individual. The “logos” is God’s “word” or intent, plan, or promise and apostle John was defining the quality of God’s intent, plan or promise.

It was the "word" of God that apostle John was talking about in John 1:1.

Actually A.John wrote about the Logos. We get "the word" from Jerome. When he was preparing the Latin Vulgate around 382CE, latin didn't have an exact equivalent to the Greek.

Whatever, John was NOT talking about Jesus but the "logos" or "word," right?

In verse 1:1-16 definitely, though the association of verses 14-16 with verse 17 equates Jesus with the Logos.

The association of verses 14-16 with verse 17 does NOT equate Jesus with the “logos.” Rather, the association of verses 14-16 with verse 17 equates Jesus with the “human being” that the “logos” or “word” became.

And apostle John did NOT intend to convey the WRONG idea that "Son of God" EQUALS "true God from true God." Apostle John knew that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3) and the Son of God is a MAN (John 8:40).

You have offered no biblical or scholarly proof of A.John's intention.

I am NOT talking of John's intention. I am talking of John's KNOWLEDGE that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

A.John also had the knowledge that Jesus was the Logos made flesh, and Jesus came down from heaven and returned to heaven, and Jesus was the Son of God, and eternal life comes from "knowing" both Jesus' Father and Jesus as the Son of the Father, and that we are to honor the Son as the Father etc.

Apostle John knew that Jesus was NOT the “logos” that was MADE flesh. This is clearly indicated when John wrote, “And the “word BECAME flesh” (John 1:14). And we know that the “flesh” or “human being” that the “logos” or “word” became is named Jesus.

The "word" that was in the beginning with God was NOT Jesus.

And yet A.John says, John the baptist "bore witness of him" (vs15) = the Logos made flesh (vs14). vs17 names "him" Jesus Christ.

John the Baptist "bore witness of him" (vs 15) = the flesh that the logos BECAME.

He bore witness of the Logos, of the Light (vs6-8) which is identified by A.John as being in the Logos (vs4-5).

How can apostle John bear witness of the “logos” which has BECOME flesh or human being or MADE flesh or human being? John’s witness of the “flesh” or “human being” that the “word” or “logos” BECAME starts at John 1:19.

When the "logos" was "MADE flesh" or "BECAME flesh," it ceased to exist.

Scripture does not in anyway suggest such. In fact the opposite. As vs14-17 makes plain.

I can’t force you to think rationally, can I?

In its place, the flesh or man, Jesus existed. Jesus was NEVER referred to as "logos made flesh." Only Trinitarians do that.

Nope! Non-trinitarians, binitarians, most unitarians, trinitarians and everyone who reads scripture plainly, because of John 1:14-17, recognise that A.John is saying the Logos made flesh refers to Jesus.

Apostle John did NOT say, “the logos made flesh” is Jesus. What John wrote is, “And the word or logos was MADE flesh.” The phrase “logos made flesh” tricks you into thinking that the “logos” is a “spiritual creature,” named Jesus, that was made flesh; and that spiritual creature that was made flesh is also called Jesus. This idea is FALSE because the creature that was named Jesus was NOT a spirit but a child, a human being that was born to Mary (Matt. 1:21).

Rather, Jesus was referred to as Christ, Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus or Son of God.

Sure was! And Jesus even tells us he literally came from heaven and that he had glory with his Father before the world was!

Jesus did NOT say he LITERALLY came from heaven. That’s only your opinion. What Jesus said was he was SENT from God which metaphorically translates to “came from God.” John the Baptist was also SENT from God (John 1:6) and could also be said to have “come from God.”

Jesus, who is the subject of John 1:4, is the human being into whom the "word" BECAME. As we can read in other chapters of the book of John, Jesus - NOT the "word" is the light.

Indeed. And this is because concerning the Logos A.John tells us "in him was life, and the life was the light of men" and "was made flesh" becoming Jesus.

Not concerning the logos. Rather, concerning Jesus, John said, "In him was life..."

John 1:1-16 refers exclusively to the Logos. There is no other nominee mentioned other than the Logos. We encounter the Logos' association with Jesus from vs14-17.

As I said, Jesus is the name of the child or human being that was born to Mary (Matt. 1:21). The child or human being that Mary named Jesus is the “flesh” or “human being” that the “logos” or “word” BECAME.

It does not make a difference whether the Bible says, “there is NO God beside God” or “there is NO other God besides YHWH. We know that YHWH is God. Therefore, there is NO other God besides YHWH or God.

And yet scripture calls YHWH, God of gods.

The word "gods" refers to IDOLS (Psalm 96:5).

You've misused scripture as usual. Ps 96:5 refers specifically to the gods of the nations.

Psalm 96:5 says “ALL gods are idols…” We know what the word “all” means, don’t you?

A.Paul calls Satan the God of this world etc.

Not “God” but “god.” Apostle John knew that there is NO God besides the ONLY ONE true God.

Linguistically "God" is not an exclusive term.

Biblically, “God” is an exclusive term that is reserved ONLY for the ONE supreme being and CREATOR of heaven and earth.

Basically, anything that someone makes their god (even their stomach) is an idol, including YHWH God. This was the mistake of the Israelites. YHWH became an idol to them and thus they were rejected. So, he sent his only begotten Son to reveal him, not as God to be idolised, but as our Father who desires to draw us into a familiar relationship.

What you are saying does NOT have any Biblical basis. The Israelites were guilty of idol-worship – NOT making YHWH God an idol. God did NOT send His only begotten Son to, as you say, “reveal Him, not as God to be idolized but as our Father to draw us into a familiar relationship.” This is pure fairy tale! God sent His Son to reveal WHO the Father is to those whom Jesus wills to reveal Him (Luke 10:22). Hence, Jesus REVEALED that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

[QUOTE=apostoli;2636247]

You are MISREPRESENTING when you say that John “said the Son HAD all the characteristics that make God what he is” because John did NOT say, NEITHER did he IMPLY such thing.

He sure did (John 1:1c) and throughout the Gospel he goes on to prove it.
You are NOT telling the truth! John did NOT say NOR imply in John 1:1c that "the Son HAD all the characteristics that make God what he is."

According to most grammarians at John 1:1c he did! An opinion that is affirmed by Jesus words at John 12:45 & 14:9.

The Bible does NOT say anywhere that the “word that was in the beginning with God” WAS the Son of God.

In his letter to Timothy, apostle Paul wrote that Jesus is a MAN (1 Tim. 2:5). This was a COMMANDMENT of Jesus for apostle Paul to write.

And your point is?

The point is, Jesus is NOT God because "God is NOT a MAN (Num. 23:19).

Pointedly, apart from Jesus, no man is ever refered to as Son of God in the scriptures, nor does any man in scripture, apart from Jesus, declare that his Father is God. Nor does anyone in scripture, apart from Jesus, ever declare himself as having literally come from heaven. So Jesus was more than only a man. A.Paul says he was God manifest in the flesh (Col 2:9; 1 Tim 15-16)

So what if no man has ever been called Son of God in scriptures? The point is, Jesus said that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Apostle Paul did NOT say that Jesus WAS God manifest in the flesh. Moreover, what Jesus said carries more weight than what Paul or anyone else says.

Apostle John could NOT have meant to tell us that as his Father is the only true God, so is the Son of God ALSO the only true God. This is CONTRARY to what Jesus said about himself and God.

I agree! That is why the Nicene creed teaches Jesus is true God from true God.

And that’s why the teaching that “Jesus is true God from true God” is FALSE.

The scriptures attribute to Jesus everything the OT attributes to YHWH. Conclusion, in some way Jesus is God, but not God of himself, as he affirms his Father is the only true God.

Your CONCLUSION that Jesus is God, but not God of himself is FALSE. Jesus AFFIRMS that the Father is the ONLY true God. Who are you to say otherwise?

I don't! It is A.John and A.Paul who indicate otherwise. As Thomas said, Jesus is "my Lord and my God".

Jesus said the Father is the ONLY true God. Neither apostle John nor apostle Paul nor Thomas CAN say otherwise. Therefore, what these disciples say that CONTRADICT what Jesus had said, MUST be interpreted some other way.