Did God become flesh?

[Rosenritter]

Rosen,

God and Jesus are not the same Persons. Hitomi and mashak are the same person.

So your comparison is illogical, to say the least.

"God and Jesus are not the same Persons" is the element that you are seeking to PROVE, that is under scrutiny. You cannot use that which you seek to PROVE as its OWN PROOF in a logical discussion. That's an example of circular reasoning.

But under your current standard of measure, Hitomi and Meshak ARE different people. Meshak is not physical, Meshak did not exist until long into the lifetime of Hitomi, Meshak does nothing of her own will but only the actions of Hitomi, etc.

Do you want to talk about logic? Then obey the rules of logic. I've put forth a proposition, X. The way to disprove a proposition is to demonstrate that when that proposition is accepted as true, that it necessarily creates a contradiction with all other known and accepted facts. I've followed this process with your proposition, that we have TWO creators.

Malachi 2:10 KJV
(10) Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Isaiah 45:18 KJV
(18) For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

You admitted that Jesus created us (even though you maintain that Jesus did not create every thing that was created, contradicting John 1:3 and Col 1:16) yet this runs around of itself because we are told that God created the heavens and the earth, not another, and it was done alone.

Job 9:7-8 KJV
(7) Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.
(8) Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

"Alone" is not the word used to describe when one hires (or creates) someone else to do the creation.

So by all means, let's proceed logically. Or if you prefer, let's avoid logic for a moment and address the emotional and moral reasons that prevent logical conclusion. Is there something innately immortal that would prevent God from shedding his own blood to signify our redemption? Is his love incapable of that?

1 John 3:16 KJV
(16) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

 

[meshak]

"God and Jesus are not the same Persons" is the element that you are seeking to PROVE, that is under scrutiny. You cannot use that which you seek to PROVE as its OWN PROOF in a logical discussion. That's an example of circular reasoning.

But under your current standard of measure, Hitomi and Meshak ARE different people. Meshak is not physical, Meshak did not exist until long into the lifetime of Hitomi, Meshak does nothing of her own will but only the actions of Hitomi, etc.

Do you want to talk about logic? Then obey the rules of logic. I've put forth a proposition, X. The way to disprove a proposition is to demonstrate that when that proposition is accepted as true, that it necessarily creates a contradiction with all other known and accepted facts. I've followed this process with your proposition, that we have TWO creators.

Malachi 2:10 KJV
(10) Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Isaiah 45:18 KJV
(18) For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

You admitted that Jesus created us (even though you maintain that Jesus did not create every thing that was created, contradicting John 1:3 and Col 1:16) yet this runs around of itself because we are told that God created the heavens and the earth, not another, and it was done alone.

Job 9:7-8 KJV
(7) Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.
(8) Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

"Alone" is not the word used to describe when one hires (or creates) someone else to do the creation.

So by all means, let's proceed logically. Or if you prefer, let's avoid logic for a moment and address the emotional and moral reasons that prevent logical conclusion. Is there something innately immortal that would prevent God from shedding his own blood to signify our redemption? Is his love incapable of that?

1 John 3:16 KJV
(16) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Just amazing.

You are so typical trinity believer I have known.

good day, friend.

 

[Rosenritter]

Just amazing.

You are so typical trinity believer I have known.

good day, friend.

You are unwilling to respond if it requires proceeding logically? I've been doing all the outreach here. You aren't answering questions I ask, you haven't been asking questions and I don't even think you could accurately describe what what I believe or why.

 

[meshak]

You are unwilling to respond if it requires proceeding logically? I've been doing all the outreach here. You aren't answering questions I ask, you haven't been asking questions and I don't even think you could accurately describe what what I believe or why.

good day, friend.

blessings.

 

[drbrumley]

good day, friend.

blessings.

 

[Dartman]

1. If you allow yourself to be known by two different names depending on whether it is within the realm of Earth or the created realm of Theology Online,

Would you agree that if one person does something under one name, they cannot deny doing that thing by merely claiming to be another name?

 

[Rosenritter]

Would you agree that if one person does something under one name, they cannot deny doing that thing by merely claiming to be another name?

If it is just a name, then yes. It might be a bit different if something is done as a position. For example, a man who is a foreman of a team and the sheriff of a town arrests someone with the authority of the sheriff, not with the authority of a foreman. In that case the Sheriff arrested the man, not the Foreman, but the person of these positions is the same.

John 5:22-23 KJV
(22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
(23) That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

I would say such is the case in John 5:22 above, as "Father" and "Son" are used as titles to indicate role: the "Father" is the form of address used by Jesus to indicate God far away, in heaven, unreachable; and "the Son of God" is for Jesus himself, present, God manifested in the flesh upon earth, come to them.

In the judgment, are people judged by an invisible God far away that they cannot see? Or does Revelation show us that he comes from the skies with judgment and power as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and that each and every one stands before him? If he is manifested in real form in front of us we know him as the Son of God. And we know that God judges.

Psalms 50:3-6 KJV
(3) Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.
(4) He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.
(5) Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.
(6) And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 KJV
(7) And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
(8) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Spoiler

Psalms 82:1, 8 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Ecclesiastes 3:17 KJV(17) I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

Revelation 20:12 KJV
(12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 

[Pierac]

If you are an self-employed (you are your own employer) and you also have one thousand employees, are you two employers? If you are their boss and you are also your own boss, do you self-destruct in paradox to contradict "there is only one boss?"

Think harder.

You just proved my point! You can't be the boss, and then claim to have a boss... You can't be the CEO and then claim to have a CEO! Jesus has a GOD! In fact God shows His most important employee... His chosen One... (Luk 9:35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!" ) Now... let's look in Rev chapter 5

Rev 5:1 Then I saw in the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne a scroll written on the front and back and sealed with seven seals.

Keep reading into chapter 6 and you will see One who is able to take the scroll from the one true GOD BOSS/CEO... seated on the throne!
The Lamb is not GOD... He is the Lamb... The chosen one worthy to take the scroll from the only true GOD and able to read it... (Joh 17:3)

Why do you fail to see...
:think:
Paul
You follow the teachings of men!

 

[Rosenritter]

You just proved my point! You can't be the boss, and then claim to have a boss... You can't be the CEO and then claim to have a CEO! Jesus has a GOD! In fact God shows His most important employee... His chosen One... (Luk 9:35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!" )

"I am the boss" and "I am my own boss" are not contradictory. More ever, Jesus is going to use different terms when he speaks as a man then when he speaks for purpose of identification.

Now... let's look in Rev chapter 5

Rev 5:1 Then I saw in the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne a scroll written on the front and back and sealed with seven seals.

Keep reading into chapter 6 and you will see One who is able to take the scroll from the one true GOD BOSS/CEO... seated on the throne!
The Lamb is not GOD... He is the Lamb... The chosen one worthy to take the scroll from the only true GOD and able to read it... (Joh 17:3)

To get to chapter 6 you have to first go through chapter 1, where Jesus gives positive identification of himself as the LORD of Hosts using the established names and titles from the prophet Isaiah. Regardless, if you look at the throne in Revelation you also see it was Jesus seated upon that throne. One throne for one God.

Revelation 21:5-7 KJV
(5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Revelation 22:12-16 KJV
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

[Dartman]

If it is just a name, then yes. It might be a bit different if something is done as a position. For example, a man who is a foreman of a team and the sheriff of a town arrests someone with the authority of the sheriff, not with the authority of a foreman. In that case the Sheriff arrested the man, not the Foreman, but the person of these positions is the same.

But, the person could not state to the team , "I didn't arrest that guy"..... Correct?

 

[Pierac]

"I am the boss" and "I am my own boss" are not contradictory. More ever, Jesus is going to use different terms when he speaks as a man then when he speaks for purpose of identification.



To get to chapter 6 you have to first go through chapter 1, where Jesus gives positive identification of himself as the LORD of Hosts using the established names and titles from the prophet Isaiah. Regardless, if you look at the throne in Revelation you also see it was Jesus seated upon that throne. One throne for one God.

Revelation 21:5-7 KJV
(5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Revelation 22:12-16 KJV
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

If your going to reference Revelations.... you should start with the first verse...

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him...

So according to the very first verse... who gave Jesus His revelation??? Perhaps His GOD!

Let's now review Alpha and Omega...

I am the Alpha and the Omega.

This is referenced to Revelation 1:8. But Revelation 1:8 is talking about The Almighty, Revelation 22:12 is not using this title for Jesus but for God again. If we read Revelation 22:6 it tells us who the subject is, "The Lord, the God of prophetic spirits." Jesus does say in Revelation 1:17 that, "I am the first and the last." We shall examine what he meant by that statement.

Just because the same title is used to describe two people does not mean that those two people are one. David called King Saul "My Lord " but that does not make Saul David's God (1 Samuel 24:8).

Israel’s Judges were called "saviors" but that does not make them and Jesus one person? (Nehemiah 9:27).

Jeroboam the Second of Israel is called "Israel’s savior," but that does not make him Jesus? (2 Kings 13:5)

Before we discuss these verses it would benefit us to understand John’s view of God.

Examples:

John 17:3
"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Revelation 1:6
"Who (Jesus) has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."

John 20:17
"But go to my brothers and tell them, "I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

In these verses John does not consider Jesus to be God in any way. For John, Jesus has a God. John also does not believe Jesus to be omniscient even after his resurrected state. Revelation 1:1 says:

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him."

Even after his resurrection Jesus is not omniscient. God still gives him revelations. Emphasis on God gives him. Now we will look at Revelation 1:17 with the correct background of John’s thinking, and not with a mind set on making Jesus God at all costs.

It is obvious that God Almighty is the first and the last, but how is Jesus also the first and the last? Jesus is the first because he is the firstborn in two ways. One, he is the firstborn of God, which to the Jews implied that as the firstborn you are entitled to be the heir of your father, which Jesus is (Hebrews 1:2). Also according to Strong’s Greek Dictionary it means foremost in importance, which Jesus certainly is. This also corresponds with Psalms 89: 28 - 30.

Secondly, Jesus is the firstborn from the dead to be resurrected, which is what Jesus is speaking about in Revelation 1:18 which follows his statement that he is the first and the last. It reads:

"I am the first and the last, the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever."

This is also is in agreement with Colossians 1: 18. Jesus is the last because when he comes again it will be the end of the present age, and he will be in effect the last one to enter this world while it is still under the influence of Satan. He will then usher in the Messianic kingdom of God.

You knee jerk reactions shows your failure to study scripture from the beginning (Alpha) to the end (Omega) !


oly::sherlock:
Paul

 

[Rosenritter]

But, the person could not state to the team , "I didn't arrest that guy"..... Correct?

Not usually in an individualistic society where we identify ourselves personally as being the most important aspect of all things. It might be different if one was obscuring their identity for another reason, and the role might be portrayed as serving that function, rather than the personal character identity. We might need to look at the specific example.

For example, indirection or misdirection might be used for specific purpose. In a military environment a principle a person can claim a lower rank than that to which they are entitled (a colonel can claim the rank of private, etc.) If Military Police are undercover they aren't going to reveal their full rank immediately; rather they will observe what happens when their rank is thought of as inferior. This is also seen in the proverbial story of the king who disguises himself as one of his subjects (which likely has some influence from the bible story.)

We also see understatement of position used by John the Baptist.

John 1:19-25 KJV
(19) And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
(20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
(21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
(22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
(23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
(24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
(25) And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

Matthew 17:10-13 KJV
(10) And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
(11) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
(12) But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
(13) Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

John understated his rank as the prophet in the spirit of Elias, yet Jesus confirmed that he was indeed that prophet. So how do we sort between these two seemingly contradictory statements? Most people have no trouble resolving John as that Elijah, acknowledging the statements of Christ that followed as being definitive.

 

[Rosenritter]

If your going to reference Revelations.... you should start with the first verse...

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him...

So according to the very first verse... who gave Jesus His revelation??? Perhaps His GOD!

Let's now review Alpha and Omega...

I am the Alpha and the Omega.

This is referenced to Revelation 1:8. But Revelation 1:8 is talking about The Almighty, Revelation 22:12 is not using this title for Jesus but for God again. If we read Revelation 22:6 it tells us who the subject is, "The Lord, the God of prophetic spirits." Jesus does say in Revelation 1:17 that, "I am the first and the last." We shall examine what he meant by that statement.

Yes, Revelation 1:8 is talking about the Almighty. We also know him by the name Jesus. That entire first chapter of Revelation identifies the Almighty as the Lord Jesus who rose again from the dead, and just a verse later of the title "Almighty" we see "Alpha and Omega" confirmed with "first and the last" and linked to "I am he that liveth, and was dead."

Revelation 1:11-18 KJV
(11) Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
(12) And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
(13) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
(14) His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
(15) And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
(16) And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

So unless you have any other candidates as to whom this might be that was dead and is currently alive, most people acknowledge this as referring to Jesus, especially since he gives his name at the end of the book as "I, Jesus."

Just because the same title is used to describe two people does not mean that those two people are one. David called King Saul "My Lord " but that does not make Saul David's God (1 Samuel 24:8).

"First and the last" is not a transferable title. It is taken from the book of Isaiah where it is used as a unique title to identify the only true God.

Isaiah 41:4 KJV
(4) Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 48:11-12 KJV
(11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
(12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

There may be lords many and gods many, but there is only one "first and the last" and "beside Him there is no God." There is no reason for the use of such a specific title except for means of identification, and that title has that specific identification of "I the LORD."

What other purpose would there be of taking so much time and space for this identification if that was not what was meant?

 

[Dartman]

Not usually in an individualistic society where we identify ourselves personally as being the most important aspect of all things. It might be different if one was obscuring their identity for another reason, and the role might be portrayed as serving that function, rather than the personal character identity. We might need to look at the specific example.

For example, indirection or misdirection might be used for specific purpose. In a military environment a principle a person can claim a lower rank than that to which they are entitled (a colonel can claim the rank of private, etc.) If Military Police are undercover they aren't going to reveal their full rank immediately; rather they will observe what happens when their rank is thought of as inferior. This is also seen in the proverbial story of the king who disguises himself as one of his subjects (which likely has some influence from the bible story.)

We also see understatement of position used by John the Baptist.

John 1:19-25 KJV
(19) And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
(20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
(21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
(22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
(23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
(24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
(25) And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

Matthew 17:10-13 KJV
(10) And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
(11) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
(12) But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
(13) Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

John understated his rank as the prophet in the spirit of Elias, yet Jesus confirmed that he was indeed that prophet. So how do we sort between these two seemingly contradictory statements? Most people have no trouble resolving John as that Elijah, acknowledging the statements of Christ that followed as being definitive.

1) What you are describing is very different than actually denying something you truly did. Jesus SPECIFICALLY denied being the source of his words, and his works... he didn't merely LET God have the credit!
John 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words (LOGOS); and the word (logos) which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.


2) The implied conjecture here is, Jesus was deceiving everyone. Your explanation won't wash.

 

[Right Divider]

1) What you are describing is very different than actually denying something you truly did. Jesus SPECIFICALLY denied being the source of his words, and his works... he didn't merely LET God have the credit!
John 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words (LOGOS); and the word (logos) which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

You need to start in chapter 1 of John and let John know that he was wrong.

Joh 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

Joh 1:14 KJV And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

P.S. We didn't really need another anti-Christ in the forums.

 

[Dartman]

You need to start in chapter 1 of John and let John know what he was wrong.

Joh 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

Joh 1:14 KJV And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

It isn't John that's wrong. It's those that want to replace JOHN'S word; LOGOS with their opinion: "Jesus".
God's words/LOGOS have been with Him from the beginning, God's words/LOGOS were fulfilled by the birth of that flesh and blood baby boy in Bethlehem.
The roughly 1800 year old distortion of LOGOS in John 1 is in stark contrast with the way John actually uses LOGOS;

P.S. We didn't really need another anti-Christ in the forums.

So, you're leaving then?

 

[glorydaz]

It isn't John that's wrong. It's those that want to replace JOHN'S word; LOGOS with their opinion: "Jesus".
God's words/LOGOS have been with Him from the beginning, God's words/LOGOS were fulfilled by the birth of that flesh and blood baby boy in Bethlehem.
The roughly 1800 year old distortion of LOGOS in John 1 is in stark contrast with the way John actually uses LOGOS;

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.​

John wasn't confused. He doubled down on what He meant.

 

[Rosenritter]

1) What you are describing is very different than actually denying something you truly did. Jesus SPECIFICALLY denied being the source of his words, and his works... he didn't merely LET God have the credit!
John 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words (LOGOS); and the word (logos) which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

Ah, let's consider your example.... but doesn't it contradict your strict interpretation in the previous verse?

John 14:23-25 KJV
(23) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
(24) He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
(25) These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

In verse 23 he says they are his words, and in verse 24 he says that the word is not his. Contradiction? Only if interpreted out of context. Finish reading verse 24 and he explains his meaning that his words are those of the Father. That is, he has the authority of a prophet who speaks for the LORD, which is a statement that increases his assumed authority, rather than diminishing it.

That is, "the word that you hear is not mine only" rather than "the words that you hear are not mine at all." This is again that context where Jesus was keeping his identity concealed as the cross lay ahead. For clarification without the obscurity look for his specific words in Revelation.

2) The implied conjecture here is, Jesus was deceiving everyone. Your explanation won't wash.

Or you could try reading the scripture to understand the method and circumstance in which Christ spoke.

Matthew 13:13-14 KJV
(13) Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
(14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

and then compare that with the explanation for that specific speech of that passage in John.

John 16:25 KJV
(25) These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

Was Jesus speaking plainly? He plainly says he was not speaking plainly, but the time would come when he would show them plainly. This wasn't that time. Pulling of one statement out of its context is not an honest assessment of the question at hand.

 

[Right Divider]

It isn't John that's wrong. It's those that want to replace JOHN'S word; LOGOS with their opinion: "Jesus".
God's words/LOGOS have been with Him from the beginning, God's words/LOGOS were fulfilled by the birth of that flesh and blood baby boy in Bethlehem.
The roughly 1800 year old distortion of LOGOS in John 1 is in stark contrast with the way John actually uses LOGOS;

The LOGOS who was and is God became flesh. It's very simple.

So, you're leaving then?

Another poster that needs to be arrested for attempted humor.

 

[Rosenritter]

It isn't John that's wrong. It's those that want to replace JOHN'S word; LOGOS with their opinion: "Jesus".
God's words/LOGOS have been with Him from the beginning, God's words/LOGOS were fulfilled by the birth of that flesh and blood baby boy in Bethlehem.
The roughly 1800 year old distortion of LOGOS in John 1 is in stark contrast with the way John actually uses LOGOS;

So, you're leaving then?

John explained his word logos with "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" which isn't that hard to understand.