:nono: "was with" and "was" "God." There is no sense that I'm a god but a creation and always will be a creation. The ONLY sense of 'god' is 1) Godliness (like God in behavior) and 2) made in His image somehow. YET the Son is said to be the EXACT image of the Father. Colossians 1:15 If you miss these very important scriptures, you are missing the teaching of these scriptures. They are this clear.
Incorrect. If you demand simpleton answers, YOU are a simpleton for it. There are algebraic expressions that are not solvable: 2w +1=n
:nono: It 'may' mean you failed algebra...
Yep "...was with God...." What is the next phrase? John 1:1
John 1:1 doesn't say that. Rather it says "was with God" "and" 'was God." It says it this clearly.
No, that is the lie you are rejecting, but it isn't necessary because I nor scripture are saying that either. The only scripture passage that would confuse the issue is Isaiah 9:6 I'd simply say (for me) "be careful how you then say what is and isn't possible." For you? You'll have to come to that between you and your Creator.
:nono: It isn't "John" lying. It is you, not understanding, saying "Liar!" That's a troubling place to be between you and your God. RATHER you shouldn't say "Liar" BUT "God I don't understand...." Saying "Liar" is jumping to conclusions AND neglecting what it actually says. I cannot change that scripture for you. It says what it says AND I agree, it is very troubling logically. I don't care, rather, to make a doctrine that "makes sense" if it does damage to the scriptures, and I believe anything BUT "was with" AND "was" God, is wrong. It says this verbatim.
Another view of John 1:1 is that "The Word" here is not another title of a pre-existent Jesus, but a personification similar to the Wise Woman, Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Jesus is revealed as the Only Begotten Son of God in John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35.
A personification has never turned a concept into a person, only given a concept human attributes.
I began reading John when I was ten. I never missed the connection that John is about Jesus.
I have been reading John for many years and I have always considered John 1:14 is very much about Jesus, the only begotten of the Father Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35 and revealing the glory of being this Son of God, full of grace and truth. I rarely find a Trinitarian who understands or discusses what John 1:14 actually says. I have been aware that many try to read the pre-existent Jesus into John 1:1, but most in their minds simply replace the word “WORD” with Jesus without in any way trying to understand why the word “WORD” is used.
I would be interested in how you understand a similar expression in John’s letter, “The Word of Life”:
Who was the Wise Woman “Wisdom” who was with God in the creation in Proverbs 8?
I do not accept your view or the wrong suggestion of what “some have said”. I understand that the word “Elohim” usually translated “God” in the OT is also used for the Angels and Judges who represented God and spoke and acted on His behalf. Jesus speaks about this occurrence in John 10:30-36. John summarises what his purpose was in writing in John 20:30-31, that Jesus is the Christ, The Son of God.
I also suggest that the following also gives God’s Wisdom and Word a partial personification, but it speaks of God’s spoken word that proceeded out of God’s mouth:
Jesus is the name of the child that was to be born to Mary and the word Jesus does not appear before his conception and birth. Jesus is the living manifestation of all that is described in the Tabernacle in the wilderness. He is the Lampstand, The Shewbread, The Altar of Prayer, The Vail, The Ark, The Mercy Seat and many other aspects where The WORD became flesh. We beheld his glory, He was full of grace and truth. It is talking about character, and Jesus fully revealed God the Father’s character.
I appreciate your perspective. 1 John 1:1-3 clearly shows an extended concept to John 1:1, where instead of the Word, we have the Word of Life. The life started with God the Father and has now been entrusted and incorporated in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God as John 5:26 "given" shows.
Good, its a done deal then :up:
Sorry, this is just such a backhanded comment I have a hard time addressing it without giving you the same backhand. I'm arrogant (working on it) because I'm well-educated. This is also the subject of one of my degrees. I could replace 'unit-arian' above but I think it much more important just to discuss the merits of the verses rather than insult your intelligence as 'lower' than mine. Such doesn't matter. It is education that makes the difference and one or the other of us needs the education. :e4e:
Yes. "This 'life' was manifest, we saw Him...."
Here is the problem with awkward theology positions: They rationalize. They cannot stay in any one text to hear 'what God says' and must necessarily run off to other passages to 'rationalize' their position. Whenever you see this, it may not be 'wrong' persay, but make sure you realize it is shaky ground the further one gets from the actual passage. Here is the way inductive (vs. deductive) bible study goes: Read and understand the passage and text you are in and don't depart unless you have difficulty finding meaning. 2) read more of this book for more on the context of what you are studying. 3) Look at the author's other books of how he uses the same or similar 4) compare that to the rest of the scripture for consistency.
I know you don't. You have something in your head and feel you must adhere to it and justify it. Here is the caution: When what you have believed, meets a difference in scripture, then allow the scripture to change you. Debate sites like this don't help with that. It makes us posture within ourselves rather than what scripture says. A debate site like this 'may' help in the sense that scripture makes and molds us into His image, thus the more we share the scriptures, the more we will be molded.
I believe that The WORD in John 1:1 is a personification and that all that is represented by God’s Plan, Purpose, Wisdom became a reality when the Holy Spirit was used by God the Father to conceive Jesus, the Son of God in the womb of Mary John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35. There is absolutely no suggestion that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was shrunk into the womb of Mary.
Jesus is simply the name given to the child born of Mary, the Son of God.
Yes, Jesus is the fulfilment of all that was typified in the Tabernacle.
No, Jesus was the tabernacle, God the Father’s dwelling place amongst men..
The Tabernacle had the Shekinah Glory, dwelling between or inhabiting the Cherubim. God the Father’s glory was revealed in Jesus, as He was the Son of God, He was full of the Father’s character, He was full of grace and truth. It is not speaking of the transmigrating of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, but how the character of God revealed in Exodus 34:5-7 “abundant in mercy and truth” is revealed in Jesus, the Son of God.
Nevertheless if we both gave a brief summary of what John 1:14 is actually saying and teaching, then I suggest that we would have a different view. I would explain that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
I am not tertiary educated, especially not in areas of English, History or Religion and Languages as my work has been in a technical area and I liked Physics and Maths. I still claim, similar to the concept of “The Clarity of the Scriptures” that each of us can come to a proper understanding of the Gospel and way of life in Christ. From my experience in the last few days, I have listened to a series of 5 talks by a well-educated exponent, and much that he stated was encouraging, interesting and some new matter to seriously consider, but there was a few areas where his exposition failed and was very unusual. Another example is that yesterday a couple visited. He is a university lecturer and she a high school teacher in science. One of his hobbies was to learn Hebrew and when he was in our meeting he would read and discuss directly from his Hebrew Bible. He also lived and worked in Israel for a year. But I would not go to him for a discussion on the Yahweh Name, and the meaning that I hold, that Exodus 3:14 should be translated as “I will be” as per Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins.
The life was derived from the Father, not from a pre-existent 2nd Person of the Trinity. John saw Jesus’ moral glory in John 1:14, and here in 1 John 1:1-3 the “life” was manifest in and through Jesus, the Son of God.
I suggest that Genesis 1:1-2 and Proverbs 8 and other passages form some ground ideas for John 1:1. By claiming John’s Gospel is about Jesus, you appear to justify inserting “Jesus” and replacing “The Word” in John 1:1.
I have learnt many ideas and adjusted some of my previous positions by discussion. Yes, the Word of God is powerful to mould us.
I read this to teach that there is One God the Father and that at the end of the 1000 years Jesus the Son of God will hand back the Kingdom to His Father and will be subject to him.
I see this as part of the confusion of the Trinitarian position.
:idunno: Because you are a brilliant Hebrew scholar? Whatever preference you have, it certainly is driven by 'desire' at this point and has to be unless you had 1) the wherewithall and 2)an academic reason.
Hold on. John 17:5 Read with me before saying anything. It is just and only posturing otherwise. Go back to John 1:14. Don't just assert things. Every cult ever started just makes up ideas and believe them as simpletons neglecting what God says and just making it up as they go, believing a previous simpleton with charisma, or just made a big mistake. Let's discuss the scriptures. What you and I believe about them must be tested else it is just a posturing match going nowhere. Let's keep this a rule between us: Unless you've a scripture in John 1 (or the rest of John) let's not say anything but what we can substantiate from there.
1) You admit this isn't your degree and 2) it shows. This book, without controversy, is about the Lord Jesus Christ. The last lines: John 20:30-31
Again, just rationalization for your position. It doesn't help to read or know your mind. It doesn't help to read or know my mind. What will help, and the only thing that will help, is to read what the text says and to discuss why it is, it means that.
No, I am not a Hebrew scholar. I have considered the context (compare your recommendation which I endorse) of Exodus 3:14 and considered the evidence as presented by various expositors and Hebrew scholars.
I would be interested in your understanding of the various terms of John 1:14 before you use John 17:5 to support your understanding of John 1:14.
Yes, John’s Gospel record is about Jesus and the very verses that you quote define what John believed concerning Jesus:
You still seem to be demanding that we replace the word “WORD” with “Jesus” in John 1:1. Where do we find the meaning of the word “WORD”?
Perhaps you may like to start with John 1:14 and my interest in the term “the only begotten of the Father”.