Proof that Jesus is God

[Brakelite]

The Pharisees had no understanding:

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13 KJV)

The duality of Jesus. God came down in the APPEARANCE of man. Their eyes need opening.
.

I don't consider that the scriptures are telling us that Jesus just "appeared" as a man. He was, in every respect, a real man, just as we are. With all the emotions, temptations, weaknesses, and physical and mental limitations that are common to us all.
And to edit a PS... he also had the need to live by faith in His Father. He had no divine power, knowledge, or attributes of deity... Even His sinless life was of faith in the sustaining power of God. Just like us.

 

[Cooper]

That doesn't support the commonly held conviction though that the "spirit" of man is an independent sentient being though, which is what I assumed you were arresting when you started that man has a "tripartite" nature... Body, soul, spirit. Which further suggests that though the body dies, you would claim the spirit continues to live as a thinking feeling touching smelling speaking being right?

I hope I am understanding you correctly. I do agree with you that our spirit is independent, until that is, we surrender our life to Christ and we become a child of God according to 1 Peter 5:14; Romans 8:1.

Colossians chapter 3 tells us to put on the New Self.
Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Col 3:2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
.

 

[Cooper]

I don't consider that the scriptures are telling us that Jesus just "appeared" as a man. He was, in every respect, a real man, just as we are. With all the emotions, temptations, weaknesses, and physical and mental limitations that are common to us all.
And to edit a PS... he also had the need to live by faith in His Father. He had no divine power, knowledge, or attributes of deity... Even His sinless life was of faith in the sustaining power of God. Just like us.

Jesus while on earth was 100% man and 100% God.
.

 

[keithr]

Will you also say John spoke figuratively when he said, No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

That is a misquote, or deliberate falsifying of Scripture (I'd prefer to assume it was a mistake). You didn't give a Bible reference, so I'll do it for you:

John 1:18 (WEB): No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.​

It does not say that Jesus is God. "In the bosom of the Father" indicates that God and Jesus had an intimate, loving relationship. Their relationship is clearly stated - Jesus was God's one and only son. Note John later said:

John 6:46) Not that anyone has seen the Father, except he who is from God. He has seen the Father.​

which also does not say Jesus is God, but it's clear that "he who is from God" is not God.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Surely you're not claiming that because Jesus came down from heaven that he must be God? Satan came down from heaven too - do you think he is God?!

There are so many verses. I have only given 2 of them here. You can’t explain them away.

And yet neither of those verses teach or prove that Jesus was God, and definitely don't teach the Trinity doctrine.

You are insisting on the verses fitting your understanding. That isn’t how our mind is renewed.

No, it isn't how our mind is renewed, that's done by correctly understanding the verses, which you have not done for the above verses.

1 John 4:14-15 (WEB): We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God.

Luke 10:22) Turning to the disciples, he said, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is, except the Father, and who the Father is, except the Son, and he to whomever the Son desires to reveal him.”

 

[keithr]

What flesh nature of mankind did Jesus take? Fallen sinful flesh or unfallen flesh?

Unfallen.

 

[keithr]

Well, the Son did take upon himself the "form of a servant", though from eternity he was in "the form of God" (Philippians 2).

It does not say in Philipians 2 that Jesus was "from eternity" in the form of God. John 1:1 says he was in the form of God "in the beginning", which is not from eternity - it is the beginning of God's creation.

Who is the "Lord God" of Revelation 22?

Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.​

The angel is refering to God (Yahweh, our Father).
​

Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.​

This is now Jesus speaking.

The "Lord Jesus" is the "Lord God" of Revelation 22, no that He is the Person/Being of the Father, but His own Person/Being, who "comes" on behalf of His Father.

He's not the Lord God mentioned in verse 6!

You seem to have skipped verse 14:

13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
14) Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.​

Could Jesus here have been speaking for God (verse 13) and then commenting, saying "Blessed are those who do his commandments"?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

• Thomas Belsham was a Unitarian - Thomas Belsham - Wikipedia

Biased translation.

• Abner Kneeland became a Universalist, and later rejected revealed religion and Universalism's Christian God, and became jailed for blasphemy. Biased translation. - Abner Kneeland - Wikipedia

• Monotessaron by John Samuel Thompson derived from Johann Jacob Griesbach's NT (which was not TR based). John Samuel Thompson was a Universalist at the time of the writing of the Monotessaron.

- Johann Jakob Griesbach - Wikipedia

Biased translation, and even bad mss based on Griesbach's nonsense.



"The introduction [one of his two translations, "A Literal Translation ..."] indicates that Parker used the Griesbach rescention of the Vatican manuscript as his main text." - Watch Tower History: The Mystery of Herman Heinfetter see also 1826 JOHN S. THOMPSON. Commentary on the Four Gospels - Based on Wakefield's Translation. Fascinating History.

He loved using the Vatican mss.

"In his 1864 edition of "The English Version" he changed John 1:1 to "the command had relation to a God"." He rejected that Jesus was God (meaning Deity, as he understood a difference in Persons/Beings of Father and Son, and rightly rejected 'trinitarianism') in both.

He sent some of his 'translations' as gifts to Unitarians.

Benjamin Wilson was once a Baptist, becoming a Campbellite, and later forming another church, The Church Of God Of The Abrahamic Faith - Benjamin Wilson (biblical scholar) - Wikipedia or Church of God General Conference - Wikipedia

Tenets of that faith are:

Jesus is God's Son [not Deity], who came into existence beginning with his miraculous conception in Mary's womb [thus did not exist with the Father at the Creation]

The Holy Spirit is God's power [not a Person]

This private interlinear was first published in 1865 and was based on the Griesbach critical Greek New Testament and “the various readings of the Vatican Manuscript, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library.” Wilson was affiliated with the Disciples of Christ, which held the heresy of baptismal regeneration, and was also associated with a cult called the “Restitution Church of God.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses have printed several hundred thousand copies of the Emphatic Diaglott.

Biased through and through. His translation was effected by his rejection of the TR and his use of corrupt Vatican mss, and later rejection of the Son's existence with the Father at Creation.

• Joseph Smith, was a freemason, a con-artist, plagiarist, polygamist, pedophile, arrested and arraigned several times for theft, perjury, and attempting to set up his own monetary system among many other issues. He was definitely biased in his 'translation' (which was nothing of the sort, but simply a corruption of the KJB text, altering it where he pleased).
  
  That this one is even cited, means a desperation for one's position.
  
  Hugh went so far as to say that the crucifixion was an event in the life of Jesus that went wrong.
  
  "... was expelled from the Executive Committee of International Hebrew Christian Alliance (IHCA), of which he had been a member since 1925, (this organisation is now the International Messianic Jewish Alliance or IMJA).[2] He later associated with Messianic Judaism for a while, but was bitterly disillusioned by the experience....
  
  ... in 1985 titled The Original New Testament. In 1965 he published the controversial The Passover Plot, a book the thesis of which is that the Crucifixion was part of a larger, conscious attempt by Jesus to fulfill the Messianic expectations rampant in his time, and that the plan went unexpectedly wrong. " - Hugh J. Schonfield - Wikipedia
  
  He's a Heretic who did not even understand the basics, apparently
  
  The "Wuest" (Kenneth Wuest) 'translation' came from the Nestle's Aland text, which also rejected the TR, and picked up on the Westcott and Hort texts. - Kenneth Wuest - Wikipedia
  
  
  A historical consideration of these men and their theology (they were not Arian, nor promoting Arianism in their translations] can be seen here - Germans, JW’s and John 1:1
  
  For instance, Siegfried Schulz proves the point that he was not Arian, when he translates John 1:1c as in part, that the Word (Person) is "of a divine kind". Meaning that the Person who is "the Word" is of a divine nature, or has divine nature in connection with His Father. In other words, he makes a distinction between God (the Word's Father) and the Word, who is the Son of the Father, having the divine nature, after His Father. It would be like saying a man has a son, and his son is of a human kind. Thus the Father and the Son share the same nature (divinity).
  
  
  David Bently Hart is supposedly an 'Orthodox theologian' (Eastern Orthodoxy) and identifies with "'Christian Socialism and 'Demo[n]cratic Socialism''" (Jesuitism) and has taught at Loyola (Jesuit) College, MD, as well as Notre Dame (both Jesuit Roman Catholic Institutions). He was not Arian, though he taught 'trinitarianism', and thus his 'translation' would not deny Jesus as Deity. To utilize his 'translation' as such is disingenuous to his own erroneous theology. The guy is obviously a Jesuit masquerading as Orthodox.
  
  Robert Young (Young's Literal), whose actual translation (not commentary) reads: "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". He was not an Arian.
  
  This citation is incorrect, and misrepresents Robert Young in his Commentary, which actually reads "(13) Robert Young, 1885 (Concise Commentary), "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"" as see here (page 54) -"AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. 'and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word,' that is, he was existing and recognized as such." - Concise Critical Comments on the New Testament

aha, see. He gave ONE VERSE and it was alarming and didn’t sound right to me. I had missed his previous post though, which seems to show him looking for a trinitarian wrassle. He knew the mangled verse would have that effect, except he was expecting hysteria here and he didn’t get it. I guess he and wrangler are the same group maybe? They both are bent on saying there is only one God and Jesus is His prophet, His adopted son, merely human, a lord with a small “L,” - anything to minimize Jesus, really. Both he and wrangler begin with a trinitarian argument and then move it to a Jesus was just a prophet same as any prophet argument. So the trinitarian argument is one they think, if I cast doubt on trinity, they are then ripe for minimizing their Savior. No wonder I began to feel ill because it began to sound Islamic!

and the strange part is that their outline to catch a fish doesn’t work. I’m not rabidly trinitarian but still know Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

That’s not what Isaiah 52 & 53 say. Nor is it what Jesus says. Jesus said he did not come to be served but to serve.

Jesus also said God is greater than he, knows more than he, sent him, told him what to say, raised him from the dead and gave him revelation. All of which prove Jesus is not God.

Some of the verses show His humanness and were spoken while He was human or spoke of when He would come in the flesh. They do not negate the verses that show He was and is God. Don’t you think you would catch more fish somewhere OTHER than a Christian site...? I mean, don’t you want to maximize your catch and go where you could “help” more men?

 

[keithr]

Other translations:

• 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament

Thomas Belsham was a Unitarian - Thomas Belsham - Wikipedia
Biased translation.

1769: "and the Word was God" - KJV

Written by believers in the Trinity.
Biased translation.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

1769: "and the Word was God" - KJV

Written by believers in the Trinity.
Biased translation.

Does your translation also say, I must increase and he must decrease?

 

[keithr]

For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. (1 Peter3:8)

Err, I think that reference should be verse 18:

(1Pe 3:8) Finally, be all like-minded, compassionate, loving as brothers, tender hearted, courteous,
(1Pe 3:18) Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
​

 

[kcnalp]

"In the Beginning the Word was Begotten by the One who Always Existed which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

What are you quoting?

 

[Brakelite]

I hope I am understanding you correctly

I don't think you are. Though I'm hardly surprised when I reread my post... Full of typos.
You compared what you call the tripartite nature of man with the theory of the trinity. I suggest that both are mere human devisings and the comparison you make valid only on that basis. Their common basis in error.
First, the Godhead is not I believe one substance, as described in the creeds. Nor are they Co-equal, as commonly taught because such denies the real and literal Father/Son relationship. This however, despite upsetting most of the die hard trinitarians, does not exclude three divine Beings, all united in purpose and character... Comprising one God.
As for man. The creation account in Genesis gives explicit detail as to how we are formed, and our final make up. Dust plus spirit equals soul. Not dust plus soul plus spirit.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

1769: "and the Word was God" - KJV

Written by believers in the Trinity.
Biased translation.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

This verse, and most of the first chapter of John’s Gospel, it is “The Word”, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the subject under consideration.

In verse 1, John says of the Word, that He was “in the beginning”. This “beginning” is not the same as Genesis 1:1, “in the beginning God Created…”, which is the beginning of the Creation of the universe. In verse 3 John speaks of Creation, “All things were made by him”. Verse 1 is eternity past, the eternal existence of God the Word.

John then says that “the Word was with God”. Better in the Greek, “καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν”. Here we have “ὁ λόγος” (the Word), Who is the Lord Jesus Christ. We also now have “τὸν θεόν”, literally “the God”, which contextually, as seen from verse 18, is God the Father. John here uses the Greek preposition, “πρὸς”, which shows a distinction between, “ὁ λόγος”, and “τὸν θεόν”, as this preposition has the meaning of, “face to face with”, “in the presence of”. Quite impossible for “ὁ λόγος” and “τὸν θεόν”, being on and the same Person. Here we have the teaching of the “UniPersonal” God of the Bible. This destroys any idea of “Unitarianism”, and shows that, with the Holy Spirit, that the only correct understanding of the Godhead, is Trinitarian.

After stating the eternal existence of “ὁ λόγος”, and His distinction from “τὸν θεόν”, here. John goes on to say of “ὁ λόγος”, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”. Literally in English, “and God was the Word”. However, as “ὁ λόγος”, is the subject, the correct way to render the Greek in English, is, “and the Word was God”. As we have it in John 4:24, “πνεῦμα ὁ θεὸς”, where the literal English is, “spirit the God”, but here “θεὸς” is the subject, so the correct English would be, “God is spirit”.

John 8:54; "ο πατηρ μου ο δοξαζων με ον υμεις λεγετε οτι θεος υμων εστιν", My Father Who glorifies Me, whom you say is your God

Galatians 1:1; “διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς”, by Jesus Christ and God the Father

Here we have θεος used for the Father, and in both cases the Greek article is not used, but it is never translated as "god", or "a god"!

Interestingly, the Jehovah's Witnesses also produced the Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson. In the 1864 edition, John 1:1 in the right-hand text reads, “and the Logos was God”. Of this reading they say, “The column on the right hand side of the page is a New Version for general reading. This rendering is based upon that in the left hand Column, and the labors of many talented Critics and Translators of the Scriptures” (Preface, Plan of the Work). They reproduced this work in 1942, with the same reading.

In the Unitarian New Testament by Dr George Noyes, he translates from the Greek:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Here we read that there are TWO Who are called "God". "The Word" (ὁ λόγος), and "The God" (τὸν θεόν), WITH Whom He was!

Yet there are some who continue to reject what the Bible actually Teaches, and promote their heresies.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

He’s quoting some translation by some group that attempts to minimize Jesus. Last night I began to think he might be Muslim but I think it’s some other group...

 

[kcnalp]

• Thomas Belsham was a Unitarian - Thomas Belsham - Wikipedia

Biased translation.

• Abner Kneeland became a Universalist, and later rejected revealed religion and Universalism's Christian God, and became jailed for blasphemy. Biased translation. - Abner Kneeland - Wikipedia

• Monotessaron by John Samuel Thompson derived from Johann Jacob Griesbach's NT (which was not TR based). John Samuel Thompson was a Universalist at the time of the writing of the Monotessaron.

- Johann Jakob Griesbach - Wikipedia

Biased translation, and even bad mss based on Griesbach's nonsense.



"The introduction [one of his two translations, "A Literal Translation ..."] indicates that Parker used the Griesbach rescention of the Vatican manuscript as his main text." - Watch Tower History: The Mystery of Herman Heinfetter see also 1826 JOHN S. THOMPSON. Commentary on the Four Gospels - Based on Wakefield's Translation. Fascinating History.

He loved using the Vatican mss.

"In his 1864 edition of "The English Version" he changed John 1:1 to "the command had relation to a God"." He rejected that Jesus was God (meaning Deity, as he understood a difference in Persons/Beings of Father and Son, and rightly rejected 'trinitarianism') in both.

He sent some of his 'translations' as gifts to Unitarians.

Benjamin Wilson was once a Baptist, becoming a Campbellite, and later forming another church, The Church Of God Of The Abrahamic Faith - Benjamin Wilson (biblical scholar) - Wikipedia or Church of God General Conference - Wikipedia

Tenets of that faith are:

Jesus is God's Son [not Deity], who came into existence beginning with his miraculous conception in Mary's womb [thus did not exist with the Father at the Creation]

The Holy Spirit is God's power [not a Person]

This private interlinear was first published in 1865 and was based on the Griesbach critical Greek New Testament and “the various readings of the Vatican Manuscript, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library.” Wilson was affiliated with the Disciples of Christ, which held the heresy of baptismal regeneration, and was also associated with a cult called the “Restitution Church of God.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses have printed several hundred thousand copies of the Emphatic Diaglott.

Biased through and through. His translation was effected by his rejection of the TR and his use of corrupt Vatican mss, and later rejection of the Son's existence with the Father at Creation.

• Joseph Smith, was a freemason, a con-artist, plagiarist, polygamist, pedophile, arrested and arraigned several times for theft, perjury, and attempting to set up his own monetary system among many other issues. He was definitely biased in his 'translation' (which was nothing of the sort, but simply a corruption of the KJB text, altering it where he pleased).
  
  That this one is even cited, means a desperation for one's position.
  
  Hugh went so far as to say that the crucifixion was an event in the life of Jesus that went wrong.
  
  "... was expelled from the Executive Committee of International Hebrew Christian Alliance (IHCA), of which he had been a member since 1925, (this organisation is now the International Messianic Jewish Alliance or IMJA).[2] He later associated with Messianic Judaism for a while, but was bitterly disillusioned by the experience....
  
  ... in 1985 titled The Original New Testament. In 1965 he published the controversial The Passover Plot, a book the thesis of which is that the Crucifixion was part of a larger, conscious attempt by Jesus to fulfill the Messianic expectations rampant in his time, and that the plan went unexpectedly wrong. " - Hugh J. Schonfield - Wikipedia
  
  He's a Heretic who did not even understand the basics, apparently
  
  The "Wuest" (Kenneth Wuest) 'translation' came from the Nestle's Aland text, which also rejected the TR, and picked up on the Westcott and Hort texts. - Kenneth Wuest - Wikipedia
  
  
  A historical consideration of these men and their theology (they were not Arian, nor promoting Arianism in their translations] can be seen here - Germans, JW’s and John 1:1
  
  For instance, Siegfried Schulz proves the point that he was not Arian, when he translates John 1:1c as in part, that the Word (Person) is "of a divine kind". Meaning that the Person who is "the Word" is of a divine nature, or has divine nature in connection with His Father. In other words, he makes a distinction between God (the Word's Father) and the Word, who is the Son of the Father, having the divine nature, after His Father. It would be like saying a man has a son, and his son is of a human kind. Thus the Father and the Son share the same nature (divinity).
  
  
  David Bently Hart is supposedly an 'Orthodox theologian' (Eastern Orthodoxy) and identifies with "'Christian Socialism and 'Demo[n]cratic Socialism''" (Jesuitism) and has taught at Loyola (Jesuit) College, MD, as well as Notre Dame (both Jesuit Roman Catholic Institutions). He was not Arian, though he taught 'trinitarianism', and thus his 'translation' would not deny Jesus as Deity. To utilize his 'translation' as such is disingenuous to his own erroneous theology. The guy is obviously a Jesuit masquerading as Orthodox.
  
  Robert Young (Young's Literal), whose actual translation (not commentary) reads: "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". He was not an Arian.
  
  This citation is incorrect, and misrepresents Robert Young in his Commentary, which actually reads "(13) Robert Young, 1885 (Concise Commentary), "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"" as see here (page 54) -"AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. 'and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word,' that is, he was existing and recognized as such." - Concise Critical Comments on the New Testament

Very interesting and no surprise to me whatsoever. I had mentioned this very thing earlier! Wouldn't surprise me if they even quote Muslims when it's convenient. And like I said before, they TWIST the Hell out of our Christian Bible.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I don't consider that the scriptures are telling us that Jesus just "appeared" as a man. He was, in every respect, a real man, just as we are. With all the emotions, temptations, weaknesses, and physical and mental limitations that are common to us all.
And to edit a PS... he also had the need to live by faith in His Father. He had no divine power, knowledge, or attributes of deity... Even His sinless life was of faith in the sustaining power of God. Just like us.

And it is how we are meant to walk, which is stunning! We are meant to believe and trust INTO Him rather than just be led by Him. We are meant to trust and to receive the power to walk as He did through trust. And instead, faith has become arguing. Faith is radical trust, not ceaseless arguing.

 

[keithr]

I never said Jesus sinned. I gave the text of Romans to show the flesh nature (fallen sinful flesh) that He took upon Himself as He lived as a man on this earth. I asked about "flesh", not 'spirit/mind/heart'.

I ask you again.

What flesh of mankind do you say Jesus had?, fallen sinful flesh or unfallen?

Romans 8:3 (WEB): For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh;

The human body that God gave Jesus was in the "likeness" of sinful flesh, but it was not sinful flesh. Jesus did not inherit the sinful nature that all descendents of Adam have inherited, because God supplied the seed, not a descendent of Adam, hence the virgin birth of Jesus.

Hebews 4:15 (WEB): For we don’t have a high priest who can’t be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.

 

[mailmandan]

Some of the verses show His humanness and were spoken while He was human or spoke of when He would come in the flesh. They do not negate the verses that show He was and is God.

Amen! In John 14:28, Jesus said that the Father was greater than He and not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man who was in a lower position (Jesus here is speaking from His humanity) "..made for a little while lower than the angels.." (Hebrews 2:9)

Yet in John 10:30, Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." Jesus here is speaking from His divinity and the Jews knew exactly what He was claiming as we can see as read on. 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

 

[keithr]

Does your translation also say, I must increase and he must decrease?

I have never written a Bible translation. The translations that I have copies of do have John the Baptist saying the opposite of that. What's your point?

 

[BroRando]

1. Jesus is the true God (I John 5:20)

2. Jesus is the Word, and the Word was God (John 1:1).
And still is...

3. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:11)
It is not God the Father standing behind John speaking to him...

1. Jehovah is the true God (1 John 5:20)
To believe otherwise is idolatry (5:21)

2. Jesus is the Word, and the Word was Divine (John 1:1c).
And still is... John 1:1c is rendered in the feminine sense relating to Christ divinity. Words like Deity, Divine, Wisdom, Beginning are all feminine nouns that describe Christ's Divinity as a Divine Creation. An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes: "This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father."

3. Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:8)
It is God the Father speaking..