Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God

[atpollard]

Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God
Not all by itself, you have to keep reading to verse 14 where the “word” became flesh. I guess it is a good thing that John didn’t end his gospel at John 1:1. However, only someone with an agenda can read the gospel of John and come away thinking that John did not claim that Jesus was God incarnate.

 

[Wrangler]

Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God
Not all by itself, you have to keep reading to verse 14 where the “word” became flesh. I guess it is a good thing that John didn’t end his gospel at John 1:1. However, only someone with an agenda can read the gospel of John and come away thinking that John did not claim that Jesus was God incarnate.

The opposite is true. A Biblical fact that is little advertised by trinitarians is that Jesus explicitly stated he has a God himself (John 20:17, Mark 15:33) who is the only true God (John 17:3). What does this mean for other gods, like the trinitarian god?

The most anti-trinitarian book in the whole Bible, John also explicitly tells us at 20:31 that everything he wrote was to prove something other than the idea that Jesus is God; namely, that Jesus is God’s Anointed. So, it is funny to see trinitarians try to twist 1:1 – and indeed, his entire Gospel - to have a purpose other than what John explicitly stated is the purpose of his Gospel!

John 8:54 ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing.’ Yet, trinitarians contradict Jesus, asserting he is claiming all glory by reading into his words to mean he is God. And then overlook a stronger explicit anti-trinitarian verse than is hard to imagine. For us, there is one God, the Father. 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Regarding 'the word became flesh;' for obvious reasons, trinitarians pretend this says God became flesh. The obvious reason is the explicit text supporting their doctrine is so lacking they are forced to resort to such desperate stretches. A better understanding of the word became flesh is the fulfillment of Deut 18:15-18. John 1:1 is figurative use of language. Words are WHAT's not WHO's. See my thread on Hotous.

 

[Peterlag]

All true, but that does not cancel the fact that Jesus and the Father are one in essence, one in deity, and one in glory and honor. At the same time the "Head" or authority over Christ is God the Father (1 Cor 11:3). However, since "all the fulness of the Godhead" is in Christ, you have no choice except to believe that JESUS IS GOD. And if you refuse to believe that, then you cannot call yourself "Christian". The apostle John says that you can definitely call yourself an "antichrist". See his epistles.

Do you have a verse that says the Father and Jesus are one in essence and one in deity?

 

[atpollard]

Do you have a verse that says the Father and Jesus are one in essence and one in deity?

That is the WHOLE POINT of John 1.

(The crowd understood what Jesus was saying …)

John 10:30-33 [ESV]

I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?" The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
​

(… like you, they didn’t believe Him either.)

 

[Peterlag]

All true, but that does not cancel the fact that Jesus and the Father are one in essence, one in deity, and one in glory and honor. At the same time the "Head" or authority over Christ is God the Father (1 Cor 11:3). However, since "all the fulness of the Godhead" is in Christ, you have no choice except to believe that JESUS IS GOD. And if you refuse to believe that, then you cannot call yourself "Christian". The apostle John says that you can definitely call yourself an "antichrist". See his epistles.

I have a verse in Ephesians 3:19
saying ...that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Does that mean I'm God?

 

[Peterlag]

That is the WHOLE POINT of John 1.

(The crowd understood what Jesus was saying …)

John 10:30-33 [ESV]

I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?" The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
​

(… like you, they didn’t believe Him either.)

I will do this John 10:33 for you. Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God." In Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."

 

[Peterlag]

Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God
Not all by itself, you have to keep reading to verse 14 where the “word” became flesh. I guess it is a good thing that John didn’t end his gospel at John 1:1. However, only someone with an agenda can read the gospel of John and come away thinking that John did not claim that Jesus was God incarnate.

John 1:14

The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

 

[atpollard]

I will do this John 10:33 for you. Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God." In Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."

You must be a JW ... they are the only other people that I know that incorrectly build castles of sand on an erroneous belief in Greek grammar with respect to the need for "ho" before theos. Since I am no Greek Linguistic expert (I only read a few scholarly articles published for peer review to understand the basic argument), I will leave you to find one of them to correct your misunderstanding. I have cautioned you that your foundation is sand ... which is all that I can do.

Only a deliberate misreading can read the Gospel of John and come away with "Jesus does not claim to be God".
It is far easier to read the Gospel and simply say "I don't believe it is true."

 

[atpollard]

The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God

Wrong ... reread John 1:1. You are deliberately denying what John is saying in Chapter 1. Nothing good can come of that.

These actions are like those of the people in Romans 1 who professed to be wise and exchanged the truth for a lie.

 

[Peterlag]

Wrong ... reread John 1:1. You are deliberately denying what John is saying in Chapter 1. Nothing good can come of that.

These actions are like those of the people in Romans 1 who professed to be wise and exchanged the truth for a lie.

Why do I need to read John 1:1 again? Will my OP change if I read it again?

 

[Wrangler]

You must be a JW ... they are the only other people that I know that incorrectly build castles of sand on an erroneous belief in Greek grammar with respect to the need for "ho" before theos

Do you believe the Bible does not recognize other real gods besides THE Creator, YHWH? Jesus rightfully defended himself calling himself the son of God because of Ps 82. Check it out.

 

[Wrangler]

Wrong ... reread John 1:1. You are deliberately denying what John is saying in Chapter 1.

Absolutely not! John 20:31 tells us everything he wrote was NOT to prove Jesus was God. Given that explicit statement by John, who wrote the most anti-trinitarian book of the Bible, you need to read John 1:1 in that light. The word was god, made flesh, in fulfillment of Deut 18L15-18. It is NOT god made flesh.

John wrote figuratively about the word being god and trinitarians cannot imagine the word refers to the literal word of god, not a person. Also, hotous in v2 is properly translated "this" as it is in 6:60.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was (a) God. 2 This was in the beginning with God.​

It changes the tenor from trinitarian biased translations. The fact that John 1:1 does not even reference Jesus shows how desperate and little explicit Scripture there is to support what is actually an anti-Scriptural doctrine. Compare to 'For us, there is one God, the Father.' Hard to imagine a more anti-trinitarian verse. Can you construct a more anti-trinitarian verse than that?

 

[Peterlag]

I will do this John 10:33 for you...

Had the translators rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verse 34 and 35, then it would read, "...you, a man, claim to be a god." In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as "god" and not "God." In Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translate it "god." The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, "...they changed their minds and said he was a god." Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated "a god." It is a general principle that theos without the article should be "a god," or "divine." Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was "God." Now since Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God's work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be "a god" or "divine."

 

[Peterlag]

This is for those who say Jesus had to be God because a mere man could not do the job...

How does God's son who He has made both Lord and Christ become a mere man? How does this Lord and Christ who God glorified, justified, sanctified, anointed, and ordained become a mere man? The one God made to be our mediator, advocator, and intercessor? The one God highly exalted?

 

[Matthias]

This is for those who say Jesus had to be God because a mere man could not do the job...

How does God's son who He has made both Lord and Christ become a mere man? How does this Lord and Christ who God glorified, justified, sanctified, anointed, and ordained become a mere man? The one God made to be our mediator, advocator, and intercessor? The one God highly exalted?

What is the difference between “a mere man” and “a man”?

 

[Peterlag]

What is the difference between “a mere man” and “a man”?

I use "mere man" because I'm having a conversation with one on here who puts it that way. He says a "mere man"

 

[Matthias]

I use "mere man" because I'm having a conversation with one on here who puts it that way. He says a "mere man"

I hear it all the time from them too. What do they mean when they say it?

Are they saying something that everyone should be able to agree with? Not if we don’t have a clear understanding of the meaning.

 

[Wrangler]

The apostle John says that you can definitely call yourself an "antichrist". See his epistles.

John wrote the most anti-trinitarian book in the whole Bible. It is absurd to claim recognizing - as Jesus did, his God is the only true God - means we are against Christ. Regarding John's Gospel & Epistles:

• In the beginning was the Word (of God), and the Word (of God) was with God, and the Word was (a) god. 2 This was in the beginning with God. John 1:1-2 (Emphasis added)
• And the Word became flesh (not God became flesh, as trinitarians desperately claim) and dwelt among us, and we have seen his (Jesus') glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14
• No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18
• “For God (in his unitarian nature) so loved the world, that he gave his only Son. John 3:16 (emphasis added)
• For God (in his unitarian nature) did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17 (emphasis added)
• true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. John 4:23.
• Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6
• Jesus explicitly stated he has a God himself (John 20:17) who is the only true God (John 17:3).
• John 8:54 ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing.’
• We proclaim ... our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:3 (NOTE: Again no reference to the HS)
• See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God. 1 John 3:1 (God = Father ≠ Jesus)
• Grace, mercy, and peace, which come from God the Father. 2 John 1:3
• Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father's Son, in truth and love. 2 John 3:1
  
• The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God (in his unitarian nature) gave him. Rev 1:1
• He has made us a Kingdom of priests for God his Father. Revelation 1:6

To summarize, God (in his unitarian nature) is our Creator - the father of us all, including Jesus' father. God put his words, with him in the beginning into Jesus' mouth in fulfillment of Deut 18:15-18. No one has seen God but the Apostle John has seen Jesus and his glory. Jesus' God is the only God.

 

[Peterlag]

I hear it all the time from them too. What do they mean when they say it?

Are they saying something that everyone should be able to agree with? Not if we don’t have a clear understanding of the meaning.

There whole concept and I mean there whole concept is based on that a man could not redeem us and so it had to be a god. But the Bible teaches a man had to do it. So they say well, okay he was part man. So in their mind there are two. You are a mere man if you're a male. And Jesus was a man... god man.

 

[Peterlag]

Some stuff on the Holy Spirit

There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy” and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God. Thus, the Hebrew or Greek words for the "HOLY SPIRIT" should be brought into English as the "Holy Spirit” when the subject of a verse is God.

None of the dozens of descriptions, titles, or names of God are believed to be a separate, co-equal “Person” in a triune God except for the “HOLY SPIRIT” and there is no solid biblical reason to make the "Holy Spirit” into a separate “Person.” In other contexts the “HOLY SPIRIT” refers to the gift of God’s nature that He placed on people and the new birth to the Christian, and in those contexts it should be translated as the “holy spirit." God placed a form of His nature which is “holy spirit” upon people when He wanted to spiritually empower them because our natural fleshly human bodies do not have spirit power of their own. This holy spirit nature of God was a gift from God to humankind and we see this in the case of Acts 2:38 when the spirit is specifically called a "gift" when given to the Christian.

God put the holy spirit upon Jesus immediately after he was baptized by John the Baptist because Jesus himself needed God’s gift of the holy spirit to have supernatural power just as the leaders and prophets of the Old Testament did. This fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies that God would put the holy spirit upon the Messiah enabling him in his ministry. The gift of the holy spirit was born “in” believers (John 14:17) after the Day of Pentecost rather than resting “upon” them and this is one reason why Christians are said to be “born again” of God’s spirit (1 Peter 1:3, 23). Christians have spiritual power when they receive the gift of the holy spirit (Acts 1:8) because the holy spirit is born in them and becomes part of their very nature, and this is why Christians are called God’s “holy ones” which is usually translated as “saints” in the New Testament.