Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God

[atpollard]

You lost me.

c'est la vie.
We tried.

 

[Peterlag]

You claim it figurative, but Jesus didn't present it that way. And in His conclusion, He affirms what He meant in His statement of pre-existance.

"Before Abraham did exist, I do exist". Jesus didn't only say that He existed before Abraham, He said that He exists presently before Abraham did previously.

Either you can conclude Jesus to be in fact YHWH (the only God, I know no other) or you can conlude as you have, that He didn't mean it.

His audience didn't take it that way, though, expressing their incredulity. Which is also like now.

Much love!

Jesus did not say he existed before Abraham. He said I was the one who mattered before or above Abraham. Not that he was here before Abraham.

 

[Wrangler]

Either you can conclude Jesus to be in fact YHWH (the only God, I know no other) or you can conlude as you have, that He didn't mean it.

False Alternative. That Jesus confessed to be exiting before Abraham in no way implies he is necessarily the Creator, his Father.

 

[Peterlag]

False Alternative. That Jesus confessed to be exiting before Abraham in no way implies he is necessarily the Creator,

False Alternative. That Jesus confessed to be exiting before Abraham in no way implies he is necessarily the Creator, his Father.

I don't have a verse for this but based on my scope of the entire Bible and how I understand the Christ. Jesus did not say he existed before Abraham. He said I was the one who mattered before or above Abraham. Not that he was here before Abraham.

 

[atpollard]

Idiot first century Jews ... can't even understand their own language: they kept mistaking simple statements of reverence for BLASPHEMY.

 

[marks]

Jesus did not say he existed before Abraham. He said I was the one who mattered before or above Abraham. Not that he was here before Abraham.

If you take His words seriously, it's exactly what He said.

All these Biblical disagreements come to this exact very thing. Jesus said something, and it's rejected. He said, Before Abraham was, I am, and this has a plain meaning. I accept it, and you don't. Simple as that.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Idiot first century Jews ... can't even understand their own language: they kept mistaking simple statements of reverence for BLASPHEMY.

They weren’t idiots (they were believers and unbelievers concerning the matter of a fellow Jew being the Messiah), they understood their own language and Jesus (himself a 1st century Jew) said the Jews in question (not all Jews) couldn’t understand him.

 

[Aunty Jane]

[John 1:14 NASB95] 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[John 1:1 NASB95] 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Did the Word become flesh? Is that Jesus?
Was the Word God?
I must be ‘simple’, because this seems pretty obvious to me from what John wrote.

Jesus is God incarnate.

Not so simple when you read the words in Greek....the original language.
“The Word” (ho Logos) was not “ho theos” but simply “theos” which in Greek describes gods, goddesses and divinities, as well as humans who were divinely appointed to carry out an assignment.
Yahweh himself called the judges in Israel “gods” because they were divinely appointed to represent him to the people. (John 10:31-36)

The Mounce Interlinear shows clearly that there are two “gods” in that verse....only one is Yahweh.
John 1:1...
“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with ho theos [Yahweh] and the Logos was theos. He was in the beginning with ho theos. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

John 1:14...
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (MOUNCE)

You are reading things into John 1:1 and 14 that the writer never intended. What is the “beginning” that John speaks of? The Almighty had no beginning. Jesus did. (Revelation 3:14)

If he was “with Yahweh” how can he, at the same time, BE Yahweh?
The Logos was the agency “through whom” creation came. He is not the Creator.
It was the Logos who became flesh....not Yahweh.

Read what it says...not what you want it to say.

 

[RLT63]

Read what it says not what you want it to say. Oh the irony

 

[atpollard]

Not so simple when you read the words in Greek....the original language.
“The Word” (ho Logos) was not “ho theos” but simply “theos” which in Greek describes gods, goddesses and divinities, as well as humans who were divinely appointed to carry out an assignment.
Yahweh himself called the judges in Israel “gods” because they were divinely appointed to represent him to the people. (John 10:31-36)

Does it not concern you that no translator (except the Jehovah's Witnesses) translated it that way. Jerome and the Vulgate even disagrees with your translation. Every other translation acknowledges the point John is making is "logos" = "ho theos" (Word = God) ... equality of the two. Setting the stage for "the Word became flesh" as a mike-drop moment.

(PS. There are peer reviewed Scholarly Articles that refute the "missing ho" argument based on Greek Grammar ... which mean nothing to me as I am not an expert on Koine Greek grammar so I am unqualified to weigh in on that level one way or the other.)

 

[atpollard]

What is the “beginning” that John speaks of?

John 1:1 [MGNT] ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Genesis 1:1 [LXX] ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

How many First Century, Greek speaking Jews would not be familiar with Genesis 1:1 from the Septuagint?

 

[farouk]

Does it not concern you that no translator (except the Jehovah's Witnesses) translated it that way. Jerome and the Vulgate even disagrees with your translation. Every other translation acknowledges the point John is making is "logos" = "ho theos" (Word = God) ... equality of the two. Setting the stage for "the Word became flesh" as a mike-drop moment.

(PS. There are peer reviewed Scholarly Articles that refute the "missing ho" argument based on Greek Grammar ... which mean nothing to me as I am not an expert on Koine Greek grammar so I am unqualified to weigh in on that level one way or the other.)

@atpollard Scripture is gloriously full of the Deity of Christ; and only those with an agenda can deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[Jim B]

Nope. There is no God the Holy Spirit verse. Rom 8:9-11 is talking about an attribute of God, his spirit, not a different person.

I am body, mind, and spirit -- three in one. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- three in one.

 

[Jim B]

No, not literally. The logos of theos is not theos. Being of God, it is divine but not a deity.

The word was God is a figurative expression. The word was a god, with divine authority is literally correct.

This refrain will help you keep this straight. Words are WHAT’s not WHO’s.

And your Bible translator qualifications are..?

The Word was (and is) God. In John 10:30 Jesus said, "The Father and I are one". Should I believe Him or you?

 

[Jim B]

Not at all. You fail again to grasp agency. There is one God, who has a Spirit. This spirit was given to Jesus at his baptism for one reason; Jesus is not God.

Through Jesus, we are gifted God’s spirit. God has chosen to reconcile us to him through his agent, through his servant Jesus. Having God’s spirit does not make us God.

I don't know about you, but I died and was reborn into the body of Christ. Although it's hard to grasp, I died and was reborn with eternal life. I am in Christ, and Christ is in God.

 

[marks]

(PS. There are peer reviewed Scholarly Articles that refute the "missing ho" argument based on Greek Grammar ... which mean nothing to me as I am not an expert on Koine Greek grammar so I am unqualified to weigh in on that level one way or the other.)

I'm no expert but we studied this in Greek class. It means exactly what we all think it means. Long and convoluted arguments aside.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Not at all. You fail again to grasp agency. There is one God, who has a Spirit. This spirit was given to Jesus at his baptism for one reason; Jesus is not God.

Through Jesus, we are gifted God’s spirit. God has chosen to reconcile us to him through his agent, through his servant Jesus. Having God’s spirit does not make us God.

Yes, "agency", a word to say, "don't believe what it says, instead, believe something different." God Himself came to save us.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Yes, "agency", a word to say, "don't believe what it says, instead, believe something different." God Himself came to save us.

Much love!

Trinitarian scholars use the word with great regularity, and have for thousands of years.

 

[marks]

Trinitarian scholars use the word with great regularity, and have for thousands of years.

And in the context of this discussion, it's used how I've said. There are plainly stated Scriptures, which we are instructed to disbelieve because of your assertion of "agency". Appeals to authority aside. I'm certain that they have used that word, and many others, and I'm certain I can believe what the Bible plainly says.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

And in the context of this discussion, it's used how I've said. There are plainly stated Scriptures, which we are instructed to disbelieve because of your assertion of "agency". Appeals to authority aside. I'm certain that they have used that word, and many others, and I'm certain I can believe what the Bible plainly says.

Much love!

You say Tertullian is a trinitarian (even though he isn’t’). I came across him using the term two nights ago in Against Marcion, which you’ve said isn’t worth spending time reading.

Whoever uses the term - trinitarian or non-trinitarian - never uses it to say “don’t believe what it says, instead believe something different”.