John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[PinSeeker]

Israel is not our father. That would be Abraham.

Sure, in that he is who God made the great nation of Israel. But all of corporate Israel are our forefathers, including Jacob, renamed Israel in Genesis 32. We worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel). Come on, Rich, I don't know you personally, but I'm very comfortable acknowledging that you're a smart guy, a very intelligent person. Playing around like this (so to speak) is very unbecoming of you. But I get it: that's what you have to do to maintain... well, what you're trying to maintain.

Rom 4:11... And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also...

Yes, because, Rich, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. And Paul is exhorting us to do the same thing, so that righteousness might be imputed to us also. He is the father of all believers in this way, absolutely.

Hebrews 1 does not talk about anybody being saved.

But Hebrews 11 certainly does, in its entirety, starting with Abraham, who received this gift of faith, which is, according to Hebrews 11:1 ~ "...the assurance of things hoped for..."

This assurance is from the Father because of His mercy: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:4-10)
​

"...the conviction of things not seen."

* This conviction is given personally by the Spirit, the Helper Who convicts, as Jesus says: "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send Him to you. And when He comes, He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment." (John 16:7-8)​

* And the writer is sure to say that it's quite impossible, because time would fail him, to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets who through faith did the great things they did. They are all our forefathers in faith, being saved exactly as we have been.​

* And I would add this, Rich, that in John 3, when Jesus tells Nicodemus that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God... The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit," (John 3:5-8), He was not merely referring to the future, but the past and present also. So it is with EVERYONE who is born of the Spirit.​

(Hebrews 1) does say that they received a "good report" in verse 39. Verse 40 then says we have something better. When something is better than something else, the two things are decidedly different.

Ah, yeah, so you are talking about Hebrews 11, but merely mistyped Hebrews 1. Okay, I'm with ya now... Okay let me help you with verses 39 and 40. Surely you agree that the writer is not all of a sudden changing his tune entirely (or at all) from what he was just said in the first 38 verses of the chapter (see above). Here, he sums it all up:

"And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect." (Hebrews 11:39-40)

Indisputably, "all these" ~ all of them ~ were "commended through their faith," and we are, too. As Paul says ~ "...a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise/commendation is not from man but from God." (in Romans 2:29; many, if not most, think Paul was the writer of Hebrews, in addition to all his other letters, but we cannot be sure).

And by "(they) did not receive what was promised," the writer is saying that they did not see the promised Savior. But through Moses and all the prophets ~ the entirety of the Old Testament ~ they knew of the promise of God, from Genesis 3:15 on. As I pointed out before, we see in various places in the New Testament, sometimes from Jesus Himself, that all the Old Testament was about Him (Luke 16:31, John 1:45, John 5:46, Luke 24:27,44, Acts 26:22, Acts 28:23).

And by "God (providing) something better for us," we now have the law of Christ, rather than, as our fathers did, the Mosaic (moral, civil, and ceremonial) Law, which always pointed to Christ, and still do ~ the Mosaic Law acted as a guardian and tutor (Paul, Galatians 3) and pointed our fathers forward to the coming Christ, and now, the Mosaic Law acts as a mirror which points us back to Christ and His time on earth and forward to His return, as we no longer need a guardian or tutor because we have the Real Thing. This is what the writer says in Hebrews 7: "...on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God." (Hebrews 7:18-19) As I pointed out before, Jesus Himself said regarding the two great commandments (first loving God and second loving neighbor), "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." What Jesus said did not come to be merely when and after He said what He said, but it was always the case, even from the giving of the Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Again, the first four Commandments are about loving God, and the remaining six are about loving neighbor.

And the last part, "that apart from us they should not be made perfect," is rock-solid validation that our fathers' salvation was accomplished, given, maintained, and ultimately made complete in the exact same way as ours has been, is, will be, and,ultimately will be.​

The Jews in the OT did not have the option of being born again, since it was not available.

Wrong. See above.

All they had was the law, a shadow of what was to come, i.e., justification by faith

Rom 3:28,

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.​

Heb 10:1,

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
​

I think these are more than a different outward appearance. They are in truth a fundamental change in inner nature.

Oh! Agreed! All except for what you mean by "all they had was the Mosaic Law" ~ yes, the Mosaic Law had a function in itself, to point our fathers toward the true Law, the Law of Christ. Christ was always the true Object, and always will be. See above.

If you could only see the huge difference between Israel in the OT and the Church in the NT, the scriptures would go from a grainy black and white to a very bright technicolor.

Right back atcha, Rich. Every word. Except I would say there is a huge difference in one sense, but in another ~ Another (capital 'A') ~ there is none.

They would get even brighter if you put God and Jesus in their right places.

Yeah, again, right back atcha. Every word.

I used to sit in the cave...

I'm not so sure you don't still. Hopefully not. But the cave is altogether different than what you mean, and I'm not in it, thank the Lord. I have been called out of darkness into His marvelous light, and therefore am part of His chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, and therefore proclaim the mighty acts of God (Exodus 19:6, Deuteronomy 26:9, 1 Peter 2:9).

Continued immediately below:

 

[PinSeeker]

Continued from immediately above:

How does the context change the simple declarations that both Jesus and Paul made, saying that the Father is the only true God?

I answered this before, that both Jesus's and Paul's context are different from what you suppose. Their contexts in those two passages are not what you suppose them to be, are not nearly as simplistic as you make them out to be:

Again, Jesus is speaking to those two whom He is speaking in the form (morphe') ~ in the very nature ~ of man, and as such, the Father is His God.

And again, Paul is refuting the prevalent notion in the wider world that there are many Gods and many Lords and affirming what the Corinthian Christians "know" ~ which he says just prior to the verse you're referring to, 1 Corinthians 8:6, in verses 4 and 5, that "...'an idol has no real existence,' and... 'there is no God but one...' although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth ~ as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'." In view of this, then comes verse 6, where he says, "...for us there is one God... and one Lord..." And again, this same Paul is crystal clear (in his letter to the Philippians) that Jesus was, is, and always will be in the very form of (morphe' ~ in the very nature of) God, even though, for a time, He was in the very form of (morphe' ~ in the very nature of) man (Philippians 2:5-7).

We cannot cherry-pick and make Scripture, which is all God-breathed (which is another affirmation of the triune Jehovah, as the Father has spoken it ("Thus saith the LORD"), the Son was and is the living embodiment of it (the Word made flesh," "'It is finished!'", and the Spirit superintending the very human writing of it ("...men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit").

Perhaps you could address some of the remote context I mentioned a while ago that totally agree with Jesus not being God.

I did. They "agree with Jesus not being God" only in the sense that, while on earth, He had laid aside His deity for a time (though still in the form of God). He emptied Himself in this way, for our sakes.

Remember, God knew things Jesus didn't know, God is the head of Jesus, Jesus will be subjected to God, Jesus was tempted whereas God can't be tempted, Jesus grew in wisdom whereas God is wisdom.

Yes, I remember it all, Rich. Please stop insinuating that I don't. Just stop.

There are many other verses that would make it quite impossible for Jesus to be God...

In your mind. Yeah, I totally get that. You're not alone in that, unfortunately. See above. Lord willing, you'll change your mind. But if you do, give glory to God, not yourself.

Grace and peace to you, my good cyberspace friend.

 

[PinSeeker]

Good point about Israel. I never thought about that, but there it is. It's been there for a few thousand years now! Thanks.

Now if you could only apply that truth about the Oneness of a multiplicity to the triune Jehovah. Like you say, it's always been there, even from the beginning.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rich R]

I will go with the Linguistic experts with their knowledge of the Greek over your biased opinion. But thanks anyways for responding.

hope this helps !!!

What did I say that the linguistic experts don't say?

I'll reiterate what I said; John 1:1c is correctly translated as, "...and the Word (Greek "logos") was God." That's exactly what all the linguistic experts that Kermos quoted said. What did you think I wrote? I didn't write, "...and the word was a God" which I suspect is what you think I wrote because you think I'm JW, which I'm not. Maybe I'm wrong. If that's not it, what did I say that goes against the linguist experts?

To take things a bit further, are you sure there is complete agreement among the linguist experts on John 1? There isn't. The fact is there are different ways of taking the grammar in many verses in the scriptures. The deciding factor is that all verses have to fit with all other verses on the same subject. If one otherwise legitimate translation of a verse causes contradictions while a valid alternative doesn't cause the contradiction, then we ought to go with the one the fits.

 

[PinSeeker]

What qualifies a person mentally to obey Acts 2:38? A high IQ or anyone that hears about it?

One can certainly hear and not understand.

Grace and peace to you, Truther.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

"Nature of a divine nature"

That's pretty good.

perfectly logical. first nature means makeup, second one refers to Gods inherent essence. like our nature is human- His is divine.

 

[Rich R]

Continued from immediately above:


I answered this before, that both Jesus's and Paul's context are different from what you suppose. Their contexts in those two passages are not what you suppose them to be, are not nearly as simplistic as you make them out to be:

Again, Jesus is speaking to those two whom He is speaking in the form (morphe') ~ in the very nature ~ of man, and as such, the Father is His God.

And again, Paul is refuting the prevalent notion in the wider world that there are many Gods and many Lords and affirming what the Corinthian Christians "know" ~ which he says just prior to the verse you're referring to, 1 Corinthians 8:6, in verses 4 and 5, that "...'an idol has no real existence,' and... 'there is no God but one...' although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth ~ as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'." In view of this, then comes verse 6, where he says, "...for us there is one God... and one Lord..." And again, this same Paul is crystal clear (in his letter to the Philippians) that Jesus was, is, and always will be in the very form of (morphe' ~ in the very nature of) God, even though, for a time, He was in the very form of (morphe' ~ in the very nature of) man (Philippians 2:5-7).

We cannot cherry-pick and make Scripture, which is all God-breathed (which is another affirmation of the triune Jehovah, as the Father has spoken it ("Thus saith the LORD"), the Son was and is the living embodiment of it (the Word made flesh," "'It is finished!'", and the Spirit superintending the very human writing of it ("...men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit").


I did. They "agree with Jesus not being God" only in the sense that, while on earth, He had laid aside His deity for a time (though still in the form of God). He emptied Himself in this way, for our sakes.


Yes, I remember it all, Rich. Please stop insinuating that I don't. Just stop.


In your mind. Yeah, I totally get that. You're not alone in that, unfortunately. See above. Lord willing, you'll change your mind. But if you do, give glory to God, not yourself.

Grace and peace to you, my good cyberspace friend.

You keep saying Jesus is speaking, "in the form of man." The scriptures actually say that he always said only what his Father told him to say. There is nothing about him speaking, "in the form of a man" or of him speaking in the form of anything for that matter. God told Jesus to say that he has a God, and that's what Jesus said.

This whole idea of Jesus being 100% human and 100% is pure Gnosticism at its finest. It is a total mental disconnect used in a futile attempt to explain the unexplainable.

On another note, you got me to thinking about the marriage relationship. Usually many quote part of what God said concerning marriage, namely,

Eph 5:22-24,

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.​

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.​

Then they proceed to flip out, calling Paul a sexist, misogynist pig, or some such thing. But they seldom read nor ponder the next few verses,

Eph 5:25-29,

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
​

Now we see what the husband has to do in a marriage, and it's not a small thing. Like Jesus, a husband must forget his own self and consider everything in light of what's best for his wife. Every decision he makes must be that which benefits his wife, not necessarily himself. Jesus certainly wasn't thinking about his own interests as he hung on the cross. In any case, it is a huge responsibility that a husband has towards his wife. He sacrifices himself for his wife. It is exact parallel to,

Eph 5:32,

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
​

Seems like if a husband truly followed this exhortation, then the wife ought not to have any problem with obeying. It's just like we, knowing Jesus always has our best interest in mind, ought to obey what he says. A beautiful thing indeed. Too bad it's pretty much gone in our society today. I believe the violence and division we have today is a direct result of abandoning God's idea on the family.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If you want to stick with that, then I'm afraid that you have to accept that you don't believe Jesus nor Paul, because both said in grade school reading level that the Father is the only true God. As you correctly said, Jesus is not the Father, so he can't be God.

Well then you have to accept that Jesus, who is called god in numerous places in Scripture is a false God. for the opposite of true is false.

God is the Father. Jesus is the son whom God sent. Trying to make them the same person is just wrong. Now, if you want, you can say God is an essence, but now you've reduced God to a thing instead of a person. Sorry, but that's about the sum of it.

I don't make them the same person, so this remark is irrelavent.

How does this not eliminate the Son from being God? He's not the Father, so he's not the one God. Again, no way around the simple assertion that Paul made. It totally agrees with what Jesus said.

I think that truing to understand Jesus and God in terms of persons, natures, essences, or whatever leads to nothing but confusion, and God is certainly not a God of confusion. Why not just accept Jesus being the son of God makes him like all sons, i.e., not their own father? That's not at all confusing.

Lame argument. It is confusing to those who reject teh whole Counsel of Scripture! confusion is relative to the individual, especially those indoctrinated in the Arian heresy.

Where do the scriptures say such a thing? The Athenasian Creed doesn't even say that. It says God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are equal in all ways. Not that I buy into the Athenasian Creed, but I was wondering where you got the idea that Jesus is God and yet NOT equal in certain ways.

John 1:1
King James Version

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Isaiah 44:6
King James Version

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.

John 10:30
King James Version

30 I and my Father are one.

And before you use the watchtower lie that one here means in union- NO! it is "eis" which is the number 1 only.

These three (among scores of verses) show Jesus is God, and Yahweh.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28
King James Version

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

This shows that whhile jesus is equally divine in nature as His Father, He is inferior in authority to His Father.

 

[Rich R]

I suspect we'd encounter difficulty discussing either of these subjects.

I believe the ten commandments are eternal in purpose (I know I'm in the vast minority on this point and, after being a Seventh-day Adventist for 32 years, I'm used to that), and that applying many of the terms we do to God, such as "logic," "nature," or "essence," just to name a few, is just plain foolishness. Many of us are going to be so embarrassed when we see Him face to face that our mouths will be struck dumb like the father of John the Baptist. Nothing personal, of course. I believe you and I had a few very nice chats a couple of months ago.

To me logic is logic. A thing is either logical or it is not. God's logic is just an infinitely greater understanding of the same type of logic that we have since we are made in His image. I can acknowledge that there are other human beings who have a much greater capacity for perceiving logic than I do, therefore it's no problem for me to imagine God being eternally further along this scale of perception. My understanding of things (99 times out of 100) is based on Scripture that I often can no longer recall. I really need to set up some sort of database to help me find Scripture related to given topics.

So, in this case, I speak of 'progressive revelation' suggested by texts such as John 16:12. In particular, I'm referring to a gradual unveiling of the purposes of God as opposed to the kind of dispensationalism that suggests "the love of God" could not exist in man until Pentecost.

The conditions of eternal life are eternal: perfect obedience to the commandments of God. Righteousness by faith is also eternal. God does not change. If human beings could surrender the nature that is born of the devil, they would all understand that God's purpose in the plan of redemption is restoring the image of God in man, thereby making the universe secure for for normal operation in harmony with the character of God. If this all sounds simple, circular logic, it's because that's exactly what it is.

Our part in the restoration operation is simple. But God, by His inconceivable grace and love, has been pleased to open to us the intricacies of His part in the operation, as well (insofar as we would allow Him to reveal them), which is much more complicated than ours. But human nature, unconverted, sees this revelation, in Christ and the Word, as a thing with which to be occupied and amused, well-nigh entirely ignorant of the solemn import of the matter.

I'm finding it more and more difficult to participate here lately. I suppose it's through some fault of my own, but the way most folks handle sacred things here is painful for me to witness, and taxing on my patience. I'm torn between my desire to witness to what I believe is true and my capacity to look upon so much presumption and the mingling of the sacred and the profane. Oh, and anti-denominationalism is all the rage. Christianity gets more and more trendy all the time. For many, politics have become a bona fide idol. The church is bound up with the world almost entirely. The Bible foretells it, so it should be no surprise.

I'm just rambling and thinking out loud. Pay me no mind.

By the way, a lot of folks don't realize that Galatians 3 refers to both the moral and the ceremonial law. You probably realize that, though.

Always a pleasure chatting with you, Rich.

I think we are in agreement way more than disagreement. I can see your heart for God and I know that I have a heart for God also. There will always be disagreements on scriptural matters. Let's face it, it's an incredibly deep subject, so no wonder we don't agree on every little jot and tittle. We all see through a dark glass. But when he comes back we'll all find out where we got it and where we missed it. I suppose the good news is that we'll be so happy and joyful, that we won't feel too bad about all the stupidity we exhibited while on this earth. It all reminds me of Romans 7.

In any case, disagreements should be no hindrance to loving one another. God knows there's not a lot of love in the natural world. We get beat down everyday by the world. If we don't love one another, who will? Well, God and Jesus will, but I mean what other flesh and blood people will love us? If we don't pray for one another who will? I love everybody here. Sometimes I go away feeling bad that I may have hurt someone's feelings by something I said. I don't meant to do that, but there is that stupid flesh part of me. I just ask God to forgive me and say a little prayer for whoever I think I may have hurt.

So I guess I'm just rambling and thinking out loud also! Oh well, sometimes that's how we get new revelation from God, our wonderful Father.

 

[ChristisGod]

What did I say that the linguistic experts don't say?

I'll reiterate what I said; John 1:1c is correctly translated as, "...and the Word (Greek "logos") was God." That's exactly what all the linguistic experts that Kermos quoted said. What did you think I wrote? I didn't write, "...and the word was a God" which I suspect is what you think I wrote because you think I'm JW, which I'm not. Maybe I'm wrong. If that's not it, what did I say that goes against the linguist experts?

To take things a bit further, are you sure there is complete agreement among the linguist experts on John 1? There isn't. The fact is there are different ways of taking the grammar in many verses in the scriptures. The deciding factor is that all verses have to fit with all other verses on the same subject. If one otherwise legitimate translation of a verse causes contradictions while a valid alternative doesn't cause the contradiction, then we ought to go with the one the fits.

They all agree the Word is God but not the Father. There is more than ONE in John 1:1 who is God.

Do you agree ?

The Linguistic experts I quoted all agree.

 

[BarneyFife]

perfectly logical. first nature means makeup, second one refers to Gods inherent essence. like our nature is human- His is divine.

I don't see the difference, but no worries.

When people start using terms like "nature," "essence," and/ or "substance" in reference to God, my head starts spinning, and I instantly think of this:

But, again, no worries. Folks are free to interpret, speculate, whatever. Spooks me, though.

 

[Rich R]

Well then you have to accept that Jesus, who is called god in numerous places in Scripture is a false God. for the opposite of true is false.

What is a god? Specifically, what did the Ancient Near Eastern Jewish people thing it means?

I don't make them the same person, so this remark is irrelavent.

I stand corrected on that, you didn't say they are the same person. I suspect you might say they are 2 persons with one essence. Is that right? That is a concept borrowed from Gnosticism used in an attempt to explain the unexplainable. It's not in the scriptures for sure.



Note 0 matches for the word "essence."

Lame argument. It is confusing to those who reject the whole Counsel of Scripture! confusion is relative to the individual, especially those indoctrinated in the Arian heresy.

Three persons with one essence is not confusing? What kind of picture emerges in your mind that shows three persons with one essence? If we can't picture something in our minds, then we really can't believe it. That's just how our God given brains operate. God never asks us to take anything by blind faith. To have faith in something means we trust it. We can not have faith nor trust in something we don't understand. Blind faith is actually an oxymoron. We can't have true faith in something we can't logically picture in our minds. We can say we have faith in incongruities, but we really can't.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That's what it says. What it does NOT say is, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God"

The word "Word" is the Greek word "logos." Have you ever looked it up in a concordance?

Also, ever thought about how something can be "with" something else and be that something else at the same time?

"...the logos was with God, and the logos was God." I'll give you a clue; find out about the Greek word translated "with." Suffice it to say, it is not the normal word the Greeks used for "with." My point is that there is more to understanding the scriptures than simply accepting what we hear from the pulpit on Sunday mornings. The Bereans in Acts 17 are a great example of how to study. They didn't even believe what the Apostle Paul told them until they verified from the scriptures if what he said was true or not. Maybe see if what our priest or pastor says is true or not. They, like rest of humanity, are fallible.

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.

Looks like Yahweh saying He is the only God. Why imply it says anything other than that?

I and my Father are one.
And before you use the watchtower lie that one here means in union- NO! it is "eis" which is the number 1 only.

I don't read the watchtower because I'm not JW. However the scriptures do say,

John 17:21,

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.​

Putting two and two together, I'm thinking that when God says two or more people are one, He's not saying they are literally one person. Nor are we one essence any more than God and Jesus are one essence. Ever hear an expression like, "the crowd acted as one?"

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

This shows that while Jesus is equally divine in nature as His Father, He is inferior in authority to His Father.

These verses say nothing about anybody's nature. You're adding that. It says in grammar school reading level that Jesus will be subject to God. That flies in the face of trinity doctrine which of necessity must say that God and Jesus are equal in all ways. How is one being subjected to another equal?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I don't see the difference, but no worries.

When people start using terms like "nature," "essence," and/ or "substance" in reference to God, my head starts spinning, and I instantly think of this:

But, again, no worries. Folks are free to interpret, speculate, whatever. Spooks me, though.

so then do you believe Jesus is God? Yahweh? Teh first and Last? what sort of being do you declare Jesus to be?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I stand corrected on that, you didn't say they are the same person. I suspect you might say they are 2 persons with one essence. Is that right? That is a concept borrowed from Gnosticism used in an attempt to explain the unexplainable. It's not in the scriptures for sure.

No it is not! You should read the beliefs of Gnosticism. It is derived from Scripture to explain the fact jesus is declared God, and Yahweh yet the Father is a diffrent "being" than the son.

Note 0 matches for the word "essence."

So? YOu won't find a match for incarnation either and that is biblically true as well.

Putting two and two together, I'm thinking that when God says two or more people are one, He's not saying they are literally one person. Nor are we one essence any more than God and Jesus are one essence. Ever hear an expression like, "the crowd acted as one?"

Well if Jesus was speaking idionmatically, I would buy it. But He wasn't so that reference is not germane. YOu csan think whast you wish, but the bible say8s they are- so I accpet it, even if I do not fully understand it.

And I am not i mplying they become th esame person anymore than a husband and wife become one makes them the same person.

 

[Rich R]

They all agree the Word is God but not the Father. There is more than ONE in John 1:1 who is God.

Do you agree ?

The Linguistic experts I quoted all agree.

I'm not sure, but I think you are saying there is more than one God. I don't know how else to take, "there is more than ONE in John 1:1 who is God."

If that is in fact what you are saying, no I don't agree with that at all. Check out the word "with" in John 1:1b. It is the Greek word "pros" and "with" is a terrible translation. "Pros" means "to," "towards," or "with reference to." In other words, John, in one verse, is building a case that the true logos (not the popular one from the Gnostic religion), a) existed in the beginning, b) pointed to or referenced Yahweh, and finally c) the logos actually IS Yahweh.

Most English Bibles also screw up John 1:14, but I won't go into that unless you want me to. But please don't ask me unless you are truly interested in something other than orthodox doctrine.

 

[Jim B]

What is a god? Specifically, what did the Ancient Near Eastern Jewish people thing it means?


I stand corrected on that, you didn't say they are the same person. I suspect you might say they are 2 persons with one essence. Is that right? That is a concept borrowed from Gnosticism used in an attempt to explain the unexplainable. It's not in the scriptures for sure.

View attachment 23986

Note 0 matches for the word "essence."


Three persons with one essence is not confusing? What kind of picture emerges in your mind that shows three persons with one essence? If we can't picture something in our minds, then we really can't believe it. That's just how our God given brains operate. God never asks us to take anything by blind faith. To have faith in something means we trust it. We can not have faith nor trust in something we don't understand. Blind faith is actually an oxymoron. We can't have true faith in something we can't logically picture in our minds. We can say we have faith in incongruities, but we really can't.


That's what it says. What it does NOT say is, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God"

The word "Word" is the Greek word "logos." Have you ever looked it up in a concordance?

Also, ever thought about how something can be "with" something else and be that something else at the same time?

"...the logos was with God, and the logos was God." I'll give you a clue; find out about the Greek word translated "with." Suffice it to say, it is not the normal word the Greeks used for "with." My point is that there is more to understanding the scriptures than simply accepting what we hear from the pulpit on Sunday mornings. The Bereans in Acts 17 are a great example of how to study. They didn't even believe what the Apostle Paul told them until they verified from the scriptures if what he said was true or not. Maybe see if what our priest or pastor says is true or not. They, like rest of humanity, are fallible.


Looks like Yahweh saying He is the only God. Why imply it says anything other than that?


I don't read the watchtower because I'm not JW. However the scriptures do say,

John 17:21,

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.​

Putting two and two together, I'm thinking that when God says two or more people are one, He's not saying they are literally one person. Nor are we one essence any more than God and Jesus are one essence. Ever hear an expression like, "the crowd acted as one?"


These verses say nothing about anybody's nature. You're adding that. It says in grammar school reading level that Jesus will be subject to God. That flies in the face of trinity doctrine which of necessity must say that God and Jesus are equal in all ways. How is one being subjected to another equal?

Job 11:7, “Can you discover the essence of God? Can you find out the perfection of the Almighty?"
Hebrews 1:3, “The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Simply showing that the word "essence" doesn't appear in the King James translation is a poor argument. Both of the above are from the NET translation, which is far better than the KJV. BTW, the word "unicorn" doesn't appear in the NET.

Moving on...

John 1:1 in most modern translations, reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (The NET has "and the Word was fully God") Now, before you "fly off the handle", I don't consider the NET (or any translation) the word of God. All translations are -- ready? -- translations!

I have used the analogy in other places of Jesus being God's ambassador. An ambassador is not the President, but s/he fully represents the identity and power of the United States. S/he has been invested with that authority. Nobody can say that, since s/he is not the President, s/he doesn't represent the full power and authority of the United States. Jesus is a separate person from God, yet He fully represents the full power and authority of His Father. That is why He can truthfully say "I and the Father are one." John 10:30 and "Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father!" John 14:9

 

[Rich R]

No it is not! You should read the beliefs of Gnosticism. It is derived from Scripture to explain the fact jesus is declared God, and Yahweh yet the Father is a diffrent "being" than the son.

If Jesus were only a different being than God and both are God, then there are two Gods. That was a huge problem for the early Trinitarians. To solve it, they introduced the Gnostic term "essence" into the equation. They said God and Jesus are two beings with one essence.

So? YOu won't find a match for incarnation either and that is biblically true as well.

To quote Ayn Rand, "Check your premise." Maybe the fact that the word incarnation is missing actually means it's not part of the doctrine. It's a huge leap to say it's missing in the Bible but it's Biblical. Maybe it's not Biblical at all. Maybe that's another idea from Greek philosophy. It in fact is just that.

 

[Rich R]

Job 11:7, “Can you discover the essence of God? Can you find out the perfection of the Almighty?"
Hebrews 1:3, “The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Simply showing that the word "essence" doesn't appear in the King James translation is a poor argument. Both of the above are from the NET translation, which is far better than the KJV. BTW, the word "unicorn" doesn't appear in the NET.

Which version are you quoting? I have many versions and don't see any with the word "essence." Not saying your version doesn't have it, just wondering which version it is.

In Job the word in your version translated as "essence" is ",מצא mâtsâ" It is used more than 400 times and in most versions is not ever translated as "essence." Whatever version you are using, I suspect it was made by Trinitarians who wanted to get their personal ideas into the scriptures one way or another. That is not unusual.

In Hebrews 1:3, the word translated "essence" in the version you quoted is the Greek word "χαρακτήρ, charaktēr." This is the only verse where that Greek word is found (in the NT. I didn't check the OT). I trust you can see our word "character" came form "charakter." Is "essence" the same as "character?" Maybe worth a study. As I said, none of the many translations I have think "essence" is the best translation.

John 1:1 in most modern translations, reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (The NET has "and the Word was fully God") Now, before you "fly off the handle", I don't consider the NET (or any translation) the word of God. All translations are -- ready? -- translations!

No flying off the handle here...I'm cool... You are absolutely correct. Technically we do not have the true Word of God. The parchment upon which Paul wrote is long gone. Textual criticism is a whole area of study in itself. It is a necessary study it we have any hope of getting to at least some semblance of the true Word of God. I think we can get pretty close, but there will probably always be something or another we can't know because some scribe accidentally or intentionally, changed something that Paul actually wrote. Of course the same for Moses, Isaiah, John, and the rest of those whom God inspired to write.

I have used the analogy in other places of Jesus being God's ambassador. An ambassador is not the President, but s/he fully represents the identity and power of the United States. S/he has been invested with that authority. Nobody can say that, since s/he is not the President, s/he doesn't represent the full power and authority of the United States. Jesus is a separate person from God, yet He fully represents the full power and authority of His Father. That is why He can truthfully say "I and the Father are one." John 10:30 and "Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father!" John 14:9

Good analogy. Joseph held complete authority and power over all of Egypt. Whatever Joseph said was as good as Pharaoh saying it. Only in the throne was Pharaoh over Joseph. Well that sure sounds a lot like Jesus' relationship to God. God granted Jesus complete authority and yet God is the head of Jesus and Jesus will be subject to God. I just maintain that Joseph is not actually Pharaoh, nor is Jesus actually God.

Hollywood stars and NFL football players all have agents. The star or quarterback tells their agent what they want and the agent goes to the producers or team owners and says what they were told to say. Agency is a huge deal in the scriptures. How many times is it said that God "sent" Jesus. There we have a sender, the principle, and the one who he sent, the agent. We would never think the agent is the principle. That would make simple words and concepts meaningless, which means we have no way of communicating anything to someone else.

 

[BarneyFife]

so then do you believe Jesus is God? Yahweh? Teh first and Last? what sort of being do you declare Jesus to be?

Best I can figure, Christ is as fully God as is the Father. I don't understand it; I just observe it as being declared and portrayed by Scripture. I do scratch my head a little when people challenge each other with this question as a test of fellowship, though.

 

[BarneyFife]

the NET translation, which is far better than the KJV. BTW, the word "unicorn" doesn't appear in the NET.

Moving on...

Not so fast, there...

I'm not a King James purist, but I can't help wondering what knowledge you possess that qualifies you to make such a claim so matter-of-factly. I certainly hope your judgment isn't based on something on the level of the "unicorn" issue.

And btw, couldn't "unicorn" just be a word they used in early 17th century England for some legitimate, yet exotic member of the Equine species?

Horse Breeds: The 30 Most Popular Equine Types A To Z