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

[Kermos]

Well, you still have the problem of someone being "with" someone makes two people, or in this case, two gods. Even Trinitarian scholars admit that is a huge problem. We also see Jesus talking to his Father, which again indicates two people, or in this case supposedly two gods.

How to solve it? Easy; grab the idea of "oousia (essence)" from Greek philosophy and insert it into the scriptures. So it may be two gods, but they have the same "oousia" and are therefore one. Problem solved!

"Ousia ( / ˈuːziə, ˈuːsiə, ˈuːʒə, ˈuːʃə /; Ancient Greek: οὐσία) is an important philosophical and theological term, originally used in ancient Greek philosophy, then later in Christian theology." Ousia - Wikipedia

As such, Trinitarians owe a debt of gratitude to Philo and his unholy successors. Without him there would be no trinity and we'd be forced to to accept that Jesus is the Son of God.

Your very first sentence is a LIE because I proclaimed the Truth (John 14:6) to you about the word "with" in John 1:1 of which you ignored in your post, so I explain again.

One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) existing in 3 persons, that is, the person of the Father (Romans 1:7), the person of the Word (John 8:58, John 1:1-5, John 1:14), and the person of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26, Acts 5:3-4).

Not all unitarians think that John 1:1 says Jesus is, "a god." At least not me.

According to Greek Grammar John 1:1c could be read to say that the "word" was God Himself ("...and the word was God"). Since we know from many other verses that only the Father is God, John 1:1 says nothing about Jesus being God since Jesus is the son and not the Father.

The Greek grammar of "the Word was God" (John 1:1) decisively states that "the Word" is being referred to as "God", so your writing 'the "word" was God Himself' reflects accuracy.

John chapter 1 is a cohesive whole, so the Apostle John does identify Jesus as the "Word" with "the Word manifested flesh" (John 1:14).

Since John chapter 1 is a whole passage, then John 1:14 makes the "Word" in John 1:1 refer to Jesus.

Luke refers to the "Word" as Jesus in Luke 1:1-2, so Luke's writing makes the "Word" in John 1:1 refer to Jesus.

Jesus is God according to the Apostle John; therefore, you deny Apostolic testimony.

You cannot point at a single scripture that states that the Father is the "Word"; on the other hand, the Apostle John clearly says that Jesus is the Word with "the Word manifested flesh" (John 1:14, the same passage as John 1:1).

Continued to post #422

 

[Kermos]

Continued from post #421

The usual Trinitarian view actually is guilty of making two gods out of John 1:1. How else could the word be "with" God if there is only one god? So long as we accept the normal meaning of words, to be "with" another automatically means there are two things. As such it contradicts John 1:1c which is clearly talking about one person, not two or more. Someone can't be "with" someone else and "be" that something at the same time.

The Word being God is clear, see "the Word was God" (John 1:1), and you wrote 'the "word" was God Himself' accurately, earlier.

As to "the Word was with God", since the Word refers to Jesus Himself, then we have an equivalency with the clause "Jesus was with God", so John reveals One True God existing in the person of the Word as well as the person of the Father (John 10:30) as well as the person of the Holy Spirit (John 16).

Truly, that is One True God revealed in three persons, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit of God.

It appears you forgot our earlier dialog about the words "in" and "with" - you desperately tried to change the Word of God into "that they also may be one with us" in John 17:21-22, so you are making yourself out to be greater than the Word of God (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1003), so you nullify the Word of God, Jesus (John 1:1, John 1:14) in your heart by exalting your thoughts above God's thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9).

We continued about "in" and "with" when
you foolishly claimed the Greek "en" can mean "with", yet "en" truly means "in", and your foolishness targets your thoughts that Jesus does not mean "one" when Jesus says "one" both in John 10:30 and John 17:21-22 (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1213), so you are under the delusion that. Jesus is not one with the Father despite Jesus truthfully declaring of the Father and Himself "We are One" (John 17:22). You are fixated on the temporal instead of the eternal.

Now, it's time to bring the "in" and "with" dialog into the current "the Word was with God" (John 1:1) dialog.

Just like the Word of God DOES NOT say "that they also may be one with us" in John 17:21-22 which would linguistically result in the children of God becoming God, so John DID NOT write "the Word was in God" which could result in Jesus being separate from God.

Truly, just as the Word of God DOES say "that they also may be one in us" in John 17:21-22 which linguistically results in God's children being one with this "one" being inside God, so John DID write "the Word was with God" which linguistically results in Jesus being God.

The Apostle John proclaims that Jesus is One Person with the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4), and John accomplished this with "the Word was with God" (John 1:1), so Jesus is securely God.

Your heart's convolution that this says "the Word was with the Father" is NOT what the Apostle John wrote, so you adulterate John's writing to satisfy your own lusts.

You also appear to have forgotten another earlier correspondence about Jesus Christ that Jesus is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.

Based on this Truth (John 14:6), Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as Man at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Furthermore. Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as God at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Here is an instance of Jesus, truly God, saying "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God.

Here is another instance, this time of Jesus, truly Man, saying "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" (John 20:17) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of Man thus including the person of Jesus and His brothers in one (John 17:21). See, the Son of Man being the firstborn of the born of God persons (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, John 3:3-8).

We, children of God, can also refer to Jesus in his capacity as truly God as well as His capacity as truly Man. We can use context to make the distinction.

We, born of the Holy Spirit of God persons (John 3:3-8), are one in God (John 17:21) because of the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17), thus God is One. We are the blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God's work in us.

John does exactly this with "the Word was with God" (John 1:1).

I proclaim Spiritual matters to you, but you do not understand Spiritual matters because you live in the temporal (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Trinitarians avoid this by making God, not a person, but an essence, a grotesque "thing" supposedly composed of three persons. It's an absurd idea, a way of getting around the obvious meaning of John 1:1 so as to keep the false trinity doctrine alive.

God is Spirit (John 4:24), and you call the Holy Spirit a 'grotesque "thing"'. You did a thing called blasphemy, and Jesus says something about blasphemy with "I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven" (Matthew 12:31).

You are very insulting against God because in your state as a natural man, you wickedly adulterate the Word of God.

"The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because spiritually they are discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Finally, the word "with" in John 1:1b is the Greek word "pros" and it doesn't usually mean "with" anyway. It means "to," "towards," "with reference to," or pointing towards." If translated that way there is no contradiction with John 1:1c.

I'm applying your thoughts on the Greek word "pros" to John 1:1.

The result of your thought is "the Word was to God", yet the result is linguistically broken as a clause - the preposition "to" is grammatically improper, even illegal mechanics.

Do recall, you wrote 'the "word" was God Himself' accurately earlier regarding "the Word was God" (John 1:1), so I don't know your objective in mentioning a contradiction with "the Word was with God" (John 1:1) or your "the Word was to God" in relation to "the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The Greek preposition "pros" includes the meaning of the English preposition "with". The Greek lexicon and concordance illumines this fact.

The Greek word "pros" properly translated is "with" in "the Word was with God" in John 1:1; therefore, John proclaims that God includes the person of Jesus.

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

 

[tigger 2]

Yes, as we have seen above, a large number of highly distinctive descriptions of the Logos by Philo have also been used by John to describe his Logos: Jesus! These terms are used by Philo alone, not by other trinitarian-proposed sources of John’s Logos concept!

After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a respected trinitarian work concludes:

“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].” - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.

Even the famed Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:

“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].” - p. 136, vol. 8. This includes his teaching that the Logos was a god!

I don’t intend to accuse the Apostle John of actually adopting part of Philo’s theosophy, but if he were making a comparison between Christ and a popularly understood Hellenistic concept of the word Logos at that time, he would have used the popular Logos concept of Philo, the Jewish theosophist who at least based his theosophy “as its direct foundation on the Jewish scriptures as an inspired revelation.”

As The Expositor’s Greek Testament tells us in its introduction to the Gospel of John: “The idea of the Logos was a Jewish-Alexandrian idea, and that the author sought to attach his Gospel to this idea is unquestionable…. But the term and the idea of the Logos are used by the author to introduce his subject to the Greek readers. As Harnack says: ‘The prologue [John 1:1 - John 1:18] is not the key to the understanding of the Gospel, but it is rather intended to prepare the Hellenistic reader for its perusal’.” - p. 671, Volume One.

And if John were writing to a group of the “many ... Hellenistic Jews” who had become a part of the Church (or who were at least interested in Christianity), there would be no need to explain the Logos concept which they were already very familiar with from Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. (The lack of any explanation of his Logos concept by John has been troubling to many students of the Prologue of the Gospel of John.) And that concept is that the Logos (although the second highest power in the universe, the Son of God, the Mediator between God and Man, the one through whom God created all things) is an intermediate entity who is not the Most High God but is called ‘a god’!

The Encyclopedia Britannica sums it up pretty well:

“The Logos which having been in the beginning, and with God, and divine [‘a god’], had entered human life and history as the Word ‘made flesh!’ .... But the identification of Jesus with the Logos was not tantamount to recognizing him as ‘God.’ Neither the ‘Word of God’ in Hebrew nomenclature nor the Logos in Greek speculation was ‘God’ though it was definitely ‘divine’ [‘a god’].” - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p.25.

If John’s intended audience for his Gospel were primarily of Jewish background, we could properly assume his Logos concept was one that was well known in the Jewish world (Philo’s Logos). Some trinitarians (for obvious reasons) insist that John was writing primarily to non-Jewish pagans, but the very language and ideas used in the Gospel of John show that the writer was writing primarily to those of Jewish background. Those unfamiliar with Jewish customs, ideas, and language would have been confused:

“Features of John which suggest more convincingly a Jewish and even Palestinian background are its language, its echoes of rabbinic ideas and methods of argument, and its parallels in thought and language with the recently discovered documents of the [Jewish] Qumran community”! - The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 942, by the trinitarian Abingdon Press, 1962.

(The Trinitarian New Bible Dictionary, second ed., 1984, also tells us that for the writer of the Gospel of John “a Jewish audience is probably in mind” and, “it is an attractive hypothesis that he wrote especially for the Jews of the Diaspora and proselytes in Hellenistic synagogues. .... the view that the Gospel was written primarily to convert the thoughtful Gentile ... is unlikely.” - p. 607.)

This brings us to the fact that John would have likely been writing to those Jews in the largest and most influential area of Hellenistic Judaism in the known world at that time: Egypt (particularly Alexandria and the many synagogues influenced by it).

It is significant that:

“The existence of John’s Gospel is attested in Egypt before AD 150 [probably 100 – 125 AD] by the Rylands Papyrus 457 [p52], the earliest known fragment of a NT MS.” – p. 610, New Bible Dictionary, Second Edition, Tyndale House Publ., 1984.

“The apparent lack of knowledge of John in Asia gives weight to the claims of Alexandria: here John was certainly used very early by the Gnostics (cf. also the papyri), the climate of thought (Hellenistic Judaism) could be regarded as suitable, and the general remoteness of Alexandria would explain the Gospel’s slow circulation.” – p. 611.

This respected trinitarian Bible dictionary, therefore, admits that the writings of John were found very early in Egypt and only slowly crept outward to other congregations around the Mediterranean. This strongly indicates that Alexandria (or, possibly, another Egyptian synagogue) received the original of John’s Gospel. The Hellenistic Jews most familiar with the Logos of Philo were the very ones John wrote his Gospel to originally.

To further verify this we have the evidence of the earliest manuscripts of John ever found.

The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts lists the fragments of 11 separate manuscripts as all the very earliest MSS known of the Gospel of John. They include the earliest of all, p52, which is now dated to 100 – 125 AD, which is very soon after the original was written!

The others are 0162; p5; p22; p28; p39; p45; p66; p75; p90; p95. (We also find the very earliest MS of 1 John, p9, was also found in Egypt.)

Out of all 11 of these manuscripts (or 12 if we include p9), only two (p80 and p95) were from unknown locations (in museum, discoverer and original location unknown). All of the others were from Egypt! – Philip Comfort and David Barrett, Baker Books, 1999.

Yes, John wrote his Gospel to Hellenistic Jews in Egypt who had to be well aware of the Logos concept of Philo of Alexandria, and who would be using that concept themselves! Therefore, when John wrote them his Gospel account, there was no need to explain what was meant by “Logos,” the Word. They already knew, and it was Philo’s Logos.

 

[Rich R]

The result of your thought is "the Word was to God", yet the result is linguistically broken as a clause - the preposition "to" is grammatically improper, even illegal mechanics.

You make some good points and raise some interesting questions. While "pros" sometimes can be translated as "with," it's usual meaning indicates motion towards an object. It points to or refers to the object, in the case of John 1:1, it points to or refers to God.

The Greek in John 1:1 is, "pros ton theon" and the same phrase is found many times where it's translated as, "to God."

Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, pros:

Of relation with accusative case (which is the case of "God" in John 1:1b.
(a) toward, with: Rom 5:1, 2Co 1:12, Col 4:5, 1Th 4:12, al.;
(b) with regard to: Mat 19:8, Mar 12:12, Rom 8:31, al.;
(c) pertaining to, to: Mat 27:4, Joh 21:22, Rom 15:17, Heb 2:17; Heb 5:1;
(d) according to: Luk 12:47, 2Co 5:10, Gal 2:14, Eph 3:4; Eph 4:14;
​

Here is a diagram that shows the general meaning of Greek prepositions. Note that "pros" is a line that goes "towards" the object. That's just how the grammar works. I didn't invent the Greek language.

The problem with translating it as "with" in John 1:1b is that it makes 2 people, i.e., one person with another makes 2 people. As I said before, solving that problem by introducing Greek philosophy (oousia, essence) is not a good solution. God is able to explain Himself without having to resort to Greek philosophy.

​

 

[tigger 2]

The "essence" idea was used at the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) as homoousia ("Same substance")

The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some [actually most], incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios (“of one substance”) into a creed to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs

 

[Rich R]

View attachment 24370

The "essence" idea was used at the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) as homoousia ("Same substance")

The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some [actually most], incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios (“of one substance”) into a creed to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs

It seems that for Trinitarians history means nothing. But that doesn't change history!

We have Philo to thank (more like blame) for "homoousiosm," without which the trinity would be seen for what it is; illogical, meaningless, nonsense. I think you already pointed out that Philo was a Jewish philosopher who made his life's goal to harmonize Plato with the scriptures. Not a good source for truth, and yet he forms the very foundation of Orthodox doctrine for both the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. Terrible situation!

 

[DavidB]

View attachment 24370

It seems that for Trinitarians history means nothing. But that doesn't change history!

We have Philo to thank (more like blame) for "homoousiosm," without which the trinity would be seen for what it is; illogical, meaningless, nonsense. I think you already pointed out that Philo was a Jewish philosopher who made his life's goal to harmonize Plato with the scriptures. Not a good source for truth, and yet he forms the very foundation of Orthodox doctrine for both the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. Terrible situation!

A master deception from the master deceiver. It has blocked billions over hundreds of years from truly coming to know God the Father and his Son. Just what the master deceiver wanted. A terrible situation indeed.

 

[JohnPaul]

You "evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:13).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

Lol, evil, seems like more crazies coming out of the woodwork.

 

[Kermos]

Hot on the trail of some more truth again I see.
So you believe you are on a mission to sort out Paul's intentions and clear it all up for him and for us as you think he was deliberately ambiguous in Titus 2:13 and never addressed Jesus as the only (great) God, as part of a Trinity that Paul never knew at all. Quite impressive work aye?!

Titus 1:4 clears it up for me already without you going around and fiddling with it and trying to change Paul's intent of Titus 2:13.

(Tit 1:4) To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.(ESV)

(Tit 2:13) waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, (ESV)

And what is the glory of our great God? It is the blessed hope of salvation for all the chosen of the Father, when the Father's Son returns in glory and power and thus the Father is glorified in the process. Do you actually think that God Almighty the Father, will be seen in the 'clouds?' He has no form and he is invisible. How will you see him? Only through his Son and his visible appearance at his Parousia of course.

I suggest you might want to get your head out of the damp darkness, and into the glorious warm light, where it shines in glory.

Happy trails...

You are a linguistic fool because Paul was absolutely clear that he called Jesus the great God by virtue of the very specific grammar that Paul used as expressed below.

Titus 2:13 truthfully exegeted with Greek grammar rules applied maintains consistent Apostolic testimony.

Here is the English-Greek full word-for-word of Titus 2:13:

awaiting-προσδεχόμενοι the-τὴν blessed-μακαρίαν hope-ἐλπίδα and-καὶ appearing-ἐπιφάνειαν the-τῆς glory-δόξης the-τοῦ great-μεγάλου God-Θεοῦ and-καὶ Savior-Σωτῆρος us-ἡμῶν Christ-Χριστοῦ Jesus-Ἰησοῦ

All of "God", "Savior", "Christ", and "Jesus" are genitive, singular, and masculine thus they are to be taken together as a single cohesive unit according to Greek grammar rules, and this unit has the genitive singular adjectives "glory" and "great" pointing at this unit for all the genitive singular words are inextricably tied together according to Greek grammar rules.

The logical "and" in the phrase "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13) is linguistically tied to Jesus Christ because the word "hope", which is singular, as well as the word "glory", which is singular, in the phrase "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of" (Titus 2:13); therefore, Paul singularly refers to "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" as One singular.

See that linguistically, "hope" and "glory" would need to be plural in order for "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" to be disassociated in the evil manner which you think applies.

THE APOSTLE PAUL INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GREAT GOD" (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ) WITH "LOOKING FOR THE BLESSED HOPE AND THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR OF US, CHRIST JESUS" (TITUS 2:13).

The Greek grammar rules make it utterly clear in order to avoid confusion, yet you have managed to confuse yourself unto eternal punishment according to your current state. You confuse Paul's words while you neglect the greater Apostolic testimony.

"Who is this King of glory? YHWH of hosts, he is the King of glory." (Psalm 24:10).

Look at the preceding stanza in of Psalm 24 which identifies King Jesus who is the King of glory:

"Lift up your heads, Oh gates; and lift them up, Oh ancient doors; and the King of glory shall come in!" (Psalm 24:9).

Regarding "shall come in" (Psalm 24:9), it is written that Jesus "having been exalted to the right hand of God" (Acts 2:33); therefore, the Apostle Peter expouses the entry ("come in") of Jesus. See that the King of glory enters after overcoming death by crucifixion (Acts 2:31-33).

James identifies Jesus as "the Lord of glory" (James 2:1) which is synonymous with "the Master of glory", so Jesus is YHWH God.

The King of glory says "the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:5), so Jesus declares His glory, even Jesus being the King of glory.

And, King Jesus is the King of the Kingdom of God, and King Jesus is the King of glory according to His own words (John 18:36-37):

36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say [correctly] that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
(John 18:36-37)

The "glory" mentioned by Paul in Titus 2:13 is unequivocally inclusive of Jesus Christ, and people thinking otherwise is evil.

THE SPIRITUAL TRUTH (JOHN 14:6) IS THAT THE APOSTLE PAUL INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GREAT GOD" WITH "LOOKING FOR THE BLESSED HOPE AND THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR OF US, CHRIST JESUS" (TITUS 2:13).

YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, DENY JESUS WHO IS REVEALED BY THE WORD OF GOD!

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

 

[Michiah-Imla]

@Kermos

Despite everything in your lengthy claim the one thing that will without a doubt expose anyone as a liar is:

“…he who denies that Jesus is the Christ… He who denies the Father and the Son is antichrist. Everyone who denies the Son neither has the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father.” (1 John 2:22-23)

So you are inordinately zealous over something the Bible gives no authority to be zealous over.

I could surmise who is a liar but he that diminishes from the fact that Jesus is the Christ! Be careful that you are not moved in that direction by your emotional attachment to man’s doctrines.

 

[Kermos]

...............................................
So why do most translations use "word" instead of "Word" (as used at John 1:1c)? This includes KJV; ASV; ESV; NIV; NASB; RSV; NRSV; etc.

It matters not whether translators use capitalization because the Apostle John clearly defined the Greek word "Logos" (the English word "Word"") to be Jesus Christ with "the Word manifested flesh" (John 1:14); therefore, John proclaims Jesus is God with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

Let's examine the Apostle John's words "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1, in Greek "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος").

POINT 1: significance of "the God, and God" in Greek.

Of the three clauses in John 1:1, the transition between the 2nd and 3rd clause is "τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς" which is word-for-word English as "the God, and God".

In this passage we have the word "God" (θεόν) preceeded by the definite article "the" (τὸν) with the same word "God" (θεόν) followed by the conjunction "and" (καὶ) in turn followed by the word "God" (θεὸς) in anathrous (no definite article), essentially, "τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς" which is word-for-word English as "the God, and God".

The sequence employed by John is significant because John reinforces with intensity and amplification the usage of the word "God" with John's repetition of the word "God".

It is well established that the Jews repeat things to intensify, amplify, reinforce, and emphasize a point being made.

The Apostle wonderfully binds the word "God" (θεόν) and the word "God" (θεὸς) in a harmony of One - the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) which includes the person of the Word of God (John 1:1, John 1:14).

John clearly means the One True God, the God Most High, YHWH God (Deuteronomy 6:4), for both instances of "God" in John 1:1 because John uses the word "God" in tandem in the verse.

In Truth (John 14:6), John uses both occurrences of "God" in John 1:1 as equivalent terms.

This means that the Apostle John is calling the Word (the Word is Jesus, John 1:1, John 1:14) "God"!

POINT 2: John confesses One True God.

John knew of the commandant "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3); therefore, John referred to Jesus as YHWH God (θεὸς) with "the Word was God" in John 1:1 because John would not violate the commandment.

John has no gods before YHWH God, that is, Jesus is YHWH God according to the words of the Apostle John.

John knew that God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4), and John made it clear that Jesus is the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) in John 1:1.

This means that the Apostle John confesses Jesus, the Word of God, is everlasting "God"!

POINT 3: another anathrous occurrence of the word "God" (Θεὸν) in John 1.

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him" (John 1:18, in Greek "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο").

Recall, anathrous means a noun without an article, such as, in English, "the" for a definite article or "a" for an indefinite article.

The first occurrence of "God" (Θεὸν) in John 1:18 refers to YHWH God, yet this word "God" (Θεὸν) is anathrous, that is, there is no article, in like manner to there is no article for the word "God" (θεὸς) with "the Word was God" in John 1:1.

A Greek language semantic similarity exists between John 1:1 and the Septuagint's Nahum 1:2 in that each of these verses employ an anathrous Θεὸς (God) noun. Nahum 1:2 in the Septuagint contains an anathrous Θεὸς (God) referring to the One True God, YHWH. Here is the Greek "Θεὸς ζηλωτὴς καὶ ἐκδικῶν κύριος, ἐκδικῶν κύριος µετὰ θυµοῦ ἐκδικῶν κύριος τοὺς ὑπεναντίους αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐξαίρων αὐτὸς τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτοῦ" (Nahum 1:2) for which the Septuagint translated to English is "God is jealous, and Lord is punishing; Lord is punishing with rage; Lord is punishing his adversaries, and lifting away himself of his enemies" (Nahum 1:2) - clearly Θεὸς (God) refers to the One True God, YHWH God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Behold, Θεὸς (God) in Nahum 1:2 is the same word as θεὸς (God) in John 1:1!

Truly, the anathrous word "God" (Θεὸν/θεὸς) in John 1:18 and John 1:1 refers to YHWH God.

This means that the Apostle John proclaims the Word of God integrally is YHWH God!!!

POINT 4: English usage of a noun without a definite article ("the") nor an indefinite article ("a" or "an")

This example illustrates the English language's flexibility to use a noun with an article or without an article.

One full apple pie in a pie tin sliced into 3 equal size pieces remains to be one pie for sale in a baked goods display cabinet.

The three pieces of pie are the one pie.

One piece of the pie is pie.

The word "one" means one, yet the degree of the focal point may vary; in other words, the layer of abstraction can change for a given person, place, or thing.

While this prelude portion of the example of the word "one" establishes a point of reference for the words of Jesus recorded in John 10:30 and John 17:21-23, now I move on to present another example by expanding the previous example to apply to John 1:1 through the next paragraph's dialog between a mom and her son.

The mommy asked "did you eat pie before dinner?", and Josiah answered "I ate one slice of pie at Levi's house."

Notice, the mommy used the noun "pie" without an article, not a definite article (the) nor an indefinite article (a or an).

The mom refers to the one actual pie including the three individual pieces, and the language frame is similar to John's use of the word "God" in anathrous within John 1:1.

The Apostle John refers to the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) including the person of the Word with his words of "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The second occurrence of the word "God" in John 1:1 is undeniably and truthfully the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Analogies can have a point of failure, but the above firmly proves the point in Truth (John 14:6).

CONCLUSION 1 (relates to POINT 1 above):

Mere human understanding cannot understand the harmony of the word "God" (θεόν) and the word "God" (θεὸς) in John 1:1, so the hearts of unregenerate souls tear the Word of God down from Deity into a mere man; therefore, the fleshly souls persist in a state of damnation.

The Holy Spirit reveals the glorious harmony recorded in John 1:1 which declares Jesus is the One True God!

CONCLUSION 2 (relates to POINT 2 above):

John is not going to refer Jesus as God resulting in two gods.

You subtract the fullness of "God" (θεὸς) in John 1:1; therefore, you have more than one God because you say that John 1:1 contains "the Word was a god".

Since your heart contends that Jesus is "a god", then you have more than one god which places you in violation of "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3).

According to your heart's treasure, you claim to have YHWH God + Jesus a god = two gods.

CONCLUSION 3 (relates to POINT 3 above):

The anathrous Greek word for "God" translates to meaning YHWH God elsewhere besides John 1:1 in the New Testament, for example the first occurrence of the word "God" in John 1:18 does not have an article where the word "God" means YHWH God - in like manner to John 1:1.

People that claim Jesus is created and that Jesus is not YHWH God deny the Word of God.

CONCLUSION 4 (addressing your scope exceeding claim that there are many gods with respect to the New Testament)

The Greek word θεὸς (Strong's 2316 - also Θεὸν - Theos, theos [transliteration] - God, Deity, god, deity [English]) can be dependent upon surrounding grammar and context.

The Greek word ἄγγελος (Strong's 32 - aggelos [transliteration] - messenger, angel [English]) is the parlance for angel in the New Testament, and the word θεὸς (God) is never used to refer to an ἄγγελος (angel) in the New Testament.

In the 27 books of the New Testament, the word "god" is used in one of two ways.

The first way is in the good sense which is in reference to YHWH, and I prefer a capital "G" for the good sense, like this, YHWH God.

The second way is in the evil sense which can be in reference to the devil, and I prefer a lower case "g" for the evil sense, like this, the god of this world.

Only two senses for the word "god" exists, and the senses are either good or evil. There is no middle ground.

Of the over 1000 times that the Greek word θεὸς (Strong's 2316 - also Θεὸν - God, god) or it's inflections are used in the New Testament, only the good sense or the evil sense indicated above are represented, as shown in this concordance page blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2316/nasb95/tr/0-1/, and I reviewed all the included verses to make certain - and θεὸς (God) is not used one time to indicate angels.

The good sense for the word θεὸς (God) applies to Jesus; therefore, John declares Jesus is YHWH God in John 1:1 for only God is good (Mark 4:18).

THE GREEK WORD THEOS (GOD) EXCLUSIVELY REFERS TO THE ONE TRUE GOD (DEUTERONOMY 6:4) IN THE GOOD SENSE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, SO "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD" (JOHN 1:1) REFERS TO JESUS AS THE ONE TRUE GOD.

In effect, since Watchtower Society people think that it's "the word is a god", then such people have two gods because they have their semi-god Jesus before YHWH for salvation, so such people are in sin against the Word of YHWH God "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3).

 

[APAK]

You are a linguistic fool because Paul was absolutely clear that he called Jesus the great God by virtue of the very specific grammar that Paul used as expressed below.

Titus 2:13 truthfully exegeted with Greek grammar rules applied maintains consistent Apostolic testimony.

Here is the English-Greek full word-for-word of Titus 2:13:

awaiting-προσδεχόμενοι the-τὴν blessed-μακαρίαν hope-ἐλπίδα and-καὶ appearing-ἐπιφάνειαν the-τῆς glory-δόξης the-τοῦ great-μεγάλου God-Θεοῦ and-καὶ Savior-Σωτῆρος us-ἡμῶν Christ-Χριστοῦ Jesus-Ἰησοῦ

All of "God", "Savior", "Christ", and "Jesus" are genitive, singular, and masculine thus they are to be taken together as a single cohesive unit according to Greek grammar rules, and this unit has the genitive singular adjectives "glory" and "great" pointing at this unit for all the genitive singular words are inextricably tied together according to Greek grammar rules.

The logical "and" in the phrase "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13) is linguistically tied to Jesus Christ because the word "hope", which is singular, as well as the word "glory", which is singular, in the phrase "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of" (Titus 2:13); therefore, Paul singularly refers to "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" as One singular.

See that linguistically, "hope" and "glory" would need to be plural in order for "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" to be disassociated in the evil manner which you think applies.

THE APOSTLE PAUL INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GREAT GOD" (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ) WITH "LOOKING FOR THE BLESSED HOPE AND THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR OF US, CHRIST JESUS" (TITUS 2:13).

The Greek grammar rules make it utterly clear in order to avoid confusion, yet you have managed to confuse yourself unto eternal punishment according to your current state. You confuse Paul's words while you neglect the greater Apostolic testimony.

"Who is this King of glory? YHWH of hosts, he is the King of glory." (Psalm 24:10).

Look at the preceding stanza in of Psalm 24 which identifies King Jesus who is the King of glory:

"Lift up your heads, Oh gates; and lift them up, Oh ancient doors; and the King of glory shall come in!" (Psalm 24:9).

Regarding "shall come in" (Psalm 24:9), it is written that Jesus "having been exalted to the right hand of God" (Acts 2:33); therefore, the Apostle Peter expouses the entry ("come in") of Jesus. See that the King of glory enters after overcoming death by crucifixion (Acts 2:31-33).

James identifies Jesus as "the Lord of glory" (James 2:1) which is synonymous with "the Master of glory", so Jesus is YHWH God.

The King of glory says "the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:5), so Jesus declares His glory, even Jesus being the King of glory.

And, King Jesus is the King of the Kingdom of God, and King Jesus is the King of glory according to His own words (John 18:36-37):

36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say [correctly] that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
(John 18:36-37)

The "glory" mentioned by Paul in Titus 2:13 is unequivocally inclusive of Jesus Christ, and people thinking otherwise is evil.

THE SPIRITUAL TRUTH (JOHN 14:6) IS THAT THE APOSTLE PAUL INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GREAT GOD" WITH "LOOKING FOR THE BLESSED HOPE AND THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR OF US, CHRIST JESUS" (TITUS 2:13).

YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, DENY JESUS WHO IS REVEALED BY THE WORD OF GOD!

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

Kermos, you have to admit that in Titus 2:13 the use of even the term 'God' capitalized, is dubious because of the confusion in syntax. And there are about a dozen like this one in the NT.

This is the same view cited by some scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, and Trinitarian or not. You first have to admit this point is true.

And if you do, then as you must know, we use the local and outer context to assess, decide and draw a conclusion of what the verse is all about. Not only really trying to say what is the message, as you have never really pointed that out yet, also and just as importantly, who are the main subjects in play.

As they say, context is supreme and King, especially in this scripture under study.

You just cannot make a stupendous claim that Jesus is clearly the one God in Titus 2:13. Even most Trinitarians would shy away from you and your opinion.

Now I would suggest, in attempting to be seriously helpful, concentrate on the context of Titus 2:13.

Happy trails!

 

[Keiw]

Wow, you call the Word of God "pagan Greek-Roman religious mythological dribble", and the following shows why, APAK - and this goes for you @JohnPaul as well since you like APAK's wicked post.

You publicly admit that you deny the consistent Christian Apostolic testimony such as the Apostle Paul calls Jesus "the great God" (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ) with "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13) as well as the Apostle Thomas calls Jesus "my God" wirh "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) and Peter calling Jesus "the God" (2 Peter 1:1) and Matthew says Jesus is "God with us" (Matthew 1:23) and John calls Jesus "God" (John 1:1) (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1392 in another recent thread), yet no Christian denies such strong Apostolic testimony.


APAK, @tigger 2, @XFire and @Wrangler (you latter 3 by your APAK post agreement likes) - no other scripture records a man making this awesome declaration to everlasting existence in prior time along with the words "ego eimi" (I AM) - Jesus alone makes such declaration as recorded by the Apostle John (John 8:58) (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1438 in another recent thread), yet you wickedly ascribe the everlasting attribute to everyone who says "ego eimi" (I am) in the scriptures thus you have a multitude of gods, so your deception runs deep in your heart.

In a stroke of linguistic folly, you wickedly adulterate John 8:58 into "Truly, truly, I say to you, I simply rank higher than Abraham" (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1615 in another recent thread), yet the Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Jesus proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).

Christians do not deny the sayings of Christ for Lord Jesus Christ says "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day" (John 12:48), yet you reject Lord Jesus and His sayings such as"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

Your religion rejects what Jesus taught and are misleading you to do the same.
Matt 6:33--Therefore, keep on seeking-FIRST- the kingdom and his( YHWH(Jehovah) righteousness
John 17:3--Jesus teaches--the one who sent him= THE ONLY TRUE GOD.

Why wont you believe Jesus?

 

[RedFan]

The logical "and" in the phrase "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13) is linguistically tied to Jesus Christ because the word "hope", which is singular, as well as the word "glory", which is singular, in the phrase "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of" (Titus 2:13); therefore, Paul singularly refers to "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" as One singular.

See that linguistically, "hope" and "glory" would need to be plural in order for "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" to be disassociated in the evil manner which you think applies.

Kermos, haven't we been through this before on another thread, where you wrote the exact same thing? (Are you the author, or are you quoting someone else?) I'm a Trinitarian like you, but as I pointed out last time, Paul's use of the singular δόξης is not probative of the point you wish to extract from it. I can easily show you an instance in Paul's writings where the word would NOT need to be plural in order to be attributed to two or more distinct persons. Take a look at Philippians 3:19, where the singular δόξα (nominative rather than genitive) is attributed to more than one person.

I agree with you that Titus 2:13 is referencing one and the same person. But Philippians 3:19 demonstrates that it is not for the reason you cite. And as I said last time, it is important when defending interpretations of Scripture not to overreach, lest your credibility be diminished.

You've got other arrows in your quiver. It's time to discard this one.

 

[Rich R]

Kermos, you have to admit that in Titus 2:13 the use of even the term 'God' capitalized, is dubious because of the confusion in syntax. And there are about a dozen like this one in the NT.

This is the same view cited by some scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, and Trinitarian or not. You first have to admit this point is true.

And if you do, then as you must know, we use the local and outer context to assess, decide and draw a conclusion of what the verse is all about. Not only really trying to say what is the message, as you have never really pointed that out yet, also and just as importantly, who are the main subjects in play.

As they say, context is supreme and King, especially in this scripture under study.

You just cannot make a stupendous claim that Jesus is clearly the one God in Titus 2:13. Even most Trinitarians would shy away from you and your opinion.

Now I would suggest, in attempting to be seriously helpful, concentrate on the context of Titus 2:13.

Happy trails!

Admittedly, there are in fact some verses that could be taken in a Trinitarian way. Perhaps Titus 2:13 is an example. However, these verses can also be taken in a non-Trinitarian way. How to tell which is which? Compare these somewhat unclear verses with the many clear verses on the same subject.

1 Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

John 17:3,

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
​

These verses are crystal clear that Jesus can not be the one true God. There is no way they could be taken to say anything other than that. Then we have the 35+ times Jesus is called the son of God. Given the fact that a son can in no wise be his own father. And who does Jesus pray to all the time? Himself? All of these verses, and many others besides, are crystal clear that Jesus can not be God.

Knowing that to be the case, why do people make a few unclear verses say something 100% diametrically opposed to the many clear verses? It makes no sense. But then neither does the trinity. Of course we are then told that God's ways are higher than our ways. Of course that is true, but it doesn't mean He talks nonsense, as though such nonsense is somehow "higher" than the normal way of understanding simple words, grammar, and concepts.

 

[APAK]

Knowing that to be the case, why do people make a few unclear verses say something 100% diametrically opposed to the many clear verses? It makes no sense. But then neither does the trinity. Of course we are then told that God's ways are higher than our ways. Of course that is true, but it doesn't mean He talks nonsense, as though such nonsense is somehow "higher" than the normal way of understanding simple words, grammar, and concepts.

I've wonder the very same thing over and over again. When you have the preponderance of evidence in scripture pointing to and saying God is the Father only and the Son is not in any way God, and the HS is of the Father, it should arrest any argument even when discussing unclear and unambiguous scripture. I also believe that examining the context usually saves the day, viewed at several levels if necessary.

 

[Wrangler]

Verse 14 there clarifies that it is Jesus being spoken of in John 1:1-4.

John 1:14

No. v14 introduces Jesus for the 1st time in the Gospel. 20:31 informs us all of John's Gospel was to prove something else; namely that Jesus is the son of God. So, it's funny to see trinitarians try to use the most anti-trinitarian book of the Bible to prove what John explicitly said was not his purpose for writing it.

 

[Kermos]

You make some good points and raise some interesting questions. While "pros" sometimes can be translated as "with," it's usual meaning indicates motion towards an object. It points to or refers to the object, in the case of John 1:1, it points to or refers to God.

The Greek in John 1:1 is, "pros ton theon" and the same phrase is found many times where it's translated as, "to God."

Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, pros:

Of relation with accusative case (which is the case of "God" in John 1:1b.
(a) toward, with: Rom 5:1, 2Co 1:12, Col 4:5, 1Th 4:12, al.;
(b) with regard to: Mat 19:8, Mar 12:12, Rom 8:31, al.;
(c) pertaining to, to: Mat 27:4, Joh 21:22, Rom 15:17, Heb 2:17; Heb 5:1;
(d) according to: Luk 12:47, 2Co 5:10, Gal 2:14, Eph 3:4; Eph 4:14;

Here is a diagram that shows the general meaning of Greek prepositions. Note that "pros" is a line that goes "towards" the object. That's just how the grammar works. I didn't invent the Greek language.



The problem with translating it as "with" in John 1:1b is that it makes 2 people, i.e., one person with another makes 2 people. As I said before, solving that problem by introducing Greek philosophy (oousia, essence) is not a good solution. God is able to explain Himself without having to resort to Greek philosophy.

You wrote "As I said before, solving that problem by introducing Greek philosophy (oousia, essence) is not a good solution", but you deleted the response in the very post to which you replied, so I provide the response here for you because God is Spirit (John 4:24) has direct relevance with the correspondence.

God is Spirit (John 4:24), and you called the Holy Spirit a 'grotesque "thing"'. You did a thing called blasphemy, and Jesus says something about blasphemy with "I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven" (Matthew 12:31).

You are very insulting against God because in your state as a natural man, you wickedly adulterate the Word of God.

"The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because spiritually they are discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

I posed no questions, Rich R, yet that's a pretty graphic, but it lacks complete coverage of Greek prepositions. For example, since the Greek word "pros" includes "with", then this is a valid example of an incomplete graphic representation.

God includes the person of the Word because John says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
​

One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) existing in 3 persons, that is, the person of the Father (Romans 1:7), the person of the Word (John 8:58, John 1:1-5, John 1:14), and the person of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26, Acts 5:3-4).

Your diversion about "with" or "to" does not change the fact that:

"The Word manifested flesh" (John 1:14), so Jesus is the Word.

Therefore, Jesus is God according to John's writing of "the Word was God" (John 1:1).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

 

[Jack]

John 17:1-3,

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.​

Jesus was talking to his Father and called Him the only true God. This is in complete agreement with Corinthians.

1 Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

Again, the Father is called the one God.

John calls Jesus the son more than 50 times and never calls him the Father.

John 1:1,

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

If we say Jesus is God then that means he is either the Father (which is totally counter to the Creeds) or he is not the true God (John 17:3) nor the one God (1 Cor 8:6).

Many solve the problem by finding out exactly what the "word" (logos) is in John 1:1. Hint: it's not Jesus.

Please confine the discussion to these verses in John. All the other so-called proof verses don't change what John clearly said. All verses have to fit.

Amen! Jesus is the Word / God Who became flesh!

 

[Kermos]

Kermos it really seems you enjoy the attention more that knowing the truth...

Matt 1:23 does not mean Jesus is God
Rev 1:8 is not about Jesus
John 8:58 does not mean Jesus is God
Do you want me to explain it all to you again?

Happy trails as you circle around the loop and recite the same scripture with the same incorrect interpretations.

I love proclaiming the Word of God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14)!

YOU CALL THE APOSTLE MATTHEW A LIAR. Truly, Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

Revelation 1:8 is about Jesus. Uncreated Jesus is "the Alpha and the Omega" and "the Lord God" and "who is and who was and who is to come" and "the Almighty"

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8) is Jesus speaking the words within the quotations and John ascribing "says the Lord God" to Jesus because Jesus identifies Himself as "the Alpha and the Omega" in Revelation 21:6 when He who sits on "the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Revelation 22:1) says "I am the Alpha and the Omega" (Revelation 21:6).

Furthermore, we find He who sits on the throne saying "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end' (Revelation 22:12-13), and Jesus is the One who is coming because He says He is "'coming on the clouds" (Matthew 24:30).

NOW, BACK TO JESUS USING "THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA" TO DESCRIBE HIMSELF IN REVELATION 1:8.

"'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'" (Revelation 1:8) is Jesus speaking!

John further identifies Jesus as the orator of Revelation 1:8 by immediately preceding Revelation 1:8 with "to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever, truly" in Revelation 1:7 - the Him is Jesus.

So, here is the Revelation 1:7-8 passage uninterrupted by verse numbers:

"to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Truly. 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'"

The Him is Jesus.

The Alpha and the Omega is Jesus.

The Lord God is Jesus.

The One who is and who was and who is to come is Jesus.

The Almighty is Jesus.

YOU CALL THE LORD JESUS A LIAR. Jesus is God for the ever living Jesus proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).