John 1:1 "let scripture interpret scripture!"

[101G]

It is evident from scriptures that Jesus was always in God and became a separate person while maintaining all the attributes of God. Like taking a glass of water from a lake. Same essence. Although the lake of water is greater than the glass of water. As such Jesus could be joined with His creation. He became for us a life giving Spirit.

The mystery of Jesus Christ is that before He became a man...He shared the same name as the Father... Jehovah...or Yahweh. The scriptures are plain.

It's like calling the lake or the cup....water. So then the divine essence of Jesus Christ is exactly as the Father's. If you have seen the Son...you have seen the Father...in essence. The essence of God is called by a word...a Hebrew word... YHVH.

And the word became flesh...

Greeting my friend, not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider what you said.

#1. "It is evident from scriptures that Jesus was always in God and became a separate person while maintaining all the attributes of God". consider this. if the Lord Jesus maintained all the attributes of God, then why G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') himself? one of his attributes as God is he cannot die. so certenly he did not maintained that attribuite. and if he maintained all the attributes, why be baptized, or empowered with the Holy Spirit at his baptism? he wouldn't need it. consider this, the only thing he maintained was his idenity, which is his Nature, Spirit/spirit, and his name, but not his atteibutes/powers.

#2. "The mystery of Jesus Christ is that before He became a man...He shared the same name as the Father... Jehovah...or Yahweh. The scriptures are plain". consider this. Jesus, the name, he had before his incarnation in flesh, he had the name already, not as a separate person but as God himself. for his "personal" name was never given in the OT, let us be clear, not his Personal name. but the figure of God himself in flesh revealed his personal name to the world, "JESUS". supportive scripture, Luke 2:21 "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb". he had the Name before the conception of the flesh.
+.

#3. "It's like calling the lake or the cup....water. So then the divine essence of Jesus Christ is exactly as the Father's. If you have seen the Son...you have seen the Father...in essence. The essence of God is called by a word...a Hebrew word... YHVH". a good anology. consider this. "essence", the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character. hence the cup of water from the lake. now reverse that, the lake in the cup "shared". same lake, only shared in the cup... :) "same nature", hence Phil 2:6, "the form of God". now consider this, the essence or the intrinsic nature of God is in the cup, I mean in the flesh .... (smile). see it now, if God nature is in the cup/flesh then who is in the cup? ... right God himself. not some second, or other person, because it is "HIS" intrinsic nature that in that cup/flesh. "intrinsic" means belonging naturally; essential. what do this means, belonging naturally? it means that this is his nature in that cup/flesh. and Phil 2:6 describe this nature in that cup/flesh. listen.
Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".
Form:G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form

look at definition #2. intrinsically, ....... "nature" and the nature of God is Spirit, see John 4:24a. now the million dollar question is what type, or kind of Spirit is in that cup/flesh. we know it's God's own Spirit is in that cup/flesh. but according to Phil 2:7 he G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') himself. so if that's the case then who was running, or maintaining the universe? good question. now the answer. he shared himself in the cup/flesh, hence the term "essence". not as a separate person, but he himself as the equal share of his own self. and here's the answer why the share. the term "FORM" above in phil 2:6, the root of this word reveals the answer. it's
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion

the definition of portion is a part of a whole; an amount, section, or piece of something. this would describe the Hebrew term "echad", Strong's Hebrew 259. but if God is a part of himself then he would have to be "EQUAL" with himself, for he could never lesser in nature, nor greater in nature. so what is the answer? "SHARE". why do we say this. because Phil 2:6 states that the Lord Jesus is "EQUAL" with God, not EQUAL "to" God. so a lesser, or a greater cannot be, so the answer is "SHARE", because another word for portion is "SHARE". so it is God's EQUAL "portion/essance/share that's in the cup/flesh. see it now? for the Greeks have a word for this sharing of oneself as God did in flesh, it's G243 Allos, which means, "ANOTHER", like in "ANOTHER" comforter.. Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort. a numerical difference, not some a numerical difference, but "a" a numerical difference, like in John 4:24 "a" Spirit. the same sort, or the same "essance", the same "Spirit".

so clearly your example edified the doctrine we teach. maybe a re-read of this post is nesseary for a complete edification of this topic in understanding.

Episkopos we call you friend, so we ask in consideration to look earnestly at we we have said. there is no longer any mystery concering Jesus the Christ in the Godhead.

PICJAG.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

First thanks for the reply, second, why is it when people have no knowledge of what someone else speaks, says, "So many people will twist scripture to try to prove there belief". well don't talk, prove them in their ERROR by the scriptures instead of complaining about the scriptures....

if U believe that Philippians 2:6 has been taken out of context put your assessment of it on the table to be examine.

will be looking for your assessment of Phil 6:2.

PICJAG.

If you read Philippians 2:1-6 we find that
Philippians 2:6 is teaching us that we are to have the same humble attitude that God Only Begotten Son has. Meaning that even though God Only Begotten Son was and is in God's form God's Only Begotten Son never even snatched at the idea that he was equal with God. Just as God Only Begotten Son has this humble attitude we are to follow his example.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

In the OT. It is translated as Lord or Jehovah. The Jews say "Hashem"...or, "the Name".

But we could also say "the Word".

Proverbs 25:2
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, (Word)
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. (Word)

All I see is your interpretation of the scripture Proverbs 25:2 The scriptures don't use word but instead matter. I'm sure since God is able to communicate clearly when he was using his Holy Spirit to have these scriptures written he would have had these men he was using to write word instead of matter.

But I was asking you where in the scripture of John 1:1 is יהוה specifically written down in that scripture. יהוה is called the tetragrammaton which is the four Hebrew consonants representative of God personal name. This tetragrammaton isn't written down in John 1:1

 

[tigger 2]

But Barney, it is a well-known fact that YHWH has been removed from all existing manuscripts of the NT. It only exists in personal names (Elijah, Abijah, etc.) and in compound words (hallelujah meaning 'praise Jehovah' as found in Rev. 19 for example). So, naturally it is not found in John 1:1.

So, in the NT, we find God is represented by ho theos (the god).

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

In the OT. It is translated as Lord or Jehovah. The Jews say "Hashem"...or, "the Name".

יהוה is called the tetragrammaton. It is basically the four Hebrew consonants which represent the personal name of God. Today יהוה is pronounced Jehovah by many because it's the most popular pronunciation of the tetragrammaton. You and any others pronouncing it "word" are in error. יהוה has never been pronounced, "word."

Proverbs 25:2
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, (Word)
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. (Word)

All I see is your interpretation of the scripture Proverbs 25:2 The scriptures don't use word but instead matter. I'm sure since God is able to communicate clearly when he was using his Holy Spirit to have these scriptures written he would have had these men he was using to write "word" instead of matter.

But I asked you specifically where in John 1:1 is יהוה which is the tetragrammaton written in this scripture. It's not, you are adding it to this scripture but God didn't inspire John to write it down in John 1:1

 

[101G]

If you read Philippians 2:1-6 we find that
Philippians 2:6 is teaching us that we are to have the same humble attitude that God Only Begotten Son has. Meaning that even though God Only Begotten Son was and is in God's form God's Only Begotten Son never even snatched at the idea that he was equal with God. Just as God Only Begotten Son has this humble attitude we are to follow his example.

first thanks for the reply. second, you also missed the point how God got to the point of being humble as a man to set the example to be humble. WHICH YOU AND MANY OTHERS HAVE MISSED. in order to humble himself as a man he had to be made lower, which Hebrews 2:9 points out.

understand, many of you concentrate on the Lord Jesus being humble, but you don't concentrate on how he became humble in human flesh, scripture, Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross". now BARNEY BRIGHT, please tell us what "fashion" he was in before being "FOUND" in the "Fashion" as a man.... looking to hear your answer.

PICJAG.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

first thanks for the reply. second, you also missed the point how God got to the point of being humble as a man to set the example to be humble. WHICH YOU AND MANY OTHERS HAVE MISSED. in order to humble himself as a man he had to be made lower, which Hebrews 2:9 points out.

understand, many of you concentrate on the Lord Jesus being humble, but you don't concentrate on how he became humble in human flesh, scripture, Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross". now BARNEY BRIGHT, please tell us what "fashion" he was in before being "FOUND" in the "Fashion" as a man.... looking to hear your answer.

PICJAG.

This is what I mean, you will twist the scriptures to prove your beliefs.
The scriptures say that although he, meaning The Only Begotten Son "was in God's form". Here when it says he was in God's form it's not talking about flesh and blood form, God is a Spirit. So when in God's form meaning a spiritual form The Only Begotten Son didn't consider himself equal to God. Of course he wouldn't consider himself equal to God when he was human.

 

[101G]

You see this is what I mean you will twist the scriptures to prove your beliefs.
The scriptures say that although he meaning The Only Begotten Son was in God's form

No

No? ... don't argue with me, argue with the bible. for the bible clearly states, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".

here "FORM" is the Greek word, G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

there it is, his nature is the same "Spirit". scripture prove scripture, Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man".

now as we have said before, there are only three entities. 1. God the Spirit. 2. angels/spirits. and 3. Us humans. now, if Jesus was made lower than the angels, then he had to be higher that the angels. which there is only one spot... God.

so with that disproved, back to the question at hand. mind telling us how God was found as a man to humble himself to death? well...

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

well maybe you don't understand what I'm saying.
let's then go this route.. if Jesus is God as many of you say, (and we agree). then explain how Jesus, the WORD, who is God in , John 1:1c, how did he G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') himself in flesh according to Phil 2:6?

now if one say it was just the Son, well you have a big problem, for God is "a” Spirit, and God G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') himself in flesh, that means the one you calls father, son, and Holy Spirit all G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') in flesh.

But if you argue that only the son G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') himself, then you have two separate and distinct Spirits, meaning you have two or three separate and distinct God. For the Son is Spirit, as you say, and the Father is Spirit as you say, and the Holy Spirit is Spirit, then you have three Separate Spirits, meaning three separate Gods. so if one person who is Spirit G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') himself and is separate and distinct, that a separate spirit, and if the one Spirit G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') himself, who is running or maintaining the universe?. see your delimma now. either all three G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') in flesh, or you have no God runnung the universe. so it's either all or three separate and distinct Spirit. and if you go that route then you're into polytheism

Now if you argue and say, oh, it is only the persons. Well what kind of PERSON is without Spirit or a Spirit, especially God who is Spirit?

Please explain.

 

[tigger 2]

101G wrote:

No? ... don't argue with me, argue with the bible. for the bible clearly states, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".

here "FORM" is the Greek word, G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:

“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.

Thayer agrees that morphe is

“the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance” - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young’s Analytical Concordance]

Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.”

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.

The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.

 

[101G]

101G wrote:


As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:

“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.

Thayer agrees that morphe is

“the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance” - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young’s Analytical Concordance]

Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.”

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.

The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.

First thanks for the reply, second, ERROR, God is invisible, you missed what the verse states, Jesus is the IMAGE of God. "HIS NATURE" is MANIFESTED, SEEN. supportive scripture, Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us". now, one more, Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come". who came "GOD". mow, back to Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". so what is the "FORM" of God? his IMAGE. which is seen. and being in that IMAGE, he reveals his NATURE, which is Spirit.
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313
See also: G3445, G3446, G4832
my source here is Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments

now Fausset's Bible Dictionary
(Phi 2:6-8.) "Who (Christ Jesus) subsisting (huparchoon) in the form (the self manifesting characteristics shining forth from the essence) of God esteemed His being on an equality with God (to einai isa THeoo) no robbery (harpagmon, not harpagma, which Ellicott's translated, 'a thing to be grasped at,' would require), but took upon Him the form of a servant." He never emptied Himself of His being on an equality with God in essence, but only of the form of God for the time of His humiliation. The antithesis is between His being in the form of God and His assuming the form of a servant.
"Image" implies His being the exact essential inner likeness and perfect Representative of God. "Image" (eikoon) supposes a prototype of which it is the exact counterpart, as the child is the living image of the parent.

PICJAG

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

No? ... don't argue with me, argue with the bible. for the bible clearly states, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".

here "FORM" is the Greek word, G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

there it is, his nature is the same "Spirit". scripture prove scripture, Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man".

now as we have said before, there are only three entities. 1. God the Spirit. 2. angels/spirits. and 3. Us humans. now, if Jesus was made lower than the angels, then he had to be higher that the angels. which there is only one spot... God.

so with that disproved, back to the question at hand. mind telling us how God was found as a man to humble himself to death? well...

PICJAG.

No? ... don't argue with me, argue with the bible. for the bible clearly states, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".

here "FORM" is the Greek word, G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

there it is, his nature is the same "Spirit". scripture prove scripture, Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man".

now as we have said before, there are only three entities. 1. God the Spirit. 2. angels/spirits. and 3. Us humans. now, if Jesus was made lower than the angels, then he had to be higher that the angels. which there is only one spot... God.

so with that disproved, back to the question at hand. mind telling us how God was found as a man to humble himself to death? well...

PICJAG.

You can call me arguing all you want but Philippians 2:6 says that when the Only Begotten Son was in God's form he wouldn't even snatch at any idea that he was equal to God. People such as yourself want people to deny that it was The Only Begotten Son of God that became flesh(perfect human) came to this world and died for mankind. Instead you teach them that it was God who became flesh therefore deny it was The Only Begotten Son of God who became flesh. I disagree with you. The Only Begotten Son of God is the Word so when the scriptures tell you the word became flesh it means The Only Begotten Son of God became flesh, that it was The Only Begotten Son of God who died for mankind that it was The Only Begotten Son of God that God raised back to life three days after his death.

 

[101G]

You can call me arguing all you want but Philippians 2:6 says that when the Only Begotten Son was in God's form he wouldn't even snatch at any idea that he was equal to God. People such as yourself want people to deny that it was The Only Begotten Son of God that became flesh(perfect human) came to this world and died for mankind. Instead you teach them that it was God who became flesh therefore deny it was The Only Begotten Son of God who became flesh. I disagree with you. The Only Begotten Son of God is the Word so when the scriptures tell you the word became flesh it means The Only Begotten Son of God became flesh, that it was The Only Begotten Son of God who died for mankind that it was The Only Begotten Son of God that God raised back to life three days after his death.

is not the word GOD, John 1:1c yes or no?

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

now, we challegen all trinity doctrine believers is God a separate Spirit? yes or no.

if no, then all person G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') in flesh.

if yes, then you have two or more Spirits.

your choice.

PICJAG.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

is not the word GOD, John 1:1c yes or no?

PICJAG.

The Word is the The Only Begotten Son of God. You deny that it was The Only Begotten Son of God who became flesh. Instead you teach the Word is God and you teach it was God who became flesh therefore deny it was The Only Begotten Son of God who became flesh.

 

[101G]

The Word is the The Only Begotten Son of God. You deny that it was The Only Begotten Son of God who became flesh. Instead you teach the Word is God and you teach it was God who became flesh therefore deny it was The Only Begotten Son of God who became flesh.

no, not me, YOU. do you know what "Son" here means? again don't argue with me, listen G5207, huios, 1. It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics. 2. descendants, without reference to sex. 3. those who manifest a certain character. see Holy is God "character", Spirit is his "NATURE", hence the "Holy/Son" "Spirit/Father".

see BARNEY, the term "Son" only indicate God's character. scripture, Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high".

express IMAGE, his (morphe?)
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]
KJV: express image
Compare: G1125, G1504

how hard is it to understand?

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

We suggest that one study our doctrine. if you have any questions please ask. as Dr. Gamaliel said, "But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God".

PICJAG.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Although οὗτος is declined in the masculine gender, some might assume that "the word" (ὁ λόγος) is a person, but οὗτος is simply agreeing with the grammatical gender of its antecedent, ὁ λόγος, a grammatically masculine gender noun. As such, unless it is absolutely certain that ὁ λόγος is referring to an animate object with gender (e.g., a male person), then the pronouns that refer to it would be translated by the neuter gender English pronoun "it."

Greetings, APAK.

I understand your argument on the neuter sense of masculine λόγος, but doesn't verse 1 actually provide absolute certainty that it is indeed referring to an animate object with gender? The verse ends with καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος = "and God was the Word." This would force you to prove that θεὸς likewise carries a neuter sense as well. But both our Lord and the apostles referred to Him as "God our Father," which would communicate to me anyway that He is masculine in any language it might be translated.

Blessings in Christ, and hope you are well.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

no, not me, YOU. do you know what "Son" here means? again don't argue with me, listen G5207, huios, 1. It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics. 2. descendants, without reference to sex. 3. those who manifest a certain character. see Holy is God "character", Spirit is his "NATURE", hence the "Holy/Son" "Spirit/Father".

see BARNEY, the term "Son" only indicate God's character. scripture, Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high".

express IMAGE, his (morphe?)
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]
KJV: express image
Compare: G1125, G1504

how hard is it to understand?

PICJAG.

All this that you have said only means that you deny that it was The Only Begotten Son who is the word became flesh.(perfect human) Instead you teach God is the Word and that it was God who became flesh therefore you deny it was The Only Begotten Son of God who became flesh. You teach it was God who died for mankind instead of teaching it was The Only Begotten Son of God who died for mankind. I will always disagree with you on this. The scriptures say in John 3:16 that God loves mankind so much that he sent his Only Begotten Son to mankind(God didn't send himself). If we exercise faith in this loving and merciful act that The True God and his Only Begotten Son exercised toward us we will attain eternal life.

 

[101G]

All this that you have said only means that you deny that it was The Only Begotten Son who is the word became flesh.(perfect human) Instead you teach God is the Word and that it was God who became flesh therefore you deny it was The Only Begotten Son of God who became flesh. You teach it was God who died for mankind instead of teaching it was The Only Begotten Son of God who died for mankind. I will always disagree with you on this. The scriptures say in John 3:16 that God loves mankind so much that he sent his Only Begotten Son to mankind(God didn't send himself). If we exercise faith in this loving and merciful act that The True God and his Only Begotten Son exercised toward us we will attain eternal life.

GINOLJC, to all.
First thanks for the reply, second, apparently you know nothing of what we teach. the son of God is the equal share of God himself, Spirit, in flesh. NOT a BIOLOGICAL BEGOTTEN SON. NOT A SEPARATE SPIRIT EITHER.

yes, God came in flesh. scripture, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you". so who came? read it again .... "GOD"... read it again and again. God came, but how? by "sharing" himself in flesh.

now to eliminate the notion of God as a "son" that is seperate and distinct from himself.

Many JW say in John 1:1c the Word is a "god" small case "g" in god. let the bible eliminate this lie. Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand". well the WORD in John 1:1b was "WITH" God. and God clearly states that there is no "god" with him. this is bible clear as day. also God eliminates any other person/God beside him. scripture, Isaiah 45:21 "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me".

here God makes it crystal clear that there is no other God and that's with the cap "G" in God, and he makes it crystal clear that there is no other "PERSONS" beside him. meaning there is no God the Son, nor God the Holy Spirit as separate and distinct PERSONS. God is very clear. one more to be sure, Isaiah 44:8 "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any".

well if God know of no other beside himself, then why do you put someone else beside him?..... well. the "Son" is him in flesh, only shared. once more, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.
Isaiah 35:5 "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
Isaiah 35:6 "Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert".

when did the blind see, the lame walk, and the dumb sing? when the Son came, God, read Isaiah 35:4 again.

see BARNEY we teach that the Son, the only begotten came. it not as you and men teach, but we teach as God the Holy Ghost teach, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, not a BIOLOGICIAL Son, but the Spirit shared in flesh as Son. understand, you the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto you: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. the reason why you cannot understand us is because you're still carnal, listen to yourself, "This is what I mean, you will twist the scriptures to prove your beliefs." instead of taking up the scriptures to reprove me, you resort to vain babbling. if you were spiritual, one you would confirm what we said, or as said take up the scriptures and reprove me of my error.

no you say we "twist" the scriptures. well prove us in error then? but you can't, so your only way out is through vain glory, "you twist the scriptures". first read the scriptures for yourself, and not go on what some man told you about the scriptures. find out for youself the TRUTH. it's not hard, just READ with the Holy Ghost.

now, we suggest you re-read this post for edification. ahh ahh, humm .... don't do that, read the post again...... (smile)

PICJAG.