Seven Lessons for John 1:1c

[bbyrd009]

I had decided to shake the dust off my feet with you, but then decided to try one last time.

hilarious, wadr. i guess you didn't mean to be so funny there tho, sry

cut out the insults

if he insulted you, i sure can't find it bro. How's the weather Up There btw

 

[bbyrd009]

I apologize for not responding to this. I haven't had much time lately but I will try to address this the best I can from my perspective.

ah, looks like while you were gone everyone else got offended at everyone else, except you bro

 

[gadar perets]

GP,

I apologize for not responding to this. I haven't had much time lately but I will try to address this the best I can from my perspective.

“οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν” (John 1:2–3, NA27)

This is how the Greek looks. Outos is a masculine pronoun, not a neuter pronoun. If John wanted to refer to the Word as an "it" he would have used touto.

As I understand it, the Greek chooses the pronoun that agrees with the noun antecedent, regardless of whether that gendered noun is a person or a thing. Since the antecedent is the logos which is masculine, the pronoun chosen is masculine.

Contextually, I think it is difficult to make the claim your are posing as well. First, John is clearly linking "the Word" to the man Jesus. Verse 14 clearly states that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. "We have seen his glory..." Again, contextually, the pronoun here demands a masculine translation. it would seem odd that John, speaking of the very same "Word" in verse 1, would be using a neuter pronoun.

I agree that Yeshua is now "the Word". I agree that John makes that link in verse 14. However, we are not told in verse 14 what the logos was prior to Yeshua's conception.

Second, John is clearly writing about the preexistence of the man, Jesus. To suggest that John is referring to the "Logos" as merely a "thing" and Jesus the man, was simply a byproduct of that "thing" is both unsetteling and does not mesh with the context. John is writing about how this "Word" made all things and "came to that which was HIS own." It wouldn't make sense to suggest that Jesus is simply a thing, power, force that was spoken when John is clearly notating that this preexistent Word was the creator of all things, the light and life of men, and someone to be received and believed upon.

You are assuming John was writing about the Son's supposed preexistence. He was not a "byproduct" of the logos. The logos was the thing used to create the Son just as it was the thing used to create everything via speaking them into existence. Verse 11 is indeed referring to the Son, but only after he was conceived. Also, I never said the Son is a "thing, power, force". He is what the logos created.

Also, the phrase which is translated, "and the Word was with God" implies a kind of "face to face" presence with someone. Seems very personal and not like that of a force or thing being emitted.

"face to face"?? God was face to face with God?? That equals two Gods. My words and thoughts are always with me just as YHWH's words and thoughts were always with Him.

Finally, it does not make two Gods. He was with God and he was God. If he was "a god" as tigger is suggesting, that would make two gods (however I know he argues this term can mean an angel or something (which isn't really the case since the context would not allow it as we see in other passages that demand such a translation). That is not my (or Trinitarians) position on the issue. There is one God. The Logos was with God and is God (not a separate, distinct god).

I do not believe the phrase "and the Word was God" is a correct translation. Since the predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, the word order takes on emphasis. The meaning is more like, "what God was the word was".

 

[Wormwood]

As I understand it, the Greek chooses the pronoun that agrees with the noun antecedent, regardless of whether that gendered noun is a person or a thing. Since the antecedent is the logos which is masculine, the pronoun chosen is masculine.

That is true. Pronoun gender is not always indicative of the gender (or lacktherof) of what is being addressed. And it also is true that the gender used here could be due to its reference to the singular, masculine, Logos. Yet, because Logos and Jesus are used somewhat interchangeably in John 1, it would seem to be a stretch that John intends us to understand Logos as a force or power rather than a person. Again, the context is crucial in interpretation (especially of pronouns) and I don't see any reason why the Greek here would suggest a neuter interpretation.

I agree that Yeshua is now "the Word". I agree that John makes that link in verse 14. However, we are not told in verse 14 what the logos was prior to Yeshua's conception.

That is precisely my point. It seems clear (to me anyway) that John is assigning very personal attributes to the Logos. The Logos is "face to face" with God, the Logos created the world, the Logos was God, and the Logos "came to that which was his own but his own did not receive him." Again, seems very personal and nothing at all like John is describing a force or power that is merely emitting from God.

You are assuming John was writing about the Son's supposed preexistence. He was not a "byproduct" of the logos. The logos was the thing used to create the Son just as it was the thing used to create everything via speaking them into existence. Verse 11 is indeed referring to the Son, but only after he was conceived. Also, I never said the Son is a "thing, power, force". He is what the logos created.

No, but you seem to be implying that the Logos is a "thing, power, or force." That was my point. By that rationale, perhaps Jesus is no more significant than the world or us....since both were created by the Logos. This sounds nothing like what John is trying to communicate in John 1. It is important to understand that early Greeks understood Logos as rationale, meaning, purpose and understanding. Its root is based in words carrying concepts of speech, thought and rationale. It is where we get our word "logic." The point here is that Jesus is the rationale and order behind all things. Jesus is the purpose and meaning of the world. That purpose was with God and is God. All of the world's value, purpose, and reason is found in the one who created it and came to it. He is the light and understanding in a world shrouded in darkness and chaos. He gives the world clarity, sense and true life. Without Jesus, the world is dark, void and empty...just as in Genesis 1, the world was dark and void prior to the proclamation of light and God's creative power bursting forth. God took a chaotic and meaningless mass and gave it order, beauty and life. John is saying, "Jesus is the rationale behind the world and gives true order and life to all things. The one who gives meaning and life to the world became flesh and dwelt among us, but his own people didn't recognize him or receive him. Just as God spoke and gave order and life to a chaotic world, so Jesus is that which gives order, purpose and light to our lives."

In sum, this passage as a whole is much more about the significance of Christ as the centerpiece and purpose behind all creation than it is a mere declaration of Jesus' preincarnate substance. Yet, as we reflect on what John is saying, it is very clear what kind of identity he is projecting on Jesus. As Paul puts it, "all things were made by him and for him."

 

[gadar perets]

That is true. Pronoun gender is not always indicative of the gender (or lacktherof) of what is being addressed. And it also is true that the gender used here could be due to its reference to the singular, masculine, Logos. Yet, because Logos and Jesus are used somewhat interchangeably in John 1, it would seem to be a stretch that John intends us to understand Logos as a force or power rather than a person. Again, the context is crucial in interpretation (especially of pronouns) and I don't see any reason why the Greek here would suggest a neuter interpretation.

They are only interchangeable if you read the Son into the first 5 verses.

That is precisely my point. It seems clear (to me anyway) that John is assigning very personal attributes to the Logos. The Logos is "face to face" with God, the Logos created the world, the Logos was God, and the Logos "came to that which was his own but his own did not receive him." Again, seems very personal and nothing at all like John is describing a force or power that is merely emitting from God.

Personification does not make a thing a person.

No, but you seem to be implying that the Logos is a "thing, power, or force." That was my point. By that rationale, perhaps Jesus is no more significant than the world or us....since both were created by the Logos. This sounds nothing like what John is trying to communicate in John 1. It is important to understand that early Greeks understood Logos as rationale, meaning, purpose and understanding. Its root is based in words carrying concepts of speech, thought and rationale. It is where we get our word "logic." The point here is that Jesus is the rationale and order behind all things. Jesus is the purpose and meaning of the world. That purpose was with God and is God. All of the world's value, purpose, and reason is found in the one who created it and came to it. He is the light and understanding in a world shrouded in darkness and chaos. He gives the world clarity, sense and true life. Without Jesus, the world is dark, void and empty...just as in Genesis 1, the world was dark and void prior to the proclamation of light and God's creative power bursting forth. God took a chaotic and meaningless mass and gave it order, beauty and life. John is saying, "Jesus is the rationale behind the world and gives true order and life to all things. The one who gives meaning and life to the world became flesh and dwelt among us, but his own people didn't recognize him or receive him. Just as God spoke and gave order and life to a chaotic world, so Jesus is that which gives order, purpose and light to our lives."

I totally agree that Yeshua is all of those things (except “God’s creative power”), but he was not all those things prior to his conception. He became all those things when his Father YHWH’s rationale, purpose, plan, logic, light, understanding, etc., was manifested in the Son that was conceived. YHWH’s thoughts and plans became flesh just like an architect’s thoughts and plans become a real building.

In sum, this passage as a whole is much more about the significance of Christ as the centerpiece and purpose behind all creation than it is a mere declaration of Jesus' preincarnate substance. Yet, as we reflect on what John is saying, it is very clear what kind of identity he is projecting on Jesus. As Paul puts it, "all things were made by him and for him."

That is not how Paul put it. That is how trinitarian translators put it. The verse should read, “For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him, and for him:” as many other translators have rendered it. There is only one Creator, Yeshua's Father, YHWH.

 

[Wormwood]

They are only interchangeable if you read the Son into the first 5 verses.

I think you have to do some real hermeneutical gymnastics to not read the Son into the first 5 texts....not to mention multiple other Scriptures that clearly indicate Christ preexisted as a person.

“Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” (John 17:24, ESV) (apparently God was just loving a thought or plan...really?)

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:5–7, ESV) (how can a thought or blueprint empty itself?)

“This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”” (Hebrews 7:15–17, ESV) (since we were created by the eternal breath of God, are we all in the order of Melchizedek also?)

“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” (Revelation 1:17–18, ESV) (How can Jesus be the first, if he wasnt created until approx 4 BC? Is he saying he is the first thought God ever had? Come on)

Personification does not make a thing a person.

And seeing something referred to as a person does not mean its merely personification. I think the burden of proof is on you, given the context.

I totally agree that Yeshua is all of those things (except “God’s creative power”), but he was not all those things prior to his conception. He became all those things when his Father YHWH’s rationale, purpose, plan, logic, light, understanding, etc., was manifested in the Son that was conceived. YHWH’s thoughts and plans became flesh just like an architect’s thoughts and plans become a real building.

Except a building doesn't call itself the builder.

“For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.)” (Hebrews 3:3–4, ESV)

"Before Abraham was, I AM." - Jesus

That is not how Paul put it. That is how trinitarian translators put it. The verse should read, “For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him, and for him:” as many other translators have rendered it. There is only one Creator, Yeshua's Father, YHWH.

This make no sense. How can all things be created "through him" if Jesus did not exist at that point except in the form of a thought. If Jesus is nothing but a mere thought of God, then how is he any different than us? Weren't we part of God's thought, purpose, plan, etc? These concepts have been rejected entirely throughout church history as not reflective of either the Scriptures or the teaching of the earliest Christians. This is very dangerous heresy you are claiming and I suggest you spend some time really reflecting on the teaching of the NT about Jesus.

 

[bbyrd009]

"How can all things be created 'through him'
if Jesus did not exist at that point except in the form of a thought"
"spirit" or even "particular force" might be a better characterization than "thought?"

 

[bbyrd009]

These concepts have been rejected entirely throughout church history as not reflective of either the Scriptures or the teaching of the earliest Christians.

ah, Paul's wolves, yes

 

[gadar perets]

“Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” (John 17:24, ESV) (apparently God was just loving a thought or plan...really?)

Hebrews 7:9 “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.” Did Levi preexist?
Ephesians 1:4 “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:” Did all believers preexist?
Jeremiah 1:5a “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;” Did Jeremiah preexist?​

If Yeshua is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, that means he was in his Father’s plan of salvation and slated to be sacrificed for the sins of the world. Why was he sacrificed in that plan? Because YHWH loved the world before it was even founded. He knew mankind would sin and so, because He loved them before they were created He planned for His future on to be that Lamb. In other words, if YHWH could love the world before it was created, He could also love His Son before he was created.

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:5–7, ESV) (how can a thought or blueprint empty itself?)

You seem to be espousing Kenotic Theology which is contrary to the historic view of the “Church”. Yeshua did not empty himself of his deity or divine nature. He simply humbled himself and made himself of no reputation even though he was far more knowledgeable and powerful than any of his contemporaries. Instead of glorifying himself and expecting others to serve him, he chose to become a servant. He became like most men, common and unassuming as compared to the politically powerful and famous.

“This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”” (Hebrews 7:15–17, ESV) (since we were created by the eternal breath of God, are we all in the order of Melchizedek also?)

Yeshua was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek via the oath of Psalm 110:4. That oath was made at a specific time. It was not eternal. Yeshua is a priest forever from the moment the oath was made and forever into the future. We are not made in the order of Melchizedek via that same oath. If we are in that order, it is because we are in Messiah and vice versa.

“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” (Revelation 1:17–18, ESV) (How can Jesus be the first, if he wasnt created until approx 4 BC? Is he saying he is the first thought God ever had? Come on)

You are assuming “first” applies to existence. I believe “first” can apply in other ways. For example, Yeshua is the first and last being to ever be directly begotten by YHWH.

Except a building doesn't call itself the builder.

“For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.)” (Hebrews 3:3–4, ESV) .

Yeshua did not call himself the Creator. That passage is referring to Yeshua being the builder of the Holy Temple of believers.

This make no sense. How can all things be created "through him" if Jesus did not exist at that point except in the form of a thought. If Jesus is nothing but a mere thought of God, then how is he any different than us? Weren't we part of God's thought, purpose, plan, etc? These concepts have been rejected entirely throughout church history as not reflective of either the Scriptures or the teaching of the earliest Christians. This is very dangerous heresy you are claiming and I suggest you spend some time really reflecting on the teaching of the NT about Jesus.

Everything existed in YHWH’s “mind/plan” before it came to exist literally. That includes Yeshua and us. YHWH knew mankind would sin before the world was even created. So He devised a plan of how to save mankind. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world came to exist as the main part of the plan of salvation. When Yahweh created all things, He did it because the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world needed a venue or a stage, so to speak, for that to be fulfilled. Therefore, the impetus for creation was the Son. Without the Son in Yahweh’s mind there would be no creation. It was done “through” the Son. First, the earth needed to be created along with the necessities for life to exist. Trees were created for the Lamb to die on. Metal was created to fasten him to that tree. Man was created for whom the Lamb would die for… All things were created through the Son in YHWH’s plan of salvation.

 

[gadar perets]

"How can all things be created 'through him'
if Jesus did not exist at that point except in the form of a thought"
"spirit" or even "particular force" might be a better characterization than "thought?"

See post #69

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all. common sense and the reading of the bible answer the John 1:1c question. we all know that the Lord Jesus is saviour of the World. and we also know that the word is Jesus, maybe some don't. but let's clear this up. 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". now the Question is this, "God" is coming to save us. no matter what anyone thinks what, or who the Word is, the word is the SON. scripture, John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." the Word was made flesh, who is the SON. John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth".
deductive reasoning, a. the ONLY begotten of the Father is the Son, right, John 1:18
b. this only begotten is the word, right, John 1:14
c. conclusion, the only begotten is the son who is the WORD, simple.

knowing this that the Son is the WORD, question, "Who is the Saviour?". answer, back to 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". who came ?, the Son. who is the only begotten the Son. so the BIBLE clearly say that the Word who is the ONLY begotten Son, is God who came and "SAVED" us. so John 1:1c cannot mean "god" with a small "g". for Isaiah 35:4 contradict this reasoning. clearly the Word is the only begotten and the only begotten is the WORD, and the Saviour is the WORD. so John 1:1c have to be God, for the only begotten is the WORD. again, John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth". and the only begotten is the Son, John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him". how plain cna one get?.

one don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what the scriptures are saying. so John 1:1c is not a"god", but referring to "God".

PCY.

 

[gadar perets]

GINOMYM, to all. The Son is indeed the only begotten of the Father (Father YHWH - Psalm 2:7). The Son is also the Word (John 1:14; Revelation 19:13). He was not the only begotten or the Word prior to his conception when the Father's spoken words and thoughts were made flesh. To be the "only begotten Son" of YHWH means that Yeshua is the only (monos) Son to "come into being" (from ginomai) directly by Father YHWH. Christians teach the Son always existed, yet, to be the only begotten means he came into existence at some point in time. That time was when he was conceived in the womb of a woman.

We all have at least two Saviors. Father YHWH is our ultimate Savior. He saves us through the Son who He made to be our Savior. He saved Israel by other men who He made to be saviors prior to the time of Yeshua.

Father YHWH will come to judge this world and save us, but He does it through His shaliach/representative, Yeshua.

 

[101G]

The Son is indeed the only begotten of the Father (Father YHWH - Psalm 2:7). The Son is also the Word (John 1:14; Revelation 19:13). He was not the only begotten or the Word prior to his conception when the Father's spoken words and thoughts were made flesh. To be the "only begotten Son" of YHWH means that Yeshua is the only (monos) Son to "come into being" (from ginomai) directly by Father YHWH.

thanks for the post and the greeting..... . question,
a. are you using begotten biologically? yes or no
b. conception, is that of his Spirit or his body that was conceive in the womb? which one or both.
c. what's the date when when the Son came into being? book chapter and verse please.
d. when was the word, not his body, but him, God ever conceived? book chapter and verse please.

We all have at least two Saviors. Father YHWH is our ultimate Savior. He saves us through the Son who He made to be our Savior. He saved Israel by other men who He made to be saviors prior to the time of Yeshua.

correction, Jude 1:25 "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen". what do only means? certainly not two.

Father YHWH will come to judge this world and save us, but He does it through His shaliach/representative, Yeshua.

ERROR, John 5:22 "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son". John 5:25-27 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man".

Now once you reply i have one more question for you.

PCY.

 

[tigger 2]

GINOLJC, to all. common sense and the reading of the bible answer the John 1:1c question. we all know that the Lord Jesus is saviour of the World. and we also know that the word is Jesus, maybe some don't. but let's clear this up. 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". now the Question is this, "God" is coming to save us. no matter what anyone thinks what, or who the Word is, the word is the SON. scripture, John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." the Word was made flesh, who is the SON. John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth".
deductive reasoning, a. the ONLY begotten of the Father is the Son, right, John 1:18
b. this only begotten is the word, right, John 1:14
c. conclusion, the only begotten is the son who is the WORD, simple.

knowing this that the Son is the WORD, question, "Who is the Saviour?". answer, back to 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". who came ?, the Son. who is the only begotten the Son. so the BIBLE clearly say that the Word who is the ONLY begotten Son, is God who came and "SAVED" us. so John 1:1c cannot mean "god" with a small "g". for Isaiah 35:4 contradict this reasoning. clearly the Word is the only begotten and the only begotten is the WORD, and the Saviour is the WORD. so John 1:1c have to be God, for the only begotten is the WORD. again, John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth". and the only begotten is the Son, John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him". how plain cna one get?.

one don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what the scriptures are saying. so John 1:1c is not a"god", but referring to "God".

PCY.

Convoluted, and not evidence concerning John 1:1c.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist, but you do need an honest NT Greek scholar/translator to discern what the scriptures really say to English speakers today.

Here are some actual NT scriptures, how should they read in English?

ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ

ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτοῦ

ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστιν καὶ λῃστής·

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολος ἐστιν.

 

[101G]

Convoluted, and not evidence concerning John 1:1c.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist, but you do need an honest NT Greek scholar/translator to discern what the scriptures really say to English speakers today.

Here are some actual scriptures, how should they read in English?

ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ

ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστιν καὶ λῃστής·

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολος ἐστιν.

No, Just common sense, and the Holy Ghost.

so I take it you couldn't follow the simple steps in post #71?

PCT.

 

[tigger 2]

No, Just common sense, and the Holy Ghost.

so I take it you couldn't follow the simple steps in post #71?

PCT.

If your 'common sense' and the Holy Ghost give you the true meaning of scriptures, why do you use a flawed Bible translation made by men?

Here are some actual NT scriptures. What do your 'common sense' and the Holy Ghost tell you they mean in English?

ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ

ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστιν καὶ λῃστής·

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολος ἐστιν.

 

[101G]

If your 'common sense' and the Holy Ghost give you the true meaning of scriptures, why do you use a flawed Bible translation made by men?

Here are some actual NT scriptures. What do your 'common sense' and the Holy Ghost tell you they mean in English?

ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ

ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστιν καὶ λῃστής·

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολος ἐστιν.

the same as this in the Hebrew, Isaiah 43:11
אָנֹכִ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י יְהוָ֑ה וְאֵ֥ין מִבַּלְעָדַ֖י מֹושִֽׁיעַ׃

PCY.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.
@tigger 2. let me give you some brotherly advice. I have read the majority of scholars opinions on John 1:1c. some for "a god" translation, and some explain why it's written that way. and other give why it's not "a god". some have good points and reasons why either way.

as for me I believe what the bible say, and I know it have to be revealed by the Holy Ghost. and to me I have my answer from the Holy One. and to understand why John wrote it that way one must understand how all things are written in the bible. example for God almighty "Spirit", but yet he is also identified as "spirit". small case "s" as well as cap "S". or LORD and Lord. I understand it. be he in flesh or not, glorified or not.

The bible is true, the natural mind is enmity against the things of God. Romans 8:5 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit 6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace".

What I was trying to get you to see, if your research don't line up with the word of God, then you need to check "your" research. for the Bible do not contradict it self. I have showed you evidence against the contrarily of your thinking. now if you decide to pursue the destructive path you're on that's you.

one last thing, have you read any of the other opposition to the argument against John 1:1c as being "a god". if so, I suggest you read it again.

PCY.

 

[gadar perets]

a. are you using begotten biologically? yes or no

Your question requires more than a yes or no. Yeshua was begotten spiritually at his resurrection, but he was begotten via the Spirit and biologically at his conception. The Spirit caused Miriam's biological egg to be fertilized.

b. conception, is that of his Spirit or his body that was conceive in the womb? which one or both.

Both.

c. what's the date when when the Son came into being? book chapter and verse please.

John 1:14 (no date is given in Scripture).

d. when was the word, not his body, but him, God ever conceived? book chapter and verse please.

Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Yeshua, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
​

The word "conceived" is the same word used for Elizabeth when she conceived (Luke 1:36).

correction, Jude 1:25 "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen". what do only means? certainly not two.

"Only" refers to the "only wise God" who is our Saviour. It does not refer to "Saviour" as well.

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Miriam is glorifying her Saviour, Father YHWH for blessing her with His Son in her womb).

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (Our Saviour, Father YHWH, exalted His Son Yeshua to be our Saviour).

Acts 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Yeshua: (Our Saviour, Father YHWH, raised up His Son Yeshua to be Israel's Saviour). God (YHWH) raised up a Saviour. Whenever Scripture says "God our Saviour" it refers to Father YHWH. The word "Saviour" refers to the Son when the verse identifies Yeshua as that Saviour.​

ERROR, John 5:22 "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son". John 5:25-27 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man".

The Father judges and saves through the Son.

Acts 17:31 Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained [Yeshua]; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Yeshua Messiah according to my gospel.​

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all. first thanks for your response.

Your question requires more than a yes or no. Yeshua was begotten spiritually at his resurrection, but he was begotten via the Spirit and biologically at his conception. The Spirit caused Miriam's biological egg to be fertilized.

my question required a yes or no, and you fail to do that. understand a yes or no question. when given, (a yes or a no), then one can explain their yes or no. the answer is NO. see how easy was that. now, I'll give my explanation. Mary was just as contaminated, or infected with sin as any other woman. That's your first ERROR, and no the Lord Jesus did not use Mary's egg or anyone else. if an egg was used then the egg needs sperm. see your error now. listen, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God". did you notice the word overshadow it's the Greek word,
G1982 ἐπισκιάζω episkiazo (ep-ee-skee-ad'-zo) v.
1. to cast a shade upon
2. (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy
3. (figuratively) to invest with preternatural influence

Now what do preternatural influence mean? answer, "out of the ordinary course of nature; exceptional or abnormal". the meaning here, not in the natural way of conception between a man and a women, or sperm or egg. Mary only carried the child, making her the surrogate mother. she only birthed the flesh that GREW in her. and if you are think carnally, no her blood never mixed with the baby blood. and two the baby makes it own blood from the mother and the Father. so if Mary's egg was used, then no blood. but the correct answer is in preternatural influence meaning outside of nature, meaning no sperm nor egg. hence your second ERROR .

Both

Third ERROR, conception, and begotten I want to hit next. #1 spirit are never born, they are given, scripture, Isaiah 42:5 "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein". that's why in Isaiah 9:6 the Child/flesh is "BORN" the Son/spirit is "GIVEN". no woman gives birth to a spirit, she give birth to flesh and bone. now to any females who read this, please don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way or in malice or any negative way. please don't. only for education. if a child is born and the Spirit/God do not give that flesh a spirit, it's called "STILL BORN". no life. even if it kicked, or moved in the womb. see the BLOOD is the life of all flesh, (Leviticus 17:13), and we have our MOVEMENT in God/the Holy Spirit. scripture, Acts 17:28 "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring". and if God/the Spirit do not give that flesh spirit (see Isaiah 42:5 again), it will be still born.
now, BEGOTTEN. it do not always mean through natural means. scripture, 1 Timothy 1:2 "Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord". Titus 1:4 "To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour". question, was Timothy or Titus Paul naturals sons? No, well what about this, 1 Corinthians 4:15 "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel". well now, did the apostle Paul have many children running around?, NO. but he "begotten", which don't always means in NATURE. see how people run with a mistake?.
one more and I'll do another post and finish up.

John 1:14 (no date is given in Scripture).

son of man never came into being. Son of Man is from heaven, and the son of God is from Mary's womb. see the difference, listen. John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven". the son of man is from HEAVEN. now where did the Son of God come from? answer, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God". son of God is "born", son of man is "GIVEN". read Isaiah 9:6 closely.
that's how I know that no egg of Mary's was used.

Part #1.
PCY