This really grabbed me today!

[Lambano]

Though if Jesus did inherit hostility and rebelliousness towards God from Mary, would it be a "recessive gene" paired with the "righteous gene" He inherited from His father? (Total speculation here.)

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Good; then we both misunderstand each other.

hmmm…okay. It doesn’t explain to me “did you imply it?” But okay.

 

[face2face]

In the incarnation,

If your foundation is weak the rest of the building wont stand.

Christ was placed in the same sinless position as Adam and Eve when they were created (Christ was sinless), but His human nature, unlike Adam and Eve’s nature before the fall, was fallen human nature.

Christ fully inherited the same nature as those he saved (seed of David). To save mankind God needed to make a show of sin's flesh which he did on the cross. God also wanted to show that obedience in the flesh was possible, regardless of its propensities to sin. This wasn't achievable with two human parents, but Jesus having a Divine Father who would strengthen him in this work made this possible (2 Corinthians 5:19 is the Logos at work in the Son perfecting him and allowing him to crucify the flesh and its lusts daily Luke 12:50 caused him pain and anguish daily!!)

This made Christ’s test far greater than Adam’s. Christ’s mission on earth was not to show that God, as God, could overcome sin, but that fallen humanity, when united with divine nature, could do so. (See 2 Peter 3,4.)

I have dealt with this above.

God, to declare His Righteousness needed to do so in Sins Flesh (withing the nature that rebelled against him) - God had His victory in the demise of Sins Flesh to make a show of its weakness ( in death) but also his righteousness (in the resurrection of His Son from the dead)

Galatians 5:24 is the commandment still to this day - Jesus is the example!

Re your quote: Did you mean 2 Peter 3:4? or chapters 3 & 4

In other words, by choosing to rely upon divine power, fallen humanity could obey God. This is what Christ proved in the incarnation. By choosing to rely upon His heavenly Father, He did, in His fallen human nature, overcome sin. As the apostle Paul said, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3)
I cannot accept that those who take the view that Christ could have sinned have a “low” view of Him; Neither do I believe it is a question that should never be asked. By contemplating what Christ achieved, also risked, in becoming flesh, we uplift Him and His Father to the highest. To realise that Christ could have sinned, and thereby, if He had sinned, would have lost His eternal existence, reveals to us the height and depth of God’s love for fallen humanity. If Christ had sinned, then, like us, He would have become a sinner, and God would have lost His Son for eternity. This is not having a wrong conception of Christ or God. It is having a correct conception of them. Wondrous love.

Okay, so I can conclude that God (Yahweh) is still yet to be revealed to you and I dont say this with any malice.

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore Jesus had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:18 For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.

God required a High Priest who was taken from among men; among the fallen line of Adam as there was no other way God would be shown to be right i.e His wisdom and truth. Jesus being raised up in a fallen line allows God to show His way is Holy and True and the Victory is His only and no flesh has or can glory in his presence. The red text is why I am fighting so hard on this subject. If you make Christ a hybrid god-man you lose your atonement!

Remember this is all about proving God's righteousness in sins flesh!

Why must Christ be in our nature? That the death of Christ show "that God might be just" while acting the part of justifier or forgiver.

I showed you how the sacrifice of animals did not demonstrate this righteousness, except as a type of Christs sacrifice to come. Sacrificing animals did not declare the righteousness of God, except prophetically. It was however a type of the true declaration of God's righteousness that God would accomplish in the Lamb of His own providing. "God shall provide Himself a lamb, my son", Abraham said to Isaac, not of course meaning an animal, but he spoke by the Spirit of God, pointing forward when John said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world".

Unfortunately, your God is inferior to mine, as mine did not compromise on facing the challenge of Sin's Flesh (the enemy of God) instead He choose to conquer it, at and in its source (within Christ Romans 8:1-3).

I am blessed that God made Christ sin for us, because He provided a sacrificial victim who was a perfectly righteous man who had a nature which was sacrificially condemned (ignore this at your own peril!).

Jesus did no sin in himself, but was "made sin" and treated as sin for us; who should be just and holy, obedient in all things, although "numbered with the transgressors and making his grave with the wicked".

None of which, Yawheh in His Holiness would do, as this would not declare His Holiness in a man.

As Paul said

1 Corinthians 15:57

 

[Lambano]

hmmm…okay. It doesn’t explain to me “did you imply it?” But okay.

I was trying to avoid the "Where did I say that?" charges and counter-charges loop. But from F2F's "dual natures" line of questioning and your focus on Christ's divine side, Christ's human side got lost. It looked like you were headed for the right-hand ditch.

Me, I'm just digging myself a hole somewhere in the road.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

If your foundation is weak the rest of the building wont stand.

And again, irony!

 

[face2face]

And again, irony!

Contend earnestly for the _ _ _ _ _

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I was trying to avoid the "Where did I say that?" charges and counter-charges loop. But from F2F's "dual natures" line of questioning and your focus on Christ's divine side, Christ's human side got lost. It looked like you were headed for the right-hand ditch.

Okay then, I didn’t misunderstand.

In addition, I’m now trying to wrap my head around how you think it’s avoiding something or saving time to imply by a question that I implied something! It’s much easier to plainly say what you mean, which in this case would have been something like…I feel that by saying He wasn’t born with a sin nature you are downplaying His humanness.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Contend earnestly for the _ _ _ _ _

You gave me quite a guffaw!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I was trying to avoid the "Where did I say that?" charges and counter-charges loop. But from F2F's "dual natures" line of questioning and your focus on Christ's divine side, Christ's human side got lost. It looked like you were headed for the right-hand ditch.

Me, I'm just digging myself a hole somewhere in the road.

It’s also odd that in a long conversation where this man was saying Jesus was ONLY human and others, myself included, were saying He was BOTH human and God, that it would appear to you that I, or we, were the ones headed for a ditch…insisting that BOTH things God has said are true is the exact opposite of one of the ditches…

 

[Lambano]

It’s much easier to plainly say what you mean, which in this case would have been something like…I feel that by saying He wasn’t born with a sin nature you are downplaying His humanness.

Among other problems, if you were trying to communicate that Jesus was born without a sin nature, your message got completely lost. (At least by me.)

I still haven't got the hang of this communication thing.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Among other problems, if you were trying to communicate that Jesus was born without a sin nature, your message got completely lost. (At least by me.)

I still haven't got the hang of this communication thing.

So here’s one of the times I said it:
“I said He was not born of the sperm of a man so did not inherit a fallen nature. This is why the apostle said He was the second Adam.”

So I don’t know how it was completely lost to you. I mean, I said it more than once…

 

[Aunty Jane]

What you may not receive but I will say anyway...Adam first existed in the spirit and then God made a skin for him out of the dust of the earth.

Do you have some scriptural support for the existence of Adam or any other personages in spirit form before being born as humans? I have heard Mormons believe this....but I have never see scripture that even hints at this.

Did God intend for his creation to fall by the sin of one man? What resulted from Adam's sin? The curse of sin and death...Adam perhaps would have remained even to this day (immortal).

Actually humans were never offered "immortality" because an immortal cannot die. Giving humans the opportunity to gain "everlasting life" is a different thing altogether. The "tree of life" in the garden was there for the taking and as long as the humans obeyed God's commands, they could freely partake of this tree and continue living....with no sickness, ageing, or death to rob them of an amazing quality of life in eternal youth, health and well being. All that came with sin, and a ban from partaking of the tree of life.
This was God's first purpose in creating man "in his image".....man was to be the permanent caretaker of all of God's earthly creation, endowed with God's qualities so as to carry out the task as God himself would......but remember that access to the "tree of life" was denied when the humans disobeyed their God and stole from him, something that did not belong to them.

Genesis 3:22-24...
"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out with his hand, and take fruit also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the Garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life." (NASB)
Never again, in a sinful state was mankind to partake of this "tree"....so death would be inevitable. In his fallen state, mankind would even hasten their own death, and the death of their fellow man through sinful acts....which has continued to this day. Do you believe that God caused this situation on purpose?

Jesus has defeated the curse of sin and death by conquering the enemy when he came to tempt Him. He has conquered the curse of sin and death for those who will receive Him as their Lord and Savior....

Actually he conquered sin and death for us by dying instead of us....his blood cancelled out the debt that Adam left for his children. Freeing us from a never ending cycle of sin and death.....we now have hope in God's Kingdom where no one will have to endure suffering, pain or wickedness again. (Revelation 21:2-4)

 

[Aunty Jane]

I don’t think you understand what irony is.

I do.....just not from your viewpoint.

Okay, now see, THATS irony!

We will all find out what irony is when the judgment is made....

And…who would be the counterfeit Christian in your scenario…?

The ones Jesus rejects.....who else?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I do.....just not from your viewpoint.


We will all find out what irony is when the judgment is made....


The ones Jesus rejects.....who else?

you misunderstood me. I was asking this: are you the “counterfeit Christian” in your question or are those who believe Jesus was God the “counterfeit Christian” in your question?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

is being tempted a thought-sin?

Being tempted is not a sin…if that were the case, then Jesus sinned because He was tempted by satan in the wilderness…

 

[Lambano]

So here’s one of the times I said it:
“I said He was not born of the sperm of a man so did not inherit a fallen nature. This is why the apostle said He was the second Adam.”

So I don’t know how it was completely lost to you. I mean, I said it more than once…

Hmm. You'd think that humanity's fallen nature was attached to the Y-chromosome. The statement itself is a head-scratcher, because it ignores the possibility of Mary making a contribution to Jesus's nature. (A question that leads to the Catholic dogma of Mary's immaculate conception.) The line of questioning was about how a divine Christ could relate to us sinners (a key point in atonement theology, if you care about such), and I thought that emphasizing that Christ did not have a sin nature couldn't be your point because it played right into the hand of your opponent. Now, it's on me for misinterpreting your statement as that Jesus could not be fully human because He didn't have a sin-nature (the very question you asked me). To err is human, and to be human is to err. But in my experience observing traditionalists arguing with the modern humanist church (the left-hand ditch, where your opponent is), the common path is to over-emphasize Christ's divinity at expense of His humanity - the Docetic error - as we talked about much earlier in this discussion. My way of probing for clarification may have been rude; I hope it wasn't hurtful.

 

[Aunty Jane]

you misunderstood me. I was asking this: are you the “counterfeit Christian” in your question or are those who believe Jesus was God the “counterfeit Christian” in your question?

Bit of a dumb question

......if I believed that my position was scripturally untenable, would I hold to it?...would you?

If Jesus rejects those whom he calls "law breakers", do you suppose that these are breaking God's law deliberately?
If they offer Jesus their excuses as to why they believe that they are his true disciples, enumerating all the things they did "in his name"....and yet he tells them that they never were his disciples.....what are they doing (or not doing) wrong, and who is setting them up to fail?.....what serious breach of God's Law are they guilty of, seemingly unaware?

What does it mean to "do the will of the Father" in the Christian era? (Matthew 7:21; Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20)

How serious a breach of God's law is it to put one or even two other 'gods' in the Father's place? (Exodus 20:3)

I know that the answers to these questions are clear to me.....but Jesus is the judge of all of us.....no one gets away with anything.
Some are going to be horribly disappointed....we all hope it isn't us.....

 

[Brakelite]

Re your quote: Did you mean 2 Peter 3:4? or chapters 3 & 4

KJV 2 Peter 1:3-4
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Remember this is all about proving God's righteousness in sins flesh!

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that. We cannot live in righteousness unless the flesh dies. The sinful flesh of man must die before it can be united to divinity.

 

[Brakelite]

The Bible very clearly says that Christ is God. The opening words of John’s Gospel tell us “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” John 1:1-3

That “the Word” is Christ is beyond question. As John went on to say “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.” John 1:14 Whatever else we may make of John’s opening words, we are told in no uncertain terms that Christ is God. The question is though, how is it possible for Christ to be God, yet at the same time be with God, the latter of whom most would readily identify as the Father? John himself provides the answer. Near the end of his Gospel he explains “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” John 20:30-31

Here we are told the purpose of John’s Gospel. It is to show that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. The “signs” referred to here are some of the acts and the words of Christ that John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, selected to show that this is true. John’s Gospel therefore is a divine theology. This is why it is so unlike the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. These latter accounts of the life of Christ, often referred to as the synoptic Gospels, had been written around 30 or 40 years previous to John writing his Gospel. John’s Gospel is amongst the last of the revelations that the church, through the Bible writers, would receive from God. Within it we find the most complete revelation of God to humanity. Many scholars estimate it to have been written near the end of the first century (c. AD 96). This was at a time when the church, although still in its infancy, was already under threat from false teachings. This was particularly regarding the identity and the nature of Christ. These erroneous teachings came from within the church and from without. John therefore would have been very careful when selecting the words he would write. This is why his Gospel, particularly with respect to Christ’s personal identity, should be regarded as highly significant. It appears that John wrote his Gospel with the sole purpose of refuting these false teachings. The introduction of such teachings into the early church was something that the apostle Paul had warned would happen (Acts 20:27-30).

One source of these false teachings was a man named Cerinthus. The early church father Irenaeus (c. AD 130-202), in his work Adversus haereses (Against Heresies), wrote about the things Cerinthus taught (see particularly Book 1 chapter 26). From Irenaeus we learn that Cerinthus was contemporary with John, also that he was John’s ‘arch-enemy’. Irenaeus also relates that Cerinthus taught that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary (not a virgin birth), also that the divine Christ had entered into the human Jesus at His baptism and had departed from Him at the crucifixion. Cerinthus is also said to have taught that the universe had not been created by the supreme Deity but had been brought into existence by a certain power (a demiurge) that did not know the true God. Unfortunately, no writings of Cerinthus have been preserved. This has led to some taking the opportunity to challenge the report of Irenaeus but because no hard evidence has been produced to prove him wrong, there is no real reason to doubt what he wrote. Cerinthus is also spoken of extensively in The Panarion. This is a work, by the 4th century writer Epiphanius of Salamis, also written against heresies.

Another source of these false teachings was a group known as the Docetae (the illusionists). They were part of a larger group known as the Gnostics. The Gnostics regarded themselves as the learned ones (the intellectuals). They claimed to have a secret (mystical) knowledge beyond the simplicity of the Scriptures. Rather than a simple faith in the Word of God, they embraced the idea of salvation through knowledge. Gnosticism was not a sect or a group. More than anything else it was intellectual philosophy. It was a serious threat to Christianity. It is still the same today. There is always the danger of rationalism taking the place of a simple faith in the things that God, through His Word, has made known to us. The Docetae reasoned that divinity would not mingle with sinful humanity, so according to their reasoning, the body of Jesus was a mere phantasm (not real). Both Cerinthus and the Docetae concluded therefore that the divine Son of God had not really become flesh: also that a divine person had not suffered or died at Calvary. Satan had failed to defeat Christ. He could not undo what Christ, through His life and death on earth, had accomplished, so he attempted to pervert it. This he purposed to do through these and other false teachers. Since then he has continued to pursue his objective.

Cont....

 

[Brakelite]

It can now be seen why John began his Gospel by saying that the Word was God (1:1); that from the beginning the Word had been with God (1:2); that the Word had created all things (1:3); that the Word had become flesh (1:14). It can also be seen why John wrote that the divine Son of God was the One who knew God and had declared Him (1:18). It is hardly surprising that almost one half of John’s Gospel is taken up with the events of the Passion Week - which culminated of course with the death of Christ at Calvary (John 12:1-19:42). It is also said that the first two of John’s little letters (1 and 2 John) were written to combat these false teachings. Certainly there is a striking resemblance between the prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1-18) and these letters. In his letters, John emphasised that Christ had come “in the flesh”. The importance John places on this can be seen in these words

“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” 1 John 4:3

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” 2 John 1:7

John is the only Bible writer who uses the word “antichrist”. We can see from the above how he makes the application (see also 1 John 2:18 and 4:3). He also wrote (regarding antichrist)

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” 1 John 2:22

From the above we can see very clearly the problem that John was addressing. It was the same problem as he was addressing at the opening of his Gospel (see John 1:1, 14) John also emphasised that as Christians “we know” (see 1 John 2:3, 2:10, 3:2, 3:14, 3:19, 3:24). This was an experiential knowledge This was in contrast to the philosophical knowledge of the Gnostics. This is why John could say “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;” 1 John 1:1 This is very similar to the opening of his Gospel (John 1:1). Notice that John says “our hands” have “handled” the Word. John was identifying himself with all the others who had actually been with Christ during His time on earth. These had been the eyewitnesses to Christ’s life, death and resurrection.. It had been 65 years or so since Jesus had returned to His Father in Heaven (Acts 1:11). John therefore, when writing his Gospel, was no longer the young man he was when he first met Jesus (Matthew 4:18-22, Luke 5:1-2). He is now in his mid to late 80’s (perhaps older). Prior to writing his Gospel he had been exiled to the Isle of Patmos. It was here, during the cruel reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96), that he received the vision of the Revelation (Revelation 1:1, 9). From the early Christian writers we learn that after his exile he resided at Ephesus. Some believe that previous to his exile he had pastored the churches of Asia Minor from Ephesus. Even in his old age, God had a work for John to do. This should encourage the older ones amongst us.

These “signs” that John gave were such as; Jesus turning the water into wine (chapter 2), the night discussion between Christ and Nicodemus (chapter 3), also the talk that Jesus had with the woman at the well. This was when He told her that He had the water of life, also that He was the promised Messiah (chapter 4). These signs also included the healing of the nobleman’s son (chapter 4) and the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath (chapter 5). The latter was when Jesus said (after being accused of working on the Sabbath), “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17). These signs also include the miracle of the fishes and the loaves when Jesus said He was the bread of life that had come down from Heaven (chapter 6); the giving of sight to the man born blind (chapter 9); also the raising of Lazarus from the dead (chapter 11). In addition to this, these signs include some of the discourses that Jesus had with His disciples, also the discussions He had with various groups of Jews such as the Scribes and the Pharisees. These discussions often concerned His personal identity.

Jesus repeatedly spoke of God as His Father (Matthew 7:21, 10:32, 18:10, Luke 10:22, John 5:17, 6:65, 8:19, 8:28, 16:10 etc). In John’s Gospel alone there can be found over 30 instances where Jesus said “my Father”. As we noted above, John devoted his entire Gospel to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (20:31) - hence his continuous reporting of Christ calling God His Father. The personal testimony of God was that Christ was His Son (Matthew 3:17, 17:5).

There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture showing that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. It would be far too much to comment upon in detail here. Suffice it to say that certain of the Jews regarded His claim as blasphemous (Mark 14:60-65 John 10:36). They said He was claiming to be God (John 5:18, 10:30- 33). It was this claim of Sonship that He was challenged with at His trial (Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70). The Jews said His claims made Him worthy of death (Mark 14:64, John 19:7, see also John 8:56-59). Jesus was mocked for claiming to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:40-43). It was on this point of Sonship with God that Satan challenged Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:3-6, Luke 4:3-9). Peter, when confessing Christ to be “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), was told by Jesus that it had not been “flesh and blood” that had revealed this to him but His Father in Heaven (Matthew 16:17). Jesus said very clearly that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-17, John 3:16, 5:25-26, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 19:7). At His trial he claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70-71). It was this claim that brought about the sentence of death against Him (Mark 14:64, John 19:7).

 

[Brakelite]

The demons also addressed Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7, Luke 4:41). The man in the tombs possessed of a devil also called Christ the Son of God (Luke 8:27-29). The Roman centurion said he believed that Christ was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). The disciples confessed Christ to be the Son of God (Matthew 14:33, 16:16, John 1:49, 11:27). Philip (the evangelist) explained to the Ethiopian eunuch that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 8:37). The first thing Paul taught after his 'blindness' was that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Paul’s continuing theme was that God had sent His Son into the world to die (Romans 1:4, 8:3, 32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13 etc.). Not surprisingly, John's little letters, as does the book of Hebrews, constantly refer to Christ as the Son of God (1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29). That Christ is the Son of God was also the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:32-34) – and so the list goes on. Some say that Christ is a son only because of the virgin birth at Bethlehem, but if this were true, then John, when writing his Gospel (to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God), made a serious mistake. This is because he did not even mention the birth of Jesus or the events of Bethlehem. The only thing in this respect he did say was that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). This must be the briefest of references to Christ’s incarnation that it is possible to make. If John had wanted to show that the only reason why Christ was called the Son of God was because of the virgin birth then surely he would have at least mentioned where the angel Gabriel visited Mary saying that the child she was going to bear would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). As it was he did not even mention it. The prime reason therefore for Christ being called the Son of God cannot be His birth at Bethlehem. There must be another reason. The “signs” that John gave were signs of Christ’s divinity. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he was led of God to show that Christ was the divine Son of God. This can clearly be seen in his opening words:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

In order to fulfil the purpose in writing his Gospel (that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God), the very first thing that the Holy Spirit led John to write was that Christ, in His pre-existence, “was God”. From the outset therefore, John was saying to his readers that there are two divine personages who are both rightly termed God (Gr. Theos). This was the opening thrust of his Gospel. John then proceeded to reinforce his opening words. He did this by saying that all things were made by the Word and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3). Christ therefore, says John, is our Creator. This is the highest possible claim to divinity. Only divinity is not created. These are amongst the opening thoughts that John sought to impress on the minds of those who would read his Gospel. First he shows that Christ is God (1:1). Secondly he shows that Christ was in the beginning with God (1:2). Thirdly he says that Christ is our Creator (1:3). These opening words are the very foundation for everything else he would write.

It is said that John’s Gospel is written in easy-to-understand Greek – also that he uses a comparatively small vocabulary of around 600 words. This having been said, its simplicity contains the most profound truths given to man. These truths, down through the centuries, have captivated the minds of the most able of the world’s theologians and scholars yet at the same time they have been understood by children. Its profundity lies in its simplicity of thought.

Terry Hill.