10 Reasons why Christ is the True God and Eternal Life

civic

civic

Well-known member
Jesus is eternal life, He is life. We see this over and over again in the Apostle Johns writings. In Him was LIFE and that LIFE was the light of man. Life of the world, the Bread of LIFE,My words are spirit and they are LIFE, I AM the way,the truth and the LIFE,The LIFE was manifested and we proclaim to you the ETERNAL Life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us- The Prologue of 1st John. So we see that when John uses the phrase True God and Eternal Life together in 1 John 5:20 that He is referring to Christ as the closest antecedent making Him the True God and Eternal Life.

Also we see that when we search the NT that Eternal Life is never used of the Father without the Son but we see that Eternal Life is used over and over with Jesus where the Father is never mentioned. This makes a solid case for Jesus in 1 John 5:20 as the True God and Eternal Life.

1 John 5:20
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He(Jesus) is the true God and eternal life.


On behalf of seeing χριστος as the antecedent are the following arguments: (1) Although it is true that αληθινος θεος is not elsewhere referred to Christ, αληθεια is, and is so in Johannine literature (John 14:6).

29 Winer-Moulton, 195.
Further, αληθινος θεος is not a "constant.. epithet" as Winer supposes, being found only in John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20! (2) Christ is also said to be ζωη in John's writings John 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 1:1-2), an epithet nowhere else used of the Father. (3) The demonstrative pronoun, ουτος, in the Gospel and Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner.30 Specifically, of the approximately seventy instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as forty- four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.For what it is worth, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω is the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. 32 The issue cannot be decided on grammar alone. But suffice it to say here that there are no grammatical reasons for denying that αληθινος θεος is descriptive of Jesus Christ.



My top 10 biblical and exegetical reasons Jesus Christ is the True God and Eternal Life.

1st- Jesus is called God in the writings of John(1:1,20:28,1 John 5:20)

2nd- Jesus is called Eternal Life over and over again in Johns writings

3rd- John opens up his epistle with the Eternal life(Jesus) that was with the Father in the beginning and was manifest to the disciples(1 John 1:1-5)

4th- John ends his epistle with Jesus who is eternal life and only is eternal life found in Him who is the true God.

5th- never is eternal life used of the Father alone. When the Father is included the Son is always mentioned together with the Father making them equal. Equality with the Father was not something Jesus needed to grasp at as He already possessed complete Deity as God.(Phil 2, Col 2:9)

6th- John would not leave his readers with any ambiguity warning them to guard themselves from idols(5:21) So this would be clear his reference was to those who reject Jesus as the true God. They are the idoloters and antichrists John writes of in his epistles.

7th- Jesus is also the True God and the True one in 1 John. Jesus is the true light which brings light to all men (John 1:9) Jesus is the truth (John 14:6)Jesus is the true vine (John 15:1). Jesus is the true witness of God (John 18:37) He who is true (Revelation 3:7) Jesus is the faithful and true witness (Revelation 3:14)Jesus is Lord God Almighty, Just and true are your ways(Revelation 15:3) Jesus is faithful and true(Revelation 19:11).

8th- [In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3 . . . ) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent.FWIW, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω IS the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. Wallace.

9th- Netbible- Wallace
If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to "the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us." Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.

10th- This/ He (autos)Jesus Christ (the last-named Person) is the true God


Conclusion: So the most logical conclusion is that it refers to Jesus as the true God. Not only is this Wallace's conclusion from Johns usage of outos but He is the closest antecedent (most times in the NT this principal holds true). Eternal Life is never used of the Father alone in John’s writings and only a couple of times does John include the Father with the Son regarding eternal life. John opens up his epistles describing the "eternal life" who was with the Father in the beginning and then ends his epistle with eternal life identifying Jesus as the true God and eternal life. John then says this in the last verse:

1 John 5:21-Guard yourselves from idols- Now why would he leave any ambiguity in verse 20 as to the identity of the true God and eternal life then turn around commanding them to protect themselves from idolatry? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless John is identifying Jesus as the true God and refuting the Gnostics of his day who denied the Incarnation.This is the last of the contrasts of which the Epistle is so full. We have had light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, God and the world, Christ and Antichrist, life and death, doing righteousness and doing sin, the children of God and the children of the devil, the spirit of truth and the spirit of error, the believer untouched by the evil one and the world lying in the evil one; and now at the close we have what in that age was the ever present and pressing contrast between the true God Jesus Christ and the idols.

hope this helps !!!
 
Last edited:
The following quote by Albert Barnes concerning "the true God" as used in reference to the Lord Jesus in 1 John 5:20 is quite insightful:

if John did not mean to affirm this, he has made use of an expression which was liable to be misunderstood, and which, as facts have shown, would be misconstrued by the great portion of those who might read what he had written; and, moreover, an expression that would lead to the very sin against which he endeavors to guard in the next verse - the sin of substituting a creature in the place of God, and rendering to another the honor due to him. The language which he uses is just such as, according to its natural interpretation, would lead people to worship one as the true God who is not the true God, unless the Lord Jesus be divine. For these reasons, it seems to me that the fair interpretation of this passage demands that it should be understood as referring to the Lord Jesus Christ. If so, it is a direct assertion of his divinity, for there could be no higher proof of it than to affirm that he is the true God.

1 John 5 - Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

1 John 5, Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible, Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible provides Christians with deep insights into the Scriptures, emphasizing original texts and historical context.
www.studylight.org www.studylight.org




My comment:
Albert Barnes is correct. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments repeated warnings are given concerning idolatry. Time and time again idolatry has been quite pervasive and destructive. The true God is extremely far and high above all creation. John would not write in such a way as to even hint at associating any created being, no matter how highly exalted, to the Creator and then immediately warn against idolatry if he did not believe the Lord Jesus is "the true God."
 
Fred said:
The following quote by Albert Barnes concerning "the true God" as used in reference to the Lord Jesus in 1 John 5:20 is quite insightful:

if John did not mean to affirm this, he has made use of an expression which was liable to be misunderstood, and which, as facts have shown, would be misconstrued by the great portion of those who might read what he had written; and, moreover, an expression that would lead to the very sin against which he endeavors to guard in the next verse - the sin of substituting a creature in the place of God, and rendering to another the honor due to him. The language which he uses is just such as, according to its natural interpretation, would lead people to worship one as the true God who is not the true God, unless the Lord Jesus be divine. For these reasons, it seems to me that the fair interpretation of this passage demands that it should be understood as referring to the Lord Jesus Christ. If so, it is a direct assertion of his divinity, for there could be no higher proof of it than to affirm that he is the true God.

1 John 5 - Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

1 John 5, Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible, Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible provides Christians with deep insights into the Scriptures, emphasizing original texts and historical context.
www.studylight.org www.studylight.org




My comment:
Albert Barnes is correct. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments repeated warnings are given concerning idolatry. Time and time again idolatry has been quite pervasive and destructive. The true God is extremely far and high above all creation. John would not write in such a way as to even hint at associating any created being, no matter how highly exalted, to the Creator and then immediately warn against idolatry if he did not believe the Lord Jesus is "the true God."
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing brother it confirms my OP and study on this topic. Much appreciated !
 
Fred said:
Great work!
Click to expand...
Here is some excellent scholarship that confirms the OP.

This — Ουτος, he, namely, Christ, the person last mentioned; is the true God and eternal life , benson

(1) the grammatical construction favors it. Christ is the immediate antecedent of the pronoun "this" - οὗτος houtos. This would be regarded as the obvious and certain construction so far as the grammar is concerned, unless there were something in the thing affirmed which led us to seek some more remote and less obvious antecedent. No doubt would have been ever entertained on this point, if it had not been for the reluctance to admit that the Lord Jesus is the true God. If the assertion had been that "this is the true Messiah;" or that "this is the Son of God;" or that "this is he who was born of the Virgin Mary," there would have been no difficulty in the construction. I admit that his argument is not absolutely decisive; for cases do occur where a pronoun refers, not to the immediate antecedent, but to one more remote; but cases of that kind depend on the ground of necessity, and can be applied only when it would be a clear violation of the sense of the author to refer it to the immediate antecedent.

(2) this construction seems to be demanded by the adjunct which John has assigned to the phrase "the true God" - "eternal life." This is an expression which John would be likely to apply to the Lord Jesus, considered as "life," and the "source of life," and not to God as such. "How familiar is this language with John, as applied to Christ! "In him (i. e. Christ) was life, and the life was the light of people - giving life to the world - the bread of life - my words are spirit and life - I am the way, and the truth, and the life. This life (Christ) was manifested, and we have "seen it," and do testify to you, and declare the eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us," 1 John 1:2." - Prof. Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 83. There is no instance in the writings of John, in which the appellation life, and "eternal" life is bestowed upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life; and as this occurs so frequently in John's writings as applied to Christ, the laws of exegesis require that both the phrase "the true God," and "eternal life," should be applied to him.

(3) if it refers to God as such, or to the word "true" - τὸν ἀληθινόν (Θεὸν) ton alēthinon (Theon) it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be, "That we may know the true God, and we are in the true God: this is the true God, and eternal life." Can we believe that an inspired man would affirm gravely, and with so much solemnity, and as if it were a truth of so much magnitude, that the true God is the true God?

(4) this interpretation accords with what we are sure John would affirm respecting the Lord Jesus Christ. Can there be any doubt that he who said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" that he who said, "all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made;" that he who recorded the declaration of the Saviour, "I and my Father are one," and the declaration of Thomas, "my Lord and my God," would apply to him the appellation "the true God!"

(5) if John did not mean to affirm this, he has made use of an expression which was liable to be misunderstood, and which, as facts have shown, would be misconstrued by the great portion of those who might read what he had written; and, moreover, an expression that would lead to the very sin against which he endeavors to guard in the next verse - the sin of substituting a creature in the place of God, and rendering to another the honor due to him. The language which he uses is just such as, according to its natural interpretation, would lead people to worship one as the true God who is not the true God, unless the Lord Jesus be divine. For these reasons, it seems to me that the fair interpretation of this passage demands that it should be understood as referring to the Lord Jesus Christ.Barnes

This is the true God—"This Jesus Christ (the last-named Person) is the true God" (identifying Him thus with the Father in His attribute, "the only true God," Joh 17:3, primarily attributed to the Father).JFB

the true God, as John 17:3, so as thereby to be drawn into union with him, and to be in him: or, which in effect is the same thing, (so entire is the oneness between the Father and the Son), we are in his Son Jesus Christ, who also
is the true God, as John 1:1, Poole

This is the true God and eternal life; that is, the Son of God, who is the immediate antecedent to the relative "this"; he is the true God, with his Father and the Spirit, in distinction from all false, fictitious, or nominal deities; and such as are only by office, or in an improper and figurative sense: Christ is truly and really God, as appears from all the perfections of deity, the fulness of the Godhead being in him; from the divine works of creation and providence being ascribed to him; and from the divine worship that is given him; as well as from the names and titles he goes by, and particularly that of Jehovah, which is incommunicable to a creature; and he is called "eternal life", because it is in him; and he is the giver of it to his people; and that itself will chiefly consist in the enjoyment and vision of him, and in conformity to him.Gill

1 John 5:20. Ἥκει) is come. Thus, ἡκω, Mark 8:3, note.—δέδωκεν, has given) that is, God: for in the preceding clause also the subject is by implication God, in this sense: God sent his own Son: and to this is referred αὐτοῦ, of Him, which presently follows.—διάνοιαν, understanding) not only knowledge, but the faculty of knowing.—τὸν ἀληθινὸν, the True One) Understand, His Son Jesus Christ: as presently afterwards. Whence it is perceived with what great majesty the Son thus entitles Himself: Revelation 3:7.—οὗτος) This, the True One, the Son of God Jesus Christ: to whom the title of Life eternal is befitting.—ζωὴ αἰώνιος, Life eternal) The beginning and the end of the Epistle are in close agreement.Bengel

The final sentence of verse 20 runs: He is the true God and eternal life. To whom does he refer? Grammatically speaking, it would normally refer to the nearest preceding subject, namely his Son Jesus Christ. If so, this would be the most unequivocal statement of the deity of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, which the champions of orthodoxy were quick to exploit against the heresy of Arius. Luther and Calvin adopted this view.[1] Stott

This is the true God—“This Jesus Christ (the last-named Person) is the true God”[2] Brown

The following factors enter into a decision: (1) The nearest antecedent is “Jesus Christ”; but sometimes when that is true, the pronoun can still refer to God, as in 1 John 2:3. (The houtos of 2 John 7, although it follows “Jesus Christ,” refers to the secessionists.) Some would treat “in His Son, Jesus Christ,” of the preceding line as a gloss, so that the nearest antecedent becomes “the One who is true” of 20c, but the well-attested Johannine pattern of sequential phrases referring to Father and Son militates against this. (2) The first predicate identifying houtos is “the true [alēthinos] God,” which is clearly a title of the Father in John 17:3. Moreover, alēthinos has just been used of the Father in 5:20c, and within two verses it would be surprising to find the author switching the title to Jesus without some explicit indication. On the other hand, after a description of the Father as “the One who is true,” it is somewhat tautological to say, “This [true One] is the true God,” whereas the author would be saying something further if he said that this Jesus Christ is the true God. (3) There is an uneasiness (sometimes unexpressed) among scholars about NT texts that call Jesus “God”—an unwarranted uneasiness, especially for the Johannine writings where that description is solidly attested (John 1:1, 18; 20:28). See my article “Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?” cited above in the Introduction, footnote 162. (4) The second predicate identifying houtos is “eternal life,” which, since it lacks the definite article, is closely joined to the first predicate—the true God who is (for us) eternal life. (Moffatt and NEB, “This is the real [true] God, this is life eternal,” are not helpful here.) This predicate fits Jesus better than it fits God. The Father possesses life in Himself (John 5:26; 6:57), even as there is life in Jesus (John 1:4; 6:57; 1 John 5:11); but “life” is not predicated of the Father as it is of Jesus (John 11:25; 14:6). If the reference here is to Jesus, then there is an inclusion with the I John Prologue (1:2): “This eternal life which was in the Father’s presence … was revealed to us.” Ignatius, who has many affinities to I John, describes Jesus as “God in man, true life in death” (Eph. 7:2), using all the predicates of 1 John 5:20e. In summary, I think the arguments clearly favor houtos as a reference to Jesus Christ.[3] Raymond Brown

οὗτος (“this one”), in its position after the phrase “in his Son Jesus Christ,” cannot refer to God, but only to Jesus Christ, although the preceding ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ (“in the true one”) can refer only to God. But if the sentence is original, it is designed to provide a rationale for the claim that we are in God, in the “true one,” because (insofar as) we are in his Son, by designating the Son himself as ἀληθινὸς θεός (“true God”). The attribution would be superfluous as a characteristic of the Father. Furthermore, it would be strange to say not only, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινός (“this is the true one”), but ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός (“the true God”). In addition, καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος (“and eternal life”) as a characteristic of Jesus Christ agrees with v 11*: αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ (scil. αἰώνιος) ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν (“this life [eternal] is in his Son”), and with 11:25*; 14:6*.39[4] Bultmann

In the conclusion of his writing, the author turns again to the central focus of faith. It is no accident that there is a parallel here to John 20:28*. As the fourth evangelist sees the culminating point of the Gospel in the disciple Thomas’s confession of the true godhead and lordship of Jesus Christ, so the author of 1 John makes clear that it is his real intention to demonstrate the reality of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and its meaning for the Christian community. This means not only—as must certainly be acknowledged here as well, keeping in mind the conflict with the opponents—that the divine revelation is bound up with the earthly reality of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (2:22*; 4:2*: ἐν σαρκί), but also that faith in the incarnate Son of God, sent by the Father (3:8*; 4:9*; 5:9–10*), includes the confession of the earthly and heavenly existence of the Christ and the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as preexistent (cf. 1:2–3*) and as the mediator of divine life (5:11–12*). Therefore in conclusion, and going beyond all the other christological statements in his writing, the author can triumphantly say: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.

This confession does not anticipate the rational conceptuality of the later confessional formula, such as is expressed in the Athanasian Creed (“perfectus deus, perfectus homo”), even though the seeds of such a development seem to exist here. Our text does not envision a christological speculation about the relationship between the divine and human person or nature, nor is the Son identical with the Father.61 Instead, what is crucial is that Jesus Christ, as the true God, is eternal life. He does not “preserve” life as if it were a possession;63 rather, in the encounter with him in faith, life is revealed in its unrestricted fullness and elusiveness.[5] strecker

[1] Stott, J. R. W. (1988). The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 19, p. 195). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
[2] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 538). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
[3] Brown, R. E. (2008). The Epistles of John: translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary (Vol. 30, pp. 625–626). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
[4] Bultmann, R. K. (1973). The Johannine epistles a commentary on the Johannine epistles (p. 90). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
[5] Strecker, G., & Attridge, H. W. (1996). The Johannine letters: a commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John (pp. 211–212). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
 
I've noticed when reading the New Testament that in several different books by different authors it seems they are purposefully ambiguous as to whom they are referring to when discussing the Father and the Son. A few instances could be dismissed, but I've noticed this is the situation in many passages. To me, they all believed that Jesus is God, so strictly differentiating between the Father and the Son was not always a concern for them. They do differentiate them in many passages, but in many others they do not. Even works like the BDAG (3rd Edition) and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon not only disagree with one another, but in several instances from within their same lexicon apply certain singular pronouns and/or titles in passages to God (the Father) and then elsewhere affirm it is in reference to the Lord Jesus. Even those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) are notorious for doing this.

Take for example the Letter of 1 John alone.
a. In 1 John 2:20 does "the Holy One" apply to the Father or the Lord Jesus?...or both?
b. To whom does "He is righteous" refer to in 1 John 2:29? Many will say, "the Father", but it is interesting that the same expression is used in 1 John 3:7 in reference to Jesus - cf. note the pronouns in vv. 5-6 which refer to Jesus (v. 5)
c. To whom does "He is pure" refer to in 1 John 3:3?
d. What about the singular pronouns in 1 John 2:3-6?

There are many other examples as well not only in this book, but throughout the New Testament.
 
Last edited:
Fred said:
I've noticed when reading the New Testament that in several different books by different authors it seems they are purposefully ambiguous as to whom they are referring to when discussing the Father and the Son. A few instances could be dismissed, but I've noticed this is the situation in many passages. To me, they all believed that Jesus is God, so strictly differentiating between the Father and the Son was not always a concern for them. They do differentiate them in many passages, but in many others they do not. Even works like the BDAG (3rd Edition) and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon not only disagree with one another, but in several instances from within their same lexicon apply certain pronouns and/or titles in passages to God (the Father) and then elsewhere affirm it is in reference to the Lord Jesus. Even those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) are notorious for doing this.

Take for example the Letter of 1 John alone.
a. In 1 John 2:20 does "the Holy One" apply to the Father or the Lord Jesus?...or both?
b. To whom does "He is righteous" refer to in 1 John 2:29? Many will say, "the Father", but it is interesting that the same expression is used in 1 John 3:7 in reference to Jesus - cf. note the pronouns in vv.5-6 which refer to Jesus (v. 5)
c. To whom does 1 John 3:3 refer to?
d. What about the pronouns in 1 John 2:3-6?

There are many other examples as well not only in this book, but throughout the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Thanks Fred this is just the kind of information that intrigues me and causes me to further study those passages. Its the exact reason I took a deep dive into 1 John 5:20-21 for the above mentioned reasons. So I came up with a list of 10 reasons why its Christ so there would be no ambiguity. :)
 
civic said:
Thanks Fred this is just the kind of information that intrigues me and causes me to further study those passages. Its the exact reason I took a deep dive into 1 John 5:20-21 for the above mentioned reasons. So I came up with a list of 10 reasons why its Christ so there would be no ambiguity. :)
Click to expand...

Excellent.
 
civic said:
Jesus is eternal life, He is life.
Click to expand...
yes, he and him alone is eternal LIFE. see 1 Timothy 6:16. he's the "ONLY" one with eternal LIFE. but the Christ is not eternal that came out of Mary... per 2 Corinthians 5:16.
civic said:
Also we see that when we search the NT that Eternal Life is never used of the Father without the Son but we see that Eternal Life is used over and over with Jesus where the Father is never mentioned. This makes a solid case for Jesus in 1 John 5:20 as the True God and Eternal Life.
Click to expand...
Halfway right. Acts 22:12 "And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there," Acts 22:13 "Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him." Acts 22:14 "And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth."

question, "is the Son, ..... the God of the OT? meaning as Ananias said, our father's. think before you answer. ....... :p

101G.
 
101G said:
yes, he and him alone is eternal LIFE. see 1 Timothy 6:16. he's the "ONLY" one with eternal LIFE. but the Christ is not eternal that came out of Mary... per 2 Corinthians 5:16.

Halfway right. Acts 22:12 "And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there," Acts 22:13 "Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him." Acts 22:14 "And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth."

question, "is the Son, ..... the God of the OT? meaning as Ananias said, our father's. think before you answer. ....... :p

101G.
Click to expand...
Nope 100% right as John makes the distinction between Father/ Son in the passage. Both are the true God see John 17:5, 1 John 5:20
 
civic said:
Nope 100% right as John makes the distinction between Father/ Son in the passage. Both are the true God see John 17:5, 1 John 5:20
Click to expand...
ERROR, only one person. for only means solely or exclusively, and that's not three nor two. so try again.

101G.
 
@civic,
is this the Son here in Acts 22:12 "And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there," Acts 22:13 "Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him." Acts 22:14 "And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth."

101G.
 

Similar threads

civic
Christ is declared Lord and God
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
965
TomL
T
K
Do you know the real Jesus?
19 20 21
Replies
400
Views
3K
Keiw1
K
Johann
Confessing / "Having" / Knowing The Monogenic Son of God [49]
2
Replies
35
Views
149
Pancho Frijoles
Pancho Frijoles
Johann
All Claims of The Son's Deity
Replies
6
Views
66
civic
civic
civic
Firstborn, protokos in Colossians 1:15
Replies
3
Views
51
101G
101G
Back
Top Bottom