Was the Word God? I think so. Did the Word cease to be God when He took on the flesh and blood of a human being? I don't think so.
But you are free to think whatever you wish.
ego eimi.
- Thread starter FreeInChrist
- Start date
But you are free to think whatever you wish.
I simply asked a question.Nor did I. So who made such accusations and to whom?
And I think you have answered it for me, whether you meant to or not.
amazing grace
Active Member
That is a false accusation.
I believe John 1:1 - I just don't believe that 1:1c is saying the word was literally God.
If it was saying what you guys want it to say - it would read 'The Word was The God' - it would have the definite article before God which would then make the word identical to God.
But it doesn't have the definite article before God and therefore the usage of God is adjectival, i.e. descriptive not identical in meaning. Which is why I say - the word was the full expression of God or the word fully expressed who God is.
So, when the word became flesh and dwelt among us - it was the word which became flesh, not God who became flesh - the word became flesh as the only Son from the Father, who is the only true God.
I don't think that I have PICKED or CHOSEN any verses - at this point I am not sure - but I do know that I have basically only responded to the scriptures you have provided.
I almost always use my ESV.
amazing grace
Active Member
John 17:3 (KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
This verse is not alone. It works in conjunction with scriptures like John 1:1 which identify the Word as God, not a guardrail against it that you erroneously state.
The non-omniscient biological human nature of Jesus was expressed by the divine Word, such that the Word vicariously experienced a non-omniscient human identity that was not God, although the Word remained God. This is the miracle of the hypostatic union. ...
John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:10 (KJV) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
John 1:14 (KJV) 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 17:3 (KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
That is the conclusion that reconciles scriptures that imply He's God with those that imply He'd not.
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
And we both know the Bible says a lot more than what John 1 does. There are more guardrails put up. There is 1 John 1:1-3, in which John stated the Word is actually a thing. Then there is Acts 4:23-31 in which this very same apostle John prayed, thus proving he didn't actually believe that Jesus is the Sovereign Lord and Creator, but rather God's servant along with king David.
Does the below look like John believes Jesus is God or rather a holy servant through whom God worked through?
Acts 4
23On their release, Peter and John returned to their own people and reported everything that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When the believers heard this, they lifted up their voices to God with one accord. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “You made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of Your servant, our father David:
‘Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against His Anointed One.’
27In fact, this is the very city where Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired with the Gentiles and the people of Israel against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. 28They carried out what Your hand and will had decided beforehand would happen. 29And now, Lord, consider their threats, and enable Your servants to speak Your word with complete boldness, 30as You stretch out Your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”
31After they had prayed, their meeting place was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
{Jesus was called a holy *thing*. That doesn't mean He wasn't a being.
Luke 1:35 (KJV) .... therefore also **that holy thing** which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.}
Silence in one passage doesn’t mean denial of another. Both are true.
They didn’t mention Jesus was the Word, Son of God or Creator in this prayer either — that doesn’t mean He wasn’t.
John did believe Jesus created the world (John 1:10). But the human nature is what saw.
The divine Word (who is God) vicariously experiences dependence and servanthood through His human nature. Calling Jesus “servant” is incarnational language, not a denial of deity (Phil 2:6-8).
This doesn't deny the deity of Christ. It's focusing on his role as the anointed Messiah under God’s sovereign authority.
The Messiah/Servant of Isaiah 42, 49, 52-53 — the divine Servant who bears sins.
Colossians 1:17 (KJV) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
John 1:10 (KJV) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Holy One (Acts 3:14) = title of YHWH (Isa 43:3).
Prince of life (Acts 3:15) = only YHWH gives life (Deut 32:39).
None other name for salvation (Acts 4:12) = only YHWH saves (Isa 43:11).
The Jews persecuted the apostles because these titles equate Jesus with God.
Runningman
Active Member
I agree with that. The KJV translators were aiming to get a literal word-for-word translation. "Thing" is a very literal translation even though it is valid. It actually ignores the context about a human being talked about. Unless from the perspective of angels humans are things.
Question for you about this. Compare the immediate context of how the KJV words with with how other versions do.
The KJV says John 1:9 like this: "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
However, most modern versions of John 1:9 read something like "The true Light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world."
Following the timeline of everything that was said from John 1:1 until John 1:9, it says "was coming into the world..." yet prior to this apostle John said "He himself was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." So John the Baptist was testifying about the Light when he was about 30 years old (slightly older than Jesus) according to Luke 3:23.
So why would John be speaking in the present tense abought the true Light coming into the world while John and Jesus were about the same age? That changes everything actually. It means the Jesus isn't the true Light, but rather is someone who received "light."
That doesn't seem consistent with the Bible. Anyone who is called a servant is incarnated or only Jesus and why?
I agree with this part. Jesus is an anointed Messiah under God's authority. Why do you think that means someone is God if they are under God's authority? Aren't
These verses are taken out of context.
