Jesus Christ is the wisdom and creation of God

[MTMattie]

That was not the point Jesus was making. Jesus was speaking of seeing the Father in the same sense as the disciples had seen the Father in John 14:6. This is why John 1:18 explicitly states no one has seen (with their eyes) God Himself, not even Jesus, but rather Jesus declared Him.

Bull. Always an excuse when you are dead wrong.

The verse below means that they hadn't known the Father or seen Him prior to Jesus saying that, contrary to them already being with Jesus that whole time. What Jesus was talking about by knowing and seeing the Father was not about what they could see visually with their eyes because they had already been looking at Jesus for years already. What Jesus meant by "seeing" the Father was in the figurative sense. "Blind" versus "seeing" is used in Biblical literature in a non-literal way sometimes because being blind and seeing refer to ignorance or knowing. It's possible to see visually Jesus without seeing the Father, but if you know Jesus then you know the Father.

John 14
6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”

 

[mikesw]

Bull. Always an excuse when you are dead wrong.

Neat. John 1:18 presents Jesus's divinity in a great way. If I remember to do it, that would be a good memory verse. I had memorized the earlier view -- maybe only to verse 13. But verses 14-15 is also very strong and should shut the mouths of the deniers of Christ
John 1:14–15 (ESV)
14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15(John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’ ”)

Of course I must be forgetful of v 14 as central to the discussion. Even if trying to make the Word as only the gospel, there is a problem since the testimony of what the disciples saw is of the Word having glory as of the only Son which would an odd alternative to saying the glory of God -- if there were a distinction to be made. (I hope I have not taken shortcuts that make this unclear.)
The other element important is that this is the only Son from the Father, not just one of many sons, as if there ever have been equals. It is a bummer if the unitarians find my observation helpful as they try to build some argument against what John has shared. But God's action for his church is stronger than any opponent's effort to lead his children away from him.

 

[synergy]

No you got it wrong. In John 1:1 the Greek phrase καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (“and the Word was God”) places theos first for emphasis. This is a well-known structure in Greek grammar to show nature, not identity. It’s not indefinite, it’s qualitative. John is saying the Word is of the same essence as God, but distinct from ton Theon (the Father)."

Thanks for verifying that Christ is God by nature. How many others do you know that are by nature God? I only know that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are by nature God. That proves Trinitarianism right there.

Thus, the Word is godly, but is not God. John 1:3 that says, “All things were made by Him,” but the last-mentioned God in verse 2 is the God the Word was with, The Father. The "Him" in John 1:3, according to standard pronoun antecedent agreement, would mean the Father is the Creator, not the Word.

In all languages, pronouns implicitly point back to the Primary Subject as their Antecedent. The primary subject is established as the Word in verse 1. All pronouns in verses 2-5 point back to the Word. Proof of that is how the pronoun in verse 2 points back to the Word.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

We can look a bit more past John 1:1-3 to see another example of how the Word is not the Creator. For example, in John 1:9 the True Light is said to have been coming into the world in the present tense after John the Baptist had already been testifying about the True Light. John and Jesus Christ were around the same age, about 30 years old, by the time John was already baptizing. This would place the coming of the True Light into the world during the time that Jesus was already 30 years old, meaning that Jesus is not himself the True Light. Therefore, John 1:10 says "...the world was made through Him..." would rule out the Word or Jesus as being the Creator, but rather the Father.

John the Baptist bore witness to Christ who verse 9 calls the True Light.

Thanks again for helping the Trinitarian cause.
Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

 

[Runningman]

Thanks for verifying that Christ is God by nature. How many others do you know that are by nature God? I only know that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are by nature God. That proves Trinitarianism right there.

We have verified that the Word is not The God based on the Greek. We aren't talking about Jesus in John 1:1.

In all languages, pronouns implicitly point back to the Primary Subject as their Antecedent. The primary subject is established as the Word in verse 1. All pronouns in verses 2-5 point back to the Word. Proof of that is how the pronoun in verse 2 points back to the Word.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

You just confessed that the grammar of John 1:1-3 rules out the Word as the Creator.

John the Baptist bore witness to Christ who verse 9 calls the True Light.

John 1:9 isn't about Jesus. Look at the chronology of John 1. Jesus was already 30 years old when the true Light was coming into the world.

Thanks again for helping the Trinitarian cause.
Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Runningman]

I'm not sure how to convince a hyper-literalist that texts like John 1 show that clearly. Maybe neurotransplants could help you understand scripture. If you could understand the analogy or sense of Jesus as the logos or message of God and how that message was with God and was God and became flesh, you would understand scripture and Jesus's divinity in the Godhead. I wonder what convinced you away from the meaning of the text.

So you're telling me that no one can understand the Bible for what it says unless they run it past someone like you first? The Bible doesn't mention an incarnation nor have any evidence of one. I am also not sure how to convince you nor do I think I can. You will find out later, maybe.

 

[Fred]

John 1:9 isn't about Jesus.

You are wrong.


John 1:6-15
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, who lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not.
11 He came unto His own and His own received Him not.
12 But as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become the sons of God, even to those who believe on His Name,
13 Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word become 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.
15 John bare witness of Him, and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He who cometh after me is preferred before me, for He existed before me!

 

[Runningman]

You are wrong.


John 1:6-15
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, who lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world and the world was made by Him and the world knew Him not.
11 He came unto His own and His own received Him not.
12 But as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become the sons of God, even to those who believe on His Name,
13 Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word become 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.
15 John bare witness of Him, and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He who cometh after me is preferred before me, for He existed before me!

Nonsense.

John 1:9 says that the true light was coming into the world (present tense) after John the Baptist and Jesus were already 30. Means Jesus isn't the true light.

 

[Fred]

Nonsense.

...for those who ignore the evidence.

Keep hiding.

 

[Runningman]

...for those who ignore the evidence.

Keep hiding.

The word "until" refers to a finite amount of time. Jesus will not always sit at the right hand of God. Unfortunate you just simply cannot believe the Bible due to being blinded by your religion.

 

[Fred]

The word "until" refers to a finite amount of time.

John 1:9 refers to Jesus.
The evidence isn't going away.

 

[Runningman]

John 1:9 refers to Jesus.
The evidence isn't going away.

You can't change it.

 

[Fred]

You can't change it.

No need to.
John 1:9 refers to Jesus.

 

[mikesw]

So you're telling me that no one can understand the Bible for what it says unless they run it past someone like you first? The Bible doesn't mention an incarnation nor have any evidence of one. I am also not sure how to convince you nor do I think I can. You will find out later, maybe.

That is roughly a good recommendation. Although scriptures are good to be read by anyone who will read them, not everyone is ready to properly discern the nuances. And I doubt you can convince me against the testimony of scripture; so you have a good point there.
I mention occasionally that if the scriptures of evidence of the Triune God were sufficiently addressed by the unitarians, that could be worthwhile. All we get is weak nibbling away with points like "this verse speaks of Jesus as a man" when that fact is not disputed of his incarnation.

 

[Runningman]

That is roughly a good recommendation. Although scriptures are good to be read by anyone who will read them, not everyone is ready to properly discern the nuances. And I doubt you can convince me against the testimony of scripture; so you have a good point there.
I mention occasionally that if the scriptures of evidence of the Triune God were sufficiently addressed by the unitarians, that could be worthwhile. All we get is weak nibbling away with points like "this verse speaks of Jesus as a man" when that fact is not disputed of his incarnation.

The writers of the Bible already provided the revelation, and you are not authorized to expand on it or "reveal" something that was not already revealed. The trinity is simply unimportant to God, Jesus, the prophets, and the disciples. No one even cared to utter a peep about it in the Bible. I recommend you abandon your false religion while you still can if you respect God, Jesus, and the Bible as authoritative.