Jesus denied being God

[mikesw]

In the present tense, referring to the "that which" was from the beginning, they could see, hear, and touch it. That implies that what John is referring to is touchable in the beginning just as it was in John's present. So it didn't change and is still tangible now and has always been tangible. John is referring to the Word of Life in this entire context. He isn't describing an incarnating, but rather something that was revealed by Jesus. The entire narrative about John 1's Word should incorporate what John also wrote in 1 John 1. I believe this only clarifies what he meant. He also calls the Word of Life an it in this passage. Most translators I have seen say this.

so you are advocating a Quaternity nature of God. We'll see how that flies.
Actually what you should be advocating then is that the twelve apostles and other disciples existed eternally.

Either way, you are presenting new concepts of reality that seem to diverge from the rest of scripture.

But in reality Christ's eternal existence is not a problem. The apostles saw the Word (who has existed eternally) incarnate. That does not contradict what we see throughout scripture. There is no conflict with Christ being the same person of the Trinity while incarnate as he was from the beginning.

 

[Runningman]

so you are advocating a Quaternity nature of God. We'll see how that flies.
Actually what you should be advocating then is that the twelve apostles and other disciples existed eternally.

Either way, you are presenting new concepts of reality that seem to diverge from the rest of scripture.

But in reality Christ's eternal existence is not a problem. The apostles saw the Word (who has existed eternally) incarnate. That does not contradict what we see throughout scripture. There is no conflict with Christ being the same person of the Trinity while incarnate as he was from the beginning.

I believe John is essentially saying that Jesus is not the Word, but rather the Word is something Jesus revealed, and that the Word is a thing. Many translations say such, and my study of the Greek has convinced me this is plausible, and that Jesus isn't God, nor did he literally pre-exist. The only context I can think of to fit this all into is the beginning of Jesus' ministry. I can see it in a few other passages as well.

 

[civic]

I believe John is essentially saying that Jesus is not the Word, but rather the Word is something Jesus revealed, and that the Word is a thing. Many translations say such, and my study of the Greek has convinced me this is plausible, and that Jesus isn't God, nor did he literally pre-exist. The only context I can think of to fit this all into is the beginning of Jesus' ministry. I can see it in a few other passages as well.

No it cannot mean what you claim since John said the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh. I’ve provided dozens of verses saying He preexisted His birth as a man in heaven and seen many times in the OT

 

[mikesw]

I believe John is essentially saying that Jesus is not the Word, but rather the Word is something Jesus revealed, and that the Word is a thing. Many translations say such, and my study of the Greek has convinced me this is plausible, and that Jesus isn't God, nor did he literally pre-exist. The only context I can think of to fit this all into is the beginning of Jesus' ministry. I can see it in a few other passages as well.

Like is common in these discussions on the Trinity, the more you say the less convincing you are. It is helpful that there is more confirmation of the Trinity as we discuss the ideas with you.

 

[Runningman]

No it cannot mean what you claim since John said the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh. I’ve provided dozens of verses saying He preexisted His birth as a man in heaven and seen many times in the OT

Masculine nouns in other languages don't necessarily refer to males. The idea is challenged by 1 John 1:1-2 where the Word is still masculine but also referred to as an it in most translations I have seen.

Can John 1 be personification of the Word. If not, why?

 

[mikesw]

Masculine nouns in other languages don't necessarily refer to males. The idea is challenged by 1 John 1:1-2 where the Word is still masculine but also referred to as an it in most translations I have seen.

Can John 1 be personification of the Word. If not, why?

It is a pretty stupid idea. No one ever talked about touching scripture. You have to share something more reasonable. It seems like you are stretching ideas out just to deny the deity of Christ.

 

[Runningman]

It is a pretty stupid idea. No one ever talked about touching scripture. You have to share something more reasonable. It seems like you are stretching ideas out just to deny the deity of Christ.

Paul talked about it. Stop assuming I am being unreasonable or whatever ad homs you have. Just deal with the issues.

2 Tim. 2
15Make every effort to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed workman who accurately handles the word of truth.

 

[mikesw]

Paul talked about it. Stop assuming I am being unreasonable or whatever ad homs you have. Just deal with the issues.

2 Tim. 2
15Make every effort to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed workman who accurately handles the word of truth.

It is an evaluation. A mirror, as it were.
There is a degree where certain words do carry forth the same significance in different passages. You also have to be aware of the times that a word is just a word defined in its context. Stott seems to make the mistake of crossing contexts when he interprets 1 John 1. His interpretation then fails to make sense. This is based on my quick review of his point on 1 John 1

 

[mikesw]

The gospel is about Christ. The glory goes to Christ because he is the one through whom humanity is justified. It would not make sense to say the message about Christ is the eternal thing of interest -- more than Christ himself.

 

[Runningman]

It is an evaluation. A mirror, as it were.
There is a degree where certain words do carry forth the same significance in different passages. You also have to be aware of the times that a word is just a word defined in its context. Stott seems to make the mistake of crossing contexts when he interprets 1 John 1. His interpretation then fails to make sense. This is based on my quick review of his point on 1 John 1

Who is Stott? I am not quoting Stott or have any idea who that is after going back to page 31. Are you Stott?

Why can't the Word be spoken words personified?

 

[mikesw]

Who is Stott? I am not quoting Stott or have any idea who that is after going back to page 31. Are you Stott?

Why can't the Word be spoken words personified?

That is fine that you don't know of John Stott or his commentary. I referred to him cause he proposes something similar. He also is highly ranked on his commentary. So he is a good one for you to reference to defend your misconception of 1 John 1.

Of course it is an odd concept of personifying a person. It could seem a bit redundant. That would be like going to court and representing yourself. You are yourself and thus do not need to represent yourself.

Note that I'm not quite sure that Stott distinguishes the Word of Life from Christ Jesus. But thus far it seems he distinguishes these in his analysis of 1 John 1

 

[Runningman]

That is fine that you don't know of John Stott or his commentary. I referred to him cause he proposes something similar. He also is highly ranked on his commentary. So he is a good one for you to reference to defend your misconception of 1 John 1.
Of course it is an odd concept of personifying a person. It could seem a bit redundant.

I haven't even read Stott, but thanks for the reference. Sounds like he knows what he's talking about. 1 John 1:1-3, based on conventional logic and grammar, doesn't make sense in Trinitarianism. I don't care how many people you have who agree with you. It's not standard, anywhere, to refer to a person as an it in literature without inferring that the same "person" as being personified elsewhere.

 

[mikesw]

I haven't even read Stott, but thanks for the reference. Sounds like he knows what he's talking about. 1 John 1:1-3, based on conventional logic and grammar, doesn't make sense in Trinitarianism. I don't care how many people you have who agree with you. It's not standard, anywhere, to refer to a person as an it in literature without inferring that the same "person" as being personified elsewhere.

ummm. Maybe you could recognize that Jesus is unique in the history of the universe. You are being tripped up by issues of gendered words that do not have to match Jesus's sex.
Do you prefer to see 1 John 1:2 as
the life was made manifest, and we have seen her, and testify to her and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—
To translate it that way would be to emphasize the gender of ζωή/life as applicable to Christ. It makes more sense to say "it" than "she" or "her." Several translations even avoid including "it" -- possibly to avoid the confusion it would cause. Probably the confusing option would be to say "he" since that would not fit the gendered (but not identification of sex) word of the Greek. You may realize that ζωή or λόγος would be have rare reason (until Christ came) to be designations of a man.

We previously see in the fourth gospel that Jesus is the logos or message of God. He is the one sent from heaven, descending from there, through whom we can know the Father. So everything fits well together if read in context.

I can understand your confusion though. You tend toward a hyper-literalist reading of scripture that misses the nuances.

(I tried too late to edit this in my earlier post
Note that I'm not quite sure that Stott distinguishes the Word of Life from Christ Jesus. But thus far it seems he differentiates Word and Christ in his analysis of 1John1. He is trinitarian though. )

 

[TomL]

What was "from the beginning" that the disciples could hear, see, and touch? If literally the beginning of creation, that's something physical "from the beginning." So what was something physical from the beginning they could touch? If they are referring to Jesus, then at the beginning of creation Jesus was a physical being. The Word wasn't physical flesh at the beginning of creation, as far as we know, right? So what "beginning" was John referring to here? Either John is referring to the beginning of Jesus' ministry or he is speaking symbolically of the Word as something they can hear, see, and touch, i.e., taste the word of God and see that it's good, rightly handle the word of God...

You already know my stance on this, but please think about it and let me know what you think.

The point Jesus is called eternal

The text refers to attritube of his -

1 John 1:1–2 (NASB 2020) — 1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us—

This life was from the beginning

They saw and they handled it

now they proclaimed it

The Word who became flesh was from the beginning and with the Father and revealed to them

They saw Jesus

They handled jesus

They declared Jesus - the eternal life

You need a better argument and

I think you are being willfully blind

 

[civic]

It has been recorded that Jesus denied that he is God in the verses below from the KJV:

Matthew 19​

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.​

​

Mark 10​

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.​

​

Luke 18​

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.​

Based on the above Scripture, we can find the following information:

Jesus rhetorically questions why he is being called "good" and says that only God is good. This means that Jesus is distinguishing himself from God and that absolute goodness belongs exclusively to God. In saying this, Jesus denies that he possesses the absolute goodness that God has.

This distinction that Jesus pointed out between himself and God is evident in his rhetorical question about why he is being called good. If Jesus were God, then it would not be consistent for him to deny being called good and thus deny having this divine attribute of God.

Since Jesus denied having the absolute goodness of God, Jesus strongly inferred that he is just a teacher and a prophet. In John 8:28, Jesus stated, "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." Therefore, Jesus was himself taught by his God and Father. Needing to be taught by God means that Jesus is not omniscient and didn't inherently know the things he himself was teaching until he was taught.

Therefore, Jesus denied being God.

nope nice try He just didn't directly state He was God in those passages, but implied He was God. But in many ,many other passages He directly claimed to be God and they tried stoning Him for those claims.

next fallacy.

 

[MTMattie]

No it cannot mean what you claim since John said the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh. I’ve provided dozens of verses saying He preexisted His birth as a man in heaven and seen many times in the OT

You do well on your explanations.

One verse that I feel that should be included always with John 1: 1-3 is John 1: 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Runningman]

ummm. Maybe you could recognize that Jesus is unique in the history of the universe. You are being tripped up by issues of gendered words that do not have to match Jesus's sex.
Do you prefer to see 1 John 1:2 as
the life was made manifest, and we have seen her, and testify to her and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—
To translate it that way would be to emphasize the gender of ζωή/life as applicable to Christ. It makes more sense to say "it" than "she" or "her." Several translations even avoid including "it" -- possibly to avoid the confusion it would cause. Probably the confusing option would be to say "he" since that would not fit the gendered (but not identification of sex) word of the Greek. You may realize that ζωή or λόγος would be have rare reason (until Christ came) to be designations of a man.

We previously see in the fourth gospel that Jesus is the logos or message of God. He is the one sent from heaven, descending from there, through whom we can know the Father. So everything fits well together if read in context.

I can understand your confusion though. You tend toward a hyper-literalist reading of scripture that misses the nuances.

(I tried too late to edit this in my earlier post
Note that I'm not quite sure that Stott distinguishes the Word of Life from Christ Jesus. But thus far it seems he differentiates Word and Christ in his analysis of 1John1. He is trinitarian though. )

No confusion at all on my part. The grammar in 1 John 1:1-2 refers to the Word of life as a thing. The Word is something Jesus revealed, not who he is. If the Word is a person in 1 John 1, then you would no longer have a Trinity, but a Quadrinity. Read it again. You can also study the Greek as BibleHub makes it pretty easy. The Word of life is referred to as thing throughout the passage.

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

It has been made perfectly clear that the "that which was from the beginning" is the same thing they were seeing, hearing, and touching in their present day. Either Jesus was always a man from the beginning of time or this is referring to the beginning of Jesus ministry. Context is squarely focused on the ministry of Jesus in John 1, 1 John 1, Hebrews 1:1-2, Colossians 1:15-20, etc.

 

[Runningman]

The point Jesus is called eternal

The text refers to attritube of his -

1 John 1:1–2 (NASB 2020) — 1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us—

This life was from the beginning

They saw and they handled it

now they proclaimed it

The Word who became flesh was from the beginning and with the Father and revealed to them

They saw Jesus

They handled jesus

They declared Jesus - the eternal life

You need a better argument and

I think you are being willfully blind

That doesn't call Jesus eternal. "Beginning" refers to a starting point. You need a better argument.

 

[Runningman]

nope nice try He just didn't directly state He was God in those passages, but implied He was God. But in many ,many other passages He directly claimed to be God and they tried stoning Him for those claims.

next fallacy.

How did Jesus state he was God by denying it? I got to hear you explain your reasoning behind this.

Matthew 19
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mark 10
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Luke 18
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

 

[mikesw]

How did Jesus state he was God by denying it? I got to hear you explain your reasoning behind this.

Matthew 19
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mark 10
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Luke 18
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

No confusion at all on my part. The grammar in 1 John 1:1-2 refers to the Word of life as a thing. The Word is something Jesus revealed, not who he is. If the Word is a person in 1 John 1, then you would no longer have a Trinity, but a Quadrinity. Read it again. You can also study the Greek as BibleHub makes it pretty easy. The Word of life is referred to as thing throughout the passage.

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

It has been made perfectly clear that the "that which was from the beginning" is the same thing they were seeing, hearing, and touching in their present day. Either Jesus was always a man from the beginning of time or this is referring to the beginning of Jesus ministry. Context is squarely focused on the ministry of Jesus in John 1, 1 John 1, Hebrews 1:1-2, Colossians 1:15-20, etc.

You still don't know translation. It would be awkward translating as feminine when Christ came incarnate as a man. Not sure why that is confusing to you except that you do not comprehend nuances in the scriptures. The pronouns typically are translated according to the gender. I already shared this with you. I'm not sure why you cannot add that detail to your mode of thinking. We already know in John 1 Jesus is the Message to us.
Jesus did not change his nature when recognized as the Word, or Word of Life, to the time he came to earth. So he exists at the beginning but not in physical form. Nor did John touch and see Jesus at the start of creation. None of that should be confusing once you sort it out.