synergy
Active Member
I'm not surprised that you do not understand
John's Prologue nor that you're not willing to answer my question "according to you what class or classes of being is Jesus?"
The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
John's Prologue nor that you're not willing to answer my question "according to you what class or classes of being is Jesus?"
Runningman
Active Member
You means John prologue in 1John 1 where he explicitly refers to the Word as a thing?
Peterlag
Active Member
I believe I already answered you. Check page 1030.
Runningman
Active Member
I say Jesus is fully human, but he became something he previously was not. Still human nonetheless, yet exalted and glorified. Not God of course. Someone doesn't become God as if it's a status one achieves or is given. Trinitarians are notorious for attempting to deperson God and convert Him into a symbol, status, or substance that can be shared with others.
Hebrews 2
17For this reason He had to be made like His brothers in every way, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, in order to make atonementh for the sins of the people.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
1 John 1 refers to "the Word" as a person, emphasizing that it is about the life made visible and the message of fellowship with God. It highlights the importance of the Word in revealing truth and life, rather than describing it as merely a "thing.".....while 1 John 1 may refer to "the Word" in a way that could imply it is a "thing," it fundamentally represents a profound theological truth about the nature of God and His relationship with the world through Jesus Christ.
Actually
1 John does not reduce “the Word” to a mere “thing.”
It uses impersonal grammar for a personal, pre-existent divine Person, because John is speaking about the incarnate Logos from the standpoint of what was experienced in the flesh.
1 John 1:1 (Greek)
Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆςLiterally this means.....
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands touched , concerning the Word of Life.”
Notice the repeated ὃ (ho) = neuter relative pronoun = “what.”
@Runningman
Your comment of " he explicitly refers to the Word as a thing? "
Is meaning you want to know Why “what” instead of “who”?
Here is Why John uses “WHAT” (ὃ) and not “WHO” (ὅς)
John is not saying the Word is a thing. He is saying: Everything that the eternal Word became in the flesh — we experienced. He is emphasizing the incarnational reality, not denying the Personhood.
Think of it like this..... John is pointing to the whole manifestation of the Word~
His birth, body, blood, death, resurrection .........the total embodied reality of the Logos. So he uses neuter to say:
“All that the Word was made to be in the flesh .... we encountered it.”
It is the same grammatical move as.... “What God has done in Christ…”
You surly don’t mean God is a “thing."..... You mean the total saving act.
As one who studies the word of God you certainly know John already established WHO the Word is
From the Gospel:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος… καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.”
Therefore, in the epistle, John is not redefining the Word , he is testifying to the incarnation of that same divine Person.
And that’s why in verse 2 he switches back to personal language:
ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη ... “the Life was manifested”
καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν ...“we have seen and testify”
You don’t “testify” about a thing ... you testify about a Person.
Looking at this whole idea theologically..... John is saying The eternal God who was with the Father became touchable, visible, and hearable.
A mere man cannot be “from the beginning.” And A thing cannot be “manifested from the Father.”
So the neuter pronoun is not denial of deity, it is proof of incarnation.
The infinite God was compressed into flesh.
That is why John says “what” because he is talking about the total embodied manifestation of the Logos.
John is pointing to the whole incarnate reality of God made flesh — not because the Word is impersonal.
The Word is not “just a man.” The Word is God Himself made tangible.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Wrong.
Jesus was indeed conceived (by the Holy Spirit within a Virgin. His conception was not natural in any way). But His spirit was not created in the instant of conception as it is with every other human. His spirit came from Heaven (John 3:13) having preexisted His conception (John 1:1, John 8:58).
The Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God (John 1:1). The Word in Psalm 33:6 is not the Logos of God, but the spoken word. You need to get it straight was is being referenced in different places in Scripture.
What kind of stupidity are you spouting? What you said here has no relation to what I said, at all. Give your head a shake.
The fact that God had a plan before He created the universe has NOTHING to do with whether Jesus is God or not. You need better arguments.
Your blasphemy is not welcome here. Remove it from future posts, or I will seek to have you banned from the forum.
You said that Jesus had a beginning. But Scripture says He did not (I will trust Scripture over you). I made the point that if Jesus had a beginning (at His birth), then it is logical that He also had an end (at His death). But if He had an end then He cannot be our savior. If He is not our savior, then your faith is in vain. But He did not have either a beginning or an end.
Runningman
Active Member
What you have presented is called eisegesis. You have step-by-step presented your line of reasoning and arguments until your conclusion doesn't match what 1John 1:1-3 originally states.
Let's try to keep this on track and Biblical. The Word of Life in 1John 1:1-3 is called "eternal life." So is eternal life a person or a thing?
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.
amazing grace
Active Member
Jesus was not a spirit before becoming a human being. Jesus came from heaven in that he came from God, God sent him and he came from God - God sent him via the conception which occurred in Mary. The spiritual body does not come first - it is the natural body that comes first then the spiritual according to 1 Cor. 15.
I'm beginning to think that John 1:1 is the only verse in the entire scope of scripture!!!
The Word is being personified here. And it is the spoken word that created in the beginning which is the definition of logos.
I was responding to this:
You keep saying that Jesus was a spirit first - you said that Jesus was always a life giving spirit - scripture says the spiritual body is not first; the natural body is first then the spiritual body and that Jesus, the last Adam BECAME a life giving spirit ...
So it isn't 'stupidity' ............. ^^^^^^^
Then you said this----
That implies, to me, that you believe Jesus was just a 'human form', so I replied:
Read alone yes, this sounds stupid.......but within the context of what I was responding to I don't believe it does. In fact these are questions in response to what you had said which you did not answer.
I'll stick with scripture and how it describes Jesus preexistence ---- in the mind and forknowledge of God. ^^^^^^
Saying 'OMGosh' is blasphemy?
Actually scripture says Jesus had a beginning. Jesus' genealogy is recorded in Matthew - the word genealogy in the Greek is genesis meaning the source, origin -- a book of one's lineage one's ancestry or progeny are enumerated.
An angel of the LORD appeared to Joseph --- Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. . . .then in Luke the angel came to Mary --- And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you will call his name Jesus.....The holy spirit will come up on you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: therefore the child to be born will be called holy---the Son of God. So yes, Jesus had a beginning.
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.......but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [Romans 5:6,8]
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. [Romans 8:34]
For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. [Romans 14:9]
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,[1Corinthians 15:3], etc. So, yes it seems Christ died.......
Only if Christ is not raised from the dead is our faith in vain......
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead how can some of you say that there is not resurrection of the dead?......AND IF CHRIST HAS NOT BEEN RAISED THEN OUR PREACHING IS IN VAIN AND YOUR FAITH IS IN VAIN.......AND IF CHRIST HAS NOT BEEN RAISED YOUR FAITH IS FUTILE AND YOU ARE STILL IN YOUR SINS........BUT IN FACT, CHRIST HAS BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
[1 Cor. 15:12,14,17,20-22]
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Agreed .....let’s keep this on track and Biblical and let John define his own terms.
In 1 John 1:1–3 John says the “Word of life” is something that was from the beginning, was with the Father, and was later revealed.
He then says this same reality was heard, seen, gazed upon, and touched.
Then John immediately explains what he means; “And the life was revealed… we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.” (v.2)
So John equates:
Word of life (v.1)
with eternal life (v.2)
and says this eternal life was with the Father before it was revealed, and then became visible and tangible.
Doctrines and messages are not seen and touched.
Only a person can be.
So the text itself forces the conclusion that the eternal life that was with the Father personally appeared.
Calling this eisegesis does not change John’s grammar.
If Jesus is only a man who began to exist at birth, then John’s statement that “the eternal life was with the Father and was revealed” has no coherent meaning.
That is why John later says, in 1 John 5 :!2 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life
Because the life that was with the Father is now revealed in the Son.
Doug Brents
Active Member
So your are saying that God was physical before He turned to a Spirit? Hmmm.
Your opinion is noted. But is contradicts other Scripture, so I will ignore your opinion. Thanks though.
God was talking within Himself when He created all things, and He said, US, OUR, etc. There was not just one person there, but three: the Father, and the Son (Word/Logos), and the Spirit.
Again, thank you for your opinion on this. That is a perspective on that verse that I have never heard before. But since we are told that Jesus is the source of all life (John 1:3, John 14:6), and since the first Adam became a living being because of the breath of the second Adam (Jesus, Gen 2:7), your perspective is a little off.
Jesus was not just in the mind and foreknowledge of the Father. He was, in fact, God (John 1:1). You can deny the facts all you want, but they don't change the truth.
Yes. You are using a euphemism of the name of God as an expletive.
Your physical body had a beginning, and your spirit had a beginning at the same time. Jesus' physical body had a beginning, but His spirit did not.
Yes, Jesus has been raised from the dead. He did not end when His body died, but He was raised to new life, and is still alive at the right hand of the Father. Similarly, He did not begin when He took on flesh. To take on (put on) flesh presumes that He existed before His flesh was put on, just as you already existed before your parents clothed you the first time.
Runningman
Active Member
I like what you said better because it more closely matches what John said, but there are some nuances.
I see "that which was from the beginning" is the same thing they "heard, gazed upon, and touched." A key question is, the beginning of what? We can sort of reverse engineer John's statements and test some ideas.
The beginning of creation? Was eternal life able to be heard, seen, and touched from the beginning of creation? According to John 1, the Word seems to be something that did not become flesh (tangible) until when Jesus was born using trinitarian theology. I also think we can rule out the apostles being present at the beginning of creation to eyewitness or hear the Word.
So we know right off bat that John can't be referring to the beginning of creation way back in Genesis.
John was referring to the Word as something that manifested, not at Jesus' birth unless John and the lot were present when Jesus was born, but rather during the beginning of Jesus ministry.
So that's why I don't believe the Word incarnated because that would place the Word being what they could see, hear, and touch either during Mary's pregnancy, at the birth of Jesus, or creation of the universe.
John talks just enough to give us an actual timeline of when the "Word became flesh" and it was after Jesus was already an adult. So the Word is not a person, but rather a thing. I see the "Word as God" in John 1:1 not as a person, but rather as qualitative. The Word has the qualities of God, but is not God, which describes Jesus perfectly in that sense.
Last edited:
amazing grace
Active Member
Nope not at all . . . .
I said Jesus was not a spirit being before being a human being. It is the natural body, the physical body that comes first then the spiritual body.
Yeah, it seems God did a lot of talking to himself!!!
There are 4 scriptures that use plural pronouns in relation to God - he is speaking to other created beings there with him i.e. angels --- He is not holding conference with himself.
In contrast to those 4 - there are thousands which indicate that God, aka Yahweh is a singular person identified as the number ONE, the word ONLY, the word ALONE together with singular verbs, pronouns, and adjectives.
As I said John 1:1 should be the only verse in the Bible as many times as it is brought up. John 1:1c - the 'Word' is a noun being used as the subject and 'God' is a noun which is being used as an adjective.
Jesus isn't God ..... Jesus did not breathe into Adam's nostrils the breath of life - He wasn't around in Genesis.
If God meant that 'Jesus' breathed into Adam the breath of life then He would have inspired to be written 'Jesus breathed into Adam the breath of life' - but it's not there.
I think you need to go back to the basics - and you do need to re-read 1 Corinthians - Paul through inspiration said that Jesus BECAME a life giving spirit when he was raised and given his spiritual body.
What you are saying is not the truth.
No - my intent was not as a swear word. My intent was a 'slap your forehead', Oh my gosh!, act of frustration.
You are welcome to your opinions and that is just what they are - opinions.
His physical life ended, his physical body was buried for 3 days and 3 nights. He was raised from the dead and given spiritual life, a spiritual body.
Yes, he has been highly exalted and he sits at the right hand of God his Father.
I cannot even respond to that that.......whatever that is or whatever that means! ^^^^^^^
Last edited:
Doug Brents
Active Member
If God created all things (and He did), and God is Spirit (not flesh), then Spirit came first.
You are right, the flesh of man came first, and then God breathed man's spirit into the flesh. But the Spirit of God came first, before there was any flesh.
Wrong. Jesus' spirit is the spirit that is God. And as stated above, the Spirit of God was before any flesh was created.
Wrong. The Angels are not created in the image of God. Only man (mankind) is. There were no other created beings that assisted in creation. There were the three who are God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and they are the only beings with the power to create.
When you were first married (if you are married), you spoke of your family in the singular, even though it was made up of you and your wife. When you speak of a married couple, "couple" is singular even though it is made up of the two individuals. "God" is singular, even though it is made up of the three that are God.
I have read it many times. Yet you seem to only focus on the passages of Scripture that support your preconception rather than allowing all of Scripture to inform your doctrine. There are numerous passages (that have been posted repeatedly in this and other threads) that tell us of the deity of Jesus (John 1 is just one of them, although it is the most clear and explicit).
"Gosh" is a euphemism for the name of God, no matter how you intended it.
I know, It is impossible to understand or accept truth for those who walk in darkness and refuse to see the Light.
Let me demonstrate how even the OT tells us that Jesus had to be God.
In Gen 15, when Abraham was told by God to cut several animals in half and line them up, this was, in that time, how covenants were established. The parties to the covenant would walk between the cut animals, in so doing they were saying, "May this happen to me if I break this covenant." Now, if the parties were both equal, then both parties would walk between the halves. If one was significantly greater than the other, only the lesser might walk between (although sometimes the greater would as well). But in Gen 15 we something amazing. God put Abraham to sleep, and then He came down and walked (by Himself) between the animal halves.
In so doing, God stated that if He broke the covenant, He would die. But He also said that if mankind broke the covenant (which we did) the HE, God, He would take the punishment and die in our place. That is JESUS! God came down from Heaven to live the life of a man, yet without sin, and to die in order to pay the price for our breaking of the Covenant.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Thanks for your thoughts. Let’s stay inside 1 John 1:1–3 and let John define his terms.
"That which was from the beginning"
John is explicit. The Word of life existed from the beginning. He does not say “from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry," he is talking about pre-existence.
This matches perfectly John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word…” The apostles’ ability to see, hear, and touch the Word does not limit its pre-existence. They are witnessing the manifestation of something that already existed.
Heard,... seen,... touched
John says:
“…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.”
These verbs describe tangible personal experiences, not abstract qualities. Doctrines, ideas, or mere “qualities of God” cannot be heard, seen, or touched. Only a person can be experienced this way.
Word of life = eternal life
John immediately clarifies in 1 John 1:2
"and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us"—
The Word of life and eternal life are the same reality. Eternal life is with the Father (pre-existent) and manifested (revealed to human senses). It is not an abstract concept or a “thing” ....it is personally revealed in Jesus.
There is the Timeline of manifestation which covers
The apostles’ ability to hear, see, and touch the Word as it aligns perfectly with Jesus’ ministry. It does not require that the Word only became a person at adulthood, nor does it restrict pre-existence. John is describing the revelation of eternal life to humanity, which is exactly what they experienced.
And not leaving out Qualities vs personhood.
Saying the Word has “the qualities of God” but is not God ignores what John says ..... eternal life was with the Father and was manifested. The text identifies eternal life as something real, pre-existent, and personally revealed ,not a set of qualities or abstract “thing-ness.”
So what do we learn with a careful study?
1 John 1:1–3 clearly shows that eternal life is God’s own life personally revealed in the Word. The apostles saw, heard, and touched this reality .....something a mere thing or abstract quality could not accomplish. The text itself leaves no ambiguity: eternal life is a person manifested to the apostles.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
@Doug Brents
You said " "Gosh" is a euphemism for the name of God, no matter how you intended it."
I had never heard that and always appreciated those who said that rather then the G in OMG.
Interesting and now I need to retrain myself to something other and gonna have to stop my family and friends who may cart me off.....
Thanks for the education.
You said " "Gosh" is a euphemism for the name of God, no matter how you intended it."
I had never heard that and always appreciated those who said that rather then the G in OMG.
Interesting and now I need to retrain myself to something other and gonna have to stop my family and friends who may cart me off.....
Thanks for the education.
Peterlag
Active Member
Let's talk about “the firstborn of all creation."
Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” Scholars disagree on what this phrase means, but that is primarily because the doctrine of the Trinity obscures its simple meaning. Trinitarian doctrine states that Jesus is “eternal” but if that is true then he cannot be the firstborn “of all creation” because that would make him part of the creation. But the simple reading of Colossians 1:15 seems clear: Jesus is a created being. The BDAG Greek-English lexicon [entry under “creation”] explains the Greek word translated “creation” as “that which is created… of individual things or beings created, creature.” Not only was Jesus a created being, but he's also called the “firstborn” from the dead because he was the first one in God’s creation who was raised from the dead to everlasting life—a point that is also made in Colossians 1:18.
God is eternal and was not born. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ is “begotten” that is born meaning Jesus Christ had a beginning. Jesus is never called “God the Son” in the Bible, but he's called the “Son of God” more than 50 times, and a “son” has a beginning. The very fact that Jesus is the “Son of God” shows he had a beginning. Trinitarian doctrine denies this and invents the phrase “eternally begotten" but “eternally begotten” is not in the Bible, but was invented to help explain the Trinity and is actually a nonsensical phrase because the words are placed together but they cancel each other out. “Eternal” means without beginning or end and something that is “begotten” by definition has a beginning.
Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” Scholars disagree on what this phrase means, but that is primarily because the doctrine of the Trinity obscures its simple meaning. Trinitarian doctrine states that Jesus is “eternal” but if that is true then he cannot be the firstborn “of all creation” because that would make him part of the creation. But the simple reading of Colossians 1:15 seems clear: Jesus is a created being. The BDAG Greek-English lexicon [entry under “creation”] explains the Greek word translated “creation” as “that which is created… of individual things or beings created, creature.” Not only was Jesus a created being, but he's also called the “firstborn” from the dead because he was the first one in God’s creation who was raised from the dead to everlasting life—a point that is also made in Colossians 1:18.
God is eternal and was not born. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ is “begotten” that is born meaning Jesus Christ had a beginning. Jesus is never called “God the Son” in the Bible, but he's called the “Son of God” more than 50 times, and a “son” has a beginning. The very fact that Jesus is the “Son of God” shows he had a beginning. Trinitarian doctrine denies this and invents the phrase “eternally begotten" but “eternally begotten” is not in the Bible, but was invented to help explain the Trinity and is actually a nonsensical phrase because the words are placed together but they cancel each other out. “Eternal” means without beginning or end and something that is “begotten” by definition has a beginning.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Leaving the Trins out of it..... If they are referring to Jesus..... common sense would say that creation started about 2000 years ago when he was born.
See... wasn't that easy.
While you are at it... Lets talk about what makes a scholar because they never agree and I would not trust one to learn from.
That is the first correct thing you have said all day.
amazing grace
Active Member
You can't get it because I am not talking about God ---- I am talking about the man - Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Let's just forget about what scripture says.
WE DON'T KNOW if the angels were created in the image of God or not scripture doesn't say - although God is Spirit and the angels are also spirit beings. Regardless, that is not what I said I said God was talking, discussing with someone other than himself - But you can continue to believe God spoke to himself.
Yes, I am one flesh with my spouse but that is through intimacy. We are still TWO separate and distinct individuals......we are not collapsed into ONE PERSON because we are considered ONE flesh.
Yes, collectively my family is one unit ---- just as the church is collectively one unit but we are all still different members within that family or the church, the body of Christ ----- because we are considered ONE unit we are not actually ONE PERSON.
If I see a herd of cattle --- I'm not seeing one cow because collectively they each make up a herd.
If I have a cluster of grapes - it's one cluster but each grape make up the cluster --- it is not one grape.
God is singular because God is singular.......God is not a collective unit like a family, the church, a herd or a cluster of grapes - He is ONE ALONE.
You only seem to focus on the passages of scripture that support your preconception ----- JOHN 1:1.
It does matter how I intended it and I did not intend it in the manner in which you are taking it.
I'm sure if a moderator took what I said as blasphemy - I am sure it would have been deleted.
So true!
As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. . . . . .
When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
'a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces' ....... Yep, fire often represents the presence of God NOT THAT GOD WAS LITERALLY THERE. God here is representing himself in a unilateral covenant ---- the covenant is with Abraham because Abraham is the beneficiary but the covenant itself did not involve Abraham because he was asleep at the time. God wanted to make sure that this particular covenant could not be broken so he made it with himself so that no human could break it or invalidate it. ...... [Hebrews picks this up at Heb. 6:13,14 ----- For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.”]
Now, I really would like to know where in the context of Gen. 15 did God state if Abraham broke the covenant he would die or that mankind broke the covenant then HE God, would take the punishment and die in our place. Why do the epistles repeatedly say that Jesus Christ died for our sins?
Peterlag
Active Member
You are Brilliant...
Yes, I am one flesh with my spouse but that is through intimacy. We are still TWO separate and distinct individuals......we are not collapsed into ONE PERSON because we are considered ONE flesh.
Yes, collectively my family is one unit ---- just as the church is collectively one unit but we are all still different members within that family or the church, the body of Christ ----- because we are considered ONE unit we are not actually ONE PERSON.
If I see a herd of cattle --- I'm not seeing one cow because collectively they each make up a herd.
If I have a cluster of grapes - it's one cluster but each grape make up the cluster --- it is not one grape.
synergy
Active Member
In post 1030 you asked a question. In my dictionary, questions are not answers.
Similar threads
