The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[amazing grace]

Thank you for making my point for me, even though you still cannot see what that point is; smh.

you're welcome.

Precisely. You say that the Father was never conceived or born, and then you say that a person is not a real person if they have not been conceived or born, but then you claim that the Father is a real person. You are confused, even within your own doctrine.

Whatever you are talking about find it and repost what I said please.
I said God was never conceived or born.
I said God was Spirit.
That is scriptural.

He was God (John 1:1). He was "I AM" (John 8:58).

Nope. If he was he was the Father.

Of course not; that is part of what makes Jesus unique.

What makes Jesus unique is being the Son of God via the virgin conception and birth.

Of course He is the Logos of John 1:1, because John 1:14 tells us that the Logos took on flesh and lived as a man, and then it tells us that John came leading the way for Him, and then John identifies Jesus as the One for whom he is leading the way.

Yes, John 1:14 tells us that the logos became flesh in the Son from the Father, i.e. Jesus.

The Logos of God (which is God) is responsible for the creation of everything that was made. That means that the Logos of God CANNOT be a created thing. Wisdom is a created thing. That means there is no correlation between the two.

See above, no "reading into" necessary.

Jesus is the Logos of God. The Logos of God is responsible for the creation of everything that was made. Therefore, Jesus is responsible for Creation.

keep telling yourself that, if it makes your nonsense easier to swallow.

No, I am not. God was the one speaking through the Burning Bush (Exo 3:4). And from the Bush, God said His name is "I AM!". Jesus says He is "I AM!" in John 8:58. Thus, it was Jesus speaking to Moses from the Bush.

Yahweh is the Father ...... If Jesus is saying he is I AM at John 8:58, He's referring to himself as Yahweh and therefore also the Father.

Then you don't understand Scripture very well.

The problem with that is what YOU are READING INTO the text. You can't stand the fact that Thomas called Jesus "God", and so you have to rationalize it in your mind to twist what Scripture says and assume that you knew what Thomas was thinking almost 2000 years ago. You can't take Scripture at its word and believe what it literally says, because as I have pointed out that would destroy your whole false doctrine on who you think Jesus is.

I don't have to read anything into the text. I let scripture interpret scripture.
Jesus is NOT God and has never been God.
The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ and Jesus ain't Him.
Jesus is a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Judah, a lineal descendant of David ---- God is NOT.

 

[Runningman]

Well, Heb 1:8 is clear enough for me whet the dad says of the son... "Your" throne, oh God.... that is one for certain from the one who should know.

No matter.... To each their own....

Being a Christian means just following the teachings and practices of Jesus. The Bible explicitly says that Jesus' God is the Father exhaustively. Do you fault anyone for having the same God as Jesus? Because I don't see it as a "to each their own" kind of deal. Have the same God as Jesus or that person isn't a Christian but something else. Just my two cents.

John 20
17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’”

 

[360watt]

As @Runningman mentioned, others are spoken of as God in the bible. My phrasing was particular purposely - "God the Father" is spoken 9 times in the New Testament. "God the Son" is mentioned zero times. It's not proof of anything necessarily, but certainly interesting if Trinitarianism is true. God could have been very clear about the Trinity, and if it's a central doctrine, it odd to say the least that wasn't.

Look at Jesus Himself and what He did and said about Himself. A mortal man can forgive sin itself?

A mortal man can change what you can do on the Sabbath?

A mortal man will accept worship and know its not false?

 

[Runningman]

Look at Jesus Himself and what He did and said about Himself. A mortal man can forgive sin itself?

Yes.

Matthew 9
6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home.
8When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

A mortal man can change what you can do on the Sabbath?

Jesus didn't do that.

A mortal man will accept worship and know its not false?

Yes, mortal men accept worship throughout the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

Read all of John 1 again, and follow who the Word is through it. The Word became flesh in the form of the man whom John came to introduce. And that man is Jesus of Nazareth. You need to go back to elementary school if you cannot follow what John is saying.

Already read it. Please show me where

Yes, Jesus is the beginning, the source, the originator, the author of creation.

Jesus is the beginning of God's creation.

I should feel honored, you twist my words just as you twist Scripture; I am in good company.
The Son is the first to be resurrected from Death.

All firstborns are born though, right? No one who is born is an eternal being.

 

[Runningman]

As @Runningman mentioned, others are spoken of as God in the bible. My phrasing was particular purposely - "God the Father" is spoken 9 times in the New Testament. "God the Son" is mentioned zero times. It's not proof of anything necessarily, but certainly interesting if Trinitarianism is true. God could have been very clear about the Trinity, and if it's a central doctrine, it odd to say the least that wasn't.

My first Bible came to in the mail addressed from British Columbia Canada from someone named Margo, when I was a teenager, and it was an NKJV. No idea who they were, not sure how they found out about me, and they put a hand-written note on the front cover telling me to just start with Genesis and go forward from there. So I did that and the way the writers described God throughout the Bible is a He, Him, I, who created alone. I had no idea what a trinity was at that time, Margo didn't mention it in (her?) letter, no one in the Bible said anything about it. It was mostly a foreign concept to me for several years.

Anyway, years later I began meeting people who were Trinitarian and going to church with them sometimes or staying at their house and we would study. One thing I noticed between the way Unitarians begin the Bible and the way the Trinitarians begin the Bible is they don't say "Begin in Genesis" rather they normally say "Begin in John 1." I am pretty sure the way people understand the Bible can have a lot to do with the way they began reading it and whether or not they are told to interpret it a certain way.

So why would they say "Begin in John 1?" Because no other book opens up like John 1 does. It opens up in most translations saying the "Word was God with God" and that's their foot in the door to lay the foundation for the trinity. It can't work using any other book, especially Paul's letters, that right off the bat say God is the Father of Jesus Christ and the other gospels that begin with just talking about Jesus' life as a human.

 

[360watt]

Yes.

Matthew 9
6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home.
8When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Jesus didn't do that.

Yes, mortal men accept worship throughout the Bible.

A mortal man can't forgive sin of someone who hasn't directly offended them. Jesus forgives the imperfections in people by giving them eternal life. That's God's power

Jesus healed on the Sabbath, putting aside levitical laws ..superceding them. Making himself Lord of the Sabbath .

Jesus didn't accept worship like a king receives reverence..He accepted being called God by Thomas and is the Lamb that is worshipped in Revelation.

 

[amazing grace]

A mortal man can't forgive sin of someone who hasn't directly offended them. Jesus forgives the imperfections in people by giving them eternal life. That's God's power

But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”......... God gave the Son of Man, i.e. Jesus authority on earth to forgive sins ---- it' does not specified what kind of sins --- why do you?

Jesus healed on the Sabbath, putting aside levitical laws ..superceding them. Making himself Lord of the Sabbath .

Jesus also challenged the unbelieving Jews for working on the Sabbath --- Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?” The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?” Jesus answered them, “I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” [John 7:19-24]
It's like he is saying: 'what is a work---circumcision? making a man whole? So Jesus did not break the Sabbath anymore than the Jewish leaders.

Jesus didn't accept worship like a king receives reverence..He accepted being called God by Thomas and is the Lamb that is worshipped in Revelation.

Yes, he did accept being called 'God' by Thomas ---- You take it that Thomas was actually recognizing Jesus AS GOD Himself.....Just a few verses before, Thomas is full of doubt, then all of a sudden he proclaims that Jesus is God? I don't think so at least not in the manner of Jesus BEING Almighty God. Then a few verses later we have the author of the Gospel of John giving the purpose statement of his gospel --- the only gospel with a purpose statement: But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. [John 20:31]
The author of the Gospel of John does not tell us - these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is God, God the Son and that by believing you may have life in his name.......nope, not the author's intent at all.

 

[Runningman]

A mortal man can't forgive sin of someone who hasn't directly offended them. Jesus forgives the imperfections in people by giving them eternal life. That's God's power

I would still point to Matthew 9:6-8 in which Jesus said he had authority "on earth" to forgive sins then after that it explicitly says God gave the authority to men. Actually, men is plural here. I am lead to believe that God gave Jesus and the disciples the delegated authority to forgive sins against the law of God. What else could it be? Everyone already has the ability to forgive personal sins against each other, which goes without saying.

I would also add - there is an often overlooked part that says "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..."

Let me ask you an important question... Did you know that there are no examples of Jesus forgiving sins post-ascension? It's because Jesus is acting in a mediator/high priest role and making intercession for for his people to God because he's our advocate and sin sacrifice, not acting in a sin-forgiver role right now.

Jesus healed on the Sabbath, putting aside levitical laws ..superceding them. Making himself Lord of the Sabbath .

Jesus only clarified what is lawful and good to do on the Sabbath, not change anything. It may appear like a change because the Pharisees were using the Sabbath to control people and place heavy burdens on them that were not God's intentions. Jesus only corrected them to what the Sabbath should be about, fixed their errors, not make it different than what God originally intended.

Jesus didn't accept worship like a king receives reverence..He accepted being called God by Thomas and is the Lamb that is worshipped in Revelation.

The Lamb was never worshipped in Revelation and I would contend that Thomas didn't refer to Jesus as "God" in the sense you are suggesting. Jesus didn't teach anyone he is their God, rather he taught them that the Father is their God.

 

[360watt]

But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”......... God gave the Son of Man, i.e. Jesus authority on earth to forgive sins ---- it' does not specified what kind of sins --- why do you?

Jesus also challenged the unbelieving Jews for working on the Sabbath --- Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?” The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?” Jesus answered them, “I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” [John 7:19-24]
It's like he is saying: 'what is a work---circumcision? making a man whole? So Jesus did not break the Sabbath anymore than the Jewish leaders.

Yes, he did accept being called 'God' by Thomas ---- You take it that Thomas was actually recognizing Jesus AS GOD Himself.....Just a few verses before, Thomas is full of doubt, then all of a sudden he proclaims that Jesus is God? I don't think so at least not in the manner of Jesus BEING Almighty God. Then a few verses later we have the author of the Gospel of John giving the purpose statement of his gospel --- the only gospel with a purpose statement: But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. [John 20:31]
The author of the Gospel of John does not tell us - these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is God, God the Son and that by believing you may have life in his name.......nope, not the author's intent at all.

Thomas changed quickly, because Jesus showed Thomas He was resurrected, which is one evidence for His diety.

Son of God, is in the sense of 'image' , 'representation ' 'expression ' 'bodily form' not as in 'born out of'

 

[360watt]

I would still point to Matthew 9:6-8 in which Jesus said he had authority "on earth" to forgive sins then after that it explicitly says God gave the authority to men. Actually, men is plural here. I am lead to believe that God gave Jesus and the disciples the delegated authority to forgive sins against the law of God. What else could it be? Everyone already has the ability to forgive personal sins against each other, which goes without saying.

I would also add - there is an often overlooked part that says "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..."

Let me ask you an important question... Did you know that there are no examples of Jesus forgiving sins post-ascension? It's because Jesus is acting in a mediator/high priest role and making intercession for for his people to God because he's our advocate and sin sacrifice, not acting in a sin-forgiver role right now.

Jesus only clarified what is lawful and good to do on the Sabbath, not change anything. It may appear like a change because the Pharisees were using the Sabbath to control people and place heavy burdens on them that were not God's intentions. Jesus only corrected them to what the Sabbath should be about, fixed their errors, not make it different than what God originally intended.

The Lamb was never worshipped in Revelation and I would contend that Thomas didn't refer to Jesus as "God" in the sense you are suggesting. Jesus didn't teach anyone he is their God, rather he taught them that the Father is their God.

In Matthew 18

Matthew 18:15-20 KJV
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. [16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. [17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. [18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. [20] For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Here Jesus is saying He will be 'in the midst' of two or three believers, gathered to resolve sin issues, with a sinning brother.

It is a similar process that Israel had in the wilderness.

Jesus is forgiving sin here 'in the midst' , which continues beyond into Acts. After ascension.

Jesus even sent the Comforter, and the Spirit speaking, which is the Comforter, in Revelation.. is Jesus's words also.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I don't have to read anything into the text. I let scripture interpret scripture.

Hey @amazing grace ,

Let's just let scripture interpret scripture with the following.

How Would Scripture Interpret Hebrews 1:8?​

How would Scripture interpret the following passage in Epistle to the Hebrews 1:8–9?

8)“But to the Son He says,
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…’
9)‘Therefore God, your God, has anointed You…’”

If we let Scripture interpret Scripture, we begin with the immediate context.

In Hebrews 1, the writer is contrasting the Son with angels. He repeatedly introduces Old Testament quotations with phrases like:

“To which of the angels did He ever say…?”

“Of the angels He says…”

“But to the Son He says…”

Most of us understand this to mean that what follows is something God is directly saying to the Son. The structure of the chapter is built around divine speech addressed to specific persons.

When verse 8 begins, “But to the Son He says…,” the natural expectation is that what follows is a direct address. That is why most readers understand the quotation as:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”

Hebrews is quoting Psalms 45:6–7. In that Psalm, the king is addressed in elevated language:

“Your throne, O God…”
“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you…”

Even in the original Psalm, the one addressed as “God” is distinguished from “God, your God.” So Scripture itself already contains the pattern of someone being addressed as “God” while still distinguished from another called “God.”

Hebrews applies that same Psalm directly to the Son and explicitly says God is speaking it to Him.

Verse 9 does not undo verse 8. It continues the quotation and preserves distinction:
“God, your God” shows relationship, not denial. Scripture elsewhere shows that distinction and divine status can coexist (for example, in Psalm 110:1).

So if Scripture interprets Scripture, the flow seems straightforward:

Psalm 45 addresses the king as “God” and distinguishes him from “God.”

Hebrews says God speaks those words to the Son.

Therefore, the Son is addressed as “God” while still distinguished from the Father.

That conclusion arises from the structure of the passage itself, not from reading something into it.

Hey again, @amazing grace ..... you are 100% correct. SCRIPTURE DOES INDEED INTERPRET SCRIPTURE.

And this scripture confirms what we know , and we know that Jesus is God. Why? Because, as the song says..... The bible tells us so.

 

[amazing grace]

Thomas changed quickly, because Jesus showed Thomas He was resurrected, which is one evidence for His diety.

So Thomas didn't know that the Father raised Jesus?
Thomas didn't SEE and KNOW FINALLY what Jesus meant when he said 'He who has seen me has seen the Father?' acknowledging the Father in him and he in the Father?
That seems the most logical explanation when taking in the whole of the gospel of John into consideration.

Son of God, is in the sense of 'image' , 'representation ' 'expression ' 'bodily form' not as in 'born out of'

Son of God is in the sense of the Son of God, the Christ -- Son of God does not mean 'God'.
Or the purpose statement of John 20:31 would read: - these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is God, God the Son and that by believing you may have life in his name.......but sorry to burst your bubble it doesn't read in that manner.
Jesus, John or any other apostle could have just come out and say it but they didn't.

 

[amazing grace]

Hey @amazing grace ,

Let's just let scripture interpret scripture with the following.

How Would Scripture Interpret Hebrews 1:8?​

How would Scripture interpret the following passage in Epistle to the Hebrews 1:8–9?

8)“But to the Son He says,
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…’
9)‘Therefore God, your God, has anointed You…’”

If we let Scripture interpret Scripture, we begin with the immediate context.

In Hebrews 1, the writer is contrasting the Son with angels. He repeatedly introduces Old Testament quotations with phrases like:

“To which of the angels did He ever say…?”

“Of the angels He says…”

“But to the Son He says…”

Yes, the author of Hebrews is contrasting the angels with the now exalted Son who is sitting at the right hand of God the Father.
The author is describing what is said about the angels and what is said about the Son.

Most of us understand this to mean that what follows is something God is directly saying to the Son. The structure of the chapter is built around divine speech addressed to specific persons.

When verse 8 begins, “But to the Son He says…,” the natural expectation is that what follows is a direct address. That is why most readers understand the quotation as:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”

Hebrews is quoting Psalms 45:6–7. In that Psalm, the king is addressed in elevated language:

“Your throne, O God…”
“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you…”

Yes, Psalm 45:6,7 is a direct address to the Davidic King and here in Hebrews it is a direct address to the Davidic descendant to the throne, the next in line to sit upon the throne of David, the King of the Jews, the Son of God, the risen Christ.

Even in the original Psalm, the one addressed as “God” is distinguished from “God, your God.” So Scripture itself already contains the pattern of someone being addressed as “God” while still distinguished from another called “God.”

Hebrews applies that same Psalm directly to the Son and explicitly says God is speaking it to Him.

Verse 9 does not undo verse 8. It continues the quotation and preserves distinction:
“God, your God” shows relationship, not denial. Scripture elsewhere shows that distinction and divine status can coexist (for example, in Psalm 110:1).

So if Scripture interprets Scripture, the flow seems straightforward:

Psalm 45 addresses the king as “God” and distinguishes him from “God.”

Hebrews says God speaks those words to the Son.

Therefore, the Son is addressed as “God” while still distinguished from the Father.

That conclusion arises from the structure of the passage itself, not from reading something into it.

Yes, the Son, the risen Lord, the one exalted to the right hand of God his Father is addressed as 'God' just as the Davidic King is addressed as 'God'.
Then the next verse shows that the Son has a God who anointed him as does the Davidic King have a God who anointed him.
Of course, the Son, who was called 'God', is distinguished from the Father just as the King, who was called 'God', is distinguished from the Father.

Hey again, @amazing grace ..... you are 100% correct. SCRIPTURE DOES INDEED INTERPRET SCRIPTURE.

And this scripture confirms what we know , and we know that Jesus is God. Why? Because, as the song says..... The bible tells us so.

If Jesus is God from Hebrews 1:6,7 then in the same manner the Davidic King is also 'God'.
We needed a human, a perfect man to undo what Adam did.

 

[360watt]

So Thomas didn't know that the Father raised Jesus?
Thomas didn't SEE and KNOW FINALLY what Jesus meant when he said 'He who has seen me has seen the Father?' acknowledging the Father in him and he in the Father?
That seems the most logical explanation when taking in the whole of the gospel of John into consideration.

Son of God is in the sense of the Son of God, the Christ -- Son of God does not mean 'God'.
Or the purpose statement of John 20:31 would read: - these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is God, God the Son and that by believing you may have life in his name.......but sorry to burst your bubble it doesn't read in that manner.
Jesus, John or any other apostle could have just come out and say it but they didn't.

Distinguishing Son from the Father doesn't mean the Son is lesser

 

[amazing grace]

Distinguishing Son from the Father doesn't mean the Son is lesser

I don't know where you're from but in most cultures the father is always greater than the son.

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. [John 10:29]

You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. [John 14:28]

 

[Doug Brents]

Whatever you are talking about find it and repost what I said please.
I said God was never conceived or born.
I said God was Spirit.
That is scriptural.

In post 1690, you said, "The 'word' wasn't a person 'in the beginning'; the 'word' - did not become flesh, i.e. embodied in flesh, a person until Jesus was conceived and born."
So I asked, in post 1695, if you thought the Father wasn't a person, because He has never been conceived or born.
To this you replied in post 1704 that the Father is a spirit (which I assume to you means that He is a real person, just not a physical one).
But this contradicts your post from 1690. If a person is not a person without being conceived and born, then the Father is not a "person" (but that would be a false conclusion, so your contention in 1690 that a person is not a person unless conceived and born is false).

Nope. If he was he was the Father.

John 1:1 says that the Word was God, and the Word was WITH God (the Father). The Word and the Father are not the same being, but they are both equally God.

What makes Jesus unique is being the Son of God via the virgin conception and birth.

That is also part of what makes Jesus unique (although there was another virgin birth in Scripture (Isa 7:14).

Yes, John 1:14 tells us that the logos became flesh in the Son from the Father, i.e. Jesus.

Very good. At least you have that much correct. Some who argue as you do don't even admit that much. So the Logos is Jesus.

Now you must accept that the Logos is God (which is what John 1:1 says clearly).

Yahweh is the Father ...... If Jesus is saying he is I AM at John 8:58, He's referring to himself as Yahweh and therefore also the Father.

Really? I don't see anywhere in John 8:58, or the surrounding text, where the Father is called "I AM". Jesus says the Father glorifies Him (Jesus)(indicating that they are not the same being), but it does not identify "I AM" as the Father.

I don't have to read anything into the text. I let scripture interpret scripture.
Jesus is NOT God and has never been God.
The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ and Jesus ain't Him.
Jesus is a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Judah, a lineal descendant of David ---- God is NOT.

In the flesh, Jesus did indeed descend from Abraham. But as Jesus says in John 8:58, He existed, and was God (the I AM) before Abraham was born.

 

[Doug Brents]

Already read it. Please show me where

"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 came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. 5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it.
In these first 5 verses John has established that there were two beings present when the Beginning occurred: the Word (Logos)(which is God, but not the same being as the other) and some other being that is also God (the Father). This is not meant to be exclusive, because we know that he Holy Spirit of God was also there.

6 A man came, one sent from God, and his name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

9 This was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person. 10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.
Here we have switched gears. We are now talking about John the Baptist. But John is the forerunner for the Light (which is the same as the Word from verses 4 and 5). From this we know that the One about whom John is talking later in this chapter is the Word (which is God). And we also see yet again that everything that was created was made through the Word.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and called out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who is coming after me has proved to be my superior, because He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.
Here we are back to talking about the Word. And now the Word has put on flesh and become a man. And we see again that John is testifying about this man. And we have Jesus identified as the man that the Word became.

19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites to him from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 And he confessed and did not deny; and this is what he confessed: “I am not the Christ.” 21 And so they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he *said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” 22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am the voice of one calling out in the wilderness, ‘Make the way of the Lord straight,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”

24 And the messengers had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 John answered them, saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. 27 It is He who comes after me, of whom I am not worthy even to untie the strap of His sandal.” 28 These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing people.

29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He in behalf of whom I said, ‘After me is coming a Man who has proved to be my superior, because He existed before me.’ 31 And I did not recognize Him, but so that He would be revealed to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” 32 And John testified, saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
And here John reemphasizes that Jesus is the One whom the Word became, whom He is preceding, and about whom he is preaching.

Jesus is the beginning of God's creation.

The source, not the first thing created.

All firstborns are born though, right? No one who is born is an eternal being.

Jesus was. Jesus' body was born. But His spirit is the eternal Spirit through which all of Creation was made (John 1:3).

 

[amazing grace]

In post 1690, you said, "The 'word' wasn't a person 'in the beginning'; the 'word' - did not become flesh, i.e. embodied in flesh, a person until Jesus was conceived and born."
So I asked, in post 1695, if you thought the Father wasn't a person, because He has never been conceived or born.
To this you replied in post 1704 that the Father is a spirit (which I assume to you means that He is a real person, just not a physical one).
But this contradicts your post from 1690. If a person is not a person without being conceived and born, then the Father is not a "person" (but that would be a false conclusion, so your contention in 1690 that a person is not a person unless conceived and born is false).

Oh, okay ---- I didn't say God wasn't a person (although I believe He is Spirit) I said the 'word' wasn't a person.
God is Spirit. [John 4:24] BTW, thanks for looking that up so I could see the full context.

John 1:1 says that the Word was God, and the Word was WITH God (the Father). The Word and the Father are not the same being, but they are both equally God. That is also part of what makes Jesus unique (although there was another virgin birth in Scripture (Isa 7:14).

Why is the identity of the first usage of 'God' -- 'the Father' and yet the second usage of 'God' is different?
What constitutes the change in meaning?
Already discussed that John 1:1c God is used as a nominative --- a noun used as a adjective; not equal to but in qualitative sense.

Well, I guess I should have said a virgin conception and birth whose Father was God!

Very good. At least you have that much correct. Some who argue as you do don't even admit that much. So the Logos is Jesus.

Jesus embodied the logos - God's word.
Is Jesus synonymous with logos? NO. Should you read Jesus into the text of John 1:1? NO. Or even into John 1:14? NO. Jesus wasn't given his name 'Jesus' until his birth - Matthew 1:21.

Now you must accept that the Logos is God (which is what John 1:1 says clearly).

discussed

Really? I don't see anywhere in John 8:58, or the surrounding text, where the Father is called "I AM". Jesus says the Father glorifies Him (Jesus)(indicating that they are not the same being), but it does not identify "I AM" as the Father.

You didn't quite understand what I said:

<snip>
Yahweh is the Father ...... If Jesus is saying he is I AM at John 8:58, He's referring to himself as Yahweh and therefore also the Father.
<snip>

What people reference at John 8:58 is Exodus 3:14 where Yahweh is identified as "I AM" thus claiming that Jesus is claiming to be God..... neglecting the fact that Yahweh is identified as the Father in the OT.

In the flesh, Jesus did indeed descend from Abraham. But as Jesus says in John 8:58, He existed, and was God (the I AM) before Abraham was born.

Jesus was BEFORE Abraham --- that is correct. He didn't literally preexist, he existed before Abraham in prophecy, in the foreknowledge of God. As a true human being from David's own body, from David's lineage via Mary and Joseph.
When was Jesus NOT a human being??? What was he before he was a human being?

 

[Doug Brents]

Oh, okay ---- I didn't say God wasn't a person (although I believe He is Spirit) I said the 'word' wasn't a person.
God is Spirit. [John 4:24] BTW, thanks for looking that up so I could see the full context.

You cannot say that the Father is a person (even though He has not been conceived and born), but the Word cannot be a person until He was conceived and born. You cannot have it both ways.

If a person is not really a person unless they are conceived and born (as you said), then the Father cannot be a person. If the Father is a person, and a person can really be a person without being conceived and born, then the Word can really be a person.

Why is the identity of the first usage of 'God' -- 'the Father' and yet the second usage of 'God' is different?
What constitutes the change in meaning?

The Word was with God, and was God. To be with God means that the Word was not the same being as the other being that is God. This means that the other being that is God is either the Father, or the Holy Spirit, or both. But that doesn't stop the second part of the verse from being TRUTH: the Word is God.

Already discussed that John 1:1c God is used as a nominative --- a noun used as a adjective; not equal to but in qualitative sense.

And as has been pointed out, your claim is a distinction without difference. God is God, and since the Word IS God (whether equal or qualitative) the Word IS God; PERIOD.

Jesus embodied the logos - God's word.
Is Jesus synonymous with logos? NO. Should you read Jesus into the text of John 1:1? NO. Or even into John 1:14? NO. Jesus wasn't given his name 'Jesus' until his birth - Matthew 1:21.

That is irrelevant. The Logos of God became the man we know as Jesus, and Jesus is the Logos of God. We could use the word "Logos" everywhere we find "Jesus" in Scripture, and we can use "Jesus" everywhere we find the "Logos of God". The two are synonymous.

That doesn't mean that every "logos" is the Logos of God, nor that Jesus is every "logos".

You didn't quite understand what I said:

What people reference at John 8:58 is Exodus 3:14 where Yahweh is identified as "I AM" thus claiming that Jesus is claiming to be God..... neglecting the fact that Yahweh is identified as the Father in the OT.

What does Yahweh mean? It means LORD, does it not? It is not a name, but a title, the title LORD.
Who is the LORD? Is it not Jesus (Phil 2:10-11, Acts 10:36, Rom 10:9, John 13:13)? If Jesus is the LORD, and Yahweh (LORD) was speaking from the Bush, then it was Jesus speaking from the Bush.

Jesus was BEFORE Abraham --- that is correct. He didn't literally preexist, he existed before Abraham in prophecy, in the foreknowledge of God.

If that is the way you want to look at it, then you existed before Abraham, so you could be God. Do you see how absurd that is?

Jesus did not exist before Abraham only in the foreknowledge of God, or in the prophecies of God. He existed as a living being that is God.

As a true human being from David's own body, from David's lineage via Mary and Joseph.
When was Jesus NOT a human being??? What was he before he was a human being?

Before Jesus was born as a human being, He was the Creator, the Logos of God, the LIFE and the Light that is the source of mankind and all Creation.