You are using Unitarian style theology and reasoning in your last post. The Word is personified like Wisdom, and we know Wisdom is not an actual person so neither is the Word, are the kind of things we say. Most of you just avoid it due to the issues it creates with your theology.
the problem is not the words. the problem is that the unitarians skip verses that show the preexistent One who becomes incarnate as Jesus. When obvious points are missed continually, i'm not sure how to continue a debate.
You continue on uniformed, weak arguments. You forgot the transitional material of Philo and Greek Philosophy as the bridge between something just of wisdom, words, and ideas into a description of a conscious participant in creation. So I can just assume that you are desiring to demonstrate ignorance here. Maybe the key here is to note that words do not become incarnate. But you keep insisting that mere words somehow take on flesh. That is what the consistent unitarian must declare.
Yes, and to quote Genesis 1:26, do you believe that God created all things through the Word?
God did create all things through HIS word - His creative speech : Repeatedly 'And God said'.
Jesus spoke Aramaic. Here is John 1:1-18 both written as Aramaic and translated.
You have been prompted to show any evidence of a pre-existent Jesus repeatedly. You've been asked directly to show where he's at saying or doing anything prior to his birth. So far, you have only provided your private commentary and opinions about Jesus pre-existing, but no working examples of Jesus doing anything in the Old Testament. Therefore, you don't have any clear or direct evidence of a pre-existence. You have interpretations of verses. You can talk about this all day, but you can't put your money where you mouth is on this point.
So throughout the entire Bible words are never a person, never God, but until suddenly in John 1:1, out of the blue, defying all precedent, the Word is suddenly God in your beliefs, then after that never spoken of as God again? Just 1:1 is an outlier. The minority of verses never define the majority. You are using bad reasoning and eisegesis to come to your conclusions.
This doesn't force any identity on the Word. The Word has the qualities or nature of God, not the identity of God. No inference that the Word is the same God that the Word was with. This isn't much different than Greek-to-English translations that highlight how God created Jesus, not incarnated.Jesus spoke Aramaic. Here is John 1:1-18 both written as Aramaic and translated.
John's Gospel
THE EVANGELIUN OF YSHUA MSHIKHA According to YUKHANAN { Study Tool } 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14...theholyaramaicscriptures.weebly.com
TheHolyAramaicScriptures.com
THE EVANGELIUN OF
YSHUA MSHIKHA
According to
YUKHANAN
{Study Tool}
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Chapter 1
ܒܪܫܝܬ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܠܬܐ ܘܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܐܠܗܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܗܘ ܡܠܬܐ
1 In the beginning there was The Miltha {The Word}, and He, The Miltha {The Word}, was with Alaha {God}. And Alaha {God} Himself was The Miltha {The Word}.
ܗܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܒܪܫܝܬ ܠܘܬ ܐܠܗܐ
2 This One was existing in the beginning with Alaha {God}.
ܟܠ ܒܐܝܕܗ ܗܘܐ ܘܒܠܥܕܘܗܝ ܐܦ ܠܐ ܚܕܐ ܗܘܬ ܡܕܡ ܕܗܘܐ
3 By His Hand {i.e. by His Power} anything came to be, and without Him, not even one thing came to be, which has come to be.
ܒܗ ܚܝܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܚܝܐ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܕܒܢܝܢܫܐ
4 The Khaye {The Life} existed in Him, and The Khaye {The Life} is The Nuhra {The Light} of the sons of men.
ܘܗܘ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܒܚܫܘܟܐ ܡܢܗܪ ܘܚܫܘܟܐ ܠܐ ܐܕܪܟܗ
5 And He, The Nuhra {The Light}, shines into the kheshuka {the darkness}, and the kheshuka {the darkness} hasn't overtaken it.
ܗܘܐ ܒܪ ܐܢܫܐ ܕܐܫܬܕܪ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܫܡܗ ܝܘܚܢܢ
6 There was a son of man who was sent from Alaha {God}, named Yukhanan {John}.
ܗܢܐ ܐܬܐ ܠܣܗܕܘܬܐ ܕܢܣܗܕ ܥܠ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܕܟܠ ܐܢܫ ܢܗܝܡܢ ܒܐܝܕܗ
7 This one came for a witness, so that he might testify concerning The Nuhra {The Light}, so that anyone will believe through his hand.
ܠܐ ܗܘ ܗܘܐ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܐܠܐ ܕܢܣܗܕ ܥܠ ܢܘܗܪܐ
8 He wasn't The Nuhra {The Light}; but rather, that he might testify concerning The Nuhra {The Light}.
ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܓܝܪ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ ܕܡܢܗܪ ܠܟܠ ܐܢܫ ܕܐܬܐ ܠܥܠܡܐ
9 For, there was The Nuhra d'Shrara {The Light of The Truth}; that which illuminates anyone who comes into the alma {the world}.
ܒܥܠܡܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܥܠܡܐ ܒܐܝܕܗ ܗܘܐ ܘܥܠܡܐ ܠܐ ܝܕܥܗ
10 He was in the alma {the world}, and the alma {the world} existed by His Hand {i.e. by His Power}, and the alma {the world} didn't know Him.
ܠܕܝܠܗ ܐܬܐ ܘܕܝܠܗ ܠܐ ܩܒܠܘܗܝ
11 He came unto His own, and His own didn't receive Him.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܩܒܠܘܗܝ ܝܗܒ ܠܗܘܢ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܕܒܢܝܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܢܗܘܘܢ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܒܫܡܗ
12 But, those who have received Him, He has given Shultana {Power} unto them, so that they may become The Sons of Alaha {God}; unto those who are believing in His Name.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܘ ܡܢ ܕܡܐ ܘܠܐ ܡܢ ܨܒܝܢܐ ܕܒܣܪܐ ܘܠܐ ܡܢ ܨܒܝܢܐ ܕܓܒܪܐ ܐܠܐ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܐܬܝܠܕܘ
13 Those who, neither from blood, nor from the desire of the flesh, and neither from the will of a gabra {a man}, but rather, were begotten from Alaha {God}.
ܘܡܠܬܐ ܒܣܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ ܘܚܙܝܢ ܫܘܒܚܗ ܫܘܒܚܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܝܚܝܕܝܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܒܐ ܕܡܠܐ ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܘܩܘܫܬܐ
14 And The Miltha {The Word} became flesh {i.e. a Human Being}, and dwelt among us, and we saw His Glory, Glory as of The Unique One who is from Aba {The Father}, who is full of Taybutha {Grace} and Qushtha {Truth}.
ܝܘܚܢܢ ܣܗܕ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܘܩܥܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܗܢܘ ܗܘ ܕܐܡܪܬ ܕܒܬܪܝ ܐܬܐ ܘܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܩܕܡܝ ܡܛܠ ܕܩܕܡܝ ܗܘ ܡܢܝ
15 Yukhanan {John} testified concerning Him, and cried out and said, “This is He whom I said would come after me, for, He was before me, because He is older than me.”
ܘܡܢ ܡܠܝܘܬܗ ܚܢܢ ܟܠܢ ܢܣܒܢ ܘܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܚܠܦ ܛܝܒܘܬܐ
16 And from His fullness any of us receive, and Taybutha {Grace} for Taybutha {Grace}.
ܡܛܠ ܕܢܡܘܣܐ ܒܝܕ ܡܘܫܐ ܐܬܝܗܒ ܫܪܪܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܒܝܕ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܘܐ
17 Because, The Namusa {The Law} was given through Mushe {Moses}, but, Shrara {Truth} and Taybutha {Grace} came to be through Yshua Mshikha {Yahshua, The Anointed One}.
ܐܠܗܐ ܠܐ ܚܙܐ ܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܡܬܘܡ ܝܚܝܕܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܒܥܘܒܐ ܕܐܒܘܗܝ ܗܘ ܐܫܬܥܝ
18 No nash {man} has ever seen Alaha {God}. The Unique One, Alaha {God}, He who is in the bosom of His Father; He has Declared Him.
How can anyone possibly have the qualities (omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, eternal personhood, etc...) of God or the nature (eternal, uncreated, etc...) of God and not be God???? Maybe you have many acquaintances who have those exact qualities or nature of God which is why you're so dismissive of Jesus being the tabernacled Word (John 1:14) who was God (John 1:1c). It's either that or many other reasons. If you don't reveal why you're so dismissive, I'm going to continue to offer more possible reasons....
Not those qualities, as Jesus doesn't even have those. The qualities that things like the Word can have of God are righteousness, holiness, things like that. Big giveaway that the Word is not actually God because it's not the same God it's with. Then we still have 1 John 1:1-3 calling the Word a thing, the Word never being God before or after John 1:1, etc. Yeah it's pretty definitive that the trinity is bunk theology.
Right ...... there is a slight difference in 'attributes' and 'qualities' ---- God's attributes would be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal (eternal personhood), invisible - innate attributes which inherently make God who he is, God.
Not those qualities??? Then what type of God are you talking about? Norse gods? How about Roman or Greek gods? None of them were omnipresent so they qualify as the gods you're basing your case on. Sorry, the Apostles were not referring to pagan gods like you're doing. You have a major problem here, my friend. It's back to the heresies drawing board for you.
Again, you continue to display your willful ignorance of Greek. John makes use of Greek-styled neuter pronouns in 1 John 1 to refer to an abstracted or collective reality, as he did in John 3:6: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” We can all agree that a thing is not born of Spirit, people are. Right?
Tell us more about the Norse, Roman and Greek gods, with their qualities and non-attributes. None of them were omnipresent so they qualify as the gods you and RM are basing your case on.Right ...... there is a slight difference in 'attributes' and 'qualities' ---- God's attributes would be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immortal (eternal personhood), invisible - innate attributes which inherently make God who he is, God.
The word being 'qualitative' would mean that whatever is righteous, just, holy, gracious, faithful, kind, loving makes the word like God and those qualities became flesh as the only Son from the Father and dwelt among us.
Not like that because Jesus is not ever described as an eternal being, not omnipotent, not omniscient, etc. There are plenty examples where the Son in your trinity does not contain those particular characteristics of God, but represents God perfectly in terms on nature, namely the fruits of the Spirit, as @amazing grace so excellently pointed out.
You have dodged a fact throughout the entire time I have known you .
"Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are."
I know nothing about Norse, Roman, or Greek gods.
we have the testimony of what Jesus said and John shared. But that is not enough for unitarians.
Again. you miss all of John 1. You miss Jesus and John the Baptist speaking of the One who became incarnate as Jesus. There never is an adequate reason shared by unitarians to dismiss their testimony but they keep denying the obvious meaning.
There is no Jesus in the Old Testament. No Jesus means he wasn't there. All there are are prophecies of a future messiah who would be born later. What the Bible doesn't say is a very powerful argument. Checkmate.
