Being present simultaneously in millions/billions of different locations lines up with the very definition of omnipresence. You are free to deny this all you want.
Yea, don't deviate from John 1:1, such as replacing 'the Word' with 'Son, the second person of the Trinity' nor with 'Jesus' because the word did not become flesh until John 1:14. John 1:1 should correspond with the author's purpose statement @ John 20:31- we are to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, NOT GOD.
I always equate Jesus as the tabernacled Word (John 1:14). Do you have a problem with John 1:14?
You have a habit of deviating from John 1:1 by replacing "God" with "expression of God". What can be done to remedy that problem?
Also, when I read John 1:1c, I know that 'God' is a predicate nominative, therefore it is a noun used as in an adjective and so I understand how the word 'God' is being used - I do not replace it. But thanks for your advice.
Yes, an adjective that defines his attributes as those of God, such as omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. Thanks for that support.
I am not talking about God's omnis - God's ultimate attributes --- Jesus did have characteristics of his Father ----- goodness, kindness, love, trust, faithfulness, compassion, righteousness, etc. Jesus was certainly NOT 'asei' - Jesus was NOT self derived, self sufficient nor independent. Again, God GRANTED him judgment, the dead will hear his voice and those who hear will live BECAUSE just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He GRANTED the Son also to have life in himself---ETERNAL LIFE - GOD GRANTED these things to his Son......GOD EMPOWERED HIS SON.
You can deny this until the cows come home but scripture cannot be broken.
You have no choice but to talk about omnis because John 1:1c declares that the Word was God, not that the Word was an expression of God. To be God one must possess omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. There is no two ways about it.
You skipped over the fact that when Scripture says God granted a responsibility to Jesus (i.e.: John 5:26 says the Father “granted” the Son to have life in himself), it is not correcting or limiting John 1:4 (
as the tabernacled Word, Jesus already has life in himself by nature: “In him was life”); it is explaining the relation of origin and Jesus' mission as the tabernacled Word on Earth. The Father eternally communicates the divine life to the Son (eternal generation), so the Son’s life is not independent of the Father, yet it is fully the same divine life the Father has. In addition, within salvation history, the incarnate Son is
publicly invested with this life-giving authority as the mediator who reveals, dispenses, and manifests that life to the world.
Thus, the Son has life in himself by nature as the Word, and he is said to be “granted” life as the Son sent into the world, so that the same self-existent life he eternally possesses is now exercised, disclosed, and recognized in his incarnate mission without implying that he ever lacked it.
Also, you skipped over the fact that to share in the Father’s prerogatives and attributes one must already be God, because in biblical theology God’s essential attributes are
incommunicable—they cannot be transferred, delegated, or temporarily lent to a creature without destroying the Creator–creature distinction. You're falling into Mormonism when you do that. Scripture is explicit that God does not share His Eternal Power, nor Divine Identity with another being (Isa 42:8; 48:11), and that no created agent can possess
self-existence,
sovereign authority, or the power of life and death (Deut 32:39). Prerogatives such as
aseity (“life in himself”),
universal judgment,
power over death, and
absolute authority over all creation are not functions that can be assigned the way roles are. Therefore, when Scripture states that the Son possesses these same attributes and exercises them in the same manner as the Father (John 5:21–26; Heb 1:3; Col 1:16–17), it is not describing a promoted creature but affirming
shared Divine Nature.
You also skipped over the fact that if a non-God could truly share God’s attributes, then God would no longer be unique, indivisible, or incomparable—contradicting the very monotheism Scripture defends.
Might as well be a Mormon if you wish to continue to think that way. Thus, the only coherent biblical conclusion is that participation in the Father’s prerogatives requires eternal deity, not bestowed status, proving that the Son must already be God in essence to share them.
In "him".....a personification of God's word just as God's wisdom is personified in Proverbs as a 'she'.
In the beginning God spoke life into being = in the word was life. The record in John 1:4 is before the word became flesh and dwelt among us - be careful that you do not read 'Son', 'the second person is the Trinity', or 'Jesus' into scripture before the word became flesh.
The Logos is not an abstract personification like Proverbs’ poetic Wisdom but a personal subject who acts, relates, and is identified as God (John 1:1c). John does not say the Word merely contains life as an attribute of speech, but that “
in Him was life” (Jn 1:4), using masculine personal pronouns (αὐτῷ) consistently, and he explicitly distinguishes the Word from creation (“
all things came into being through Him,” Jn 1:3), something never said of a mere spoken utterance or poetic device. Unlike Proverbs, which signals metaphor and genre, John writes historical-theological prose and grounds the Logos in real relationships: the Word is “
with God” (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, indicating personal communion) and yet “
was God” (Jn 1:1), a formulation that makes no sense if “Word” is only impersonal speech. Moreover, John himself authoritatively identifies who the Logos is, so the charge of “reading Jesus back into the text” is false: “
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory” (Jn 1:14), followed immediately by John the Baptist’s testimony about a person who existed before him (Jn 1:15), something impossible for an abstract personification. The life in the Word is not merely creative power but
self-existent life (cf. Jn 5:26), and the same Word later says, “
I am the life” (Jn 14:6), showing continuity of identity, not a shift from impersonal speech to a person. Therefore, John is not retroactively importing Christology into the prologue; he is unveiling from the start that the eternal Logos—already personal, already divine, already life-giving—is the very one who later “became flesh,” which decisively refutes the personification theory.
Jesus is self existent??? WHY is this recorded in Matthew:
The book of the genealogy (the source, origin, genesis) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.------But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “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.”
AND Luke:
And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon 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.
Self-existent means existing independently of other
beings or causes???? --- Jesus is not God.
Thanks for forwarding verses that tell us exactly when the Word, who was God, started to tabernacle as Jesus on Earth. And since God can never cease to be God then Jesus is God. I appreciate that Trinitarian support.
You skipped over the fact that
as the tabernacled Word, Jesus already has life in himself by nature: “In him was life” (John 1:4). John places this statement before creation itself, showing that life is intrinsic to the tabernacled Word, not something later acquired. This is the Son’s ontological possession of life—he is God and therefore self-existent.
John 1:4 is speaking of creation in the beginning and it is referencing God's word, God's spoken creative speech through which all things were made and without which nothing was made that was made........And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so......[Gen. 1:20,21,24]
The birth and death of the Son, of God's Son, of the Christ negates an 'eternal generation'.
The Son's life was totally dependent upon God, his Father. God, his Father granted to him to give eternal life.
John's Prologue deliberately moves beyond spoken utterance by identifying the Word as one who
was with God and was God (John 1:1), who
became flesh (John 1:14) - something no abstract speech or created word can do. The assertion that Christ’s birth and death negate eternal generation betrays a basic misunderstanding: eternal generation concerns the Son’s divine origin
outside of time, not His incarnation
within time; Scripture distinguishes the Son’s eternal being from His historical mission (John 8:58; Micah 5:2; Heb 1:2-3). Likewise, claiming that the Son’s life was “totally dependent” confuses His voluntary incarnational submission with ontological dependence, since the same Gospel affirms that the Son possesses
life in Himself just as the Father does (John 5:26) and exercises divine authority to grant eternal life (John 10:28) - something no creature, prophet, or mere agent can do. In short, your argument survives only by denying that the Word, who was God, tabernacled as Jesus on Earth. And since God can never cease to be God then Jesus is God.
The risen Christ was GIVEN all authority in heaven and on earth from God, his Father.
Scripture shows Jesus was a created mortal human being - created and conceived in the womb of Mary. Jesus was mortal and capable of death - he was buried in the heart of the earth and was there three days and three nights, showing Jesus was not immortal. God raised him from the dead giving him his spiritual resurrected body and Jesus became a life-giving spirit --- he wasn't one before this . . . it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural.
You are making a categorical mistake by confusing the Word’s
Tabernacled Role with His
Eternal Identity. The fact that the risen Jesus was “given all authority” (Matt 28:18) does not imply prior lack of authority, but the
public bestowal of messianic kingship as the incarnate Son who humbled Himself and is now exalted (Phil 2:6–11), the very One through whom all things were created and who already possessed divine authority (John 1:1–3; Col 1:16–17). To say Jesus was “created” because He was conceived in Mary ignores the clear biblical distinction between the tabernacled Word's
human nature (John 1:14) without ceasing to be God (Heb 1:3) and the fact that the Word is the
Uncreated Word (John 1:2-3), an attribute that only God possesses.
His mortality belongs to His humanity, not His deity, since God cannot die (1 Tim 1:17), yet God the Son truly died
according to the flesh (Rom 1:3–4; Acts 20:28). Likewise, claiming Jesus “was not immortal” mistakes voluntary death for ontological limitation, for Jesus explicitly says He has authority to lay down His life and take it up again (John 10:17–18), something no mere creature can claim. Finally, 1 Corinthians 15:45 (“the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit”) does not mean Christ only
then became divine, but that
as the risen Messiah He now dispenses eternal life to others - something He already possessed intrinsically as the One in whom “was life” from the beginning (John 1:4; John 5:26). In short, Scripture teaches not a promoted creature, but the eternal Son who entered our mortality, conquered death through it, and exercises the divine authority that was always His by nature.
Thus, verses like Matthew 28:18 do not merely describe delegated authority; they reveals Jesus as exercising God’s
universal sovereignty, receiving worship, sharing the divine name, and possessing omnipresence, proving that Jesus is God.
Your welcome - it's my pleasure to give you fodder!
The Trinitarian verses you gave me were not fodder. Oh, you meant your misinterpretations. They certainly were fodder, suitable only for constructing heresies.
