Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Doug Brents]

No, actually it doesn't. He had to die and be raised in his spiritual body - God is inherently omnipresent. I have given my point of view on this and it's time to move on ----- we're "beating a dead horse"; wasting time on any further repetition.

Just because you have "given my point of view on this" doesn't mean you point of view is correct or that you cannot learn more and better information about the topic. You are wrong. It is ONLY God who is omnipresent, and Jesus was omnipresent before He came and took on flesh. He was in the form of God, with all the glory, power, and authority of God (He was God) before He took on flesh.

Get a clue: Jesus is God.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Jehovah/Yahweh is a name. The translators left LORD in all caps to designate the NAME. 'I AM' is not a name.

LORD - God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

You need to be more precise.

In most English Bibles (like the KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.), the word LORD (in all capital letters, often small caps in print) is not a direct translation of a generic term for "lord" or "master." Instead, it's a deliberate convention used to represent the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, the four-letter proper name of God: YHWH (pronounced by scholars as something like "Yahweh").

​

Why do thewy use all caps when we are told if we type that way we are hollering at the recipient.?

This is interesting as well as educational.

Ancient Jewish tradition held God's personal name as profoundly sacred, so it was not pronounced aloud to avoid misuse (based on interpretations of commandments like Exodus 20:7).

When reading Scripture publicly, Jews substituted Adonai (meaning "my Lord") for YHWH.

Early Greek translations (Septuagint) used Kyrios ("Lord") for it.

English translators followed this by rendering YHWH as "LORD" (all caps) to honor the tradition while signaling to readers that this stands for God's unique, revealed proper name—not just a title like "lord" (lowercase, from Adonai or other terms).

This distinction helps readers know when the original Hebrew text uses the divine name (over 6,800 times in the Old Testament) versus a general title.

Lets look now at how this connects to "I AM" in Exodus 3:14​

@amazing grace
You're correct that "I AM" (from the Hebrew ehyeh asher ehyeh) is not presented as God's formal name in the text.


Here's the key passage ...Exodus 3:13–15, summarized

Moses asks God for His name to tell the Israelites.

God replies "I AM WHO I AM" (ehyeh asher ehyeh). He adds, "Say to the Israelites: 'I AM (ehyeh) has sent me to you.'"

Then, crucially: "Say to the Israelites: 'The LORD (YHWH), the God of your fathers... has sent me to you.' This is my name forever..."

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

So:
Ehyeh asher ehyeh ("I AM WHO I AM" or more dynamically, "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE") is an explanation of God's nature: His eternal, self-existent being, faithful presence, and sovereignty. It emphasizes that God simply is—uncreated, unchanging, and reliably present (especially promising to "be" with Israel in deliverance).

You can note this is in most translations.... even the KJV and the Tanaka.. with it in all CAPS. And LORD= YHWH

The actual proper name God gives as "my name forever" is YHWH, which is linguistically related to ehyeh (both from the root meaning "to be"). YHWH is often seen as the third-person form: "He Is" or "He Causes to Be."

"I AM" describes who God is; YHWH is what to call Him.

Some translations (e.g., certain Jewish versions or the NJB) use "Yahweh" directly, but most follow the "LORD" convention to reflect historical reverence.


This should remind readers of the weight and uniqueness of God's personal name while respecting ancient practices. If you're reading a Bible, check the preface—it usually explains this exact point!

 

[civic]

Yell strawman from the rooftops which you, yourself just did because you just intentionally misrepresented me----I didn't say I didn't worship him. I SAID:

If I worship Jesus as the Creator and it turns out he actually is a created human being like his brothers and sisters as scripture says then I am in trouble!​

Jesus was not worshiped as the Creator . . . . he was worshiped as the Son of God, the Messiah, the King of the Jews but never as God the Creator.

Well He is the creator as per John 1, Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and other passages as well.

So you are arguing nothing but a strawman

hope this helps !!!

 

[amazing grace]

Sure the angels were there. But they were not a "heavenly court". The angels were not made in the image of God; that distinction applies ONLY to humans. The angels are not advisers to God.

Heavenly host then . . . . We don't know anything about the creation of the angels -- we just know they were there so you can't say what image they were although we know they were spirit beings like God was a spirit being - just saying....
Who is God talking to in Genesis 3:22 when a plural 'us' is used again - 'become like one of us in knowing good and evil'.....so He set 'cherubim' at the east of the garden of Eden . . . He set angels to quard the entrance to the garden. Evidently, the angels were there in the garden and God was just carrying on a conversation with them - they did not help him create.
The very next verse says: So God created (singular verb tense makes elohim singular) man in his (singular personal pronoun) own image; in the image of God he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them; male and female he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them. God created man ALONE, by HIMSELF.

"God" is a title. It is not a name. The fact that there are three persons who make us ONE God does not make God schizophrenic or any other human malfunction.

God is ONE not three persons in one - just one scripture saying God is Triune or that God is made up of three persons would help your case.

Jesus came down from Heaven before He was incarnate (John 3:13, 6:38). He was Spirit before He took on flesh, still had His own Spirit while He was in the flesh, and returned to Spirit when He ascended back into Heaven.

Jesus didn't live in heaven before he was born. John 3:13 - No one has ascended = Jesus ascension; descended from heaven is equivalent to came down from heaven [John 6:41,51,58; 12:28] or came from God [John 3:2; 8:42; 16:27; 16:30].
How did Jesus descend from heaven? Did he just float down and enter the womb of Mary?
I don't think so - he descended from heaven in the same manner as he came down from heaven or that he came from God via a virgin birth - a conception in the womb of Mary caused by the power of God.

Great verse, but it has no bearing on this discussion, because Jesus is God, the same as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Just because He was a man for a short time (33 years) doesn't mean that He ceased to be God.
Humans' spirits are created at the same time that our bodies are formed (when egg and sperm join). But Jesus' Spirit was not created when His body was made. His Spirit came down from Heaven to inhabit the body that the Holy Spirit made for Him in Mary's womb.

Romans 1:19-22 has GREAT bearing on this discussion especially IF Jesus is a REAL CREATED human being AND NOT God yet being worshiped as God! Because that would be exchanging the truth about God for a lie and worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator.

NO, Jesus was conceived as any other human being with ONE BIG - he was conceived by the power of God without any bodily fluids being involved. A spirit did not float into Mary's body ----- God did not float into Mary's body.

 

[amazing grace]

Just because you have "given my point of view on this" doesn't mean you point of view is correct or that you cannot learn more and better information about the topic. You are wrong. It is ONLY God who is omnipresent, and Jesus was omnipresent before He came and took on flesh. He was in the form of God, with all the glory, power, and authority of God (He was God) before He took on flesh.

Get a clue: Jesus is God

Of course I believe my point of view is correct just as you believe your point of view is correct.

See --- you are telling me that I am wrong. Turning to attacking the individual instead of the doctrine . . . .

Jesus is not God - Jesus is the Son of God - the anointed of God, the Lord's Messiah.

Believe what you will.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Heavenly host then . . . . We don't know anything about the creation of the angels -- we just know they were there so you can't say what image they were although we know they were spirit beings like God was a spirit being - just saying....
Who is God talking to in Genesis 3:22 when a plural 'us' is used again - 'become like one of us in knowing good and evil'.....so He set 'cherubim' at the east of the garden of Eden . . . He set angels to quard the entrance to the garden. Evidently, the angels were there in the garden and God was just carrying on a conversation with them - they did not help him create.
The very next verse says: So God created (singular verb tense makes elohim singular) man in his (singular personal pronoun) own image; in the image of God he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them; male and female he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them. God created man ALONE, by HIMSELF.


God is ONE not three persons in one - just one scripture saying God is Triune or that God is made up of three persons would help your case.

I have a question no one has even attempted to answer..... Maybe you can.

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus is speaking. He is speaking to His diciples.

This verse says: KJV ( because most are familiar with KJ)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Why. It had become common practice to baptise in Jesus name, and here is Jesus changing it.

WHY?????????????

Jesus didn't live in heaven before he was born. John 3:13 - No one has ascended = Jesus ascension; descended from heaven is equivalent to came down from heaven [John 6:41,51,58; 12:28] or came from God [John 3:2; 8:42; 16:27; 16:30].
How did Jesus descend from heaven? Did he just float down and enter the womb of Mary?
I don't think so - he descended from heaven in the same manner as he came down from heaven or that he came from God via a virgin birth - a conception in the womb of Mary caused by the power of God.

Romans 1:19-22 has GREAT bearing on this discussion especially IF Jesus is a REAL CREATED human being AND NOT God yet being worshiped as God! Because that would be exchanging the truth about God for a lie and worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator.

NO, Jesus was conceived as any other human being with ONE BIG - he was conceived by the power of God without any bodily fluids being involved. A spirit did not float into Mary's body ----- God did not float into Mary's body.

 

[amazing grace]

You need to be more precise.

In most English Bibles (like the KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.), the word LORD (in all capital letters, often small caps in print) is not a direct translation of a generic term for "lord" or "master." Instead, it's a deliberate convention used to represent the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, the four-letter proper name of God: YHWH (pronounced by scholars as something like "Yahweh").
Why do thewy use all caps when we are told if we type that way we are hollering at the recipient.?

This is interesting as well as educational.

Ancient Jewish tradition held God's personal name as profoundly sacred, so it was not pronounced aloud to avoid misuse (based on interpretations of commandments like Exodus 20:7).

When reading Scripture publicly, Jews substituted Adonai (meaning "my Lord") for YHWH.

Early Greek translations (Septuagint) used Kyrios ("Lord") for it.

English translators followed this by rendering YHWH as "LORD" (all caps) to honor the tradition while signaling to readers that this stands for God's unique, revealed proper name—not just a title like "lord" (lowercase, from Adonai or other terms).

This distinction helps readers know when the original Hebrew text uses the divine name (over 6,800 times in the Old Testament) versus a general title.

Lets look now at how this connects to "I AM" in Exodus 3:14​

@amazing grace
You're correct that "I AM" (from the Hebrew ehyeh asher ehyeh) is not presented as God's formal name in the text.


Here's the key passage ...Exodus 3:13–15, summarized

Moses asks God for His name to tell the Israelites.

God replies "I AM WHO I AM" (ehyeh asher ehyeh). He adds, "Say to the Israelites: 'I AM (ehyeh) has sent me to you.'"

Then, crucially: "Say to the Israelites: 'The LORD (YHWH), the God of your fathers... has sent me to you.' This is my name forever..."

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

So:
Ehyeh asher ehyeh ("I AM WHO I AM" or more dynamically, "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE") is an explanation of God's nature: His eternal, self-existent being, faithful presence, and sovereignty. It emphasizes that God simply is—uncreated, unchanging, and reliably present (especially promising to "be" with Israel in deliverance).

You can note this is in most translations.... even the KJV and the Tanaka.. with it in all CAPS. And LORD= YHWH

The actual proper name God gives as "my name forever" is YHWH, which is linguistically related to ehyeh (both from the root meaning "to be"). YHWH is often seen as the third-person form: "He Is" or "He Causes to Be."

"I AM" describes who God is; YHWH is what to call Him.

Some translations (e.g., certain Jewish versions or the NJB) use "Yahweh" directly, but most follow the "LORD" convention to reflect historical reverence.


This should remind readers of the weight and uniqueness of God's personal name while respecting ancient practices. If you're reading a Bible, check the preface—it usually explains this exact point!

I repeat, I believe I have said all that I can say on this subject.
I have been precise as I can be - apparently I am not as scholarly as the rest of YOU make yourself out to be.
We're "beating a dead horse"; wasting time on any further repetition.
Thanks for the copied and pasted commentary.

 

[amazing grace]

Well He is the creator as per John 1, Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and other passages as well.

So you are arguing nothing but a strawman

hope this helps !!!

Believe what you will.

 

[Doug Brents]

Heavenly host then . . . . We don't know anything about the creation of the angels -- we just know they were there so you can't say what image they were although we know they were spirit beings like God was a spirit being - just saying....

It doesn't matter what you call them, angels, heavenly host, etc. What is significant is that they are all created beings; Jesus is not. Everything that was created was created by Jesus (the Logos)(John 1:1, 3, 14). Since everything that was created was created by Him, He cannot have created Himself.

Who is God talking to in Genesis 3:22 when a plural 'us' is used again - 'become like one of us in knowing good and evil'.....so He set 'cherubim' at the east of the garden of Eden . . . He set angels to quard the entrance to the garden. Evidently, the angels were there in the garden and God was just carrying on a conversation with them - they did not help him create.

No, they did not help God create. But Jesus (the Logos of God) did. Sure the angels were there at that time, but they were not there before the "beginning". The "beginning" was when God created everything that is, and Jesus was there creating it all (John 1:3).

The very next verse says: So God created (singular verb tense makes elohim singular) man in his (singular personal pronoun) own image; in the image of God he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them; male and female he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them. God created man ALONE, by HIMSELF.

God is singular, just as "couple" is singular. A man and wife are one unit, just as God is one unit, but man and wife is made up of two individuals just as God is made up of three individuals. I know this is too great a concept for you to comprehend, but that doesn't make it untrue.

God is ONE not three persons in one - just one scripture saying God is Triune or that God is made up of three persons would help your case.

There are many:
John 1:1, 3, 14
John 10:30
Tit 2:13
Isa 9:6
Col 2:9
Heb 1:8
I could go on and on.

Jesus didn't live in heaven before he was born. John 3:13 - No one has ascended = Jesus ascension;

Jesus said, "No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." Who is the Son of Man? Jesus Himself. He is the exception to the statement that "No one has ascended into Heaven".

descended from heaven is equivalent to came down from heaven [John 6:41,51,58; 12:28]

Precisely. Jesus came down from Heaven to become a man, the bread of life, the messiah.

or came from God [John 3:2; 8:42; 16:27; 16:30].
How did Jesus descend from heaven? Did he just float down and enter the womb of Mary?
I don't think so - he descended from heaven in the same manner as he came down from heaven or that he came from God via a virgin birth - a conception in the womb of Mary caused by the power of God.

It does not matter how He came down from Heaven. What matters is that He is the only human to have ever done so.

Romans 1:19-22 has GREAT bearing on this discussion especially IF Jesus is a REAL CREATED human being AND NOT God yet being worshiped as God! Because that would be exchanging the truth about God for a lie and worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator.

There is the big IF there that kills your argument. Jesus is NOT a created being, because He cannot have created Himself, and Scripture says that it is by Jesus that EVERYTHING, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, that has been created was created (John 1:3). Now, if we are trusting in Scripture as the inerrant, infallible, trustworthy Word of God, then we MUST accept that Jesus is eternal, and that makes Him God.

NO, Jesus was conceived as any other human being with ONE BIG - he was conceived by the power of God without any bodily fluids being involved. A spirit did not float into Mary's body ----- God did not float into Mary's body.

"The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35).
Yes, the Spirit of God did come down upon Mary, and through His creative power the Spirit of Jesus was placed in her womb.

 

[amazing grace]

I have a question no one has even attempted to answer..... Maybe you can.

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus is speaking. He is speaking to His diciples.

This verse says: KJV ( because most are familiar with KJ)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Why. It had become common practice to baptise in Jesus name, and here is Jesus changing it.

WHY?????????????

I don't know how or in what manner John was baptizing, there is no evidence that John or the disciples baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in the Gospels.

Did Jesus CHANGE ANYTHING - I think Matt. 28:19 is the original commissioning statement of Jesus.

Do I believe that 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' designate a Trinity? The doctrine of the Trinity was not codified until 381 AD so No, I do not.

Do I believe that since the baptisms in Acts were done 'in the name of Jesus' that those three names are collapsed into the name of Jesus to mean Jesus is all three or that Jesus is God? No, I do not.

Maybe it was not a 'baptismal formula' per SE but maybe just telling them to baptize in the name (authority) of the Father, Son, and holy spirit, and they did that, but in the baptism itself, they just pronounced the name of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord and head of the Church. I can't say with any amount of certainty. I'm sure y'all can!

It's something I can ask Jesus when he returns and I see him face to face.

 

[civic]

Believe what you will.

Of course I believe all the truth about the only one who can save me from my sins. Jesus Christ my Lord, my God. John 20:28.

Hope this helps!!!

 

[amazing grace]

It doesn't matter what you call them, angels, heavenly host, etc. What is significant is that they are all created beings; Jesus is not. Everything that was created was created by Jesus (the Logos)(John 1:1, 3, 14). Since everything that was created was created by Him, He cannot have created Himself.

Jesus is a created being. He was created in the womb of Mary.
Everything that was created was created through God's word --God spoke things into being.
We're beating another dead horse ----- enough has been said on this. You will believe what you will as a Trinitarian and I will believe what I will as a Unitarian. We will find out at the day of reckoning what is correct.

No, they did not help God create. But Jesus (the Logos of God) did. Sure the angels were there at that time, but they were not there before the "beginning". The "beginning" was when God created everything that is, and Jesus was there creating it all (John 1:3).

I didn't say they helped God create. Why did you leave out of what I said:
The very next verse says: So God created (singular verb tense makes elohim singular) man in his (singular personal pronoun) own image; in the image of God he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them; male and female he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them. God created man ALONE, by HIMSELF.
NO ONE WAS INVOLVED IN CREATING BUT GOD ALONE.

God is singular, just as "couple" is singular. A man and wife are one unit, just as God is one unit, but man and wife is made up of two individuals just as God is made up of three individuals. I know this is too great a concept for you to comprehend, but that doesn't make it untrue.

A couple is two people NOT one person. A husband and wife join together intimately and become one flesh but they remain two individual people, a man and a woman.

There are many:
John 1:1, 3, 14
John 10:30
Tit 2:13
Isa 9:6
Col 2:9
Heb 1:8
I could go on and on.

I'm sure you can.

Jesus said, "No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." Who is the Son of Man? Jesus Himself. He is the exception to the statement that "No one has ascended into Heaven".

Precisely. Jesus came down from Heaven to become a man, the bread of life, the messiah.

It does not matter how He came down from Heaven. What matters is that He is the only human to have ever done so.

Yes, Jesus is the only human to come directly from God i.e. the only human conceived in a woman by the power of God.

There is the big IF there that kills your argument. Jesus is NOT a created being, because He cannot have created Himself, and Scripture says that it is by Jesus that EVERYTHING, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, that has been created was created (John 1:3). Now, if we are trusting in Scripture as the inerrant, infallible, trustworthy Word of God, then we MUST accept that Jesus is eternal, and that makes Him God.

I feel pretty safe - I honor the Son as I honor the Father. I believe just as you believe - that I am trusting in scripture as the word of truth - the word of God given by the breath of God that Jesus came from God by way of conception and birth. A mortal human being capable of death - he shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins and paid TO GOD the penalty for the wages of sin FOR US therefore he was not eternal, not immortal because he died and God raised him to eternal life.

"The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35).
Yes, the Spirit of God did come down upon Mary, and through His creative power the Spirit of Jesus was placed in her womb.

Believe what you will.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I repeat, I believe I have said all that I can say on this subject.
I have been precise as I can be - apparently I am not as scholarly as the rest of YOU make yourself out to be.
We're "beating a dead horse"; wasting time on any further repetition.
Thanks for the copied and pasted commentary.

You are welcome

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus is a created being. He was created in the womb of Mary.

No, He wasn't. You can believe what you will (to quote you directly), but your belief doesn't change the Truth.

Everything that was created was created through God's word --God spoke things into being.

God did indeed speak everything that was created into being... through the Logos (Word)(that was with God and was God), and the Word became flesh and dwelt among men and His name is Jesus.

We're beating another dead horse ----- enough has been said on this. You will believe what you will as a Trinitarian and I will believe what I will as a Unitarian. We will find out at the day of reckoning what is correct.

I fear you will be numbered among the goats on that day; I hate that for you. I am sorry that you will not see the Truth.

I didn't say they helped God create. Why did you leave out of what I said:
The very next verse says: So God created (singular verb tense makes elohim singular) man in his (singular personal pronoun) own image; in the image of God he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them; male and female he (singular personal pronoun) created (singular verb tense) them. God created man ALONE, by HIMSELF.
NO ONE WAS INVOLVED IN CREATING BUT GOD ALONE.

I saw what you said, but you are interpreting it incorrectly. Jesus was intimately involved in Creation because He did it ALL, according to John 1:3. Again, God is not a proper name; it is a title.

A couple is two people NOT one person. A husband and wife join together intimately and become one flesh but they remain two individual people, a man and a woman.

Just as God is three that are still individual beings, but are united as one God. God created marriage to imitate and demonstrate for us His union.

I'm sure you can.

Will you not believe Scripture? Will you not believe what God has told you?

Yes, Jesus is the only human to come directly from God i.e. the only human conceived in a woman by the power of God.

I feel pretty safe - I honor the Son as I honor the Father. I believe just as you believe - that I am trusting in scripture as the word of truth - the word of God given by the breath of God that Jesus came from God by way of conception and birth. A mortal human being capable of death - he shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins and paid TO GOD the penalty for the wages of sin FOR US therefore he was not eternal, not immortal because he died and God raised him to eternal life.

Believe what you will.

You do not believe as I do, and I am sorry for that. Just as Christ Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their lack of belief in Him, and their incorrect interpretation of the Scripture, you are doing the same as the Pharisees. I hope and pray that you come to a proper understanding of the Truth before you die. The consequences otherwise will be tragic.

 

[Peterlag]

Yes, He is. It doesn't matter how He writes it. When a claim arrived at through "logic" contradicts a clear and explicit statement in Scripture (like John 1:1, 3, 14 - The Logos is God, the Logos created all things, the Logos (God) became a man named Jesus), that claim MUST be rejected in favor of the clear statement in Scripture, regardless of the logic used to arrive at the claim.

This is all the data I could find on John 1:1. Enjoy...

“In the beginning.” There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that remind us of God’s original creation while referring to the work of restoration done by Jesus Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Genesis 1 refers to God’s original creation; John 1 refers to the Restoration, not the original creation.

While we agree with the Catechism that the meaning of “beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the Gospel and the restoration of mankind, we also need to point out that the word “beginning” was deliberately chosen by God to remind us of the original creation, and to set the stage for the sequence of events that follow; for example, the conflict between light and darkness. In the context of the Restoration, then “the Word” is the plan or purpose according to which God is restoring His creation.

So using “In the beginning” takes us both back to the beginning in Genesis 1:1, and sets us up for the “beginning” of the work of Christ and the Restoration of mankind.

Genesis 1. THE CREATION

• In the beginning—The creation
• Chaos and darkness
• God hovering over the water
• God spoke light and more into being
• Light overcoming the darkness
• God preparing a Garden of Delight for people and living among them
• THE FALL (then God lived in a tent (the “tabernacle”) and people gazed at its glory)

John 1. THE RESTORATION

The “Word” is translated from the Greek word logos (λόγοc). It refers to God’s reason as played out in His plan and purpose. It is important that Christians have a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in most versions of John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most Bibles logos is capitalized as “Word” (some versions even put “Jesus Christ” instead of “Word” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator’s decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture. Below are five points to consider.

In both Greek literature and Scripture, logos has a very wide semantic range that falls into two basic categories: one is the mind and products of the mind like “reason” (the word “logic” is ultimately from the root logos) and the other is the expression of that reason in language or life: thus, “word” “saying” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meanings of logos. Some of the ways it is translated in English versions of the Bible are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words. Although the word logos appears over 300 times in the Greek text, it is only translated “word” about 175 times in the King James Version, and 125 times in the NIV.

Any good Greek lexicon will also show the wide lexical range of logos. The definitions below are from the BDAG Greek-English lexicon. The words in italics are translated from logos: The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meanings. With all the ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what logos refers to in John 1:1? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. John 1:1 does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.”

“The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes, and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. Thus the logos has been expressed through His creation (Romans 1:19-20) and Psalm 19 tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God. The logos has also been made known through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, which is the written “Word of God.” Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2).

However, when we are studying John 1:1 and the use of logos in the Bible, and reading what the commentaries, systematic theologies, Bible dictionaries, etc., say about it, we must be very careful to discern where the writer is getting his information. We assert that John and his hearers thought of Jesus as the Son of God, not God. However, many commentators are Trinitarian and simply assume that the word logos in John 1:1 refers to Jesus, and then from that assumption ignore the way the Jews and Greeks of John’s time thought about the logos, and give it a meaning it had in later Christian history as the Trinity doctrine developed, and that new meaning is “Jesus Christ.”

For example, Edward Klink III writes: “Certainly the term [logos] might be recognizable [to John’s audience] but its direct connection to Jesus assumes that Jesus, not merely his [John’s] religious-philosophical context, determines its meaning. …John is not relying on a background but on a foreground. For it is Jesus who embodies the “Word” (logos) in the flesh." Klink is asserting that logos means Jesus in John 1:1 because later in John the logos became flesh. But to us that is an unwarranted assumption. There is no historical evidence that the people of Christ’s time who did not believe (John wrote to get people to believe that Jesus was the Christ, John 20:31) ever thought the logos was Jesus Christ, but they did believe that God’s logos was His plans and purposes, and that logos became flesh in Jesus Christ in much the same way that they came into concretion as the Word of God spoken by the apostles and especially as that word became written down as the written “Word [logos] of God.”

Many scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason. Andrews Norton postulates that in John 1:1 perhaps “the Disposing Power of God” would be a good translation for logos. Anthony Buzzard sets forth “plan” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations. James Broughton and Peter Southgate say that logos was used “to describe the thoughts and plan of God being put into action." The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose, and plan. For the same reason, we call the Bible the “Word” of God, and revelation “a word from God.”

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason, and wisdom—it is clear that those things were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Proverbs 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The figure of speech personification occurs when something is given human characteristics to emphasize something. Psalm 35:10 portrays bones talking. Psalm 68:31 portrays Ethiopia as a woman with her hands outstretched to God. Isaiah 3:26 says the gates of Zion will lament and mourn. Isaiah 14:8 says the cypress trees will rejoice. 1 Corinthians 12:15 portrays the foot talking. The Bible has many examples of personification, and wisdom is personified in Proverbs. Nevertheless, no ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29-30: “…when He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.” Similarly, the logos was with God in the beginning, because God’s plan, purpose, and wisdom were with Him, but we should not think of these as a separate person.

The use of “word” in the prologue of John as the plan and purpose of God is unique in the book, something that was pointed out by the eminent scholar, F. F. Bruce: “…the term "Word" does not reappear in the body of the Gospel [of John] in the sense which it bears in the prologue.” That statement is true and is easy to confirm from any Greek concordance, furthermore, it makes perfect sense in the light of the goal of the Gospel of John, which is stated in John 20:31, “but these are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so that by believing you will have life in his name.” The plan and purpose of God, that the earth and people would be restored to Him, was with Him in the beginning, and the plan and purpose became flesh in Jesus Christ as John 1:14 says, and so from John 1:14 until the end of John, the flesh and blood Christ is the focus, not the “plan” the logos, of God.

Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His “word.” This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples attribute action to the word.

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with using the idea of God’s “Word” to refer to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a “Triune God.” They were familiar with the idioms of their own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as “word.”

Like the Aramaic-speaking Jews, the Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with God’s creative force being called “the word.” J. H. Bernard writes, “When we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt] from Hebrew sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek, we find this creative wisdom identified with the Divine logos, Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contact.”l

One example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, which says, “O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos) and by thy wisdom hast formed man…” (9:1). In this verse, the “word” and “wisdom” are seen as the creative force of God, but without being a “person.”

The logos, that is, the plan, purpose, and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) and His chief emissary, representative, and agent. Because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father, he represents everything that God could communicate about Himself in a human person. As such, Jesus could say, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). The fact that the logos “became” flesh shows that it did not exist that way before. There is no preexistence of Jesus in this verse other than his figurative “existence” as the plan, purpose, or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the “word” in writing. It did not preexist in any form in the distant past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture. Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs of those around them. In the first century, there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately, erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ. For centuries before Christ, and at the time the New Testament was written, the irrational beliefs about the gods of Greece had been handed down. This body of religious information was known by the word “muthos,” which we today call “myths” or “mythology.” These muthos, these myths, were often mystical and beyond rational explanation. The more familiar one is with the Greek myths, the better he will understand our emphasis on their irrationality. If one is unfamiliar with them, it would be valuable to read a little on the subject. Greek mythology is an important part of the cultural background of the New Testament.

• In the beginning—the plan
• All things were made in accordance with the plan
• In the plan was light and life
• The darkness could not understand or overcome it
• The plan became flesh and lived in a tent among us, and we gazed at its glory.
• (Romans 15:18 NIV) “what I have said”
• (Luke 20:20 NASB) “they might catch him in some statement"
• (Matthew 21:24 NIV) “I will also ask you one question”
• (1 Timothy 5:17 NIV) “especially those whose work is preaching"
• (Galatians 5:14 NIV) “the entire law is summed up in a single command”
• (John 4:37 NIV) “thus the saying, One sows, and another reaps”
• (Luke 4:32 NIV84) “his message had authority”
• (John 6:60 NIV) “this is a hard teaching”
• (Acts 8:21 NIV) “you have no part or share in this ministry”
• (Acts 15:6 NASB) “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”
• (Matthew 15:6 NIV) “you nullify the Word of God”
• (Hebrews 13:7 NIV84) “leaders who spoke the Word of God”
• (Matthew 12:36 NIV84) “men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment"
• (Matthew 18:23 NIV) “A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants”
• (Acts 10:29 NASB) “I ask for what reason you have sent for me
• And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Genesis 39:2).
• And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Exodus 19:17).
• And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Job 42:9).
• And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Psalms 2:4).
• They believed in the name of His word (Psalms 106:12).

Although the myths were often irrational, they nevertheless had been widely accepted as the “revelation of the gods.” The pervasiveness of the muthos in the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament can be seen sticking up out of the New Testament like the tip of an iceberg above the water, and archaeology confirms the widespread presence of the gods in the everyday life of the Greek and Roman people of New Testament times. The average Greek or Roman was as familiar with the teachings about the adventures of the gods as the average school child in the United States is familiar with Goldilocks and the Three Bears or Snoopy and Charlie Brown. Thus, when Paul and Barnabas healed a cripple in Lystra, the people assumed that the gods had come down in human form (Acts 14:11), and no doubt they based their assumption on the legend that Zeus and Hermes had once come to that area in human form. While Paul was in Athens, he became disturbed because of the large number of idols there that were statues to the various gods (Acts 17:16). In Ephesus, Paul’s teaching actually started a riot. When some of the locals realized that if his doctrine spread, “the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty” (Acts 19:27). There are many other examples that show that there was a muthos, i.e., a body of religious knowledge that was in large part incomprehensible to the human mind, firmly established in the minds of some of the common people in New Testament times.

Starting several centuries before Christ, certain Greek philosophers worked to replace the muthos with what they called the logos, a reasonable and rational explanation of reality. It is appropriate that, in the writing of the New Testament, God used the word logos, not muthos, to describe His wisdom, reason, and plan. God has not come to us in mystical experiences and irrational beliefs that cannot be understood; rather, He reveals Himself in ways that can be rationally understood and persuasively argued.

In addition to the cultural context that accepted the myths, at the time the Gospel of John was written, a belief system called Gnosticism was taking root in Christianity. Gnosticism had many ideas and words that are strange and confusing to us today, so, at the risk of oversimplifying, we will describe a few basic tenets of Gnosticism as simply as we can.

Gnosticism took many forms, but generally, Gnostics taught that there was a supreme and unknowable Being, which they designated as the “Monad.” The Monad produced various gods, who in turn produced other gods (these gods were called by different names, in part because of their power or position). One of these gods, called the “Demiurge” created the earth and then ruled over it as an angry, evil, and jealous god. This evil god, Gnostics believed, was the god of the Old Testament, called Elohim. The Monad sent another god, “Christ” to bring special gnosis (knowledge) to mankind and free them from the influence of the evil Elohim. Thus, a Gnostic Christian would agree that Elohim created the heavens and the earth, but he would not agree that He was the supreme God. Most Gnostics would also state that Elohim and Christ were at cross-purposes with each other. This is why it was so important for John 1:1 to say that the logos was with God, which at first glance seems to be a totally unnecessary statement.

The opening of the Gospel of John is a wonderful expression of God’s love. God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). He authored the opening of John in such a way that it reveals the truth about Him and His plan for all of mankind and, at the same time, refutes Gnostic teaching. It says that from the beginning there was the logos (the reason, plan, power), which was with God. There was not another “god” existing with God, especially not a god opposed to God. Furthermore, God’s plan was like God; it was divine. God’s plan became flesh when God impregnated Mary.

“and the word was with God.” This is strange language to us, so it is important to know that it was not strange to the Jews. While we would say a person “has wisdom” or “is wise” it was a common way of speaking among the Jewish people to say a word, or knowledge, or wisdom, was “with” a person. For example, the Hebrew text of Proverbs 2:1 speaks of the commandments being “with” a person, and so does Proverbs 7:1. Proverbs 11:2 speaks of wisdom being “with” the humble, not just the humble “having wisdom” or “being wise” and Proverbs 13:10 says wisdom is “with” people who take advice.

Job spoke to God about His actions, and spoke of what God hid in His heart, and then Job said, “I know that this [God’s secret plans and purposes] is with you” (Job 10:13; the Hebrew text says “with you” although it's not translated that way in many English versions). We would say “I know you have these things” but the Hebrews said “I know these things are with you.” Job also spoke of what God desired, and concluded that “many such things [that God desires and that are appointed] are with him” (Job 23:14). Job 27:11 also speaks of things being “with” God.

When God gave the Ten Commandments, Moses said that God had come to test the people and also so that the fear of God would be “with them” (as per the Hebrew text). We today would never say “so that the fear of God will be with you” as if the fear of God was another entity somehow together with the people, we today would simply say “so that you will fear God.” The Jews used the same “with” language in the Bible and in other writings as well.

Once we understand the logos in John 1:1 to be God’s purpose and plan, we can see that if John 1:1 was written in today’s English, we would likely say something like “In the beginning was the plan, and God had that plan, and what God was the plan was.” We would not say that the plan was “with God.” But the ancient Jews had said knowledge and wisdom were “with” people for millennia, and for them to speak that way was perfectly natural. However, if we today are going to understand the prologue of John (John 1:1-18), it is imperative that we understand that logos is a masculine noun and it is personified in the Prologue. Wisdom and the logos were personified in the literature of the Jews from long before the time that John wrote, and that influenced how he wrote the prologue of John. Personification was widely used in Jewish literature. For example, Proverbs portrays Wisdom as a woman helping God with His creation of the world (Proverbs 8:22-31). John 1:1 is not portraying a preincarnate Christ being with God. That would have been a nonsensical concept to the ancient unbelieving Jews and Greeks—remember, John was writing to get people to believe (John 20:30-31)—it was portraying that God used wisdom and a plan in restoring mankind to Himself, and that logos was a “plan” made perfect sense to those ancient unbelievers.

“and what God was, the word was.” This phrase is stating that the Word has the attributes of God, such as being true, trustworthy, etc. It makes perfect sense that if the Word is the expression of God, then it has attributes of God. Although almost every English Bible translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as “and the Word was God.” and it should not be translated that way. To understand that, we first should be aware of how the Greek text of the New Testament was written and how the Greeks used the word theos “God” or “god.”

Although we make a distinction between “God” with a capital “G” and “god” with a lowercase “g” the original text could not do that. The original text of both the Old and the New Testament was written in all capital letters, so in Greek, both “God” and “god” were “GOD” (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS). This meant the person reading the Scripture had to pay close attention to the context. When our modern English versions mention “the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), one way we know that the word “god” refers to Satan is because it is spelled with a lowercase “g.” But if our versions read in all capitals like the ancient Greek text and said, “THE GOD OF THIS AGE” then how would we know who this “GOD” was? We would have to discover who he was from the context. The people reading the early Greek texts had to become very sensitive to the context to properly understand the Bible. An unintended consequence of modern capitalization, punctuation, and spacing in the text is that it has made the modern reader much less aware of and sensitive to the context.

What the word “GOD” referred to in any given context was further complicated by the fact that, as any good Greek lexicon will show, the Greek word theos (#2316 θεός) was used to refer to both gods and goddesses, or was a general name for any deity, or was used of a representative of God, and was even used of people of high authority such as rulers or judges. The Greeks did not use the word “GOD” like we do, to refer to just one single Supreme Being with no other being sharing the name. The Greeks were polytheistic and had many gods with different positions and authority, and rulers and judges who represented the gods or who were themselves of high authority, and theos was used of all of those. Some of the authorities in the Bible who are referred to as ΘΕΟΣ include the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4), lesser gods (1 Corinthians 8:5), and men with great authority (John 10:34-35; Acts 12:22).

When we are trying to discover what GOD (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS) is referring to in a verse, the context is always the final arbiter. However, we do get some help in that it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when “GOD” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this. The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1, which has two occurrences of theos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the theos, and the Word was theos.” Since the definite article (“the”) is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God”) the most natural meaning of the word would be that it referred to the quality of God, i.e., “divine” “god-like” or “like God.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt, who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase “the logos was divine.”

As we said above, although the wording of the Greek text of John 1:1 certainly favors the translation “and what God was, the Word was” over the translation “the Word was God” the context and scope of Scripture must be the final arbiter. In this case, we have help from the verse itself in the phrase “the Word was with God.” The Word (logos) cannot both be “with” God and “be” God. That is nonsensical. It is similar to us being able to discern that Jesus Christ is not God from reading 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15, which say that Jesus is the image of God. One cannot be both the image of the object and the object itself. We Christians must become aware of the difference between a genuine mystery and a contradiction. In his book, Against Calvinism, Roger Olson writes: “We must point out here the difference between mystery and contradiction; the former is something that cannot be fully explained to or comprehended by the human mind, whereas the latter is just nonsense—two concepts that cancel each other out and together make an absurdity.” The truth in the verse is actually simple: the logos, the plan, purpose, and wisdom of God, was with God, and what God was (i.e., holy, true, pure, righteous, etc.) his logos was too.

 

[Doug Brents]

This is all the data I could find on John 1:1. Enjoy...

“In the beginning.” There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that remind us of God’s original creation while referring to the work of restoration done by Jesus Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Genesis 1 refers to God’s original creation; John 1 refers to the Restoration, not the original creation.

You can stop right here. Whoever this is that you are quoting is already wrong. There is only one "beginning". John 1:1 says that in the beginning (when God created everything that was created), the Word (Logos) was with God and the Word was God. There is only ONE beginning, and that was when the Word (which is God) created everything that was created (John 1:3).

If this is the quality of the rest of this post, then I will stop right here and not waste my time with the rest of it.

 

[Peterlag]

You can stop right here. Whoever this is that you are quoting is already wrong. There is only one "beginning". John 1:1 says that in the beginning (when God created everything that was created), the Word (Logos) was with God and the Word was God. There is only ONE beginning, and that was when the Word (which is God) created everything that was created (John 1:3).

If this is the quality of the rest of this post, then I will stop right here and not waste my time with the rest of it.

Here's a statement from another guy...

It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

 

[synergy]

No, actually it doesn't. He had to die and be raised in his spiritual body - God is inherently omnipresent. I have given my point of view on this and it's time to move on ----- we're "beating a dead horse"; wasting time on any further repetition.

You already said that you "deny Jesus being omnipresent UNTIL after his death and resurrection". That's all that's needed to prove that Jesus is God because only God is omnipresent. It is time to move on and build on that fact.

I deny Jesus being omnipresent UNTIL after his death and resurrection wherein he was raised a spiritual body and then YES, spiritually Jesus is in every believer.

Philippians 2 . . . is all about attitude - having an attitude of humility - Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
God is not a man ----- God is not a human being. Hebrew 'îš 1. man; man, male; husband; human being, person (in contrast to God); servant; mankind; champion; great man; 2. whosoever; 3. each (adjective)
Being 'in the form of God' is NOT BEING GOD just as being 'in the image of God' is NOT BEING GOD.
If Jesus NEVER CEASES TO BE GOD he would retain his divine nature and thus should have been able to be present at Lazarus's death . . . . John 5:21,26 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. Again, read it as you will.

You're reducing Philippians 2 into a mere moral lesson and, in doing so, gutting those verses of their stated facts. While Paul certainly exhorts believers to humility, he grounds that exhortation in who Christ already is: one who existed “in the form of God” (μορφῇ θεοῦ), a phrase that proves Jesus possesses divine status and nature, not a vague resemblance, and which cannot be equated with humanity being made “in the image of God.” Paul’s contrast is not between “being God” and “not being God,” but between rightful equality with God and voluntary self-humbling in the incarnation. The appeal to “God is not a man” confuses divine nature with assumed human nature, a confusion Scripture itself avoids by affirming that the eternal Son became man without ceasing to be God. Likewise, the claim that omnipresence would require Jesus’ physical presence at Lazarus’s death ignores kenosis: the Son retained His divine nature but did not constantly exercise its prerogatives in His incarnate mission. Finally, John 5:21, 26 does not demote the Son but places Him alongside the Father as the giver of life itself, with the “granting” language describing ordered roles, not created dependency. Read in context, Philippians 2 and John 5 jointly affirm both Christ’s true humility and His undiminished deity, and the attempt to set attitude against ontology is a false dichotomy imposed on the text, not drawn from it.

Sadly, you take away from God's inherent superiority to include Jesus, his Son, the Messiah.

It's more like you continue to denigrate Jesus and the fact that he is God. You don't lift people by knocking down others.

Some things are INHERENT - some things are GIVEN.

Tell us how omnipresence is given. Mormons believe that is possible because they believe that believers become gods. Are you a Mormon?

Who is the first 'God' in John 1? Isn't it God the Father? the word was with God the Father.....
So when you purpose that the word was actually God (1:1c) the word was God the Father.......
and God became flesh 1:14 - aren't you the one proposing Modalism? In fact you all are!
Now be sure to equivocate on who the second God is in John 1.

The first "God" is "τον θεον", the God, the Father.
John 1:1c does not say the Word was "τον θεον", it says the Word was "θεος" (God).
and the Word became flesh as Jesus.
Your Modalism accusation is a result of your poor understanding of Greek.

Sadly, you take away from God's inherent superiority to include Jesus, his Son, the Messiah compressing the two into one.

No - John 1:4 the word 'life' is in the context to what was created by the word - the subject of John's prologue.
John 5:26 is in the context of resurrection to either life or judgment.
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.......Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
Read it as you will.

Thank you so much for quoting John 5:26, because when read together with John 1:4 it actually proves, rather than undermines, that Jesus is God. John 1:4 explicitly states, “in Him was life,” and immediately qualifies that life by saying it “was the light of men,” language John consistently uses for saving, eternal life, not just biological creation. This is the same life later described when Jesus says, “just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself” (John 5:26), a description Scripture reserves for God alone. The resurrection context does not downgrade the meaning of life but reveals its divine authority: the one who already possesses life in Himself is the one whose voice calls the dead from the tombs. The Father’s “granting” does not imply that the Son is a creature, but that he is the giver of Eternal Life. John 1 and John 5 converge on the same conclusion: that the Word who is “the light of men” is the same Son who raises the dead, demonstrating His full deity.

Oh, I always knew God was the Holy Spirit (Acts 5).......the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, i.e. the Spirit of God and God's power through his Spirit caused Mary to conceive........the Holy Spirit being the power of the Most High. But that doesn't mean God is Trinity!
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.

Thanks again for another Trinitarian verse that describes the moment the Word, who was God, became flesh as Jesus. I can't thank you enough.

I have given my point of view on this and it's time to move on ----- we're "beating a dead horse"; wasting time on any further repetition.

I see you just ran out of ammunition fighting against the fact that Jesus is God in the qualitative state, in that he shares the same qualities as the Father such as omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. Thanks again for that support.

It doesn't nor does the Bible state that God is Triune, 3-in-one, nor that Jesus is a god-man, 100%God/100%man and really doesn't address the 'dual nature' thingy.

So that's your answer to my question of "where is it stated in the Bible that "He is either one or the other"? Goes to show you that you make statements that cannot be supported biblically.

The Bible is basically the story of two men - one who brought death through sin by being disobedient and another man who brought life through obedience. One screwed things up, one gave his life to pay what was owed to God.

So, the question is this: Was this Jesus of Nazareth actually a man?
Would it be fair to compare Jesus with Adam if Jesus was God?
Would it be fair to compare humanity at all with Jesus if Jesus was God?
Why would scripture call Jesus our brother if he is actually God our Father?
Why would Jesus have a God if he is God?

Now to answer all this the Trinitarians have a way out by saying "that was his human side" or "that was his divine side, i.e. his deity" - the signs, miracles, and wonders - 'no one else could do that except God' . . . BUT scripture says His Father is greater than all, Jesus said he could do nothing on his own - oh, that's not what that really means 'that was in his humanity'.

If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.

What is the testimony God gave concerning his Son? What is written?
Read it as you will.

You're setting up a false dilemma by treating Christ’s incarnational humility as if it negates God’s own testimony about His Son. Scripture does indeed say the Father is “greater than all” and that the Son can “do nothing of Himself,” but John explicitly explains this not as incapacity or inferiority, but as perfect unity of action: “whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise”. That's a claim no mere creature could make. When John asks what God’s testimony concerning His Son is, the answer is not vague: the Father testifies that the Son is the unique, eternal Son who gives life, judges the world, and is to be honored just as the Father is honored (John 5:21–23). I rest my case with those exact words.

 

[synergy]

Two different subjects in that post that you say I did not post both subjects. The subject I was talking about was Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't.

And that's the subject I quoted. Unlike others I converse about one subject at a time. I don't list 40 different verses with 40 different viewpoints throwing it all on the wall and hoping something will stick.

So it does not prove I'm misguided. It means I'm smart.

Here's the rest of @FreeInChrist's post that does talk about "ego eimi":

Why the Jews Reacted So Strongly in John 8:58-59 (Picking Up Stones to Kill Jesus)​

The reaction suggests more than a mundane "I am." Scholars across viewpoints note:

The context is Jesus claiming existence "before Abraham" (eternal pre-existence) with the present tense "I am" (egō eimi), creating a stark contrast to Abraham's temporary "coming to be" (genesthai, aorist). This implies timeless, divine existence.

Many scholars (both Trinitarian and non-) see an allusion to God's self-revelation in the Old Testament, especially Isaiah's repeated "egō eimi" for YHWH (e.g., Isa 43:10 LXX: "that you may know and believe that egō eimi [I am He]"; Isa 41:4, 46:4, etc.). These are divine self-declarations.

While not a direct quote of Exodus 3:14's "ho ōn," the absolute "egō eimi" in this context echoes divine language familiar to 1st-century Jews from the LXX. The Jews' attempt to stone Jesus indicates they heard it as blasphemy , a claim to share in God's unique identity or eternal being.

​

So we have the ...

Trinitarian/evangelical view (e.g., from sources like Bible.org): Jesus' "egō eimi" is a deliberate echo of divine "I am" statements, claiming deity (though stronger links are to Isaiah than direct Exodus quote).

Non-Trinitarian view (e.g., unitarian or JW sources): The difference in wording (no "ho ōn") means no direct claim to be YHWH; it's just pre-existence or identification. (DO not discount the pre-existence view)

Academic consensus (e.g., hermeneutics discussions): Not an exact match to Exodus 3:14, but the context makes it a profound self-assertion of divine-like eternity, provoking the reaction.

The statements are different in exact wording, and "egō eimi" alone is common—but in John 8:58, the context elevates it beyond ordinary speech, which is why it's debated as a divinity claim. The two are related but not "very different" in the way the claim suggests.

Also, God does refer to himself as "ego eimi". Let's see how "smart" you are concerning these verses:

Deut 32:39​

ἴδετε ἴδετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι…
“See now that I AM…”

Isa 41:4​

ἐγώ Κύριος ὁ Θεός… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I, the Lord God… I AM”

Isa 43:10​

…ἵνα γνῶτε… ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι
“That you may know… that I AM”

Isa 43:13​

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμερῶν... ἐγώ εἰμι
“From the beginning… I AM”

Isa 46:4​

ἐγώ… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I… I AM”

Isa 48:12​

ἐγώ εἰμι πρῶτος… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I am first… I AM”

Isa 51:12​

ἐγώ εἰμι… ἐγώ εἰμι
“I AM… I AM”

For every single time "ἐγώ εἰμι" appears in an absolute sense in the LXX, it is God Himself declaring His divine identity. There are no places where an angel, a prophet, or a human that says it in an absolute sense. Only YHWH uses it without a predicate as a divine self-revelation.

As for the blind man's usage of ἐγώ εἰμι", it is used in an idiomatic way, not in an absolute (divine self-revelation) way. It is not surrounded by theological claims (eternity, salvation) and it does not echo the Isaiah (LXX) divine formula.

By the way, keep presenting Trinitarian verse 1 Tim 2:5. You're doing a fantastic job for the Trinitarians.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Here's a statement from another guy...

It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

Not exactly.