Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)

Matthias said:
I’ve also already said that you are not an it. So how can your word who is you be an it?
Click to expand...
Then why are you calling Jesus an it ?

The Word in John 1:1 is the same Word here in 1 John 1:1- A Person, not an it.

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

The Word is a Person who became a man

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth

1 John 5:7 KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


1 John 5:7- TYNDALE
For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one
 
Matthias said:
Pros (with) occurs in the phrase ta pros theon (“the things concerning God”). The word reflects the heart of God’s thinking.

The gospel remains with (pros the disciples (Galatians 2:5). Where is it with them? In their minds.

John isn’t speaking about a person being with God in John 1:1.

”Elsewhere John uses para to express the idea of proximity of one person to another (Jn. 1:39; 4:40; 8:38; 14:17, 23, 25; cp. 14:23 … never pros.”

(Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, p. 1205)
Click to expand...

 
civic said:
Then why are you calling Jesus an it ?

The Word in John 1:1 is the same Word here in 1 John 1:1- A Person, not an it.

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

The Word is a Person who became a man

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth

1 John 5:7 KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


1 John 5:7- TYNDALE
For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one
Click to expand...
Still trying to force 'logos' into a 'he' for your cause. Have fun with that one, as you'll be doing it for a very, very long time....:ROFLMAO:

John, who now has earned the title or name of 'the word of Jack' does not make John the source or own the word(s) (logos) or expressions, purpose and plans of what is meant to be conveyed and commanded by Jack. They are still Jack's stuff, he still owns his own word, not John. John just speaks the word(s) and communicates what Jack wants to have communicated and commanded. John is the trusted representative and spokesperson of Jack.
 
civic said:
Then why are you calling Jesus an it ?
Click to expand...

At no time have I ever called Jesus an it. At no time did Tyndale ever call Jesus an it.

If you really think Tyndale called Jesus an it, then please say so. I want it on record.

civic said:
The Word in John 1:1 is the same Word here in 1 John 1:1- A Person, not an it.
Click to expand...

The word in John 1:1 is not a person. The word in John 1:1 is not Jesus. The word in John 1:1 is God’s word.

I’ve quoted Isaiah 55:11 several times. I’ve directed you and others to the passage without quoting. You should have seen that God’s word is called “it” there? Is that what you saw when you read Isaiah 55:11? If not, then what did you see?

civic said:
What was from the beginning …
Click to expand...

“What was from the beginning, not “who was from the beginning”.

I don’t call Jesus a “what”. Neither does John. Neither does Tyndale.

civic said:
… what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

That’s right.


civic said:
Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
Click to expand...

Of course. The error you’re making is the error which Colin Brown called “a patent misreading of scripture”. You’re reading the person in Revelation 19:13 into John’s prologue.


civic said:
The Word is a Person who became a man

https://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm
Click to expand...

John isn’t a trinitarian. He’s a Jew. He’s a unitarian. The word of God, not a literally preexisting divine God person, became flesh.


civic said:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Click to expand...

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. Nothing that was made was made without it.


civic said:
John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth
Click to expand...

The word became flesh and made his dwelling with us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father.

It is at the moment that the word became flesh that “it” becomes ‘he”. The word became flesh when God beget the Son in the womb of the virgin.


civic said:
1 John 5:7- TYNDALE
For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one
Click to expand...

I’ve already commented on this passage. I agree with Metzger (and others), but I’m not opposed to this translation. John does not say in this passage, as Tyndale rendered it, that the three
are the one God. That would contradict his Jewish faith and other passages of scripture where the one God is defined as one person, the Father.

Exhibit A. Jesus of Nazareth.
 
Last edited:
Matthias said:
If you really think Tyndale called Jesus an it, then please say so. I want it on record.
Click to expand...

* raises hand *

"I really think Tyndale called Jesus an it."

Count me in.

Oh, but better.

I have actual proof:
​
A PROLOGUE UPON THE GOSPEL OF ST JOHN.​
​
JOHN, what he was, is manifest by the three first evangelists: first, Christ’s apostle, and that one of the chief: then, Christ’s nigh kinsman, and for his singular innocency and softness singularly beloved, and of singular familiarity with Christ, and ever one of the three witnesses of most secret things. The cause of his writing was certain heresies that arose in his time, namely two; of which one denied Christ to be very God, and the other to be very man and to be come in the very flesh and nature of man. Against the which two heresies he wrote both his gospel and also his first epistle; and in the beginning of his gospel saith, that “the Word” or thing “was at the beginning, and was with God, and was also very God;” and that “all things were created by it;” and that “it was also made flesh,” that is to say, became very man; and “he dwelt among us,” saith he, “and we saw his glory.” And in the beginning of his epistle he saith, “We shew you of the thing that was from the beginning, which also we heard, saw with our eyes, and our hands handled.” And again, “We shew you everlasting life; that was with the Father, and appeared to us, and we heard and saw it,” etc. In that he saith that it was from the beginning, and that it was eternal life, and that it was with God, he affirmeth him to be very God. And that he saith, “We heard, saw, and felt,” he witnesseth that he was very man also. John also wrote last, and therefore touched not the story that the other had compiled, but writeth most of faith, and promises, and of the sermons of Christ.​

Please notice this bolded sentence from Tyndale's Prologue to John. ( https://godrules.net/library/tyndale/19tyndale13.htm )

"In that he saith that it was from the beginning, and that it was eternal life, and that it was with God, he affirmeth him to be very God"​

Notice something very interesting about these pronouns—they all clearly have the same referent in the same context. There is not some dramatic change or shift or circumstance where the "it" is no longer being referenced. The "it" is called a "him" concurrently within the exact same context.

Tyndale literally called the man Jesus both "God" and "it."

Need a new appeal to authority somewhere I guess.
 
dizerner said:
* raises hand *

"I really think Tyndale called Jesus an it."

Count me in.

Oh, but better.

I have actual proof:
​
A PROLOGUE UPON THE GOSPEL OF ST JOHN.​
​
JOHN, what he was, is manifest by the three first evangelists: first, Christ’s apostle, and that one of the chief: then, Christ’s nigh kinsman, and for his singular innocency and softness singularly beloved, and of singular familiarity with Christ, and ever one of the three witnesses of most secret things. The cause of his writing was certain heresies that arose in his time, namely two; of which one denied Christ to be very God, and the other to be very man and to be come in the very flesh and nature of man. Against the which two heresies he wrote both his gospel and also his first epistle; and in the beginning of his gospel saith, that “the Word” or thing “was at the beginning, and was with God, and was also very God;” and that “all things were created by it;” and that “it was also made flesh,” that is to say, became very man; and “he dwelt among us,” saith he, “and we saw his glory.” And in the beginning of his epistle he saith, “We shew you of the thing that was from the beginning, which also we heard, saw with our eyes, and our hands handled.” And again, “We shew you everlasting life; that was with the Father, and appeared to us, and we heard and saw it,” etc. In that he saith that it was from the beginning, and that it was eternal life, and that it was with God, he affirmeth him to be very God. And that he saith, “We heard, saw, and felt,” he witnesseth that he was very man also. John also wrote last, and therefore touched not the story that the other had compiled, but writeth most of faith, and promises, and of the sermons of Christ.​

Please notice this bolded sentence from Tyndale's Prologue to John. ( https://godrules.net/library/tyndale/19tyndale13.htm )

"In that he saith that it was from the beginning, and that it was eternal life, and that it was with God, he affirmeth him to be very God"​

Notice something very interesting about these pronouns—they all clearly have the same referent in the same context. There is not some dramatic change or shift or circumstance where the "it" is no longer being referenced. The "it" is called a "him" concurrently within the exact same context.

Tyndale literally called the man Jesus both "God" and "it."

Need a new appeal to authority somewhere I guess.
Click to expand...

Tyndale isn’t calling a literally preexisting person (and he did believe that Jesus literally preexisted as the second person of the Trinity) an “it“. All that Tyndale and the other trinitarians were doing was seeing that John is thinking back in the prologue to Genesis 1 and God (and he did believe God is the Trinity) speaking what was in his mind into existence.

I asked @civic about Isaiah 55:11. He should have seen God’s word called “it” in that verse. Everyone who reads Isaiah 55:11 should see God’s word called ”it” in that verse. You’ve read Isaiah 55:11. Didn’t you see God’s word called “it” in the verse? If not, what did you see God’s word called there?

I stand aghast that trinitarians could even entertain the thought that one of the greatest trinitarian translators of all time (to say nothing of the other trinitarian translators) believed that a person in the Trinity is an “it”.

The Geneva Bible. The Bible of the Protestant Reformation.

Let’s turn for a moment to John Calvin. Would you say that Calvin, who used the Geneva Bible (along with everyone else in the Protestant lands), called ”both God and Jesus” an “it”?
 
The Protestants called “God and Jesus” an “it”.

The Catholics would be having a field day with that one.

“So, you want to be a Protestant, eh? Why? They think God is an “it”. They’ve left the Church and lost their minds.”

Any unitarian who would do that to the Protestants would be slapped down for it, and rightfully so. Yet trinitarians are saying it, slapping one another on the back, and doing a happy dance.
 
dizerner said:
* raises hand *

"I really think Tyndale called Jesus an it."

Count me in.

Oh, but better.

I have actual proof:
​
A PROLOGUE UPON THE GOSPEL OF ST JOHN.​
​
JOHN, what he was, is manifest by the three first evangelists: first, Christ’s apostle, and that one of the chief: then, Christ’s nigh kinsman, and for his singular innocency and softness singularly beloved, and of singular familiarity with Christ, and ever one of the three witnesses of most secret things. The cause of his writing was certain heresies that arose in his time, namely two; of which one denied Christ to be very God, and the other to be very man and to be come in the very flesh and nature of man. Against the which two heresies he wrote both his gospel and also his first epistle; and in the beginning of his gospel saith, that “the Word” or thing “was at the beginning, and was with God, and was also very God;” and that “all things were created by it;” and that “it was also made flesh,” that is to say, became very man; and “he dwelt among us,” saith he, “and we saw his glory.” And in the beginning of his epistle he saith, “We shew you of the thing that was from the beginning, which also we heard, saw with our eyes, and our hands handled.” And again, “We shew you everlasting life; that was with the Father, and appeared to us, and we heard and saw it,” etc. In that he saith that it was from the beginning, and that it was eternal life, and that it was with God, he affirmeth him to be very God. And that he saith, “We heard, saw, and felt,” he witnesseth that he was very man also. John also wrote last, and therefore touched not the story that the other had compiled, but writeth most of faith, and promises, and of the sermons of Christ.​

Please notice this bolded sentence from Tyndale's Prologue to John. ( https://godrules.net/library/tyndale/19tyndale13.htm )

"In that he saith that it was from the beginning, and that it was eternal life, and that it was with God, he affirmeth him to be very God"​

Notice something very interesting about these pronouns—they all clearly have the same referent in the same context. There is not some dramatic change or shift or circumstance where the "it" is no longer being referenced. The "it" is called a "him" concurrently within the exact same context.

Tyndale literally called the man Jesus both "God" and "it."

Need a new appeal to authority somewhere I guess.
Click to expand...
Haha good point 👍🏼
 
Matthias said:
Tyndale isn’t calling a literally preexisting person (and he did believe that Jesus literally preexisted as the second person of the Trinity) an “it“. All that Tyndale and the other trinitarians were doing was seeing that John is thinking back in the prologue to Genesis 1 and God (and he did believe God is the Trinity) speaking what was in his mind into existence.

I asked @civic about Isaiah 55:11. He should have seen God’s word called “it” in that verse. Everyone who reads Isaiah 55:11 should see God’s word called ”it” in that verse. You’ve read Isaiah 55:11. Didn’t you see God’s word called “it” in the verse? If not, what did you see God’s word called there?

I stand aghast that trinitarians could even entertain the thought that one of the greatest trinitarian translators of all time (to say nothing of the other trinitarian translators) believed that a person in the Trinity is an “it”.

The Geneva Bible. The Bible of the Protestant Reformation.

Let’s turn for a moment to John Calvin. Would you say that Calvin, who used the Geneva Bible (along with everyone else in the Protestant lands), called ”both God and Jesus” an “it”?
Click to expand...
Who cares what Calvin thinks. He was wrong about God on so many doctrines and persecuted people who opposed him.
 
civic said:
Haha good point 👍🏼
Click to expand...

”William Tyndale could speak seven languages and was proficient in Hebrew and Greek.”

www.christianitytoday.com

William Tyndale

Translator of the first English New Testament
www.christianitytoday.com www.christianitytoday.com

But you and other trinitarians think he was a grammar illiterate who called God an “it”.

You‘ve slandered one the greatest trinitarian translators of all time.
 
civic said:
Who cares what Calvin thinks. He was wrong about God on so many doctrines and persecuted people who opposed him.
Click to expand...

If Calvin believed the ……. is an “it” then the whole world needs to know about it.

You’re marching through the Protestant Reformation like Sherman marched through Georgia.
 
Last edited:
Matthias said:
”William Tyndale could speak seven languages and was proficient in Hebrew and Greek.”

www.christianitytoday.com

William Tyndale

Translator of the first English New Testament
www.christianitytoday.com www.christianitytoday.com

But you and other trinitarians think he was a grammar illiterate who called God an “it”.

You‘ve slandered one the greatest trinitarian translators of all time.
Click to expand...
No we just don’t believe he is infallible but like all men has error in his beliefs.
 
civic said:
I’m not a reformer. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I was a Calvinist for over 40 years. I gave it up a couple years ago.
Click to expand...

Great.

***

William Tyndale - “The Father of the English Bible”

bible.org

Prologue: William Tyndale—The Father of the English Bible | Bible.org

“Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.” Those were his last words. This was his last prayer. The date is October 6, 1536. The location is the town of Vilvoorde, near Brussels in Belgium. The occasion is the execution of William Tyndale, age 42. One historian re-enacts the scene for us. The sun...
bible.org bible.org

And a grammar illiterate … some trinitarians say / insist.
 

Similar threads

civic
Christ is declared Lord and God
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
326
civic
civic
F
Jesus is the "Lord" (YHWH) in 1 Corinthians 10:26 (Psalm 24:1; cf. Deuteronomy 6:4)
Replies
15
Views
488
Fred
F
Behold
How To Understand : Acts 2:38
2 3
Replies
49
Views
703
Truther
Truther
F
The three Greek L's for worship in reference to the Lord Jesus
Replies
0
Views
182
Fred
F
F
The Lord Jesus is God in being differentiated from man
Replies
10
Views
315
Fred
F
Back
Top Bottom