Dizerner
Well-known member
Is Jesus called "the Word of God"?!
Why The Trinity Is Wrong: Logic
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
Is Jesus called "the Word of God"?!
Wrangler
Well-known member
LOL. No one is denying the original language. Point is the reasoning of God is not another Being.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Semantics does not change metaphysics. Figurative speech does not over rule literal reality. Just because Jesus is called this does not mean that John 1:1 is invoking another being but the literal reasoning of God.
Dizerner
Well-known member
So... that's a "yes"?
How do you know John 1 isn't being "figurative" in the same way?
Wrangler
Well-known member
Because the entire Bible is the work product of monotheist Jews with the possible exception of Luke. The word of god is a god like other authorities - like the law - but that is not the same as another being.
To suppose John 1:1 is talking figuratively is to deny the most anti-trinitarian book in the whole Bible, as John explicitly tells us at 20:31 that everything he wrote was to prove something other than the idea that Jesus is God; namely, that Jesus is God’s Anointed. So, it is funny to see trinitarians try to twist 1:1 – and indeed, his entire Gospel - to have a purpose other than what John explicitly stated is the purpose of his Gospel!
John is a greater authority for his purpose in writing the Gospel over trinitarians exegesis interpretation.
Dizerner
Well-known member
It seems you are setting up a false dichotomy to tear down a straw man...
God's Anointed could very well be Himself.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Nowhere is this stated in Scripture. Worse, it contradicts Scripture which calls Jesus a man. Pure trinitarian invention. Pure trinitarian invention.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Wrangler
Well-known member
LOL. Just properly interpreting John 1 in the context of the entire Gospel and all of Scripture.
The whole reason trinitarians are desperate to take John 1:1 to be figurative is because the man is god thesis is so lacking throughout the 66 book collection.
Let me ask you this, do you suppose Deut 18:15-18 should be interpreted that a separate Being or personage of Jesus was to one day be put in the mouth of one among the people that God chose?
Doug Brents
Well-known member
It is if it was "with" God. Because it also most certainly "was" God.
The Holy Spirit is also God, and it is a separate "person" from Jesus and the Father (1 John 5:7 - " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.") And we also have Jesus promising the "Comforter" who would come (John 16:7). The Comforter was not Jesus, nor is He the Father, yet He is certainly God because He is the Spirit of God.
Peter
Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrangler
Well-known member
It is the other way around. The words are charged in Christiandom, lord and god. They are basically synonyms. Neither is personal name but a title.
Putting aside how god is sometimes used as a species, these titles mean dominion. It is not merely the person who has dominion but their words. So, in this sense, the authority was both with the person (the supreme person) and with their expressed intent, voice, reasoning, words, logos, etc.
We do still today consider the words of an authority as having dominion, such as a Supreme Court ruling. Ever notice also how people say someone lorded "it" over them? What is lorded is not a person in that context, right?
