The Jehovah’s Witnesses Teach Jesus is Mighty God

[Free]

one that comes to mind is David Koresh,,Marshall Applewhite,,, there are many more

Charles Russel, Joseph Smith, and every pastor/teacher/prophet/missionary that ever cake from JWs and Mormonism are false. While there are some false teachers in Christianity, at least many are not.

Why haven’t you responded to the contradictions in the NWT? Every time someone points out problems with JWs or your position, you deflect and avoid it. That is very dishonest and disrespectful. You need to start actually addressing things.

 

[locust]

To the human mind maybe. But that's a human limitation in understanding not a fault in scripture.

oh but there is fault if a untruth is promoted. fact is Jesus in the bile is recorded as the son of God ,never as
God the son. to understand the relationship Jesus is a Subordinate always doing what his God asked him to do.

 

[locust]

Charles Russel, Joseph Smith, and every pastor/teacher/prophet/missionary that ever cake from JWs and Mormonism are false. While there are some false teachers in Christianity, at least many are not.

Why haven’t you responded to the contradictions in the NWT? Every time someone points out problems with JWs or your position, you deflect and avoid it. That is very dishonest and disrespectful. You need to start actually addressing things.

you have yet to give any

 

[locust]

if you want to find Errors in a bible go look through the KJV

 

[Blain DeCastro]

MSN

What does MSN mean? anyways I can see this is going nowhere so I will just leave it alone

 

[locust]

What does MSN mean? anyways I can see this is going nowhere so I will just leave it alone

click on it

 

[Blain DeCastro]

MSN

It just brings me to another site and I have no interest in that I wanted a response from you not to go another site with videos that I have no interest in watching

 

[locust]

What does MSN mean? anyways I can see this is going nowhere so I will just leave it alone

consider matthew 24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
there has been many false teachers that say Jesus is the Christ . the false teachers are not saying they are the Christ. they do however because of the want of money use discerption to their own benefit

 

[Free]

I moved a few posts from another discussion, as they were off topic there and are suited for this discussion.

''No, Jesus is God. He became man. He died and God raised Him from the dead. One person, God and man''
first you say jesus is God then he's not and needed God raised him from being dead .

No one said “Jesus is God then he’s not.” So, where is the contradiction?

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

God cannot cease to be God. The Son was God in nature ("in the form of God") and "emptied himself" through addition, "by taking the form of a servant," which is to be human in nature. He is both truly God and truly man; two natures in one person. There is no contradiction.

 

[onlysaved]

oh but there is fault if a untruth is promoted. fact is Jesus in the bile is recorded as the son of God ,never as
God the son. to understand the relationship Jesus is a Subordinate always doing what his God asked him to do.

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

That is Jesus referring to Himself as God. The very same God that Moses encountered and who gave him the 10 commandments.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings onlysaved,

"Before Abraham was, I Am"
That is Jesus referring to Himself as God. The very same God that Moses encountered and who gave him the 10 commandments.

I prefer the translation "I am he", the same as John 8:24 and 28, and is part of the theme of whether Jesus is the Christ or not.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JesusFan]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses Teach Jesus is Mighty God

In John chapter 1, verse 1, the JW’s have translated the Greek, “kai theos ēn ho logos”, as “and the Word was a god”. They also dedicate a section in their Kingdom Interlinear translation of the New Testament, trying to justify this reading, from false quotations of Greek scholars, who actually say, that this should read, “and the Word was God”.

The JW’s argue that Jesus Christ is “a god”, and Jehovah alone is “God”. This is completely contradicted by their own translation, in their New World translation, for Isaiah 9:6, which is a Prophecy on the Lord Jesus Christ.

“For a child has been born to usc, A son has been given to us; And the rulership* will rest on his shoulderd. His name will be called Wonderful Counselore, Mighty Godf, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (NWT 2013 edition)

There is no doubt as to Who is Child is, as we can see from the references used in the NWT. We have the letter “c”, which refer to Luke 1:15 and 2:11, both on the Birth of Jesus Christ. Then we have “*”, which has in a note, Or “government; princely rule.”. Next, “e”, with references to Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 7:28, 29; 12:42, which are for the First Coming and Ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. The letter “f”, has references to Psalm 45:3, which is on the use of the Hebrew, “gib·bō·wr” (mighty one), and John 1:18, where the NWT reads, “No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him”. In the Greek, both “theon” and “theos”, and without the article (ton, ho), in which case they have exactly the same meaning, “God”. Because of the theology of the JW’s, they translate the second as “god”, as it refers to Jesus Christ. This is the same perversion of the Truth, that they use in John 1:1, when the have the false reading, “and the Word was a god”.

It is clear from what we read in the NWT on Isaiah 9:6, that this verse is speaking about the Lord Jesus Christ. It is also clear, that the NWT has translated the Hebrew, “’êl Gibbôr”, as “Mighty God”, and not “mighty hero”, or “mighty god”, as some do. This is exactly how the NWT reads in Isaiah 10:21, where we also have, “’êl Gibbôr”, where it is used for “Jehovah”, as in the NWT.

Here is solid evidence from the Bible that is published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, that Jesus Christ is “Mighty God”. I have read arguments from the JW’s, where they say, Jesus Christ is “Mighty God”, but He is not “Almighty God”. This does not address the fact, that they admit to TWO Persons, Who are called “Mighty God”. How does this agree with verses like Isaiah 44:8, “Is there a ’ĕ·lō·w·ah besides me?”; and 45:5, “I am Yahweh, and there is none else. Besides me, there is no ’ĕ·lō·hîm”? Yet, it is clear, we read in Isaiah 9:6, and 10:21, that there are indeed TWO distinct Persons, Who are equally called, “’êl Gibbôr”.

In fact, the older Jewish Rabbis, understood this passage to refer to The Messiah. In the 1st/2nd century AD, Rabbi Yose HaGelili, said of this passage:

“Thus rabbi Jose, of Galilee, says, ‘The name of the Messiah is shâlôm, as is said in Isa 9:6, “Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.” ‘Ben Sira (fol. 40, of the Amsterdam Edition, 1679) numbers among the eight names of the Messiah those also taken from this passage, Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace. The later Jews, however, have rejected this interpretation, because the Messiah is here described as God” (Albert Barnes Commentary)

About the same time we have the Jewish Targum of Jonathan Ben Uziel the disciple of Hillel (110 BC-10AD; Bab. Meg. 32):

“The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it, and his name has been called from of old (from eternity, Pauli ed), Wonderful counsellor, Mighty God, He who lives for ever, the Anointed one (or, Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us. Great shall be the splendour of them that observe the law, and of them that preserve peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to build it in judgement and in righteousness from henceforth and for ever: by the Memra of the Lord of hosts shall this be wrought” (Targum Jonathan Ben Uziel. J F Stenning; The Targum of Isaiah, p 32. Oxford 1953 ed, also, Rev. C. W. H. Pauli; Targum Jonathan Ben Uziel: The Chaldee Paraphrase on The Prophet Isaiah; pp.30, 31)

Even those who actually deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, and that the God of the Bible is “Multi-Personal”, and not “Unitarian”, teach that there is more than One Person, in the Old Testament, Who is called GOD.

In Revelation 5:13-14 we read of the WORSHIP that is to be given to BOTH God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

“And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped” (NWT)

The NWT has correctly translated the Greek, “to krátos”, as “the might”, which means “ALL MIGHTY”. The reading, “be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might”, has the meaning, of “ALL”, that there is, is to be ascribed “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb”. Notice the use of “kaí” (and), where it is used for “in addition to”. Whatever is to be rendered to the Father, as ALSO to be rendered to Jesus Christ, EQUALLY.

The Greek scholar, Dr A T Robertson, who the JW’s quote in their appendix on John 1:1, as one of their Greek authorities, says this:

“And to the Lamb (kai tōi arniōi). Dative case. Praise and worship are rendered to the Lamb precisely as to God on the throne”

This passage in Revelation 5, is one of the strongest Testimonies in the Bible, to the Absolute Deity of Jesus Christ, and His Equality with the Father. These is no other way to understand what John writes here.

The Teaching of the Trinity, which says there is One God, in Three distinct Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is clearly not a Christian invention, as some falsely teach, as the Old Testament, which is not “Christian”, but Jewish, is clear that God is not “Unitarian”.

The Holy Spirit is also taught to be Yahweh in the Old Testament, as is clear in 2 Samuel 23:2-3, where we have a very clear reference on the Holy Spirit as YHWH:

“The Spirit of Yahweh speaks by me; His word is on my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me”

The Hebrew word “Spirit”, is “rū·aḥ”, which is feminine in gender. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is a “female”, but, the word is grammatically in the feminine. The word “speaks”, is the hebrew “dib·ber”, is masculine, as is “ū·mil·lā·ṯōw” (His Word). This means that it is “rū·aḥ Yah·weh”, Who is the subject here, is the One Who Speaks by David. Not simply “the Spirit”, but, “the Spirit of Yahweh (rū·aḥ Yah·weh)”, as there is no distinction here. The words, “The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me”, also refer to “rū·aḥ Yah·weh”. The Holy Spirit is here Yahweh and Elohim. As in the Hebrew Old Testament.

How can the Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus Christ is “Mighty God”, which is also used for Jehovah, and yet teach that He is “the first created” by Jehovah? This shows in their own translation, that there are TWO distinct Persons, Jehovah and Jesus Christ, Who are also EQUALLY God, in exactly the same way. How can they teach the same of the Holy Spirit, when it is equally clear, that He is Yahweh?

Even the Watchtower Greek Interlinear has in the Greek text Thomas saying to Jesus that He is the Lord of me and the God of me

 

[Bruce Leiter]

Greetings again Bruce Letter,

The same concept is found in Proverbs 8 where Wisdom is personified as a Wise Woman who was with Yahweh in the Creation.

I understand that the correct rendition of Exodus 3:14 should be "I will be" as given by Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins. Thus the Yahweh Name, as per context Exodus 3:12 "I will be with thee", speaks of what God would accomplish in delivering Israel out of Egypt and bringing them into the Promised Land, not "I AM" which speaks of existence. God's existence is stated earlier in the chapter "I am the God of Abraham".

David indeed considered the One God, Yahweh, God the Father as his shepherd, but the greatest fulfillment of Psalm 23 is with Jesus who preeminently trusted in Yahweh as his shepherd through all his sufferings and especially his "shadow of death" in the crucifixion.

Kind regards
Trevor

Kind regards to you too, TrevorL. You say that you understand. Where did you get that understanding from? The understanding must come from the Scriptures themselves, not from humans imposing their own ideas and reasoning on the Bible.

Jesus, in the Greek of the New Testament, says "ego eimi," "I am," thus quoting the Greek Septuagint Old Testament translation of Exodus 3:14. In doing so, he emphasizes his identification with the true God of the burning bush in saying that he is David's good Shepherd:

Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

Psa 23:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

He could have said the same "I am" by merely saying "eimi," but he specifically identified himself as God with "ego eimi."

Seeking the truth in the true God of the whole Bible, not human reasoning, Bruce.

 

[Free]

I prefer the translation "I am he", the same as John 8:24 and 28, and is part of the theme of whether Jesus is the Christ or not.

Except that it has Jesus saying nonsense and not answering the question he was asked. I know we've been over this numerous times, but as often as you make that claim, I will repeat the truth.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

Notice that the question was not "Who are you?". That was asked in verse 25. The question Jesus was asked here is, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?". And that is the question Jesus answers. So, while identity is inherently tied in with the question, it is firstly a question of chronology and age. Also notice what Jesus does not say--"before Abraham was, I was." So, he is not claiming mere existence prior to Abraham, he says, "before Abraham was, I am." Jesus is contrasting Abraham's temporary existence and coming into existence, with his own timeless, eternal existence.

And that is perfectly consistent with what John has already stated in John 1:1, 2, and 14. In fact, that is likely one of the very reasons John did so, since Jesus's ministry clearly happened before John wrote his gospel, with much time to reflect on what Jesus had said and done.

Adding "he" does not at all fit the context. It works in verses 24 and 28, but both of those can also simply be "I Am," as relating to Ex. 3:14. We must also remember verse 23:

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. (ESV)

As Jesus says later:

Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.” (ESV)

It simply cannot be any clearer that Jesus is not just merely human, that he existed in eternity past with the Father.

To continue with John 8:58-59 and Jesus's claim to deity:

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

John clearly and simply states the facts: "And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath" and "This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

It is John who says that by Jesus "calling God his own Father," he was "making himself equal with God." It is a matter of fact to him, just as it was to those seeking to kill Jesus. If you, or anyone else, wants to claim that John was merely stating what the Jews seeking to kill Jesus thought, but that it was not correct, then you must provide sound reasoning why John would not provide this correction or further clarification.

Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
...
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ESV)

Once again, just as in John 8:58, the Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy, that is, for claiming to be the Son of God, which was to "make [him]self God." That is the same claim as in 5:18, for which they wanted to kill him.

Luk 22:70 So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.”
Luk 22:71 Then they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.” (ESV)

We can clearly see that Jesus's claim to be the Son of God was to make himself equal to God; it was considered blasphemy. Of course, it wasn't actually blasphemy because Jesus truly was the Son of God and equal to the Father. There simply is no other possibility.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Except that it has Jesus saying nonsense and not answering the question he was asked.

I consider that what Jesus answers "I am he" makes perfect sense in the context and you have given your usual answer to denigrate this perspective.

I know we've been over this numerous times, but as often as you make that claim, I will repeat the truth.

Yes, much repetition, but I will not repeat what we have already discussed. The reason why I responded was to allow onlysaved reconsider and be cautious of the standard Trinitarian use of John 8:58 and the supposed connection with Exodus 3:14, which I believe should be translated "I will be" speaking of God's future activity in releasing Israel from slavery in Egypt and bringing them into the Promised Land. From memory, I remember that when pressed even you did not necessarily confirm a strong connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, but you may not see the necessity of stating this here in response to onlysaved as it does not help your cause.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

I consider that what Jesus answers "I am he" makes perfect sense in the context and you have given your usual answer to denigrate this perspective.

Of course, because your perspective makes no sense; it is not a valid perspective. It has Jesus not answering the question, all because you don't want to believe what Jesus is actually saying. You're eisegeting.

Yes, much repetition, but I will not repeat what we have already discussed.

You have left most of it unaddressed anyway, at least all of the most difficult for your position, which I have come to expect from anti-Trinitarians.

The reason why I responded was to allow onlysaved reconsider and be cautious of the standard Trinitarian use of John 8:58 and the supposed connection with Exodus 3:14, which I believe should be translated "I will be" speaking of God's future activity in releasing Israel from slavery in Egypt and bringing them into the Promised Land. From memory, I remember that when pressed even you did not necessarily confirm a strong connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, but you may not see the necessity of stating this here in response to onlysaved as it does not help your cause.

I think there is a strong connection between John 8:58 and Ex. 3:14. Just as with the question Jesus was asked, God answers the question, which was "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?". So, God answers with his name, which can be legitimately translated as "I am [who/what/that] I am." It speaks of who God is and by extension what he is capable of, not necessarily what he will do. It could very well mean both "I am" and "I will be."

But, as I have stated, even if there is no connection, Jesus's words still mean that he has timeless, eternal existence, as the Son. He answers the question directly and in so doing, reveals exactly who he is, since only Yahweh has timeless, eternal existence.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Of course, because your perspective makes no sense; it is not a valid perspective. It has Jesus not answering the question, all because you don't want to believe what Jesus is actually saying. You're eisegeting.

I appreciate your response and I was interested in the word you used, and I looked this up in Wiki, and actually feel very comfortable with my understanding of John 8:58, not only in its immediate context, but also the overall context and also the theme of John's Gospel record.

Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. It is often done to justify or confirm a position already held.
Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective.
Although the terms eisegesis and exegesis are commonly heard in association with biblical interpretation, both (especially exegesis) are used across literary disciplines.

In biblical study​

While exegesis is an attempt to determine the historical context within which a particular verse exists—the so-called "Sitz im Leben" or life setting—eisegetes often neglect this aspect of biblical study.

I consider the usual Trinitarian view that Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 is a gloss (in a bad sense), and to use your special word here, this is "eisegesis", not "exegesis".

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

I appreciate your response and I was interested in the word you used, and I looked this up in Wiki, and actually feel very comfortable with my understanding of John 8:58, not only in its immediate context, but also the overall context and also the theme of John's Gospel record.

Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. It is often done to justify or confirm a position already held.
Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective.
Although the terms eisegesis and exegesis are commonly heard in association with biblical interpretation, both (especially exegesis) are used across literary disciplines.

In biblical study​

While exegesis is an attempt to determine the historical context within which a particular verse exists—the so-called "Sitz im Leben" or life setting—eisegetes often neglect this aspect of biblical study.

I consider the usual Trinitarian view that Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 is a gloss (in a bad sense), and to use your special word here, this is "eisegesis", not "exegesis".

The main issue is that from the very beginning to the end of John's gospel, Jesus is shown to be both God and man.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, ...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

John's prologue, verses 1-18, are for the sole purpose of introducing us to who Jesus is. Starting in verse 1:

In the first clause, the word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it did in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable— they would be one and the same—which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."

In verse 2, we see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active, close communion with the Father. (This is likely because of what Jesus stated in 17:24: "you loved me before the foundation of the world." The Father loved the Son, not some idea of a future Son, but the actual person of the Son. They existed for all eternity in a mutually loving relationship, which is why John can state in 1 John 4:8, 16, that "God is love." That is an impossibility if the Son, or some other person, didn't exist for all eternity. Yet, John is consistent from the beginning of his gospel, to his epistles, and through Revelation.)

In verse 3, we have simple, straightforward logic which tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist, which clearly affirms what was said in the two preceding verses.

In verse 10, we see that John is speaking of Jesus, of the Son, and it is through the Son that "the world was made." John makes the obvious connection for us--the Son is the preincarnate Word. That simply reaffirms what he stated in verse 3.

He then tells us in verse 14 that "the Word became flesh," which reaffirms what he stated in verses 10-12.

Even within all this rich context, he quotes John the Baptist in verse 15, who said of Jesus, "He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me." That is a very clear statement that John the Baptist understood that Jesus "was before" him. John uses that within the context of all that I have stated above.

It is absolutely clear that the Son is both truly God and truly man. That is John's entire point and we see that throughout his gospel to the very end, where we have Thomas's declaration that Jesus was his Lord and his God.

That is why in John 8:58, in which we must include verse 23, in which Jesus unequivocally states that he is "from above" and "not of this world." And he makes that claim several times throughout John's gospel, as I have previously shown. In 8:58, Jesus then directly answers the question asked of him in verse 57. And his answer is perfectly consistent with what John tells us in the prologue--he has timeless, eternal existence.

The reason it is consistent with John's prologue is because Jesus's ministry occurred first and John wrote about it at a fairly later date, having had much time to think about and consider the words and actions of Jesus. It's also why he says in Revelation: "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13, ESV). He is consistent with what he calls the Son in his gospel.

John also refers to Jesus as "the King of kings and Lord of lords," (Rev. 17:14 and 19:16), which are titles used of God (1 Tim. 6:15). The same goes for "the first and the last," "the Alpha the Omega," and "the beginning and the end"--used of God in Isa. 44:6, 48:12, Rev. 1:8, 21:6; used of Jesus in Rev. 1:17, 2:8, 22:13.

In referring back to John 1:3, 10, we must consider that in the OT God claims to alone have created everything (Isa. 44:24; 45:18; 48:13, for example). Yet John states that the Son was involved in the creation of everything that came into being. The reason why John can make that claim is because of things Jesus said and did. It's worth mentioning, again, that that is why Paul makes the very same claim in 1 Cor. 8:6 and Col. 1:16-17, and why the writer of Hebrews has the Father implying that the Son is Yahweh, who was involved in creation (1:10-12).

The NT is consistent in saying that the Son is also truly God, being obviously truly man, yet he is not the Father. The only way around these plain, clear statements is to do what you have done and either simply dismiss or eisegete, making things mean other than what they plainly mean. You will never get to the truth that way.

 

[locust]

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

θεὸς and θεόν from John 1:1 Greek interlinear . both are god yet in English we would capitalize one denoting him as the almighty God making the other a lesser god

 

[Free]

θεὸς and θεόν from John 1:1 Greek interlinear . both are god yet in English we would capitalize one denoting him as the almighty God making the other a lesser god

Incorrect. I've already addressed that, HERE.