Is Jesus considered to be God?

[follower of Christ]

Well, this is my lucky day because I LOVE to debate this with people. The fun that is in it for me, is that those of us who see the Oneness have the entire Bible to support us.Those who support the Trinity have but one verse which they incorrectly use.

Sorry gent but its hardly ONE verse. READ my first post again.

Now, I didn't read every post in this forum so if I've repeated some things, please excuse me.

Clearly.
So you just jump in and REPEAT nonsense we've already refuted and thus waste all of our times having to say the same things over and again.

But, as an Apostolic Minister allow me to delve into this large debate.

I dont care what sort of 'minister' you call yourself...the facts are the facts, sorry to say.

 

[Apostolic Soldier]

How does the Oneness doctrine view this verse. How will we be one as they are one? Its talking of the whole body of Christ here.

By the way, I do not believe in the Oneness, neither in the Trinity doctrines. Oneness does not make Biblical sense and neither does the Trinity doctrine. Not even Trinitarians understand their doctrine ! I know, because I use to be one myself.

Actually, the Bible teaches only Oneness doctrine and not Trinity doctrine. If you'll look it up, historically the Triune baptism and teaching is much newer than Oneness, as Oneness was the original belief. By the way, no one was ever baptized using the Triune formula. But, in the Book of Acts, the Apostoles use the "name of our Lord Jesus Christ" or some form, six plus times. And yes, I realize that scripture is speaking that the church must be one, but he says they must be one as the Godhead is ONE. That is why it is relevant. Here's a little more info:

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

 

[follower of Christ]

All of your argument is based on the assumption that "word" (logos) can be interpreted as Jesus. Prove it --

Youre joking, right ?
That you even make this request shows us just how oblivious you truly are.
I'll admit, however, that I was hoping youd make this mistake. I didnt think youd actually do it, tho.

Any literate person can READ that chapter and SEE WHOM it is speaking of, gent.
Who is this Word ?
The following shows us VERY clearly, gent.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

There was a man sent from God; his name was John. This one came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name, who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, This was He of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all have received, and grace for grace. For the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:1-17 MKJV)

You have simply GOT to be kidding here.


.

 

[follower of Christ]

Well, this is my lucky day because I LOVE to debate this with people. The fun that is in it for me, is that those of us who see the Oneness have the entire Bible to support us. Those who support the Trinity have but one verse which they incorrectly use. Now, I didn't read every post in this forum so if I've repeated some things, please excuse me. But, as an Apostolic Minister allow me to delve into this large debate. First of all, I would love to use the verse that I have seen used all ready. St. John Chapter 1. Now, I use two verses from this Chap............................n, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

John 14:6 - I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me. (7) If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

All that wasted time and effortand one little verse blows your entire error out of the water.

But concerning that day and the hour, no one knows, not the angels, those in Heaven, nor the Son, except the Father.
(Mark 13:32 )

ONLY the FATHER knows, NOT the SON !
IF oneness 'theory' were correct then the Son WOULD KNOW everything 'God' knows by default.

Jesus IS God...and He is His own person within the Godhead.

.
.

 

[follower of Christ]

Actually, the Bible teaches only Oneness doctrine and not Trinity doctrine. If you'll look it up, historically the Triune baptism and teaching is much newer than Oneness, as Oneness was the original belief.

Oh please.
Some people and their absurd arguments. (edited so as to not offend the easily offended)
That the WORD 'TRINITY' didnt show up in the beginning does NOT NEGATE the FACT that John 1, among others, show that Jesus IS God and that Mark shows that Jesus IS His own person within the Godhead.

These ridiculous arguments that something came before something else because of some term or phrase finally assigned to a concept are just amazing.

By the way, no one was ever baptized using the Triune formula. But, in the Book of Acts, the Apostoles use the "name of our Lord Jesus Christ" or some form, six plus times.

Which in and of itself doesn NOT negate that scripture shows that Jesus IS His own person within the Godhead.
Jesus would HAVE to know EVERYTHING that GOD the Father knows for your error to be truth.

 

[jasoncran]

it's ok to debate and debunk doctrine but keep the you people and like verbage out of the posts.
i hate to issue formal warnings.

 

[Rick W]

it's ok to debate and debunk doctrine but keep the you people and like verbage out of the posts.
i hate to issue formal warnings.

agreed

Keep opinions of others to yourselves.

 

[follower of Christ]

"you people' was HARDLY expressing an OPINION ABOUT that person.
I suggest you two read the comment again and SEE if there was ANY actual attack onthe person there.
;)

edit.
I edited it so not to offend anyone who might take offense at the drop of a hat here.


.

 

[Rick W]

edit.
I edited it so not to offend anyone who might take offense at the drop of a hat here.


.

We are going to have peace on this board one way or another. We've been making progress lately and my tolerance level is just about shot. It would be very wise to FULLY consider posts before submitting them.

 

[Free]

Well, this is my lucky day because I LOVE to debate this with people.

Then it must be my luckier day.

The fun that is in it for me, is that those of us who see the Oneness have the entire Bible to support us.

That's a pretty bold statement; I hope for your sake you can back it up.

Those who support the Trinity have but one verse which they incorrectly use.

There are many verses as well as basic rules of grammar, among other things.

First of all, I would love to use the verse that I have seen used all ready. St. John Chapter 1. Now, I use two verses from this Chapter in order to prove this to nonbelievers in preaching.

St John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God
St John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

These two verses tell us that this "Word" was God. This "Word" was also made felsh and dwelt on Earth. Whom from the Bible fits this description? Let's delve further into John.

But you see, you've blown it already. You completely ignored the very obvious "the Word was with God." Trinitarians do not deny that the Word was God, so that in itself is no argument against the Trinity. What we do acknowledge is that the Word also "was with God." The Greek word for "with," pros, denotes intimate relationship. This phrase makes no sense if the Word was equated with God and was only God.

That the Word became flesh does not disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity.

St. John 10:30 - I and my Father are one.

So if by "I and my Father are one," Jesus means "one and the same Person," are we then to become the same person with Jesus as well? This verse does not support Oneness theology.

St. John 17:11 - And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou has given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Interesting, don't you think, that Jesus is praying to the Father. This, too, makes no sense if the Father and the Son are the person. It would be misleading and deception by Jesus, at best.

This expresses the "ONENESS" of the supposed Trinity. See, what people do not understand is that there are three Offices of ONE GOD. Think about this, the Trinity is completely a New Testament concept. All throughout the Old Testament God talks about being one God. Jesus even quotes this in the book of Mark.

Mark 12:29 - The first of all commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.

See, there was never thought to be Three Gods in some sort of Godhead. Christianity is supposed to be a monotheistic religion. Meaning belief in ONE God, not three.

Either you are purposefully misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity as three gods or you do not understand it. One of the foundations of the doctrine is monotheism. Mark 12:29 is quoting the Shema from Deut. 6:4 and is a statement of monotheism, nothing more; it makes no statement about the nature of God.

See, this idea of a triune Godhead comes from Matthew 28:19. This is where the triune baptismal formula supposedly comes from. However, as I'm sure has been brought up, there is the word "name" there. Father, Son, And Holy Ghost are titles or Offices of the Godhead. Those are not names. Take for example a man who has a child. He is a Father, a Son, and Has A Soul. But, his name is Bob (for example). Although those three things make up who he is, he is still Bob. He is all of those things at once. Just as Jesus Christ is all three offices at once.

But these are not titles as the grammar and language of Matt 28:19 makes clear: "...in the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Clearly there is one name which is shared by three distinct Persons. The language does not allow for three titles for one Person.

Colossians 1:19 - For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.
Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

And there is the word that people have trouble accepting. That GOD had a body in the form of a man Jesus Christ. It's hard for people to accept that God took on a mortal body. However, we know that he was in the body yet ruling the heavens simultaneously.

But here you have ignored the clear distinction that is made between the Father and the Son. And again, the idea of God Incarnate is very much what the doctrine of the Trinity upholds.

Luke 24:46,47 - And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

John 14:6 - I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me. (7) If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Neither verse proves the Trinity wrong and the second once again ignores the clear distinction between the Father and the Son.


Ignoring the very clear distinctions between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the downfall of Oneness theology. I'll deal with these in the next post.

 

[follower of Christ]

[quote="follower of Christ":co0fb3rh]
edit.
I edited it so not to offend anyone who might take offense at the drop of a hat here.


.

We are going to have peace on this board one way or another. We've been making progress lately and my tolerance level is just about shot. It would be very wise to FULLY consider posts before submitting them.[/quote:co0fb3rh]
To be honest Rick, I didnt see the issue with using the phrase 'you people'. The intent should have been easy enough to discern given the context I used it in.
Clearly I'll have to be a bit more watchful of how I word things from here on out.
What bothers me is that we'll nitpick 'you people' but then allow real insults to stand if they are presented with a smile.

 

[Yahoshea]

All of your argument is based on the assumption that "word" (logos) can be interpreted as Jesus. Prove it --

Youre joking, right ?
That you even make this request shows us just how oblivious you truly are.
I'll admit, however, that I was hoping youd make this mistake. I didnt think youd actually do it, tho.

Any literate person can READ that chapter and SEE WHOM it is speaking of, gent.
Who is this Word ?
The following shows us VERY clearly, gent.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

There was a man sent from God; his name was John. This one came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name, who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, This was He of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all have received, and grace for grace. For the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:1-17 MKJV)

You have simply GOT to be kidding here.


.

As I suspected. You refuse to follow even the simplest of prudent interpretation rules. You refuse to acknowledge the meaning of logos throughout scripture. I did not think you would actually ignore the simple rules of interpretation.
You have simply GOT to be kidding.

 

[Free]

Here are just some of the verses that Oneness theology ignores:

Joh 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

Not only is there a distinction made between the Father and the Son, love is an action towards another, not oneself.

Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

As the disciples are separate persons from Jesus, so Jesus is a separate person from the Father. One has to do violence to rules of grammar to make the Father and the Son the same person yet regard the disciples as separate from the Son. Again, this just further clarifies the point that love is an outward action towards another.

Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Jesus tells the disciples to "ask the Father in my name." That makes little sense if they are one and the same person.

Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Really, the verses are too numerous to list, including most of John, that show very clear distinctions between the Father and the Son. To ignore these distinctions and make them out to be the same person is to ignore the language and basic grammar.

Joh 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

Notice that Jesus will send the Holy Spirit from the Father. Again, clear distinctions between not only the Father and the Son but the Holy Spirit.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

One cannot ignore what Jesus plainly says: "I will send him." The use of two personal pronouns which clearly differentiate between two different persons.


There isn't much more to say. The distinctions, as well as the equality between the three, are there and cannot just be glossed over.

 

[follower of Christ]

As I suspected. You refuse to follow even the simplest of prudent interpretation rules.

I refuse to follow YOUR rules...that is an absolute.
The passage doesnt need your rules to understand it, friend.
It tells us that this Word IS God and then VERY clearly shows that this Word is Jesus Christ.

You refuse to acknowledge the meaning of logos throughout scripture.

Sorry but that Jesus is called the Word doesnt mean that all of the rest of the uses have to be about Christ or that they arent about Christ.
In John 1 the 'Word' IS Jesus Christ and the Word IS God.

I did not think you would actually ignore the simple rules of interpretation.
You have simply GOT to be kidding.

I'll tell you what I tell others.
Dont think for a second that the membership of this forum is so ignorant and naive that they cant READ John 1 for themselves and SEE exactly whom it is referring to.

Ive been a member here for quite some time and I assure you that no one here will fall for this game we're playing.
JOhn 1 says what it says and in no uncertain terms.
You will just have to come to terms that that yourself some day.
You asked me to prove that the Word in that passage meant Jesus and I have.

All of your argument is based on the assumption that "word" (logos) can be interpreted as Jesus. Prove it --

Youre joking, right ?
That you even make this request shows us just how oblivious you truly are.
I'll admit, however, that I was hoping youd make this mistake. I didnt think youd actually do it, tho.

Any literate person can READ that chapter and SEE WHOM it is speaking of, gent.
Who is this Word ?
The following shows us VERY clearly, gent.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

There was a man sent from God; his name was John. This one came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name, who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, This was He of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all have received, and grace for grace. For the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:1-17 MKJV)

You have simply GOT to be kidding here.


.

.

 

[Yahoshea]

Here are just some of the verses that Oneness theology ignores:

Joh 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

Not only is there a distinction made between the Father and the Son, love is an action towards another, not oneself.

Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

As the disciples are separate persons from Jesus, so Jesus is a separate person from the Father. One has to do violence to rules of grammar to make the Father and the Son the same person yet regard the disciples as separate from the Son. Again, this just further clarifies the point that love is an outward action towards another.

Joh 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Jesus tells the disciples to "ask the Father in my name." That makes little sense if they are one and the same person.

Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Really, the verses are too numerous to list, including most of John, that show very clear distinctions between the Father and the Son. To ignore these distinctions and make them out to be the same person is to ignore the language and basic grammar.

Joh 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

Notice that Jesus will send the Holy Spirit from the Father. Again, clear distinctions between not only the Father and the Son but the Holy Spirit.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

One cannot ignore what Jesus plainly says: "I will send him." The use of two personal pronouns which clearly differentiate between two different persons.


There isn't much more to say. The distinctions, as well as the equality between the three, are there and cannot just be glossed over.

I agree with this part of this post - Jesus and God are indeed separate persons. None of these verses make Christ a God in any way. I know that was not the intention of this post. Just pointing out that these verses make a statement that shows less of an inclination toward a co-equal oneness of God.
Joh 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.
Why did Christ need to be given anything? Isn't he co-equal? He should have had it already.

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Could Jesus have done anything else but keep the commandments? How did Jesus keep the commandments as a God or as a man? If he is asking us to keep the commandments in the same way, do we need to be Gods too? (unless, of course, the significance is that he kept them as a man)

Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Why does Jesus need anyone else to glorify him. He is God he could have glorified himself.
Why did Jesus need to have authority? As a God should he not already have that authority?
Why did Jesus not send the father to earth. They are co-equal are they not. Why does one have more authority then another?

Joh 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

Why did the helper have to come from the father? Could not the co-equal son send it?

BTW I posted many scripture showing Jesus as human. You did not deal with any of them.

 

[Yahoshea]

I admit that John 1 can be difficult to understand, but that is more due to our lack of thinking as the Hebrews did and not as the current Western cultures look at things. Even though John wrote in Greek he still thought and perceived his world and his God from a purely Hebrew way. John and the others had the unenviable task of expressing Hebrew concepts and understandings to a Greek thinking world. As I have posted many many times the Hebrews did not see God as “He is …………..†the saw God as “He functions as ……..â€
Moses bowed down before the burning bush and turned away because He was afraid to look at God. The bush (and the angel of the Lord in it) functioned as God to Moses and Moses reacted to it as if it were God Himself. To him it was God. This expression of God WAS God to Moses.
Psalms 82 YHWH rebukes the leaders of Israel for not being Gods to the people. Jesus quotes these scriptures in John 10 to rebuke the Pharisees for not being Gods to the people. Did YHWH and Jesus expect them to be literal Gods? Of course not! They did expect them to function as Gods to the people and to relate to them as God would.
This also ties in to the personal way in which the Hebrews saw things. The Hebrews did not understand an object (or person) by comparing it to itself but rather by comparing it to the Hebrew himself. We might say “God is love†A Hebrew would say †God loves meâ€. It was viewed personally. In fact there is no word for “is†in the Hebrew language. The closest one could get is “functions as†or “relates to me asâ€. In our modern English language one could also say be like God, in the form of God, expressed image of God, represent God ect. Heard these before? Now we may not be any of these things in a perfect manner, but there was one man who was. He opened the door and made a way for us to be continually developing that perfection in ourselves. With the wind/breath/spirit of God blowing on us we are transformed from glory to glory.
Back to John 1 ---
“In the beginning was the Logosâ€
In the beginning was a concept/idea.
“And the Logos was with Godâ€
and the idea reflected as in a mirror God
“And the logos was Godâ€
This idea expressed who God was and how He wanted to relate to and function toward His children. (Again Hebrew parallelism saying the same thing in two or more ways.)
“This was in beginning toward God†(actual Greek)
From the beginning this idea/expression was a mirror toward God reflecting who God was.
“All things come into being through him and apart from him nothings came into being that has come into being.†(actual Greek).
God created all things and nothing has existence outside of God.
“In Him was life and the life was the light of menâ€.
God is the source of Light and life.
5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

All the previous verse are talking about God and not about Jesus. The next verses begin to speak of Jesus.

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
God’s idea came to fruition. 1 Peter 1:20?For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"
The Greek does not use the word “existed†it says Jesus is before John, but in preeminence. Jesus being the forerunner and firstborn. Verse 16 and 17 explain why Jesus is preeminent over John.
16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Again Jesus is related to and spoken of as God because of the way He functioned. He fully represented and expressed God.

I appreciate that it is hard to think in the Hebrew way, but it is imperative that we do so in order to understand scripture from within the culture it was written.

f John intended for the term “Word†to be defined as Jesus in John 1 why would he differentiate so clearly between the two in Revelation.

Revelation 1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
2who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

Revelation 1:9? I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

The term “and†in these verses caries the meaning of “in addition toâ€

God had a plan or Idea from the beginning. That Idea was to create children that would be like him in character. To do this he set up the Earth with all of it’s character building trials. In order for us to see what the character of God looks like in a human we have our perfect example in Christ. John was witness to both the plan/idea of God and, in addition, to the fulfillment of that plan in Christ. In John 1 the idea/plan of God became flesh and dwelt among us for our example.
This is much like my wife and I having a plan to have children. Our idea/plan became flesh when my son was born.

This also allows the scripture to carry on the meaning of the term Logos as it is translated in the remaining 350 times it is used in scripture.

 

[follower of Christ]

I agree with this part of this post - Jesus and God are indeed separate persons. None of these verses make Christ a God in any way.

POssibly not in any direct, overt manner, but this one certainly does.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

There was a man sent from God; his name was John. This one came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name, who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, This was He of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all have received, and grace for grace. For the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:1-17 MKJV)

The problem is that you dont want to accept the WHOLE truth that is presented in all of the smaller pieces of data in the matter.

I know that was not the intention of this post. Just pointing out that these verses make a statement that shows less of an inclination toward a co-equal oneness of God.
Joh 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.
Why did Christ need to be given anything? Isn't he co-equal? He should have had it already.

And what this proves is that Jesus IS the SON....His own persona in the Godhead.
The Son did not know the day and hour of His return but ONLY the Father.
That makes Jesus His OWN person.
But He is GOD.

The problem is that in our limited, finite, fallible minds we cant get our brains wrapped around an idea and therefore we cannot accept it....ie we think WE know it all.

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Could Jesus have done anything else but keep the commandments? How did Jesus keep the commandments as a God or as a man? If he is asking us to keep the commandments in the same way, do we need to be Gods too? (unless, of course, the significance is that he kept them as a man)

Jesus WAS man as well as GOD.
The Man and the Son who ARE God can keep the commandments given by God (The Father).
That we do not fully understand the Trinity concept as scripture presents it does not NEGATE it.

Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Why does Jesus need anyone else to glorify him. He is God he could have glorified himself.
Why did Jesus need to have authority? As a God should he not already have that authority?
Why did Jesus not send the father to earth. They are co-equal are they not. Why does one have more authority then another?

Again, WE dont have ALL of the necessary data to FULLY comprehend the Trinity as God would certainly know it.
We can only hypothesize about what may or may not be.
What we DO know is the facts that ARE presented in scripture, such as Jesus, the Word, IS GOD.
There is no getting around that fact and no amount of questioning is going to nullify it as fact.

Joh 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

Why did the helper have to come from the father? Could not the co-equal son send it?

Again, WE dont have ALL of the necessary data to FULLY comprehend the Trinity as God would certainly know it.

BTW I posted many scripture showing Jesus as human. You did not deal with any of them.

Uh, friend, maybe you need to READ here.
NO one here would assert that Jesus WASNT human, and fully so. We KNOW that He was as scripture teaches it.
And He is ALSO FULLY GOD (the Son).

Again, there is no getting around that fact.


.

 

[follower of Christ]

I admit that John 1 can be difficult to understand,

No, friend, its not.
Some here just WANT it to be difficult so we can change what it SAYS and MEANS.
Johns gospel does a VERY good job of being beautifully poetic and remarkably easy to understand.

but that is more due to our lack of thinking as the Hebrews did and not as the current Western cultures look at things.

Always some excuse as to why we cant just accept what the word SAYS.

This also allows the scripture to carry on the meaning of the term Logos as it is translated in the remaining 350 times it is used in scripture.

Irrelevant.
In JOHN the Word is Jesus Christ and He is shown as being WITH God and BEING God therein...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

There was a man sent from God; his name was John. This one came as a witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name, who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.
And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, This was He of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all have received, and grace for grace. For the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:1-17 MKJV)

 

[follower of Christ]

All the previous verse are talking about God and not about Jesus. The next verses begin to speak of Jesus.

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
God’s idea came to fruition. 1 Peter 1:20?For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"
The Greek does not use the word “existed†it says Jesus is before John, but in preeminence. Jesus being the forerunner and firstborn. Verse 16 and 17 explain why Jesus is preeminent over John.
16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

Buried your own argument there friend.

So you ADMIT that this last portion IS about Jesus then.
Please dont bother retracting later, btw.

So now that we have ESTABLISHED that this IS about Jesus and that the WORD became flesh, we return right back to the beginning part of the passage where this WORD is WITH GOD and IS God...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

WHO is it that is WITH God there friend ?
Whomever it is speaking of IS God.
Unless God is a schizophrenic this passage IS about someone who is literally WITH GOD and IS God both at the same time.

.

 

[Yahoshea]

As I suspected. You refuse to follow even the simplest of prudent interpretation rules.

I refuse to follow YOUR rules...that is an absolute.
The passage doesnt need your rules to understand it, friend.
It tells us that this Word IS God and then VERY clearly shows that this Word is Jesus Christ.

This is my point. These are not my rules. Google hermaneutics and you will find that many many scholars use the same rules to interpret scripture. I did not make them up.
You refuse to use my rules? OK then please post the interpretation rules that you use. I will honestly consider them. In the meantime here is a list of the principles I use to ascertain what scripture means.
We start from a premiss that the “original scriptures†as written by the prophets and apostles were inspired by God Himself. No particular later translation has inspiration. There are good and bad translations. Those who penned the scriptures wrote exactly what God wanted to say and that God wants us to know the truth. God used the culture, personalities of the authors, situations, natural realm and circumstances for the purpose of teaching us. The purpose of scripture is to win the lost and to teach the saved how to become like Christ and walk with God as He did.
We must also come to grips with the fact that one book cannot contain everything about God. Not even this magnificent testimony in scripture can tell us all the facts about the actions of Jesus on this Earth. HOWEVER – do not use what scripture DOES NOT SAY as proof of your conclussion. This is simple speculation.
John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

1. Scripture must interpret scripture. No one has a private interpretation but all proofs must come from the word itself. A good idea and safety is to use scriptural terms to understand the meaning of a verse. Do not import words that carry with them a doctrinal bias.

2. Spend a majority of time in clear understandable scripture. Never base a conclussion on ambiguous scriptures. When one is confronted with dozens of clear scriptures on a subject and a few ambiguous scriptures always fall on the clear ones for truth.

When one reads a scripture we will allways form a hypothesis of what it means. This is fine as long as you do not stop there and you are willing to throw that idea out if further study shows it to be wrong. Never except an interpretation based only on a preconceived idea of doctrine. As example – Do not accept a definition of a word (that is different then hundreds of other times it is used in scripture) based on a doctrine you want to prove.

Once you have reched a theory of what a particular scripture means there are a few simple questions one can ask to determine if it is necessary to continue. By honest evaluation of these few questions, most false doctrines are eliminated.
1. Does your conclussion call into question the character of God? Does your interpretation/conclussion/doctrine require God’s character to change for it to be true? Example – Does it require that God (who cannot be tempted to do evil) be capable of that kind of temptation?
2. Does your conclussion make Chrisrt less of a viable example for us to follow? Does it base Christ’s accomplishments on capabilities that we cannot posses? Example – Did Christ posses some power to overcome temptation that is not available to us?
3. Does the doctrine help to understand Christ as our example or make Him more of an inigma?
4. Does the doctrine deal with the real motives and intentions of man’s heart and character or does it deal with intelectual head knowledge only?
5. Does the doctrine rely on tradition or metaphysical concepts or does it support and defend God’s motives and intentions and the functionality of His plan.

Here ae a few mechanical guidelines to use when researching the scriptures.


Who and Whom?

Who wrote it and to whom is it written. Often times, especialy in the epistles it is important to understand that Paul is writing to specific groups of people in various areas of the world. All of thse areas had different problems and Paul would adress them differently.


SOURCES
Use a variesty of translations and sources. Not every Christian can be expected to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar. Keep your sources current. Much information has been discovered in the last 60 years. Many sources are simply copies of texts written 100 years ago. This is also true of teachers and churches. Many Christans sit under the same teacher for years without ever taking the time to test what is being said. Many churches have been putting out the same nonsense for hundreds of years without every testing it themselves. Do not disregard a source because it holds less age. Discoveries such as the Dead Sea Writings and other archeological finds have had great impact on understanding the culture and languages of biblical times.

CONTEXT

This is the first (and most often missed) mechanical test for an interpretation. Does your hypothesis fit within the immediate context?
Does your hypothesis fit in the general context of scripture? For this one might have to study parallel scriptures that speak about the same subject or use the same terms.

FIGURATIVE OR LITERAL LANGUAGE

This one can be more dificult, but whenever possible ascertain if the laguage is figurtive or literal.

HISTORY, CULTURE AND GEOGRAPHY
I have already touched on culture, but it is of great importance since the Hebrew culture in which all of scripture was written is vastly different then any culture living today.This greatly impacts the language. One must “culturally†get into the mind of the author to really understand what he is writing. Historical and geographical facts surrounding the story might also bring clarity.

CHAPTER AND VERSE

The original text was not separated into chapter and verse. Many times one verse is directly related to, or part of, the verses before or after it. Often they are connected by words such as “for†or “andâ€. The earliest (and therefore most important) Greek texts were all written in capitol letters with no punctuation marks. These were added at a later time and do not necessarily reflect the intention of the author.

BE LED BY THE SPIRIT

None of us are perfect in hearing God’s words to us. For this reason God gave us a “more sure word of prophecyâ€. Seek God’s leading and understanding, but know also that true hearing from God will not contradict His written word. When they do contradict eachother always give preference to the written word for your safety.

This is by no means a detailed list, but I believe if everyone honestly used these principles greater understanding would be achieved.