John 1:1 CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION

[jgredline]

JOHN 1:1â€â€Is Jesus God or just a god?
MISINTERPRETATION: The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation renders this verse, “The Word [Christ] was a god†(insert added). The Watchtower magazine states that “because there is no definite article ‘the’ (ho) it means Christ is only a god, not the God†(The Watchtower, 7 December 1995, 4). They in fact believe that Jesus is only a created being, Michael the Archangel (The Watchtower, 15 May 1969, 307). The Greek of John 1:1 “is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god†(Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1989, 212).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: It is not proper to translate this verse “The Word was a god†so as to deny the deity of Christ. The full deity of Christ is supported by other references in John (e.g., 8:58; 10:30; 20:28) as well as the rest of the New Testament (e.g., Col. 1:15–16; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8). Further, it is not necessary to translate Greek nouns that have no definite article with an indefinite article (there is no indefinite article in Greek). In other words, theos (“Godâ€Â) without the definite article ho (“theâ€Â) does not need to be translated as “a God†as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have done in reference to Christ. It is significant that theos without the definite article ho is used of Jehovah God in the New Testament. Because the lack of the definite article in Luke 20:38 in reference to Jehovah does not mean he is a lesser God, neither does the lack of the definite article in John 1:1 in reference to Jesus mean he is a lesser God. The fact is, the presence or absence of the definite article does not alter the fundamental meaning of theos. If John had intended an adjectival sense (the Word was godlike or divineâ€â€a god) he had an adjective (theios) ready at hand that he could have used. Instead, John says the Word is God (theos).
Contrary to the claims of the Watchtower Society, some New Testament texts do use the definite article and speak of Christ as “the God†(ho theos). One example of this is John 20:28 where Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God.†The verse reads literally from the Greek: “The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me†(see also Matt. 1:23 and Heb. 1:8). So it does not matter whether John did or did not use the definite article in John 1:1â€â€the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God, not just a god.
Greek scholars have thoroughly refuted the Watchtower translation. Dr. Julius Mantey says of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation of John 1:1, “Ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah’s Witnesses†(Mantey, 3:3, 5).
That Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh) is clear from the fact that the New Testament consistently applies to Jesus passages and attributes which in the Old Testament apply only to Jehovah (compare Exod. 3:14 with John 8:58; Isa. 6:1–5 with John 12:41; Isa. 44:24 with Col. 1:16; Ezek. 43:2 with Rev. 1:15; Zech. 12:10 with Rev. 1:7).
JOHN 1:1â€â€Does this verse teach that God is impersonal, as Mary Baker Eddy claimed?
MISINTERPRETATION: Christian Science leader Mary Baker Eddy concluded that the identification of the Word with God in this verse implies that God is an impersonal deity. Eddy said, “This great truth of God’s impersonality and individuality . . . is the foundation of Christian Science†(Eddy, 117).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Affirming that the “Word [Logos] is God†in no way implies that God is impersonal. “God†(theos) is the same Greek word used of God throughout the New Testament. And God is always presented as a personal being who has a mind (John 10:15), will (John 4:34; 7:17), and feeling (John 4:23). He is a personal being unto whom believers may cry, “Abba,†an Aramaic term loosely meaning “daddy†(Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).
Second, two of the three characteristics of personality can be found in this very passage. God is manifested as the Word (Logos) which means a rational discourse or reason. And God chose by his will to create (John 1:3).
Finally, there is nothing impersonal about the Logos (the Word), for he became flesh (human) and lived among us (John 1:14). He engaged in personal relations with other persons (humans).
JOHN 1:1â€â€Did Jesus preexist only in God’s foreknowledge, as some cults claim, or was he really eternal God?
MISINTERPRETATION: According to The Way International founder Paul Wierwille, Jesus was not God.
How was Jesus with God in the beginning? In the same way that the written Word was with Him, namely, in God’s foreknowledge. . . . In the Old Testament, Jesus Christ was in God’s foreknowledge and in the foreknowledge of God’s people as God revealed this prophetic knowledge to them. When Jesus Christ was born, he came into existence. Foreknowledge became a reality. [cited in Martin, 87]
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: All the evidence is contrary to Wierwille’s conclusion. John asserts that the “Word†(Logos) was a person (John 1:14), not a mere idea in God’s mind, as knowledge would be. The text does not say, as Wierwille claims, that “foreknowledge†was in God’s mind eternally and that “foreknowledge†became flesh and dwelt among us. It says that the “Word [Christ] was God†(John 1:1) from all eternityâ€â€and that this same person (not God’s foreknowledge of him) “became flesh and dwelt among us†(1:14).
John speaks hrist “the Word [Logos]†being “with God†(1:1) eternally. Knowledge would not be “with†God. God would have wisdom, but it would not be with him. The word “with†implies another along side in an intimate relationship. Christ was another person in the Trinity, not the same person as the Father.
Numerous other verses in the New Testament declare the full deity of Christ (for example, John 20:28; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8).

By
Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R.

 

[ChristineES]

Thanks. Interesting article. I nearly became a JW in 1982, when I was 16 and changed my mind at 17. It was then that I joined a Southern Baptist Church. The reason I decided not to become a JW is because I found they believed Jesus was Michael the Archangel, something their studies don't tell you. I found out by the late Dr. Walter Martin that fact.

 

[Klee shay]

Can I ask why you believe the "word" being used in John 1:1 is referring to Jesus? Why do you see it as a noun rather than a verb?

Take away the captial "W" in word and you get a totally different message which does not contradict God but rather reinforces the divinity of God.

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was god. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not."

Jesus echoed the word of God to show men God. And this is how he received revelation from the Father - through God's word.

 

[mutzrein]

Can I ask why you believe the "word" being used in John 1:1 is referring to Jesus? Why do you see it as a noun rather than a verb?

Take away the captial "W" in word and you get a totally different message which does not contradict God but rather reinforces the divinity of God.

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was god. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not."

Jesus echoed the word of God to show men God. And this is how he received revelation from the Father - through God's word.

I know the question is not aimed at me but what conclusion would you draw if the word was a noun? I don't have any problem with the 'word' being a noun. It is the name of what is proceeding out of God. So in this respect, it is WITH God. But what is it that the word reflects? It reflects God. So just as my word reflects me and therefore can be said to be me, so it is with God's word. My word is me but there is always a distinction between me as a person and the words that I speak that reflect me. Jesus is the word of God and as such is the reflection of God but there still remains a distinction between the two.

I can say the same about my relationship with my physical father. In fact the analogy is a striking one. I came from my father and so once brought into being, I am WITH my father. BUT, I am also a reflection of my father, so we can say (as people do) he is the image of his father. So 'I am' my father.

 

[Klee shay]

I know the question is not aimed at me but what conclusion would you draw if the word was a noun?

Perhaps I should've used the term "proper noun." This identifies individuality with a title and God's word is not separate to God.

 

[unred typo]

KleeShay wrote:Can I ask why you believe the "word" being used in John 1:1 is referring to Jesus? Why do you see it as a noun rather than a verb?

I am not Trinitarian but I still do not see Jesus as an angel or spirit. Scriptures teach he was once the eternal word of God. He laid that aside to become man. This is a mystery that cannot be explained and the doctrine of the trinity does not adequately explain it but only confuses and divides those who seek to know the one true God and his Son, Jesus Christ.

John 1:14 says, “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.â€Â

We cannot understand this because we can’t give our word a body and life of it’s own separate from us yet still part of us. A television image is as close as we can get to explaining it, I suppose but that‘s not exactly what it must be.

2Cr 5:19 show Jesus was more of God than what could be explained as a man or an image of God speaking for him when it says, “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.†How can we fathom that? Impossible.

Col 1:15 gives even more light and yet can you explain what is meant by; “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.â€Â

So this is a new thing, a new revelation of God, not seen in the OT but hidden to be revealed in the NT. The Israelites knew him as one God, which he was in the beginning, creating through the Word. When God’s Spirit overshadowed Mary, and she conceived his son, a new thing began. Not two Gods actually but the Father and his only begotten Son, one God and one Lord, who will become one again as it says in 1Corinthians 15:28, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.â€Â

Wouldn’t the church be better off if it was more united in love and righteousness in the teachings of Christ rather than trying to explain the nature of God? Don’t you agree that it would be more scriptural to be like Job who said, “….I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.†( Job 42:3 ) or like David who sai; “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it,†in Psalm 139:6?

 

[mutzrein]

KleeShay wrote:Can I ask why you believe the "word" being used in John 1:1 is referring to Jesus? Why do you see it as a noun rather than a verb?

I am not Trinitarian but I still do not see Jesus as an angel or spirit. Scriptures teach he was once the eternal word of God. He laid that aside to become man. This is a mystery that cannot be explained and the doctrine of the trinity does not adequately explain it but only confuses and divides those who seek to know the one true God and his Son, Jesus Christ.

John 1:14 says, “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.â€Â

We cannot understand this because we can’t give our word a body and life of it’s own separate from us yet still part of us. A television image is as close as we can get to explaining it, I suppose but that‘s not exactly what it must be.

2Cr 5:19 show Jesus was more of God than what could be explained as a man or an image of God speaking for him when it says, “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.†How can we fathom that? Impossible.

Col 1:15 gives even more light and yet can you explain what is meant by; “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.â€Â

So this is a new thing, a new revelation of God, not seen in the OT but hidden to be revealed in the NT. The Israelites knew him as one God, which he was in the beginning, creating through the Word. When God’s Spirit overshadowed Mary, and she conceived his son, a new thing began. Not two Gods actually but the Father and his only begotten Son, one God and one Lord, who will become one again as it says in 1Corinthians 15:28, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.â€Â

Wouldn’t the church be better off if it was more united in love and righteousness in the teachings of Christ rather than trying to explain the nature of God? Don’t you agree that it would be more scriptural to be like Job who said, “….I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.†( Job 42:3 ) or like David who said; “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it,†in Psalm 139:6?

Good Post and much I agree with unred typo.

And as a non-Trinitarian I believe that our focus should on our righteousness which is in Christ. And this is exactly the reason that I contend with those who say that we MUST have a certain understanding of Jesus in order to be saved.

I have said this before elsewhere and I repeat it. As one who is born of the Spirit of God (not of human decision – but of God) I have fellowship with and am one in spirit with all who born of the same spirit. It matters not to me whether they are Trinitarian or not. What matters is our relationship with the Lord. He is the one who unites us and in whom we have our righteousness.

So when some proclaim that we must believe that Jesus is God in order to be made righteous then I MUST contend with them because THIS IS NOT the righteousness that comes through faith. And those who know and understand that this is their righteousness, could not even bring such a railing accusation (of not being saved) against those who walk according to the gift of faith afforded them by God and yet believe differently.

 

[jgredline]

mutzrein
Just so I get this straight and am not making assumptions.
Do you believe Jesus is God?
Do you beleive Jesus was created?
Thanks jg

 

[unred typo]

Mutzrein wrote:And as a non-Trinitarian I believe that our focus should on our righteousness which is in Christ. And this is exactly the reason that I contend with those who say that we MUST have a certain understanding of Jesus in order to be saved.

To me this is having faith in a belief about Christ, not having faith in Christ. It isn’t the belief in the correct facts about Christ that saves us, it is doing what he told us to do to be saved. Jesus spent three years teaching his law of love, forgiveness, holiness and faith, and when he left, he told the disciples to teach people to observe whatsoever he had commanded.

I think what confuses people is that they think that since the works of obeying the OT laws didn’t save men because no one could keep it perfectly, that the commands of Christ are no different. Not so. We have the laws written on our hearts, the Holy Spirit with us to teach us, and in us when we obey, the sacrifice of Christ’s blood to cleanse us when we confess and forsake our sin and the promise of eternal life if we continue to walk in his ways. Not only that but he promised that we could not be tempted above what we were able to resist, and if we resist the devil, he will flee from us. Jesus also said that he would never leave us or forsake us, and the Holy Spirit would find the words for prayers we could not even think of praying. What more could we ask or as Paul said, how shall we escape damnation if we neglect so great salvation?

Sorry to get off topic... again. :

On topic, the Word was made flesh and is beyond our meager brains to fathom but not beyond our ability to follow as the word that was spoken to us by his Son.

 

[mutzrein]

mutzrein
Just so I get this straight and am not making assumptions.
Do you believe Jesus is God?

No, Jesus is the son of God - the Word of God emanating from the Father. The Father is God. Jesus is His son.

Do you believe Jesus was created?

It depends what sense you are speaking of when you think of 'created.' Jesus was not created in the traditional sense such as when we think of some thing or some being, being created.

But think on this. When you speak, what do you create? It is your word.

And so it is with God. Whenever God speaks it is His word we hear. By his word and through His word all things have been created. Jesus only said and did the things the Father showed him and told him to do. And when Jesus spoke of the 'I AM', there is absolute consistency in Jesus being the son of God (or Word of God) that emanates from the Father. It is God who is speaking. Jesus is the conduit.

This is the way I have received it from the Lord. No-one has to accept it in order to be born of God.

Thanks jg

 

[jgredline]

mutzrein
Just so I get this straight and am not making assumptions.
Do you believe Jesus is God?

No, Jesus is the son of God - the Word of God emanating from the Father. The Father is God. Jesus is His son.

Do you believe Jesus was created?

It depends what sense you are speaking of when you think of 'created.' Jesus was not created in the traditional sense such as when we think of some thing or some being, being created.

But think on this. When you speak, what do you create? It is your word.

And so it is with God. Whenever God speaks it is His word we hear. By his word and through His word all things have been created. Jesus only said and did the things the Father showed him and told him to do. And when Jesus spoke of the 'I AM', there is absolute consistency in Jesus being the son of God (or Word of God) that emanates from the Father. It is God who is speaking. Jesus is the conduit.

This is the way I have received it from the Lord. No-one has to accept it in order to be born of God.

Thanks jg

While I strongly disagree with both your views, I do appreciate and repect the way you present yourself. You don't dance around the questions.

If I can ask another question.
How do you interpret John 14:8-10
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.â€Â
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
The New King James Version. 1982 (Jn 14:8-10). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Thanks jg

 

[unred typo]

Mutzrein wrote: It depends what sense you are speaking of when you think of 'created.' Jesus was not created in the traditional sense such as when we think of some thing or some being, being created.
But think on this. When you speak, what do you create? It is your word.
And so it is with God. Whenever God speaks it is His word we hear. By his word and through His word all things have been created. Jesus only said and did the things the Father showed him and told him to do. And when Jesus spoke of the 'I AM', there is absolute consistency in Jesus being the son of God (or Word of God) that emanates from the Father. It is God who is speaking. Jesus is the conduit.
This is the way I have received it from the Lord. No-one has to accept it in order to be born of God.

That is a good example, Mutz. That is how I feel about it, too. Created in the sense of being the Word flowing from the mind of God. What would we be without our thoughts? When you talk to yourself, who are you speaking to? Our words frame and define our thoughts. The tangible expression of the invisible. Before anything was, the Word was with God and the Word was God. I think that’s as close as we need to get to it.

 

[unred typo]

Jgredline wrote:While I strongly disagree with both your views, I do appreciate and repect the way you present yourself. You don't dance around the questions.
If I can ask another question.
How do you interpret John 14:8-10
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.â€Â
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
The New King James Version. 1982 (Jn 14:8-10). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Thanks jg

Mutzrein’s example is applicable here. Try this out: he who has seen my words here has seen my mind on this matter; so how can you say, ‘Show us your mind’? Do you not believe that my words are in my mind and my mind is expressed in my words?

The only difference is that Jesus is not words on a screen but a flesh and blood expression of the thoughts/mind of the Father. It is exquisitely simple yet profoundly beyond our human experience.

 

[Imagican]

14And 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.


And PLEASE note that this says 'filled with'. Doesn't that mean ANYTHING. For God is NOT filled with ANYTHING; GOD IS WHAT GOD IS

And this, my friends, makes PERFECT sense. NO 'mystery' AT ALL. For Christ HIMSELF stated that the words that He offered were NOT His OWN, but 'given' Him OF the Father. So, if Christ INDEED came to us with the 'WORD' of God, a LITERAL representative of The Word, wouldn't that INDEED explain 'And the Word was MADE flesh, and dwelt AMONG us? And if we read the NEXT line, we PLAINLY see EXACTLY 'WHO' Christ WAS/IS: (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father,' Is this 'really' so hard to understand? That Jesus Christ WAS/ IS the Son of God. LITERALLY. Just as offered. The SON OF GOD. Given the power and glory of HIS FATHER. WITHOUT having to BE God Himself? For we KNOW that there is ONLY ONE GOD. And we KNOW that God IS THE FATHER. Yet, throughout ALL scripture, it is NEVER stated, 'God the Son'. Or 'The Son that IS God'. NEVER. Why can't it simply be 'accepted' that Christ IS EXACTLY 'WHO' He STATED HE IS?

For there would be those that 'instead' would choose to 'create another' God 'other than' the ONE TRUE GOD. And 'choose' to worship 'this God' AS the ONE TRUE GOD. Think about the inference here. If Christ is NOT God, then worshiping Him AS God is NOTHING other than the 'creation' of a 'false god'. Notice that I offer this as "IF". I am NOT trying to 'accuse' ANYONE OF ANYTHING. I simply point out the obvious in the hopes that it IS obvious to those that choose to see.

Jesus SITS at the 'right hand of God', RIGHT NOW. Yet there are those, and MANY I might add, that refuse to accept this and instead INSIST that Christ IS God. NO, not a 'part' of God, but GOD HIMSELF. Can't you see the error in this?

Not a 'big' surprise I guess, when we consider that the Hebrews, immediately after being 'freed' by GOD, chose to build and worship a 'golden calf', (god of their 'own' creation), rather than the TRUE God that had JUST Freed them. And WHAT did He have Moses TELL them? There is ONLY ONE GOD. No, NOT 'one God in 'three' parts. But ONE GOD PERIOD.

 

[unred typo]

Imagican wrote:
And this, my friends, makes PERFECT sense. NO 'mystery' AT ALL. For Christ HIMSELF stated that the words that He offered were NOT His OWN, but 'given' Him OF the Father. So, if Christ INDEED came to us with the 'WORD' of God, a LITERAL representative of The Word, wouldn't that INDEED explain 'And the Word was MADE flesh, and dwelt AMONG us? And if we read the NEXT line, we PLAINLY see EXACTLY 'WHO' Christ WAS/IS: (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father,' Is this 'really' so hard to understand? That Jesus Christ WAS/ IS the Son of God. LITERALLY. Just as offered. The SON OF GOD. Given the power and glory of HIS FATHER. WITHOUT having to BE God Himself? For we KNOW that there is ONLY ONE GOD. And we KNOW that God IS THE FATHER. Yet, throughout ALL scripture, it is NEVER stated, 'God the Son'. Or 'The Son that IS God'. NEVER. Why can't it simply be 'accepted' that Christ IS EXACTLY 'WHO' He STATED HE IS?


Well, there was a mystery that was revealed in Christ, but you can’t tell me that the idea of God having a Son, an only begotten Son that was once the Word through which the creation of all things was made, isn’t a marvel that is hard to fathom.

Romans 16:25 -27 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, [be] glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

I think you should see that Trinitarians are worshipping God, the one true God, but have seen Jesus as the person through which that worship is directed. I don’t think God the Father would mind this since he said the angels should all worship him. We are lower than angels and not too bright at that. So I think allowances will be made for sincerity in this grey area. My concern is that they are alienating those outside of Christ who hold to the one true God and others in the body of Christ with their stringent doctrines. God certainly will take a dim view of that. Paul didn’t act that way in Acts 17:23 when he said, “For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.†The narrow way is walking in love and obedience to Christ, not making strict narrow minded doctrines that must be believed in order to be saved.

 

[unred typo]

back to the OP....

JOHN 1:1â€â€Is Jesus God or just a god?

Let me add to my previous post that ‘belief’ is important to salvation. It makes all the difference what you believe because what you believe effects how you act. It’s not the facts that you hold about Christ that save you, even if they are true. It’s what those facts do to you and how they cause you to act. Even having the correct understanding of Jesus’ position in the whole scheme of things won’t necessarily save you. Even if you believe that Jesus, whether he is God, god, or Son of God to you, has authority to make commands that supersede the OT law, you will still tend to take those commands lightly if you believe they are not necessary for your eternal salvation. Doing what the Lord says is such a minimal part of some people’s theology, you would think they were doing God a favor if they did any works at all. They say, “yes, we know Jesus commands us to do them but, we don’t have to do them, they are just for rewards.†Who told them that?

Jesus said the way to salvation was narrow and a fall from this way would be disastrous enough to cause wailing and gnashing of teeth. As a teen, I climbed a mountain that part of the trail to the summit was called the ‘Knife’s Edge’. It was narrow with sides so steep a fall probably would have been fatal. :o Knowing the consequences, my steps were much more careful than they had been on narrower paths without the danger. Satan has lowered the bar so far, we have Christians skipping along and carelessly leaning over the edge as if there were nothing to fear “for thou art with meâ€Â. No. He is with us to help us follow his instructions to attain perfection, without which, no man shall see the Lord. This will take ALL our focus and concentration. Did Jesus say if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out? What was he? Insane?

 

[MrVersatile48]

I tried to post this last week

John 1, Colossians 1 & Hebrews 1 make it crystal clear that Jesus is the Almighty Creator in human form

The Supremacy of Christ

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Hebrews 1

The Son Superior to Angels

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father[a]"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"[c]? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him."[d] 7In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire."[e] 8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever

God bless!

Ian

 

[unred typo]

Ian, that was an excellent summary of Christ; the image of the invisible God, the radiance of God's glory, his firstborn, much superior to the angels, commanded by God to be worshipped, sustaining all things, the Son of God, at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven, sitting on God‘s throne that will last forever.

These prove the incomparable superiority of Jesus Christ, but do they conclusively prove the concept of the trinity as taught by Trinitarians? What John is trying to establish is the supremacy of Jesus, and his commands, over the Old Covenant, and his right to demand our obedience, and the power of his message to save. Believing one thing or another about the godhead will not save. Only if what you believe causes you to follow his commands will it make any difference. And the only reason following them will save you is because of the fact that the Word was made flesh and paid the price so that we can be saved in Christ.

 

[mutzrein]

JG - I'm aware that I haven't answered your post yet but since I haven't seen any posts from you since unred typo made comment on your question to me, what do you think of it?

Cheers

 

[jgredline]

JG - I'm aware that I haven't answered your post yet but since I haven't seen any posts from you since unred typo made comment on your question to me, what do you think of it?

Cheers

Mutzrein
I have not seen the post. Infact I have not been getting my e mail notifications. I just happen to be cruising by and noticed it grew. I will go back and read all the post and get back to you.
Thanks Jg