The term "Godhead."

[Runningman]

Some have used that exact "reasoning." But to supplement the discussion, this is useful information:

Alpha & Omega are actually used in connection to our Creator, but no English translation reflects its appearance in Genesis 1:1 (and many other places) as having any meaning.

"In the beginning God created..."

"In the beginning, Elohyim (plural) Aleph-Tav (Hebrew equivalent to Alpha & Omega) created..." The Aleph-Tav identifies Elohyim, but is not translated in English.

The Hebrew word for create, and creator, is
'bar-a.'
Bar = son, and A (Aleph) refers to the Father.
Both Aleph-Tav and Bar-a depict the idea of a pair; and, the fact that Elohyim is plural is a certain agreement.

Another scripture that starts with, "in the beginning..." is John 1:1 which states the Word was with God And IS God. The same "pair" of Genesis 1:1.

The only argument against this I've ever seen is in the doctrinal interpretations of men which have no scriptural foundation.

Interesting point, but also "alpha and omega" are also the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, which is to say a beginning and an end. A beginning and end is not a description of an eternal God without beginning or end.

What I believe Alpha and Omega refers to is the beginning and end of something in a category. How this refers to Jesus is that he was the first to be resurrected. How this applies to the Father is that He is God and Creator.

I think you are also right. It would be like us saying in English, "We are the A and the Z."

 

[Indentured Servant]

Interesting point, but also "alpha and omega" are also the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, which is to say a beginning and an end. A beginning and end is not a description of an eternal God without beginning or end.

What I believe Alpha and Omega refers to is the beginning and end of something in a category. How this refers to Jesus is that he was the first to be resurrected. How this applies to the Father is that He is God and Creator.

I think you are also right. It would be like us saying in English, "We are the A and the Z."

Jesus was quoted as saying "it is finished." The end. Alpha is the Father, Omega is the Son... Beginning and the end... The Tav of Hebrew script was originally depicted in the shape of a cross... Alpha is the Father. Father and Son = Aleph and Tav = Alpha and Omega. First and last, beginning and end. Fulfillment.

 

[CherubRam]

Yahwah says:
Isaiah 40:25
“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.


Psalm 89:6
For who in the skies above can compare with Yahwah? Who is like Yahwah among the heavenly beings?


Psalm 86:8
Among the gods of "The Living One" there is none like you, Lord; no deeds can compare with yours.

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God of the living ones, and there is none like me.


2 Samuel 7:22
“How great you are, Sovereign Lord Yahwah! There is no one like you, and there is no God of the living ones but you, as we have heard with our own ears.


1 Chronicles 17:20
“There is no one like you, Yahwah, and there is no God of the living ones but you, as we have heard with our own ears.


Yahshua said:
John 14:28
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

 

[Free]

Yahwah says:
Isaiah 40:25
“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.


Psalm 89:6
For who in the skies above can compare with Yahwah? Who is like Yahwah among the heavenly beings?


Psalm 86:8
Among the gods of "The Living One" there is none like you, Lord; no deeds can compare with yours.

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God of the living ones, and there is none like me.


2 Samuel 7:22
“How great you are, Sovereign Lord Yahwah! There is no one like you, and there is no God of the living ones but you, as we have heard with our own ears.


1 Chronicles 17:20
“There is no one like you, Yahwah, and there is no God of the living ones but you, as we have heard with our own ears.


Yahshua said:
John 14:28
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Jesus said a lot more than that.

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
"I also believe that it was the only begotten Son of God that became human, but the Son is also Yahweh, just as the Father is, yet they are distinct." [/QOUTE\]

I understand that many honestly believe it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh(human) but because they say that the son is also YHWH I disagree that they're truly teaching that it was the only begotten son who became flesh, because when I hear most people who believe God to be a three person in a godhead and teach that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, all they teach me about what they believe and teach is that it was YHWH God who became human(flesh). So that seems to me they believe the Word is YHWH God not the only begotten Son of God. When the scriptures say at John 1:14 that the Word became flesh and these who say that God is the Word, they are teaching it was YHWH God who became flesh(human), so I disagree that they're teaching that the only begotten Son of God is the Word, and that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh(human). I don't agree that the Word is YHWH God. So when John 1:1 says, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, I believe the Word is the only begotten Son of God, so I believe it was the only begotten Son of God who was with YHWH God in the beginning. I don't believe the Word is YHWH God and that it was YHWH God who was with YHWH God in the beginning.

 

[Free]

Free said,
"I also believe that it was the only begotten Son of God that became human, but the Son is also Yahweh, just as the Father is, yet they are distinct." [/QOUTE\]

I understand that many honestly believe it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh(human) but because they say that the son is also YHWH I disagree that they're truly teaching that it was the only begotten son who became flesh, because when I hear most people who believe God to be a three person in a godhead and teach that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, all they teach me about what they believe and teach is that it was YHWH God who became human(flesh).

More or less correct. God the Son became human.

So that seems to me they believe the Word is YHWH God not the only begotten Son of God.

The Word is the Son of God, who is also Yahweh, not the Father. This is what John 1:1-18 tells us.

When the scriptures say at John 1:14 that the Word became flesh and these who say that God is the Word, they are teaching it was YHWH God who became flesh(human), so I disagree that they're teaching that the only begotten Son of God is the Word, and that it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh(human).

Because you’re assuming that only the Father is YHWH, but that is not what Scripture teaches. The Son is truly and fully God just as the Father is truly and fully God, as is the Holy Spirit. But, they have always been distinct one from the other. And since there is and can only ever be only one God, whose name is YHWH, they are each properly called Yahweh.

I don't agree that the Word is YHWH God. So when John 1:1 says, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, I believe the Word is the only begotten Son of God, so I believe it was the only begotten Son of God who was with YHWH God in the beginning. I don't believe the Word is YHWH God and that it was YHWH God who was with YHWH God in the beginning.

John 1:1 is very informative, especially if one looks at the Greek. In the first clause, 1:1a, according to the Greek, John tells us that when the beginning began the Word was already in existence. In other words, there never was a time when the Word, the only begotten Son, did not exist. That clearly speaks of deity, since only God has always existed.

In the second clause, 1:1b, the Word is said to have been in an intimate, interpersonal relationship “with God.” This means the both that the Word is a “person”—since only persons are in close, personal relationships with other persons—and that he is distinct in some way from God (the Father, in the context).

And then 1:1c essentially states that the Word was in nature God, which is to the say that the Word was God, since only God has the nature that is God. John can say that because of what he already stated on the first two clauses. We know he isn’t saying “a god” because monotheism precludes such an interpretation.

This is concisely repeated in John 1:2 by repeating the claims of the first and second clauses, from which the third clause logically follows. The claim that the Word is truly God in nature is then fully supported by verse 3, the logic of which is inescapable. Verse 3 is also supported by verse 10, which is clearly speaking of the incarnate Son.

And so John continues, careful to always keep the Father and the Son distinct. The rest of his gospel will not be properly understood without a correct understanding of his prologue (vvs 1-18). Those verses are the foundation for all else he says first about Jesus, since the whole point is to introduce the reader to who Jesus is, but also about the Father and the Holy Spirit in the rest of his gospel.

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
"The Word is the Son of God, who is also Yahweh, not the Father. This is what John 1:1-18 tells us.[/QUOTE\]

I agree that the Word is the only begotten Son of God and that the Word who is the only begotten Son of God was with God in the beginning but i see nothing in these scriptures that teach or say that the Word is YHWH God. I don't see anything like that written down anywhere in John 1:1-18.

Free said,
"Because you’re assuming that only the Father is YHWH, but that is not what Scripture teaches. The Son is truly and fully God just as the Father is truly and fully God, as is the Holy Spirit. But, they have always been distinct one from the other. And since there is and can only ever be only one God, whose name is YHWH, they are each properly called Yahweh."[/QUOTE\]

I don't agree with you when you say that the scriptures don't teach that only the Father is YHWH. I believe they do teach that the Father alone is YHWH, no matter how much you disagree with that. In the scriptures when Jesus Christ is praying to God at John 17:3 Jesus Christ when praying to God said, "this is eternal life they knowing you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent." I know that the God that Jesus was praying to was YHWH God because that's the God the Jews believed was the only true God and Jesus was praying to him. Also after Jesus Christ was resurrected after his death he said at John 20:17 that he has a God and Father that is his apostles and disciples Father and God. Here again I know that the Father and God that Jesus Christ is talking about is YHWH God. This scripure doesn't teach me that Jesus is YHWH God, it teaches me that only the Father and God of Jesus is YHWH God.

Free said,
"John 1:1 is very informative, especially if one looks at the Greek. In the first clause, 1:1a, according to the Greek, John tells us that when the beginning began the Word was already in existence. In other words, there never was a time when the Word, the only begotten Son, did not exist. That clearly speaks of deity, since only God has always existed.[/QUOTE\]

The phrase, "In the beginning" at John 1:1 can't mean the beginning of God, because God had no beginning. Jehovah God is from everlasting to everlasting. Revelation 3:14 shows that the Word who is Jesus Christ, did have a beginning when it states, "the beginning of the creation by God," so it confirms that the Word who is Jesus Christ did have a beginning.

I agree that John 1:1 is very informative but this is also true with the whole book of John and the rest of the scriptures. At John 1:1 "The beginning" refers to the time when God began his creative work and produced the Word. As I said Revelation 3:14 shows that the Word had a beginning. Thereafter, the Word was used by God in the creation of all other things.(John 1:2,3) The Bible states that Jesus is "the firstborn of creation" and that by means of him all other things were created. (Colossians 1:15, 16)

The phrase "the Word was a god" describes the Divine or godlike nature that the only begotten Son of God possessed before he became human. The only begotten Son of God can be described in this way because of his role as God's Spokesman and his unique position as the firstborn Son of God through whom God created all other things

In the context of John 1:1 the statement "the Word was with God" indicates that two separate persons are discussed in the verse John 1:1. It isn't possible for the Word to be "with God" and at the same time be YHWH God. John 1:18 confirms that the Word isn't YHWH when it states, "no man has seen God at any time," however people did see the Word, Jesus Christ because John 1:14 states, "the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.

The last phrase of John 1:1 many translations translate it, "the Word was God." But there are various other Bibles that see the need to render the last phrase of John 1:1 differently and some of these various Bible translations go back centuries. In the original language text, the two occurrences of "God" at John 1:1 are grammatically different. In the first occurrence of the word "God" it is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence, so many scholars note the second theos is significant. For example, The Translator's New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: "In effect it gives an adjectives quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the last phrase of John 1:1 means "the Word was divine." Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.

 

[Consecrated Life]

The term "Godhead" is an English variant of the word "godhood" and was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede.

The word "Godhead" is a translation of three different Greek words, theion (meaning "divinity, deity", # 2304 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Acts 17:29, and theiotēs (meaning "divinity, divine nature", # 2305 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Romans 1:20, and theotēs (meaning "deity", # 2320 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Colossians 2:9.

To translate three different Greek words as one word is deviously incorrect. This is not unlike having three different names for one street on a map (with the real name hidden), so that when a person used it, he wound up lost. Likewise of those who read Bibles with "Godhead" in it, thereby misleading a person that the trinity is "real".

Hence, the need for an accurate Bible, one that renders the Hebrew and Greek words and phrases with a high degree of precision, just as a map that can be counted on to provide exact information. Unfortunately, many Bibles follow the lead of the King James Bible, or is otherwise biased, because the trinity, along with a host of other religious teachings that are not true, that has such a strangle hold on so many.

Indeed such man made terms as Godhead do fail to make the point as succinctly as God's " One Of Us" does.
Good lookin out CherubRam.

Gen 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us.....

 

[Randy]

The term "Godhead" is an English variant of the word "godhood" and was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede.

The word "Godhead" is a translation of three different Greek words, theion (meaning "divinity, deity", # 2304 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Acts 17:29, and theiotēs (meaning "divinity, divine nature", # 2305 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Romans 1:20, and theotēs (meaning "deity", # 2320 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Colossians 2:9.

To translate three different Greek words as one word is deviously incorrect. This is not unlike having three different names for one street on a map (with the real name hidden), so that when a person used it, he wound up lost. Likewise of those who read Bibles with "Godhead" in it, thereby misleading a person that the trinity is "real".

Hence, the need for an accurate Bible, one that renders the Hebrew and Greek words and phrases with a high degree of precision, just as a map that can be counted on to provide exact information. Unfortunately, many Bibles follow the lead of the King James Bible, or is otherwise biased, because the trinity, along with a host of other religious teachings that are not true, that has such a strangle hold on so many.

The meaning is the same. All the fullness of the Deity of God dwells/resides/lives in Christ. The Son has the Fathers very nature and is the radiance of the Fathers glory and the imprint of the Fathers very being. Simply put the Son is all that the Father is and such a Son would be God. And since the Deity is the Fathers, not another Deity, the Son and the Father are the one and same God but two persons. Father and Son.

 

[Free]

Free said,
"The Word is the Son of God, who is also Yahweh, not the Father. This is what John 1:1-18 tells us.[/QUOTE\]

I agree that the Word is the only begotten Son of God and that the Word who is the only begotten Son of God was with God in the beginning but i see nothing in these scriptures that teach or say that the Word is YHWH God. I don't see anything like that written down anywhere in John 1:1-18.

It's basic, straightforward logic. We know that there is only one God who is true deity and his name is YHWH. John 1:1-3, 10 tell us that the only begotten Son of God is true deity, having the attributes of God and is God in nature. Therefore, he is also YHWH.

Free said,
"Because you’re assuming that only the Father is YHWH, but that is not what Scripture teaches. The Son is truly and fully God just as the Father is truly and fully God, as is the Holy Spirit. But, they have always been distinct one from the other. And since there is and can only ever be only one God, whose name is YHWH, they are each properly called Yahweh."[/QUOTE\]

I don't agree with you when you say that the scriptures don't teach that only the Father is YHWH.

Can you provide just one verse which clearly states that only the Father is Yahweh?

I believe they do teach that the Father alone is YHWH, no matter how much you disagree with that. In the scriptures when Jesus Christ is praying to God at John 17:3 Jesus Christ when praying to God said, "this is eternal life they knowing you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent." I know that the God that Jesus was praying to was YHWH God because that's the God the Jews believed was the only true God and Jesus was praying to him.

But, there is much more to the context of John 17:3. First, this doesn't preclude Jesus from also being truly God. Jesus, as the Son incarnate, is upholding monotheism and acknowledging his submission to the Father. Second, notice that eternal life is found in knowing both the Father and the Son.

Third, we see just two verses later:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

But, what did Yahweh say?

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. (ESV)

Is Jesus contradicting what Yahweh said? Let's first look at something John said:

Joh 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.
Joh 12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
Joh 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
Joh 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. (ESV)

Who does John say Isaiah saw in "his glory and spoke of him"? Clearly, John is meaning that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, or rather, the Son. Looking at the context of what Isaiah was talking about:

Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
Isa 6:3 And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”
Isa 6:4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
…
Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
Isa 6:9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (ESV)

So, who did Isaiah actually see? He saw Yahweh in all his glory. Once again, John supports what he said in John 1:1--that the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God for all eternity past, meaning that the Word is also God in nature.

Additionally, we should also take into account what John writes in 1 John 4:

1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
...
1Jn 4:13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
1Jn 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
1Jn 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (ESV)

Apart from "God sent his only Son into the world," which affirms Jesus's preexistence as the Son, it is very important to note that twice John says "God is love." To say God is love, is to make a statement about his essence, his nature, and not merely the idea that he is loving.

Look at what Jesus says:

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

That is exactly why John says what he does in John 1:1--the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God prior to creation. Everything John says about the Son and the Father is based on Jesus's own words.

Looking once again at what Jesus says:

Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
Mar 12:31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (ESV)

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (ESV)

So, what then is love? At its fullest, it is both a healthy love of self and an outward expression and action towards others. We should fully expect then, that if God is love, that his love must have the fullest expression and necessarily includes love of others from before creation of all time and space, from "eternity past." However, if God is a monad, then to say that “God is love” means 1) that God only loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love” and leaves His love, and therefore his nature as God, incomplete and deficient.

When we consider the Trinity, however, it all works. There are three persons each being truly and fully God, equally possessing the full and undivided essence (one being that is God), having been in an intimate, loving relationship and communion for eternity past, that is, prior to creation. Only now we can truly say that God is love. Diversity within the unity.


I posted much of this to you on the previous page and you didn't address it.

 

[Free]

Also after Jesus Christ was resurrected after his death he said at John 20:17 that he has a God and Father that is his apostles and disciples Father and God. Here again I know that the Father and God that Jesus Christ is talking about is YHWH God. This scripure doesn't teach me that Jesus is YHWH God, it teaches me that only the Father and God of Jesus is YHWH God.

But, again, what John states in 1:1-18 is foundational. And, again, context matters. A passage about the humanity of Christ that doesn’t preclude him from also being God. Remember, Jesus had already told them that he came from above, from the Father, in whose glory and love he shared before creation (all of which John also discusses in his prologue), and was going to return to the Father. He is simply returning to the place and position in glory from which he came.

First, notice what Jesus does not say in 20:17. He does not say, "I am ascending to our Father and our God." He says, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (ESV). He calls the disciples "brothers" for the first time, but there is still a relational difference between he and the Father and his disciples and the Father. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, that is, he is God by nature; the disciples are sons (and daughters) by adoption. His God is also their God, or, their God is his God, in that as the God-man, he still prayed to the Father as the one true God, being in submission to him (Phil 2:5-8). But that in no way precludes Jesus from also being truly God. It is rather one of the main points of John’s gospel. Jesus is simply here stressing the new closeness of relationship between the disciples and God.

Second, we have Thomas's declaration as additional context:

Joh 20:24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 20:25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
Joh 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (ESV)

The immediate context is of the resurrected Christ repeating Thomas's specific declarations for evidence back to him, despite Jesus not having been there when Thomas stated them, and then invites Thomas to investigate the evidence. The text literally reads: "Answered Thomas and said to Him 'The Lord of me and the God of me'." Thomas is clearly saying to Jesus that he is his Lord and his God.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20.htm

Throughout the entire book of John, from beginning to end, there is one consistent message about who Jesus, the Son of God, is--God in human flesh, both truly man and truly God, who, in becoming flesh subjected himself to the will of the Father for our salvation and the redemption of creation.


I also posted all of this on the previous page and you didn't address it.

Free said,
"John 1:1 is very informative, especially if one looks at the Greek. In the first clause, 1:1a, according to the Greek, John tells us that when the beginning began the Word was already in existence. In other words, there never was a time when the Word, the only begotten Son, did not exist. That clearly speaks of deity, since only God has always existed.[/QUOTE\]

The phrase, "In the beginning" at John 1:1 can't mean the beginning of God, because God had no beginning. Jehovah God is from everlasting to everlasting. Revelation 3:14 shows that the Word who is Jesus Christ, did have a beginning when it states, "the beginning of the creation by God," so it confirms that the Word who is Jesus Christ did have a beginning.

No. My argument clearly is not that God had a beginning, since, as you say, God has no beginning. As a necessary being, he has absolute existence; he has always just existed. In John 1:1a, the phrase "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of creation, because that is the only beginning--the creation of time and space. It clearly is an allusion to Gen 1:1. John is saying that when the beginning began, the Word, the preincarnate Son, was already in existence. But that is absolute existence, which belongs to God alone.

I agree that John 1:1 is very informative but this is also true with the whole book of John and the rest of the scriptures. At John 1:1 "The beginning" refers to the time when God began his creative work and produced the Word. As I said Revelation 3:14 shows that the Word had a beginning.

Not so. "The beginning of God's creation" is referring to the Word being the agent through whom all was created. John cannot be saying here that "the Word had a beginning," as that would completely contradict everything in his gospel.

Thereafter, the Word was used by God in the creation of all other things.(John 1:2,3) The Bible states that Jesus is "the firstborn of creation" and that by means of him all other things were created. (Colossians 1:15, 16)

No. "The firstborn of creation" in Col 1:15 cannot mean that the Son was created. Otherwise, it would not only utterly contradict verses 16 and 17, it would contradict John 1:1-3 and 1 Cor 8:6. "Firstborn" refers to the position of preeminence, the privileged position of the firstborn son.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Again, if the Son was the first created thing, then these two verses are false, as is John 1:1-3 and 1 Cor 8:6. Simple, straightforward logic proves that the Son cannot have been created.

The phrase "the Word was a god" describes the Divine or godlike nature that the only begotten Son of God possessed before he became human. The only begotten Son of God can be described in this way because of his role as God's Spokesman and his unique position as the firstborn Son of God through whom God created all other things

No, it cannot be "a god," for the reason I've already given--monotheism. We should listen to God himself when he says:

Deu 32:39 "'See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand. (ESV)

Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. (ESV)

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (ESV)

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
...
Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. (ESV)

Not only was the Son the agent through whom every single thing that was created came into being, proving that he is truly God, Yahweh himself says there is no other god nor will there ever be another god. That precludes the translation and understanding that Jesus was a god. As I stated already, John 1:1c does mean that the Word was God in nature, but since only God has the nature of God, it necessarily follows that the Word is God.

 

[Free]

In the context of John 1:1 the statement "the Word was with God" indicates that two separate persons are discussed in the verse John 1:1. It isn't possible for the Word to be "with God" and at the same time be YHWH God.

Yes, I made that point.

John 1:18 confirms that the Word isn't YHWH when it states, "no man has seen God at any time," however people did see the Word, Jesus Christ because John 1:14 states, "the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.

This is fallaciously begging the question since you're presuming that only the Father is YHWH. But the entire context of John 1:1-18 clearly is that the Word, the preincarnate Son, is also truly God, which means he is also YHWH.

The last phrase of John 1:1 many translations translate it, "the Word was God." But there are various other Bibles that see the need to render the last phrase of John 1:1 differently and some of these various Bible translations go back centuries. In the original language text, the two occurrences of "God" at John 1:1 are grammatically different. In the first occurrence of the word "God" it is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence, so many scholars note the second theos is significant. For example, The Translator's New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: "In effect it gives an adjectives quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the last phrase of John 1:1 means "the Word was divine." Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.

Yes, I already addressed that. John 1:1c is qualitative, that is, the Word was divine, which means in nature God. And, again, since only God has the nature of God, it necessarily follows that the Word was God.

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
"It's basic, straightforward logic. We know that there is only one God who is true deity and his name is YHWH. John 1:1-3, 10 tell us that the only begotten Son of God is true deity, having the attributes of God and is God in nature. Therefore, he is also YHWH.[/QUOTE\]

That's not straightforward logic. It's not logic to say the Word is the only true God YHWH and then say that the only true God YHWH was with the only true God YHWH, that's not logical. But this is what you're trying to say John is saying at John 1:1 and I disagree that John is saying that.

Free said,
"Can you provide just one verse which clearly states that only the Father is Yahweh?" [/QUOTE\]

Yes I can provide a scripture, it's at John 20:17 there Jesus Christ said he has a Father and God who is his apostles Father and God. The God and Father of Israel is YHWH Jesus wasn't saying he was YHWH.
I agree that context matters but when you say, "the entire context of John 1:1-18 clearly is that the Word, the preincarnate Son, is also truly God, which means he is also YHWH," then you and I disagree concerning the context of John 1:1-18. I believe the Word is the only begotten Son of YHWH God, so that's what the context of John 1:1-18 is teaching, that the Word is the only begotten Son of YHWH God and that the only begotten Son of YHWH God was with YHWH God in the beginning. I agree that the only begotten Son of YHWH God is divine or has divine nature but that doesn't make him YHWH God. The scriptures make it clear that the apostles who exercised faith in Jesus when resurrected will have the same divine nature as Jesus(2 Peter1:3,4) but just because these apostles will have the same divine nature as Jesus doesn't make these apostles to be Jesus Christ or YHWH God. So just because the only begotten Son of God has divine nature doesn't make him YHWH God. Also there is only one who is said to be the only true God. This phrase, the only true God is applied only to YHWH. I do not disagree that Jesus is the only true God, so I disagree that Jesus is YHWH God.

 

[Runningman]

Free said,
"It's basic, straightforward logic. We know that there is only one God who is true deity and his name is YHWH. John 1:1-3, 10 tell us that the only begotten Son of God is true deity, having the attributes of God and is God in nature. Therefore, he is also YHWH.[/QUOTE\]

That's not straightforward logic. It's not logic to say the Word is the only true God YHWH and then say that the only true God YHWH was with the only true God YHWH, that's not logical. But this is what you're trying to say John is saying at John 1:1 and I disagree that John is saying that.

I agree with you that this is not logical. The only way to make this logical would be to interpret this as there being two Gods together who both happen to have the same name, but aren't the same person. In that case, we would have polytheism and that would also be wrong.

Free said,
"Can you provide just one verse which clearly states that only the Father is Yahweh?" [/QUOTE\]

Yes I can provide a scripture, it's at John 20:17 there Jesus Christ said he has a Father and God who is his apostles Father and God. The God and Father of Israel is YHWH Jesus wasn't saying he was YHWH.
I agree that context matters but when you say, "the entire context of John 1:1-18 clearly is that the Word, the preincarnate Son, is also truly God, which means he is also YHWH," then you and I disagree concerning the context of John 1:1-18. I believe the Word is the only begotten Son of YHWH God, so that's what the context of John 1:1-18 is teaching, that the Word is the only begotten Son of YHWH God and that the only begotten Son of YHWH God was with YHWH God in the beginning. I agree that the only begotten Son of YHWH God is divine or has divine nature but that doesn't make him YHWH God. The scriptures make it clear that the apostles who exercised faith in Jesus when resurrected will have the same divine nature as Jesus(2 Peter1:3,4) but just because these apostles will have the same divine nature as Jesus doesn't make these apostles to be Jesus Christ or YHWH God. So just because the only begotten Son of God has divine nature doesn't make him YHWH God. Also there is only one who is said to be the only true God. This phrase, the only true God is applied only to YHWH. I do not disagree that Jesus is the only true God, so I disagree that Jesus is YHWH God.

Acts 3:13 in the KJV says exactly what you're saying.

13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;

So who is the God of Abraham? Not Jesus. The God of Abraham is YHWH according to Exodus 3:14,15.

 

[Free]

Free said,
"It's basic, straightforward logic. We know that there is only one God who is true deity and his name is YHWH. John 1:1-3, 10 tell us that the only begotten Son of God is true deity, having the attributes of God and is God in nature. Therefore, he is also YHWH.[/QUOTE\]

That's not straightforward logic. It's not logic to say the Word is the only true God YHWH and then say that the only true God YHWH was with the only true God YHWH, that's not logical. But this is what you're trying to say John is saying at John 1:1 and I disagree that John is saying that.

It is straightforward logic; it points to an obvious distinctness. There was and is only one God, one true deity. His name is Yahweh. John tells us that the Word has always existed, which is an attribute of Yahweh alone, and then explicitly tells us that the Word is deity, that he is in nature God. Yet he also tells us the Word was in an interpersonal relationship with the Father, who we know is Yahweh.

So, the best explanation of what John states, is that there are at least two distinct persons within the one God who is Yahweh.

Free said,
"Can you provide just one verse which clearly states that only the Father is Yahweh?" [/QUOTE\]

Yes I can provide a scripture, it's at John 20:17 there Jesus Christ said he has a Father and God who is his apostles Father and God. The God and Father of Israel is YHWH Jesus wasn't saying he was YHWH.

Where is the name Yahweh mentioned in that verse?

I agree that context matters but when you say, "the entire context of John 1:1-18 clearly is that the Word, the preincarnate Son, is also truly God, which means he is also YHWH," then you and I disagree concerning the context of John 1:1-18. I believe the Word is the only begotten Son of YHWH God, so that's what the context of John 1:1-18 is teaching, that the Word is the only begotten Son of YHWH God and that the only begotten Son of YHWH God was with YHWH God in the beginning.

I have already clearly stated that I believe the Word is the only begotten Son. I mentioned several times that the Word is the preincarnate Son.

I agree that the only begotten Son of YHWH God is divine or has divine nature but that doesn't make him YHWH God.

But it does because there is only one true deity.

The scriptures make it clear that the apostles who exercised faith in Jesus when resurrected will have the same divine nature as Jesus(2 Peter1:3,4) but just because these apostles will have the same divine nature as Jesus doesn't make these apostles to be Jesus Christ or YHWH God.

Where does that passage say that the "apostles will have the same divine nature as Jesus"? What does it mean to be a partaker?

So just because the only begotten Son of God has divine nature doesn't make him YHWH God.

Be very, very careful in using language used of Jesus and applying it to mere humans as though it has the same meaning.

Also there is only one who is said to be the only true God. This phrase, the only true God is applied only to YHWH.

I agree.

I do not disagree that Jesus is the only true God, so I disagree that Jesus is YHWH God.

This is a contradiction. Is that what you meant to say?

 

[Free]

I agree with you that this is not logical. The only way to make this logical would be to interpret this as there being two Gods together who both happen to have the same name, but aren't the same person. In that case, we would have polytheism and that would also be wrong.

No, it's two persons, one God. John clearly claims that the Word, the preincarnate Son, is truly God, in the very same way the Father is truly God. Yet, John, as every other NT writer, also clearly claims that there is only one God. The only possible answer is that there is diversity within the one God, a distinctness of persons. It isn't fully comprehensible, but it would be false to conclude that that means it's not logical.

Acts 3:13 in the KJV says exactly what you're saying.

13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;

So who is the God of Abraham? Not Jesus. The God of Abraham is YHWH according to Exodus 3:14,15.

This is fallaciously begging the question. You have yet to show how a son can be of a completely different nature than his father.

 

[KV-44-v1]

No, it's two persons, one God. John clearly claims that the Word, the preincarnate Son, is truly God, in the very same way the Father is truly God. Yet, John, as every other NT writer, also clearly claims that there is only one God. The only possible answer is that there is diversity within the one God, a distinctness of persons. It isn't fully comprehensible, but it would be false to conclude that that means it's not logical.

Running man has Unitarian assumptions, unitarian conclusions.
He starts with the belieeef that "God is only one person, so therefore the Trinity doctrine "teaches three gods" ". His assumption is so ingrained he can barely, if at all, get it out. And there is zero evidence that God is only one Person.

These facts here is why he can only give monothiestic statements as "evidence" that God is only one Person.

Because he can't stop believing that three Persons one God somehow means three Gods.
If his view was correct, why can't he look outside his own assumptions?



One MO of a false belief is that the believer of it just can not (or mabye refuse to) look outside it.

Or not looking outside ones assumptions is a sign one does not have the intellectual skill/capability to look outside.


In Running's case, it seems to be both.

 

[Runningman]

Running man has Unitarian assumptions, unitarian conclusions.
He starts with the belieeef that "God is only one person, so therefore the Trinity doctrine "teaches three gods" ". His assumption is so ingrained he can barely, if at all, get it out. And there is zero evidence that God is only one Person.

That's not accurate. I know exactly what the Trinity is and could teach it thoroughly and accurately to your church. I am saying what the theological argument of the Trinity "reads like." In straightforward logic, "the Word is the only true God YHWH and then say that the only true God YHWH was with the only true God YHWH" is incomprehensible.

These facts here is why he can only give monothiestic statements as "evidence" that God is only one Person.

According to Jesus, the person you call the Father is the only true God. That infers the other people you think are God are indeed not God.

Because he can't stop believing that three Persons one God somehow means three Gods.
If his view was correct, why can't he look outside his own assumptions?

Hey I am here if you want to speak directly to me. Can you quote Scripture where someone taught this?

One MO of a false belief is that the believer of it just can not (or mabye refuse to) look outside it.

That's not it. What I believe is true and it's plainly stated in Scripture. What this is, has always been, and always will be is what you're saying as it compares to the Bible and how they match up. They don't match up. The battle will always be between you and scripture. I don't have creeds and doctrines to point at for my beliefs like you do. I simply quote what the Lord said.

Or not looking outside ones assumptions is a sign one does not have the intellectual skill/capability to look outside.

haha, wow was that necessary to take a jab at me? Them's fighting words.

In Running's case, it seems to be both.

Look in a mirror.

 

[Runningman]

No, it's two persons, one God.

The statement "God was with God" reads like two Gods grammatically because numbers exist. The way to convey to a reader that there is one God is by saying something like "There is one God."

John clearly claims that the Word, the preincarnate Son, is truly God, in the very same way the Father is truly God. Yet, John, as every other NT writer, also clearly claims that there is only one God. The only possible answer is that there is diversity within the one God, a distinctness of persons. It isn't fully comprehensible, but it would be false to conclude that that means it's not logical.

He doesn't word it like that though. If he were to say what you said and made it seem like a comparison then that would make sense, but "God was with God" reads more like two Gods when there aren't two Gods are we don't have two Gods.

This is fallaciously begging the question. You have yet to show how a son can be of a completely different nature than his father.

I never claimed otherwise, but that is also fallaciously begging the question. Whoever said being of the same nature as God means someone is God?

 

[Free]

The statement "God was with God" reads like two Gods grammatically because numbers exist. The way to convey to a reader that there is one God is by saying something like "There is one God."

It would sound like two Gods, which is why neither John, nor I, say that "God was with God." It's "the Word was with God."

He doesn't word it like that though. If he were to say what you said and made it seem like a comparison then that would make sense, but "God was with God" reads more like two Gods when there aren't two Gods are we don't have two Gods.

Again, who is saying "God was with God"?

I never claimed otherwise, but that is also fallaciously begging the question.

But do you claim otherwise:

"Jesus is a human from heaven, i,e, the Son of Man. The "Son of God" descending from heaven isn't found in the Bible. Of course, a literal human didn't descend from the sky. It's about God's plans in heaven manifesting on earth. Jesus didn't have a literal pre-exististent." (HERE)

"The Messiah is a human." (HERE)

"Jesus is called the Son of God, not God the Son. Jesus never claimed to be God either. For sure he outright denied it." (HERE)

"Jesus is a human whom is God's begotten Son." (HERE)

"I believe that the nature of God and the nature of human are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist simultaneously." (HERE)

"Jesus was actually a normal human;" (HERE)

I could go on and on and on, with quotes from you that deny the Son of God is God in nature. That means, since we are the analogues of God, you are implicitly affirming that a son can be of a completely different nature than his father.

Whoever said being of the same nature as God means someone is God?

It's the only logical conclusion. Only God can be of the nature of God. That should never be contested. If someone can be of the same nature as God and not be God, then that means there is more than one God, which is the very thing you said is wrong in a post above.