Do you believe that Jesus is the Word?

[Trackdayguy]

Jesus is a deific part of that Creator aspect

John 14:6

Jesus is not like other people, and 'none shall come to the father except through me', actually means that Jesus is part of the equal Godhood.

Jesus doesn't say some, or sometimes, He says none, shall come to the father, except through Him.

With respect, Jesus didn’t say that, what you have quoted is what you have been told he said some 30 years after he died. It’s hear say and hear say is inadmissible in court

 

[Brickjectivity]

The question is, do you believe that Jesus is the Word?


If so, how is Jesus not God?

I believe Jesus is either the first human who becomes the Word or is a symbol. Symbols are spiritual. He is one or the other of those. According to Hebrews 2:10 (which is not the final authority but which shows us some of the apologetic) it seems Jesus was not perfect at first and had to become perfect. I think his perfection was the giving up of everything human or individual about himself. That being said the gospels describe a resurrected Man named Jesus, and that is at odds with what Hebrews 2:10 is saying. Flesh is imperfect - full stop. At one time I would have thought them in harmony in one way, but now I see a different harmony. One describes someone who has ceased and become perfect through excision of all flesh and all that is temporal. The other describes a resurrected individual with limbs and flesh and necessary imperfection. The prophets speak of resurrections of Israel that is of a faithful and just Israel but speak not of individual resurrections, although there are a couple of stories with individual resurrections. A famous prophecy in Ezekiel describes Israel as a pile of bones that reverse-decays. That is the resurrection is not about an individual. This is also not just about the country but the ideals in it -- the real Israel the prince of peace not the politico and warriors and the taxis. It is more than a country. The prophets talk about this idea spreading and the gentiles becoming holy vessels. Paul alludes to this when he says "...but we have this treasure in clay vessels..." The resurrected body of Jesus then, the ironically fleshy perfected body could easily represent the hope of the prophets that the gentiles would embrace Abraham's hope. Some people have pondered whether Jesus might be such an egregore.

 

[paarsurrey]

With respect Jesus didn’t say that, what you have quoted is what thought he might have said some 30 years after he died. It’s hear say and hear say is inadmissible in court

I agree with one here. People attribute things to Jesus that neither he said not he even implied to say. One is right, I believe, such things are just hearsay and hear say is improper to be admitted.

Regards

 

[blü 2]

Jesus and the Father are both 'God'.

You're entitled to your view, but as I keep quoting to you, it's not a view Jesus shares.

The trinity wasn't invented, it is an explanation or rather representation of the Godhead. This is why they use the word Godhead in the New Testament.

'Godhead' is used three times in the KJV ─ Romans 1:20 translating θειότης, Colossians 2:9 translating θεότης, and Acts 17:29 translating θεῖος, all meaning 'divinity', 'godlike-ness'. 'Godhead' is not used at all in the RSV ─ those words are translated 'divine nature', 'fullness of deity', and 'Deity' respectively. Nothing of that implies a Trinity. (And as I said, why would it?)

Another reason to reject Trinity notions, apart from their being an historical artifact from a 4th century CE doctrinal dispute, is that the doctrine as it stands makes no sense (is a nonsense). It says that Yahweh, Jesus and the Ghost are identities distinct from each other, that there is only one God, and that all three are 100% of God. So (leaving aside casual observations like, Who answers the phone when you pray to God? and, Why would Jesus on the cross say, Me, me, why have I forsaken me?) you have the mathematical absurdity that 100% + 100% + 100% does NOT equal 300% (three gods) but only 100% (one god). This isn't just my idea, by the way. It's the reason that the RCC and the Anglicans / Piscos acknowledge that the Trinity doctrine is a 'mystery in the strict sense' (and here I quote the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) 'in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed'. Which is, again, a polite way of saying it's a nonsense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The question is, do you believe that Jesus is the Word?


If so, how is Jesus not God?

Personally, no. It does say it in scripture; so, to believers, it must be true.

Jesus is not god because he pointed away from himself in dialogue, action, reference to the Laws of Moses, and actions as examples to worship his father not himself.

If jesus were god, he wouldnt be an intermediary. If he is god, in the flesh doesnt make him different as an intermediary. Either he is or he isnt.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Jesus pre-exists His human incarnation, and puts Himself with the Fa

With puts two seperate things, concepts, ideas, etc together without making them one and the same

More of equating His deific nature in the Godhood

This is saying they are on the same level in divinity. You cant equate one thing with itself. 2 equates itself to 2? Thats repeatitve.

Jesus literally equates His oneness with the Father, and separates Himself from people, ie He is God, He is Deific, and He is one with the Father.

Unless jesus is not human, he cant be flesh and be deific at the same time. And only 3,000 or so years ago!! That isnt too far off.

You cant seperate yourself from yourself. The bible teaches

Jesus is one with
Jesus is the image of
Jesus points to the

Two people can be one; one person cant be one with itself.

Flesh incarnation makes it seperate than what its an incarnation of. Its the same as image. You cant be an incarnation of oneself and still seperate yourself at the same time being one.

Jesus seperates himself as an incarnation, but equates himself with his father making both of them one but still apart give one is flesh who has the ability to sin and the other is a deity who cant yet they are the same?

Its literally reading it wrong in bias of what one wants to see and relate to scripture not whats literally actually written.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The question is, do you believe that Jesus is the Word?


If so, how is Jesus not God?

Yes, Jesus is the 'let there be' in creation
Yes, Jesus is fully God and fully man

 

[Kenny]

Another reason to reject Trinity notions, apart from their being an historical artifact from a 4th century CE doctrinal dispute, is that the doctrine as it stands makes no sense (is a nonsense)..

It is incredible how one can read that which was written in the 1st and 2nd century and then you say it is from a 4th AD doctrinal dispute?

That makes no sense (is a nonsnese).

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.... And the Word was made flesh.

That is as black and white as you can make it.

 

[Kenny]

If jesus were god, he wouldnt be an intermediary. If he is god, in the flesh doesnt make him different as an intermediary. Either he is or he isnt.

I'm not sure I can agree, Unveiled Arttist (repectfully).

We have a spirit and live in a body. They are different, they have a different materiality, a different purpose. The soul is the intermediary between the two part.

If God is beyond our comprehension, who is to say He can't be both? Or, if a spirit can leave a body and see the body, as so many have experienced, why can't a portion of God be in a body?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The question is, do you believe that Jesus is the Word?


If so, how is Jesus not God?

How could a human being be a "word?" Makes no sense.

 

[blü 2]

It is incredible how one can read that which was written in the 1st and 2nd century and then you say it is from a 4th AD doctrinal dispute?

Show me where in the 1st and 2nd century it says that Yahweh, Jesus and Ghost are distinct entities and each of them is simultaneously 100% of God.

It isn't there. It comes later.

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.... And the Word was made flesh.

That is as black and white as you can make it.

Nope:

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

John 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

That is as black and white as you can make it ─ Jesus telling you again and again (and there are many more quotes where those came from) that he ain't God.

And as I said, why would you expect to find a 4th cent CE idea in a set of 1st cent CE texts?

And surely you agree that it's nonsense to claim that 1+1+1=1 (which is exactly what the Trinity doctrine says)?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can I ask. Why is it different to believe jesus shares his fathers divinity and does he will of his father as an intermediary without calling jesus god? I mean, thats like Moses calling himself god because he holds the laws and salvation to god's chosen people.

I'm not sure I can agree, Unveiled Arttist (repectfully).

We have a spirit and live in a body. They are different, they have a different materiality, a different purpose. The soul is the intermediary between the two part.

The differnce is you say jesus is god. However, when you say spirit and body, you're acknowledging two things regardless of how they relate to each other.

If you said the spirit of god is In jesus as the spirit in god is in believers, that would be biblically true. Using the word "is" does not seperate two things (body and spirit; flesh and divinity). Its literally saying one is the other. If humans can be seperate by body and spirit, why cant christ?

Does he need to be the father in order to be christ?

If God is beyond our comprehension, who is to say He can't be both? Or, if a spirit can leave a body and see the body, as so many have ex

Gotta be blunt. If its both, its paganism. Greek and Roman deify humans. Those they do are usually kings and people of religious honor. They deified the dead not the living. Those that did were human except for their eternal nature; thats what made them gods. They lived forever. Other than that, they were just like us.

I wouldnt be surprised as why The Church deified christ. Since christ followed jewish teachings, his view of worship (god only) is different than the apostles (through christ to god) and extremely different from christian views (jesus as god)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.... And the Word was made flesh.

That is as black and white as you can make it.

Is it?

Acclaimed Bible scholar and Roman Catholic priest John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317. (Bold type is mine.)

Now, why would a Trinitarian not accept this passage as evidence promoting Jesus as God?

Because of the context, and Koine Greek grammar. (Koine Greek was the language the Apostle John wrote this.)


Let’s look at the context...John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” John 1:14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, vss.1 &2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? Would John really write something so confusing and ambiguous, if he meant to convey that Jesus was God?

In consideration of this (and the grammar issues detailed below),

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London, 1808, renders John 1:1b, ““and the word was a god””;

The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London, 1864: ““and a god was the Word””;

The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago, 1935: ““and the Word was divine””;

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn, 1950: ““and the Word was a god””;

Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany, 1975: ““and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word””;

Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin,
1978: ““and godlike sort was the Logos””;

Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany, 1979: ““and a god was the Logos””;

and 2001translation.com renders it, “the Word was a powerful one“.

At John 17:3, Jesus addresses his Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Hebrews 1:3.

Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Yes. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The Jerusalem Bible and King James both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”


— Excerpt from “Reasoning on the Scriptures”; Trinity — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[blü 2]

John 17:21
Jesus literally equates His oneness with the Father, and separates Himself from people, ie He is God, He is Deific, and He is one with the Father.

John 17:21 says no such thing. The relevant passage in John 17 reads (RSV) ─

20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.​

In other words, Jesus' oneness with God is available to all believers. It's not an exclusive property of Jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

Unless jesus is not human, he cant be flesh and be deific at the same time. And only 3,000 or so years ago!! That isnt too far off.

Jesus, Doesn't have a human Father, is around after the crucifixion, ie He is immortal, ascends into the air, and leaves earth, or at least that region.

Does this seem like an average person to you?

What book are you reading?

Jesus seperates himself as an incarnation, but equates himself with his father making both of them one but still apart give one is flesh who has the ability to sin and the other is a deity who cant yet they are the same?

Same Godhood.
• does not separate Himself, obviously
• ability to sin?..., another argument. Arbitrary, regardless.
• Yes, both Elohim.

 

[Desert Snake]

You're entitled to your view, but as I keep quoting to you, it's not a view Jesus shares.
'Godhead' is used three times in the KJV ─ Romans 1:20 translating θειότης, Colossians 2:9 translating θεότης, and Acts 17:29 translating θεῖος, all meaning 'divinity', 'godlike-ness'. 'Godhead' is not used at all in the RSV ─ those words are translated 'divine nature', 'fullness of deity', and 'Deity' respectively. Nothing of that implies a Trinity. (And as I said, why would it?)

Another reason to reject Trinity notions, apart from their being an historical artifact from a 4th century CE doctrinal dispute, is that the doctrine as it stands makes no sense (is a nonsense). It says that Yahweh, Jesus and the Ghost are identities distinct from each other, that there is only one God, and that all three are 100% of God. So (leaving aside casual observations like, Who answers the phone when you pray to God? and, Why would Jesus on the cross say, Me, me, why have I forsaken me?) you have the mathematical absurdity that 100% + 100% + 100% does NOT equal 300% (three gods) but only 100% (one god). This isn't just my idea, by the way. It's the reason that the RCC and the Anglicans / Piscos acknowledge that the Trinity doctrine is a 'mystery in the strict sense' (and here I quote the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) 'in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed'. Which is, again, a polite way of saying it's a nonsense.

The fact that that is a mystery to that group, or church, might be a clue, that they didn't invent the trinity.

 

[Trackdayguy]

There is no point trying to have a logical, rational, scientific and intellectual conversation with a fundamentalist. they cant hear you. As far as they are concerned they are right and you are wrong, because that's what they've been told to believe. Its a deception on a grand scale.

believe me I KNOW I was one of them for 30 years.

 

[InChrist]

What do you mean by "the Word"? This looks like Mumbo-Jumbo to me.

I mean...

The term translated “Word” is logos, which basically means “the expression of a thought.” Logos can be thought of as the total message of God to man (Acts 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Jesus embodied that total message, and that is why He is called the “Logos,” or “Word,” of God (Colossians 1:19; 2:9).
How can Jesus and the Bible both be the Word of God?

 

[Desert Snake]

If jesus were god, he wouldnt be an intermediary. If he is god, in the flesh doesnt make him different as an intermediary. Either he is or he isnt.

Jesus is an intermediary to the Father. God is not a single aspect,

Genesis 1:26

God says, let us make man in our image

 

[Trackdayguy]

See what I mean