The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[Hockeycowboy]

What's weak is Arianism claiming there are two gods.

"....there are many gods and many lords,...." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
The Apostle Paul said this. He wasn't advocating worshipping them, he was simply recognizing their existence. (Same w/ John.)

What does the rest of this passage (1 Corinthians 8:6) say?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Perhaps we were not created to ever govern ourselves? Did the Creator always know that a superior being was going to have to come and do that?

interesting questions!

To answer the first one, read Jeremiah 10:23

 

[74x12]

"....there are many gods and many lords,...." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
The Apostle Paul said this. He wasn't advocating worshipping them, he was simply recognizing their existence. (Same w/ John.)

What does the rest of this passage (1 Corinthians 8:6) say?

But to us(the church) there is but one God the Father. For the church there are not "many gods" there is one God the Father. There are many gods for the world. And yet you claim the church has God the Father and also separate "god" Jesus Christ. For you do call him "a god" and you say He is Lord. So if He is really your Lord (master) and if He is really "a god" then you have two Gods: a greater and a lesser God. Therefore, your doctrine is against 1 Corinthians 8:6.

 

[kjw47]

Why are you separating Jesus from men? Was he an angel?

Also, when did you become a "Red letter" Christian?

Jesus was mortal while on earth. I started learning in 1961.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But to us(the church) there is but one God the Father. For the church there are not "many gods" there is one God the Father. There are many gods for the world. And yet you claim the church has God the Father and also separate "god" Jesus Christ. For you do call him "a god" and you say He is Lord. So if He is really your Lord (master) and if He is really "a god" then you have two Gods: a greater and a lesser God. Therefore, your doctrine is against 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Jesus is "a god": we recognize him as a powerful one. But we don't worship Jesus. Jesus said to worship his Father (John 4:23-24), his God, the God of the ancient Jews. -- John 20:17

 

[kjw47]

There's a solution to your anguish: don't go to a Catholic church and leave us alone so we don't have to read your pathetically bigoted statements. Yours is steeped in myopic hate, whereas our emphasis is on the love of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and all humankind.

Problem solved.

My statements aren't bigoted. They are facts. Just as it is 100% undeniable fact-From Moses on up until this very day, the Israelites in every place of worship, teach, serve and worship-YHVH(Jehovah) a single being God, This same God taught to Jesus and every single bible writer. How do your teachers get by those facts?

 

[74x12]

Jesus is "a god": we recognize him as a powerful one. But we don't worship Jesus. Jesus said to worship his Father (John 4:23-24), his God, the God of the ancient Jews. -- John 20:17

You recognize Jesus as a god. So then, you acknowledge two Gods for the church.

 

[metis]

They are facts. Just as it is 100% undeniable fact-From Moses on up until this very day, the Israelites in every place of worship, teach, serve and worship-YHVH(Jehovah) a single being God, This same God taught to Jesus and every single bible writer. How do your teachers get by those facts?

They don't "get by those facts", as they teach God's love for all Creation,and God is one but with three "essences", much like I can be a father, a husband, and a son, and yet it's still the same me.

As long as one continues to not understand the concept of "essence", they'll never get close to understanding this. Same is true with the Eucharist ("communion"), whereas the "essence" of the "Body and Blood" is involved. However, even if one didn't understand how "essence" relates to these, that's probably OK because it's highly unlikely that this understanding is essential for salvation, imo.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You recognize Jesus as a god. So then, you acknowledge two Gods for the church.

No, as was stated, Paul recognized "many" gods, he didn't worship them. Quit twisting my meaning! You know, it is pretty easy to understand: the Father, only, is God for our worship. (As Jesus said, @ John 17:3).

 

[74x12]

No, as was stated, Paul recognized "many" gods, he didn't worship them. Quit twisting my meaning! You know, it is pretty easy to understand: the Father, only, is God for our worship. (As Jesus said, @ John 17:3).

• Is Jesus the Head of the church? (Ephesians 5:23)
• yes/no
• Is Jesus called by the Greek word for god "theos"? (John 1:1 etc.)
• yes/no
• So then how is Jesus not "a god" to the church? (1 Corinthians 8:5)

 

[74x12]

No, as was stated, Paul recognized "many" gods, he didn't worship them. Quit twisting my meaning! You know, it is pretty easy to understand: the Father, only, is God for our worship. (As Jesus said, @ John 17:3).

Paul says there is one God for us(the church). You say Jesus is "a god" but not for the church; even though He is head of the church and Lord/master of the church. Your doctrine is looking rather convoluted at this point. And in my view if a doctrine looks that way then it's probably wrong. Which I already know; but I'm just saying for your sake.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Paul says there is one God for us(the church).

Yes. Who did Paul say is our “one God”? The Father. Sorry, he didn’t include Jesus...Jesus is our Lord, our Savior. Why?


Because, as Jesus said: “All authority has been given me.”

If he was The God, he would have had it to begin with.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

• Is Jesus called by the Greek word for god "theos"? (John 1:1 etc.)

• yes/no

Highly acclaimed scholar and Roman Catholic priest John L. McKenzie, S.J. (a trinitarian), 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. (Italics and bold type are mine.)

Why does he say this?

Because of Koine Greek grammar regarding the usage of definite articles (or lack thereof) in sentence location.

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 “aprophet.”

Other versions are in accord with this:

▪ 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

▪ 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

▪ 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

▪ 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

▪ 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)

▪ 1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

▪ 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

▪ 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

▪ 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

▪ 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago

▪ 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

▪ 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958)

▪ 1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible

▪ 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible

▪ 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

▪ 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

▪ 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

(—Some of this material taken from Topic — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY)


When you contemplate the context of the Apostle John's words...if Jesus was God, if that's what John meant....why would he imply Jesus was with God? (He should have just said "the Father".) And a few verses later, why would he write, "No man has ever seen God"? Was he wanting to be deliberately ambiguous?

Only a faulty interpretation, makes the context ambiguous.

A well-known encyclopedia once described the Trinity as "an inscrutable mystery". (Yet, supporters still try to explain it.)

Thank goodness, as Jesus said @ John 4:22-23, "we worship what we know...the true worshippers will worship the Father" -- only, as commanded at Exodus 20:1-5.

I really wish you a good day.

 

[74x12]

Yes. Who did Paul say is our “one God”? The Father. Sorry, he didn’t include Jesus...Jesus is our Lord, our Savior. Why?


Because, as Jesus said: “All authority has been given me.”

If he was The God, he would have had it to begin with.

As for why he did not include Jesus that was what I am asking you. I have no need for him to include Jesus; because Jesus is the Father.

Yes, Jesus the human was given all authority to fulfill all the scriptures concerning the Son of man. Because we could not do it alone. God came in human form to take the power promised for our sakes. This way He overcomes the world. So then all power and authority are promised to a human being. That's what is special about Jesus. Because for the first time ever a human being had all power and authority in heaven and earth. So then nothing can stop Him.

Don't you see that Jesus didn't need all authority and power for Himself? In fact, He did nothing for Himself but did it all for our sakes. Because He is the "seed of the woman" that bruises the serpents head and He is the Son of man that rules all things. Of whom it was prophesied that God sets Him over the work of His hands. (Hebrews 2:7)

 

[74x12]

Highly acclaimed scholar and Roman Catholic priest John L. McKenzie, S.J. (a trinitarian), 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. (Italics and bold type are mine.)

Why does he say this?

Because of Koine Greek grammar regarding the usage of definite articles (or lack thereof) in sentence location.

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 “aprophet.”

Other versions are in accord with this:

▪ 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

▪ 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

▪ 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

▪ 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

▪ 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)

▪ 1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

▪ 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

▪ 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

▪ 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

▪ 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago

▪ 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

▪ 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958)

▪ 1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible

▪ 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible

▪ 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

▪ 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

▪ 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

(—Some of this material taken from Topic — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY)


When you contemplate the context of the Apostle John's words...if Jesus was God, if that's what John meant....why would he imply Jesus was with God? (He should have just said "the Father".) And a few verses later, why would he write, "No man has ever seen God"? Was he wanting to be deliberately ambiguous?

Only a faulty interpretation, makes the context ambiguous.

A well-known encyclopedia once described the Trinity as "an inscrutable mystery". (Yet, supporters still try to explain it.)

Thank goodness, as Jesus said @ John 4:22-23, "we worship what we know...the true worshippers will worship the Father" -- only, as commanded at Exodus 20:1-5.

I really wish you a good day.

Actually, I've already addressed this argument in this thread just by pointing out that many times God Himself is addressed simply as Theos in the scriptures without the "ho". Since that is the case; this line of reasoning fails to prove that the Logos is a lower case "god". Otherwise you would have the Father as a lower case God also.

Just reading in Greek we are not allowed to add an "a" at all. So if John wanted us to know that the Logos is a separate theos; he would have been more clear about it. I don't believe that God is trying to confuse anyone. In fact the point is to dissuade confusion. Because people could easily be led to believe that the Logos is separate from God. John makes sure we know that the Logos is in fact with God and yet is God.

 

[OtherSheep]

I believe my experience was quite different. I received Jesus as Lord and Savior because God is good. That did not come from the Bible so it must have come from the Holy Spirit. At the time I had not read the Bible enough to know what it said about it. Later study revealed the Biblical basis for my belief.

I used to argue with a Judaized Messianic Gentile, about the term Lord. The Baals are lords, was his argument. Today, mine would be that... if the Baals are lords, and if Ugarit has entire paragraphs of Scripture, maybe the names have been changed to protect the guilty. Because I'm not so sure that the compilers did anything but compile. Some say that the God of the Old Testament isn't the God of the New, and I used to argue against that, too. They said that the Jewish God was a tribal god. I'm not so sure they're wrong. But the Bible is a compilation of the religions from the Caucasus down through North Egypt and from Persia to Troy. And the threads cannot hold together. So Jesus came. And He told us what His Father has always said, so that we may know which parts of the Old Testament belong to our Heavenly Father.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As for why he did not include Jesus that was what I am asking you. I have no need for him to include Jesus; because Jesus is the Father.

Oh, grief!
So all those many times Jesus was praying to his Father, he was praying to himself? When Jesus said "the Father taught me these things", he'd actually taught himself? When Jesus said, "I always do the things pleasing to Him," Jesus was really just pleasing himself?
When Jesus was praying "My Father, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless let, not my will, but yours, be done", Jesus was really lying...his will was the same, because he is the Father?

At John 8:17-18, Jesus said the Law required two witnesses to make an issue valid. He said, "I bear witness about myself, and my Father also bears witness." But according to you, Jesus is the Father, so he was really bearing witness about himself twice? That was illegal.

When the Father said from Heaven, "This is My Son, listen to him", that was really Jesus, throwing his voice? And calling himself his own son?

And on and on.....

There's no way to reason with such obfuscation.

I'm done, take care, my cousin.

 

[74x12]

Oh, grief!
So all those many times Jesus was praying to his Father, he was praying to himself? When Jesus said "the Father taught me these things", he'd actually taught himself? When Jesus said, "I always do the things pleasing to Him," Jesus was really just pleasing himself?
When Jesus was praying "My Father, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless let, not my will, but yours, be done", Jesus was really lying...his will was the same, because he is the Father?

At John 8:17-18, Jesus said the Law required two witnesses to make an issue valid. He said, "I bear witness about myself, and my Father also bears witness." But according to you, Jesus is the Father, so he was really bearing witness about himself twice? That was illegal.

When the Father said from Heaven, "This is My Son, listen to him", that was really Jesus, throwing his voice? And calling himself his own son?

And on and on.....

There's no way to reason with such obfuscation.

I'm done, take care, my cousin.

Jesus has two natures. The created and uncreated. As we read in the scripture Hebrews 10:5 the human body of Jesus is created and thus Fathered by the Spirit of God as we read in Matthew 1:18. Making Him the begotten Son of God in the flesh. However, we can't ignore that in the spiritual; Jesus did not come into being at birth. He was already there. We read in Isaiah 9:6 that He is not only going to be "a child" who is "born" and He is not only going to be "a son that is given" but He is also called mighty God and everlasting Father. Then in Micah 5:2 we read that His goings forth are from of old. From everlasting. Yes, this means that He was prophesied from of old and from everlasting. But Jewish scholars actually believe that you should be able to interpret the Hebrew scriptures by every possible way that makes sense. I agree with them in this case. Both interpretations are true. Jesus was prophesied from everlasting to come and He is also Himself from everlasting. And in Hebrews 13:8 we see that Jesus is always the same. Yesterday, today and forever. So there never was a time when Jesus is not who He is right now. This means that Jesus was more than just a flesh and blood human being. He was eternal and unchanging. This proves the duality of His nature. He was both mortal and immortal.

As for Him throwing His voice. That is quite unnecessary. God is omnipresent as we read in Jeremiah 23:24 God fills both the heaven and the earth. And in Acts 17:28 in Him we live and move and have our being. So, we know that God in presence and in knowledge and in power fills all things and is present everywhere at once. He can speak in an infinite amount of voices at once. He doesn't need to throw His voice as if He is present in only one place at a time.

So, in conclusion the omnipresent God was manifest or indwelling in the human body of Christ who is the Son of God.

As for the fact that Jesus prayed to God. Yes, as a human being He had a human mind, will and emotions etc. He must pray to God and subject the will of the flesh to that of the Spirit of God. Which is typified in the crucifixion of the flesh. This crucifixion was the ultimate submitting of the flesh to the will of God. He submitted His flesh to the point of actually putting it to death for the sake of the will of God.

 

[kjw47]

They don't "get by those facts", as they teach God's love for all Creation,and God is one but with three "essences", much like I can be a father, a husband, and a son, and yet it's still the same me.

As long as one continues to not understand the concept of "essence", they'll never get close to understanding this. Same is true with the Eucharist ("communion"), whereas the "essence" of the "Body and Blood" is involved. However, even if one didn't understand how "essence" relates to these, that's probably OK because it's highly unlikely that this understanding is essential for salvation, imo.

Reality= John 20:17---The wise and true followers BELIEVE JESUS FIRST.

 

[TiggerII]

74x12 wrote in post #375: "Actually, I've already addressed this argument in this thread just by pointing out that many times God Himself is addressed simply as Theos in the scriptures without the "ho". Since that is the case; this line of reasoning fails to prove that the Logos is a lower case "god". Otherwise you would have the Father as a lower case God also.


"Just reading in Greek we are not allowed to add an 'a' at all. So if John wanted us to know that the logos is a separate theos; he would have been more clear about it. I don't believe that God is trying to confuse anyone...."

...........................

Once you are familiar with article usage in NT Greek, you will find that there are times when the definite article is not used with a nominative noun, and it is simply grammatically unclear what was intended: definite or indefinite. These exceptions include the use of prepositions (including the genitive noun) modifying the noun in question ('god OF us'; 'TO god' etc.) when the noun is a non-count noun or abstract noun; etc. Fortunately, none of the exceptions apply to theos in John 1:1c.

But if you stick to examples like John 1:1c itself (theos unmodified by the above) in all the writings of John (and the other Gospel writers), you will find that he always uses the article (ho, 'the') when it refers to the Most High God (the Father).

Please show me your examples which show otherwise in John's writings.

ALL Bible translators add 'a' or 'an' to most count nouns which don't have the article (anarthrous) in NT Greek. This is subject to the same exceptions as given above. (See Jn 3:4; 3:27; 7:46; 9:16; 9:24; 10:33; etc. in an interlinear and all of the major Bibles).

Once you do this you should see that there is no confusion in John 1:1c, but the intent of the original writer is clear.