The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[74x12]

Hi @74x12

The O.P. indicates that John claimed that Jesus was God. While my point doesn't relate to the grammar of the first verse which can be either "and the Word was God" OR "and the Word was "A God" depending upon the author context,. I do have a question as to how your own religious model handles verse 18.

Alright. First of all, let me say I'm not trinitarian. I don't believe in the "three persons in one" premise of trinitarians. Rather, I believe that God is one person and was/is manifest in the Son of God.

The problem (or confirmation / insight depending upon personal belief) this verse provides is that IF John is speaking of God the Father in vs 18, then this verse refers to God the Father is an "only begotten God". However, most trinitarian descriptions assume that God the Father was NOT a begotten God. Does your theory about the trinity assume that Jesus is God the Father and that he is a begotten God or does your religious theory make a different sort of sense out of verse 18?

From what I understand; there is controversy here as to which version was the original. Either it said "only begotten God" or "only begotten Son".

People make various arguments in favor of both. I tend to side with Son; because it's most in line with the rest of the book of John. Especially in John 3:16-18 and also to a lesser extent John 1:14 where the "only begotten of a father" is mentioned. Basically, we have reference to a Son each time "only begotten" is brought up elsewhere.

But, either way I believe that God was "begotten" through or in Jesus Christ. So that would reference the birth of Christ. As we see in Colossians 2:8-9 that the fullness of the divine nature was dwelling in Him bodily.

Does your theory about the trinity assume that Jesus is God the Father and that he is a begotten God or does your religious theory make a different sort of sense out of verse 18?

Again, I;m not myself trinitarian. But, yes I do believe Jesus is God the Father and that He was begotten. Now, that doesn't mean His Divine nature was created. The human nature was born/created at birth. (see Hebrews 10:5) And was born "again" in the resurrection. (Colossians 1:18)

Thanks in advance for any additional information.

So as I said I believe the Father is manifest in the Son. (John 14:7-9) The Son is the revelation of the Father in human form and I believe that this is what is meant when it says in verse 18 that "He has declared Him". A similar idea to 2 Corinthians 4:6 where we see the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God is shining in the face of Jesus Christ. So, there is that knowledge of God's Light; we can see in the face of Jesus. You can see how Jesus brings the true knowledge of God that is otherwise unknown. Because before we had revelations from prophets; but as is written of prophesies "we see in part, we know in part" But with Jesus we had all that knowledge of God in His face. As John speaks of Him in 1 John 1:1-2 you can perhaps sense his amazement; because they had seen Him with their own eyes and touched Him with their hands. And so this is the greatest revelation of God so far given among men.

And in 1 Timothy 6:14-16 it is indeed Jesus who at his appearance will "show" the God that dwells in "unapproachable light".

So, Jesus is what we will see. He's God revealed. The manifestation of the God that no one has seen at any time. Which is why God has commanded that "Jesus" is the name whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12) and that every tongue that confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord does so to the glory of the Father. (Philippians 2:11)

 

[moorea944]

Clear asked 74X12 : " John 1 vs 18 in greek reads : "θεον ουδεισ εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενησ θεοσ ο ων εισ τον κολπον του πατροσ εκεινοσ εξηγησατο" which reads in english "No one has ever seen God, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

The problem (or confirmation / insight depending upon personal belief) this verse provides is that IF John is speaking of God the Father in vs 18, then this verse refers to God the Father is an "only begotten God". However, most trinitarian descriptions assume that God the Father was NOT a begotten God. Does your theory about the trinity assume that Jesus is God the Father and that he is a begotten God or does your religious theory make a different sort of sense out of verse 18?

Moorea944 said : "Verse 18 is talking about God and Jesus. It's not saying that Jesus is God or that God is the "only begotten God". It's saying that no one has ever seen God. Which is true, no one has... Then it continues saying..... the only begotten God (Elohim) (Jesus) John 10, who is in the bosom (or care of) the father, he has make him known. Jesus has made his father known to the world by his preaching. Jesus always declares the righteousness of the father in all things. Jesus also..... comes in his father's name.. That's very important to remember too.


Hi @moorea944

The second phrase of john 1:18 refers to an individual John called “the only begotten God”.

In your religious theory, does “the only begotten God” refer to Jesus, or does the phrase refer to God the Father, or does this phrase refer to another individual in your religious worldview?

Clear
τωεισινεακω

My religious theory? Not sure what your trying to say here....... But anyhow....

Look at what it is saying. The only begotten God. The word "God" is in small "o" and "d". That is a big difference from "GOD". (But that's for another time). Why would you even want to think, in your theory, that our Heavenly Father is a "begotten" God"? Think about it? We know He's not, so it has to be something else. Jesus has been called God before, but not GOD. Read John 10. Also who else has been called "God" before in scripture. Moses has. Also the Judges and the Levi priests have been called God (Elohim) too. Before they were the ones who brought the word of God to the people. So... in some cases in scripture, the word "God" just might mean something else than what your theory really means.

Also, look at the angels. They represent our Creator, they can also speak for Him as if GOD was actually talking to someone. No one has seen GOD at anytime. But people have seen angels before. How many times in scripture has an angel said, I am the Lord your God... then he goes on to say something. Well, we know that angels or that angel is not God Himself, but he is speaking on his behalf. Just like Jesus or the prophets of old. But to "try to" put GOD in sections of verses for our own reasons is wrong.

 

[Muffled]

I should have stated that Paul 'considered' himself an apostle equal to the others due to his encounter with the risen Christ.

I believe my pastor puts it this way. Paul is an apostle (small a) because he is sent out by God but is not an Apostle (larhe A) because he is not one of the twelve that Jesus chose to walk with Him.

 

[Muffled]

It would have been better morally, but you get lower ratings if you don't appeal to people's selfishness. Why focus on helping others when you can be promised eternal life for yourself?

I don't believe so. Paul not only was extremely well versed in the law of Moses but also had help from the Holy Spirit. None of the apostles were any where near as well versed on the law of Moses, most of them being fishermen.

I believe the person who is secure is the one who is best able to help and the love of God that comes with the Holy Spirit provides the motivation.

 

[Muffled]

Ok, again, not really sure why you keep on talking about this "Jesus is God" thing.... Jesus is not God in a body. They are two different people if you want to call it that. If God was in Jesus's body, then who's in heaven? Doesnt make sense, does it...

I believe you will find that God is everywhere and right now He is in me through the Holy Spirit.

 

[moorea944]

I believe you will find that God is everywhere and right now He is in me through the Holy Spirit.

I do find that and agree with you. Scripture even tells us that too, that God's spirit is in us. Thanks for bringing that up.

 

[TiggerII]

My religious theory? Not sure what your trying to say here....... But anyhow....

Look at what it is saying. The only begotten God. The word "God" is in small "o" and "d". That is a big difference from "GOD". (But that's for another time). Why would you even want to think, in your theory, that our Heavenly Father is a "begotten" God"? Think about it? We know He's not, so it has to be something else. Jesus has been called God before, but not GOD. Read John 10. Also who else has been called "God" before in scripture. Moses has. Also the Judges and the Levi priests have been called God (Elohim) too. Before they were the ones who brought the word of God to the people. So... in some cases in scripture, the word "God" just might mean something else than what your theory really means.

Also, look at the angels. They represent our Creator, they can also speak for Him as if GOD was actually talking to someone. No one has seen GOD at anytime. But people have seen angels before. How many times in scripture has an angel said, I am the Lord your God... then he goes on to say something. Well, we know that angels or that angel is not God Himself, but he is speaking on his behalf. Just like Jesus or the prophets of old. But to "try to" put GOD in sections of verses for our own reasons is wrong.

God and gods

The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 clearly recognizes the truth about the lesser meaning of theos and elohim ('a god'):

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.

And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:

"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." - http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/john/johnson/john10.htm

Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”


Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,

“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”


The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...”



Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the NT Greek word “angels” is used (in place of the Hebrew elohim in the OT) in NT Greek.

The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”


Some of these (mostly) trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133 (angels, judges), Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208 (angels, judges), Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, (angels, judges, kings) Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.

30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Hellenic Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

 

[moorea944]

God and gods

The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 clearly recognizes the truth about the lesser meaning of theos and elohim ('a god'):

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1.

And, in the footnote for Ps. 45:6, this trinitarian study Bible tells us: “In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king ..., it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6).”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.” - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34” - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament says for John 10:34-36:

"Is it not written in your law. In Psa. 82. I said, Ye are gods? It was there addressed to judges. Christ's argument is: If your law calls judges gods, why should I be held guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? Sanctified. Set apart." - http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/john/johnson/john10.htm

Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....”


Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon, 1974 printing,

“430. [elohim]. el-o-heem’; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used (in the plur. thus, esp. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, ... x (very) great, judges, x mighty.” - p. 12, “Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.”


The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...”



Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the NT Greek word “angels” is used (in place of the Hebrew elohim in the OT) in NT Greek.

The trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says in a footnote for Ps. 8:6 -

“The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’ or ‘the gods’; hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels].”


Some of these (mostly) trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133 (angels, judges), Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208 (angels, judges), Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, (angels, judges, kings) Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.

30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV; TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Hellenic Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

Absolutely, good post. I'm just not a big fan of the NIV. But good post.

 

[pearl]

I believe my pastor puts it this way. Paul is an apostle (small a) because he is sent out by God but is not an Apostle (larhe A) because he is not one of the twelve that Jesus chose to walk with Him.

Well put!

 

[Clear]

Hi @74x12


JESUS AS A MANIFESTATION OF THE FATHER – HOW DOES THIS WORK?

74X12 Said : “I'm not trinitarian. I don't believe in the "three persons in one" premise of trinitarians. Rather, I believe that God is one person and was/is manifest in the Son of God.” (post #841)
If you believe they are different (i.e. non-trinitatian view) then can you elaborate regarding the difference between God the Father who is “one person” and the “Son” (who you say is a manifestation of the Father)?

For example, if a single person is a Surgeon, and also a dad, and also a golfer, then the person who is doing surgery is the same person who wears a bathing suit when taking his kids to the water park and gets a sunburn. He is also the same person who wears plaid gold pants and cusses on the green. In this case, all three are manifestations of a single individual.

How is your model of the Father, being “manifest in the Son” different?

It is not clear what you mean when you say : “The Father is manifest in the Son” and “The Son is the revelation of the Father in human form.” You said also “Again, I;m not myself trinitarian. But, yes I do believe Jesus is God the Father and that He was begotten.” These statements are somewhat confusing to me. Can you elaborate and explain?

For example, does your model of Jesus being a “manifestation” of the Father equate to some sort of Avatar or a drone that the father uses, or is there some other difference that makes Jesus a “manifestation of the Father”, yet “not the Father”?


Jesus as a God who is “begotten”.

Though I think it is inconsistent with early Christian models, I LIKE your justification/explanation that since Jesus was begotten, he qualifies to be called “begotten” God. The problem is that this still calls Jesus, somehow, a God. If Jesus is the same as God the Father, then this is a trinitarian model. If Jesus is NOT the same as God the Father, then this is Henotheism, or perhaps polytheism, depending on one’s belief model.


In any case, good luck in lifes' Journey 74X12.

Clear
τωεινενεακω

 

[Clear]

Hi @74x12

74/12 said : "From what I understand; there is controversy here as to which version was the original. Either it said "only begotten God" or "only begotten Son"."

I forgot to add, “The Only Begotten God” text of John 1:18 is found in P75, in Sinaiticus (1xt corrector), 33pc, Clement pc and Clement ex, Theodotian, Origen, latin Irenaeus.

The “ONLY Begotten God” (without article) text of John 1:18 is found in p66, Sinaiticus (in the original reading before corrector #1 changed it, it’s found in Vaticanus, In Codex Rescriptus E(in the original reading before change), in L (pauci), Syriac (hmg - harkelsis) Origen /pt) didymus, etc.

The point is that this reading is very old, and “the only begotten son” variant seems to be neither as old nor as widespread in it’s occurrence in the earliest texts.

Good Journey 74X12.

Clear
τωτωτζτζειω

 

[74x12]

If you believe they are different (i.e. non-trinitatian view) then can you elaborate regarding the difference between God the Father who is “one person” and the “Son” (who you say is a manifestation of the Father)?

It comes to the duality of Christ's nature. The difference between what is created and uncreated. So clearly Jesus was born a human being and had a human nature. Created. So He calls God "Father" which was true.

But, His Spirit is uncreated.

For example, if a single person is a Surgeon, and also a dad, and also a golfer, then the person who is doing surgery is the same person who wears a bathing suit when taking his kids to the water park and gets a sunburn. He is also the same person who wears plaid gold pants and cusses on the green. In this case, all three are manifestations of a single individual.

Correct, I believe God manifests Himself in various ways at various times. These "manifestations" of God are revelations meant to teach something about His nature.

So many people "saw" God throughout the scriptures such as Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel etc. But they did not see God as described in 1 Timothy 6:16. Rather, they saw manifestations of that God. And Moses did see God's back as He passed by; but not His face.

ow is your model of the Father, being “manifest in the Son” different?

When I say the Father was manifest in the Son; I mean that God was manifest in the flesh. That is the Son is human and God was manifest in human form in Him.

t is not clear what you mean when you say : “The Father is manifest in the Son” and “The Son is the revelation of the Father in human form.” You said also “Again, I;m not myself trinitarian. But, yes I do believe Jesus is God the Father and that He was begotten.” These statements are somewhat confusing to me. Can you elaborate and explain?

Just as various people saw manifestations of God; which taught them something about God's nature. So Jesus was the same thing; but in tangible human form. So, He really taught us more about God than we ever knew before. All the prophets shined His Light (by His Spirit in them 1 Pet. 1:11) until He came. But He was the true Light. The "Day star".

For example, does your model of Jesus being a “manifestation” of the Father equate to some sort of Avatar or a drone that the father uses, or is there some other difference that makes Jesus a “manifestation of the Father”, yet “not the Father”?

Well, there is a difference between flesh and Spirit. Human nature and Divine nature. That's the duality of Christ's nature. But not a difference in "Divine persons".

God is a Father in relation to His children. A Son because He was born (Luke 1:35) and a holy Spirit because He's holy and a Spirit. (John 4:24)

Jesus as a God who is “begotten”.

Though I think it is inconsistent with early Christian models, I LIKE your justification/explanation that since Jesus was begotten, he qualifies to be called “begotten” God. The problem is that this still calls Jesus, somehow, a God. If Jesus is the same as God the Father, then this is a trinitarian model. If Jesus is NOT the same as God the Father, then this is Henotheism, or perhaps polytheism, depending on one’s belief model.

My difference with the trinity is that they believe in 3 eternal co-existent persons in one God. These persons are not to be mixed up and must be viewed as "distinct" or you're considered a heretic.

I believe God is one and manifest in 3 and even more ways. My belief is similar to the ancient Sabellianism. The trinitarians called it "patripassianism" and said we "killed the Father". Because we believed Jesus is the Father and died on the cross. Of course it's a slur; but I do believe the Father died on the cross (through) the human nature of Jesus. Because God can't die; but if He made Himself a human body then He could die through it. (see Hebrews 10:5)

Some trinitarians might argue that God the Father and the holy Spirit are incapable of "suffering" because they're Divine. But, then if the Son is co-equal (as they claim) then how can He suffer? And besides, in Isaiah 63:9 we see that God is afflicted in all their(the elect's) afflictions. So God shares all afflictions with His people. So God apparently does suffer.

And so Jesus was not just the "Divine person God the Son" on the cross. He was all the person of God on the cross and He died for His love of Adam(mankind).

 

[74x12]

Hi @74x12

74/12 said : "From what I understand; there is controversy here as to which version was the original. Either it said "only begotten God" or "only begotten Son"."

I forgot to add, “The Only Begotten God” text of John 1:18 is found in P75, in Sinaiticus (1xt corrector), 33pc, Clement pc and Clement ex, Theodotian, Origen, latin Irenaeus.

The “ONLY Begotten God” (without article) text of John 1:18 is found in p66, Sinaiticus (in the original reading before corrector #1 changed it, it’s found in Vaticanus, In Codex Rescriptus E(in the original reading before change), in L (pauci), Syriac (hmg - harkelsis) Origen /pt) didymus, etc.

The point is that this reading is very old, and “the only begotten son” variant seems to be neither as old nor as widespread in it’s occurrence in the earliest texts.

Good Journey 74X12.

Clear
τωτωτζτζειω

Oldest found version of a scripture doesn't always mean the correct one. The other may have been copied more and thus won out in the end for a good reason. Because people trusted it more. So I prefer to trust the "textus receptus" most of the time. The textus receptus being the most trusted version throughout history and copied the most and thus passed down to us.

Well meaning people who didn't know better could have only had access to the incorrect version(for all I know) and so quoted it exclusively in their works. By the way, which Clement do you mean? The Bishop of Rome or Clement of Alexandria?

However, I am open to the idea that it could have originally been only begotten God. I just don't know that it was and based on evidence in the book of John itself it seems to favor only begotten Son.

Good journey to you also

 

[Muffled]

Absolutely, good post. I'm just not a big fan of the NIV. But good post.

I believe you have to congratulate the JWs on their loyalty to their myths.

 

[moorea944]

I believe you have to congratulate the JWs on their loyalty to their myths.

Not quite sure what your talking about..... I'm not a JW if that's what your referring too.....

 

[DW79]

In the book of John it's pretty obvious that the author is saying that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jewish authorship:
The arguments from Arianism that this is speaking of "a" god are flawed for a few reasons. First of all the author is a Jew and that's not a Jewish idea. The author is obviously familiar with the Torah and it's commandments. Including "Hear oh Israel Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." And "Thou shalt have no other elohim before me."

So the concept of two gods is against Judaism and it's silly to think that the Jewish author of John would be promoting the worship of two gods.

Influence from Greek philosophy?
Jewish authorship also casts serious doubt on such ideas as that the author is speaking of the so called "divine logos" of Greek philosophy. If the author is a Jew then what does he have to do with Greek philosophy? So if the author's views on the "Word" can be explained without resorting to Greek philosophy and instead by resorting to Jewish literal; especially the Torah and Tanakh. Then that is what should be done rather than assuming the author is influenced by foreign(gentile, pagan) philosophy.

So in understanding the "Word" that was made flesh we should look to 1st century Jewish ideas of the Word of God.

Context:
Secondly, if the author is really promoting the worship of two gods then we should be able to actually see that in the context. Meaning why would the author just stop with a statement like "The Word was with God and the Word was "a" God"? Especially since this can more easily be translated as "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

Therefore Arianists need more proof to show John actually meant to be speaking of two gods rather than one.

This proof they do not have. In fact when we compare John 10:30 with John 1:1 we see an obvious link. Meaning that the author here is showing us exactly how he views the relationship of the Word with God. Jesus is essentially the Word made flesh, but somehow He is "one" with the Father.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

The truth:
The Jewish concept of "the truth" is that God(Jehovah) is the God of truth. Essentially the truth is God. So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity. And we further see this in the book of John when Jesus speaks of the "Spirit of truth" that "proceeds from the Father" who they(his disciples) know because He "dwells with them". See: John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13. So Jesus is basically claiming here that He is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father (Obviously indwelling human flesh). According to Jesus (in the book of John) He (the Spirit of truth/Jesus) is with them but will be in them. So Jesus says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

This is further collaborated in other Jewish writings such as 1st Esdras chapter 4:35-41. God is the "God of truth" and "Great is the Truth and mighty above all things".

The Father revealed in the flesh:
The author of John also makes it kind of obvious that Jesus is claiming to be God revealed in the flesh when Jesus says "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" This was in reply to Philip asking Jesus to "show us the Father". (John 14:8-9)

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

Looking at other writings attributed to John we find that in 1 John 3:1-6 that John makes no distinction between the Father and the Son. But speaks of them as One.

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Honestly i've never seen anything clear or obvious about a person called the Word being with God yet God at the same time and saying he is one with the Father yet not the Father.

This is far from clear or obvious

 

[TiggerII]

Honestly i've never seen anything clear or obvious about a person called the Word being with God yet God at the same time and saying he is one with the Father yet not the Father.

This is far from clear or obvious

“God is not a God of confusion ....” - 1 Cor. (NASB, ESV