What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[RLT63]

Not at all. Jesus is not referred to in John 1 until v14.

How is the Word in verse 1 not the same Word in verse 14?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Yup, the Word was God and the same was with God, verse 1 and 2

So the Word was God and he was beside himself? Can you be “with” someone and yet at the same time, BE that person yourself?
The son of God prays to his Father...gives glory to his Father, is not privy to things the Father alone knows, and because he has a “beginning” he cannot be the eternal God. (Revelation 3:14)
Jesus calls his Father “my God” even in heaven.....can God have a god? (Revelation 3:12)

Do you understand what “logos” means in Greek?

Do you know what “theos” means in Greek?

The logos was “with God” but it does not say that the logos was “God”...it says the logos was “theos”.
If the Greek said “ho theos” as it does in the first mention of the word, that would be entirely different, but the logos is not said to be “ho theos”. This is the way they identified the unnamed God of the Jews in the Koine Greek language of the day.

 

[BeyondET]

It's one of the clearest passages in the Bible

Yea reading verse 1 with 2 makes all the

It's one of the clearest passages in the Bible

Yea Jesus has always been the Word.

My Lord said to your Lord, let us make man

 

[BeyondET]

So the Word was God and he was beside himself? Can you be “with” someone and yet at the same time, BE that person yourself?
The son of God prays to his Father...gives glory to his Father, is not privy to things the Father alone knows, and because he has a “beginning” he cannot be the eternal God. (Revelation 3:14)
Jesus calls his Father “my God” even in heaven.....can God have a god? (Revelation 3:12)

Do you understand what “logos” means in Greek?

Do you know what “theos” means in Greek?

The logos was “with God” but it does not say that the logos was “God”...it says the logos was “theos”.
If the Greek said “ho theos” as it does in the first mention of the word, that would be entirely different, but the logos is not said to be “ho theos”. This is the way they identified the unnamed God of the Jews in the Koine Greek language of the day.

Like a octopus with 3 independent hearts and 9 independent brains in one body. Nature truly does reveal His nature.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Like a octopus with 3 independent hearts and 9 independent brains in one body. Nature truly does reveal His nature.

That would be true if God told us that he was an octopus..... But he uses language that we humans understand, and so does Jesus....the rest is pure invention as far as I can see....

Can you address the two scriptures in Revelation that I cited.....no one has to date....they seem to avoid them for some reason. :hmm:

 

[BeyondET]

That would be true if God told us that he was an octopus..... Buy he uses language that we humans understand, and so does Jesus....the rest is pure invention as far as I can see....

Can you address the two scriptures in Revelation that I cited.....no one has to date....they seem to avoid them for some reason. :hmm:

God created the octopus for a few reasons.

God is not flamboyant and does not need to prove His nature to any man.

 

[RLT63]

So the Word was God and he was beside himself? Can you be “with” someone and yet at the same time, BE that person yourself?
The son of God prays to his Father...gives glory to his Father, is not privy to things the Father alone knows, and because he has a “beginning” he cannot be the eternal God. (Revelation 3:14)
Jesus calls his Father “my God” even in heaven.....can God have a god? (Revelation 3:12)

Do you understand what “logos” means in Greek?

Do you know what “theos” means in Greek?

The logos was “with God” but it does not say that the logos was “God”...it says the logos was “theos”.
If the Greek said “ho theos” as it does in the first mention of the word, that would be entirely different, but the logos is not said to be “ho theos”. This is the way they identified the unnamed God of the Jews in the Koine Greek language of the day.

In What Sense Is Jesus the Beginning of God's Creation? by Don Stewart

 

[Aunty Jane]

In What Sense Is Jesus the Beginning of God's Creation? by Don Stewart

Tap dancing...always tap dancing.....Colossians 1:15-17 confirms what John wrote in Revelation.

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him.” (NASB)

“Through him and for him” does not denote that Jesus is God, but the one “through” whom God created...and it was also “for” him....if Jesus is God then this makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Aunty Jane]

God created the octopus for a few reasons.

God is not flamboyant and does not need to prove His nature to any man.

That's true, but we cannot put words in his mouth to support something he never said.

 

[Wrangler]

So what is verse two saying the same was in the beginning with God.

That which emerged from God, his reason, logic, voice or word. In the beginning, God said. This is no triune apology. John is mirroring GE 1 except introduces the Messiah at v14.

Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking.
The Voice was and is God.
2 This celestial Word remained ever present with the Creator;
3 His speech shaped the entire cosmos.
John 1:1-3 VOICE

 

[RLT63]

Tap dancing...always tap dancing.....Colossians 1:15-17 confirms what John wrote in Revelation.

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him.” (NASB)

“Through him and for him” does not denote that Jesus is God, but the one “through” whom God created...and it was also “for” him....if Jesus is God then this makes absolutely no sense.

Firstborn is a title, and the very verse you use says he created all things

 

[Wrangler]

It's there in the plain reading of the text.

LOL Reading trinitarian dogma onto unitarian text not even referencing Jesus.

 

[Johann]

Jewish monotheism understands Jesus to be God in a secondary sense; figuratively.

On a serious note @Matthias, surely you must be aware how ancient rabbinical writings wrestled with the concept of two powers, in the Kabalah, up to seven. Ever read the Zoar? You cannot dismiss the ancient rabbis, Zoar and the Kabalah friend, since Dr. Michael Brown are using these sources and I have them myself.
Would be interesting to see how you are going to respond to that.

 

[Wrangler]

How is the Word in verse 1 not the same Word in verse 14?

The same way that you hearing a person's voice life or in person is different from hearing it ... wait for it ... through a telephone.

I've referenced Deut 18:15-18 several times. Have you read it and understood how it applies to the word becoming flesh?

 

[Matthias]

On a serious note @Matthias, surely you must be aware how ancient rabbinical writings wrestled with the concept of two powers, in the Kabalah, up to seven. Ever read the Zoar? You cannot dismiss the ancient rabbis, Zoar and the Kabalah friend, since Dr. Michael Brown are using these sources and I have them myself.
Would be interesting to see how you are going to respond to that.

You very recently told me that you aren’t into Jewish mysticism. I took you at your word and told you that I was glad to hear that you aren’t. Perhaps I should have added that I’m not into Jewish mysticism either. It’s a pathway, not the only pathway, into idolatry.

I’ve dealt with the issue through contact with Jews For Jesus. They’re using Jewish mysticism to evangelize Jews.

If what you told me about your relationship with Jewish mysticism is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is true, then I find it hard to believe that you would use it to evangelize Jews or support trinitarianism. I certainly don’t.

If you’ve read those sources - or the excerpts used by groups like Jews For Jesus - then you’re aware that they don’t deliver trinitariansism.

 

[Johann]

Yes the question is far but my point is not harsh. It is rude (if not harsh) to sweep aside a question and ask one of your own. Why not answer the OP's question AND THEN pose one of your own? That seems more conversational.

Nope, Yeshua always asked a question with a question.
I have given the links on Questions Jesus asked but nobody seems to be interested.
How many questions did Jesus asked, and how many did He answered?

 

[BeyondET]

That's true, but we cannot put words in his mouth to support something he never said.

Ok since scripture clearly states His Devine nature can be seen from things made what are some that you know of from observation of things made?

 

[RLT63]

The same way that you hearing a person's voice life or in person is different from hearing it ... wait for it ... through a telephone.

I've referenced Deut 18:15-18 several times. Have you read it and understood how it applies to the word becoming flesh?

I don't see it. And I don't see how you miss John 1.

 

[Johann]

If you’ve read those sources - or the excerpts used by groups like Jews For Jesus - then you’re aware that they don’t deliver trinitariansism.

And so neatly dodging the question..5:04 in the morning here.
Allow me to ask you another question.
Would you say rabbi Tovia Singer is on the narrow dereck?

If what you told me about your relationship with Jewish mysticism is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then I find it hard to believe that you would use it to evangelize Jews. I certainly don’t.

Seems like I have struck a nerve.

 

[Matthias]

And so neatly dodging the question..5:04 in the morning here.

I answered your question. I’ve read the sources you asked about and I’ve dealt with them through trinitarian organizations who use them. They don’t support trinitarianism.

Why aren’t you into Jewish mysticism?

Allow me to ask you another question.
Would you say rabbi Tovia Singer is on the narrow dereck?

I don’t understand your question. What does “on the narrow dereck” mean?

Seems like I have struck a nerve.

Please elaborate.