Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God

[Matthias]

Another example of the concept of agency in scripture.

The same event is described in Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10.

Is this a contradiction in scripture? No.

So who made the request? Was it the centurion, as Matthew writes? Or was it the slave of the centurion, as Luke writes?

It was the slave, acting as the agent / representative of the centurion.

It was the centurion, via the agency / representation of the slave whom the centurion sent. The slave was the centurion’s shaliach.

When Jesus spoke to the slave and the slave spoke to Jesus, it was as if Jesus was speaking to the centurion and the centurion was speaking to Jesus.

 

[Matthias]

I would especially like for you to see this @RLT63. If you have any desire to really understand where I’m coming from - as I believe that you do - to understand why I believe what I believe, then this article will be very helpful in providing you with that insight.

I’m not asking you to agree with it. I’m not asking you to believe it. All I’m asking is that you read it.

“As you sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. John 7:18 NASB

Sent - The Jewish law of agency, known as shaliah, is crucial for understanding the idea of an apostle. In fact, the verb itself, apostello, used here to speak of the mission of Yeshua and the mission of his disciples, cannot be correctly interpreted without a full appreciation of this law. …

If we apply this correct view to Yeshua’s remark in John’s gospel, we discover two very important facts. The first is that Yeshua is the fully-authorized emissary of YHVH under this law of agency. Therefore, anything and everything he does is as if YHVH had done it. Yeshua confirms this over and over. What this means is that Yeshua acts as if he were God. His decisions, his actions, his teaching, his character are to be viewed as if they were the decisions, actions, teaching, and character of God Himself. In other words, under shaliah Yeshua is “God” without being God. If we miss this point, we will draw a different conclusion from the text.we will conclude that Yeshua cannot act as he does without being God. But shaliah makes this conclusion unnecessary. …”

(Skip Moen, Hebrew Word Study, “Shaliah”)

Shaliah | Hebrew Word Study | Skip Moen

My hope is that you will do research for yourself on the law of agency, the concept of shaliah, as you’ve done with other things which we’ve cordially discussed. There are many sources (trinitarian and non-trinitarian) readily available on the subject.

Even if you don’t come to see this as the best way (you already know I believe it is the correct way) to understand Jesus in his 1st century Jewish environment, you’ll have satisfied yourself that you’ve chosen a better way.

This is another win-win proposition for you.

 

[RLT63]

I would especially like for you to see this @RLT63. If you have any desire to really understand where I’m coming from - as I believe that you do - to understand why I believe what I believe, then this article will be very helpful in providing you with that insight.

I’m not asking you to agree with it. I’m not asking you to believe it. All I’m asking is that you read it.

“As you sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. John 7:18 NASB

Sent - The Jewish law of agency, known as shaliah, is crucial for understanding the idea of an apostle. In fact, the verb itself, apostello, used here to speak of the mission of Yeshua and the mission of his disciples, cannot be correctly interpreted without a full appreciation of this law. …

If we apply this correct view to Yeshua’s remark in John’s gospel, we discover two very important facts. The first is that Yeshua is the fully-authorized emissary of YHVH under this law of agency. Therefore, anything and everything he does is as if YHVH had done it. Yeshua confirms this over and over. What this means is that Yeshua acts as if he were God. His decisions, his actions, his teaching, his character are to be viewed as if they were the decisions, actions, teaching, and character of God Himself. In other words, under shaliah Yeshua is “God” without being God. If we miss this point, we will draw a different conclusion from the text.we will conclude that Yeshua cannot act as he does without being God. But shaliah makes this conclusion unnecessary. …”

(Skip Moen, Hebrew Word Study, “Shaliah”)

Shaliah | Hebrew Word Study | Skip Moen

My hope is that you will do research for yourself on the law of agency, the concept of shaliah, as you’ve done with other things which we’ve cordially discussed.

Even if you don’t come to see this as the best way (you already know I believe it is the correct way) to understand Jesus in his 1st century Jewish environment, you’ll have satisfied yourself that you’ve chosen a better way.

This is another win-win proposition for you.

This would explain how the Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins.

 

[Matthias]

This would explain how the Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins.

I think it does.

The concept of agency is expressed in the Hebrew word shaliah; in the Greek word apostolos.

In English the concept is expressed in the words sending and sent.

This is why I say that when I see and hear Jesus, I see the one who sent him, God.

 

[RLT63]

It wasn’t YHWH. YHWH is the God of Jesus and Abraham.

It was an angel acting as YHWH’ agent / representative.



I’m absolutely deluging this thread with information, primarily from trinitarian sources, on the concept of agency in scripture.

So what do you believe about The Angel of The Lord?

 

[Matthias]

So what do you believe about The Angel of The Lord?

I believe the angel of the Lord is a prime example of agency. Trinitarian commentators often say that the angel of the Lord sometimes sounds like an angel but at other times as if God himself. They’re right about that.

I believe the angel of the Lord is in fact an angel representing God, acting as God’s agent, acting as God, but is not God himself.

God’s name is in the angel, which says to me that the angel is authorized by the one who sent him, God himself, to act as if God himself, though not being God himself.

Agency / shaliah / apostolos / being sent from God (Yahweh, adonai) should be a very easy concept for you to embrace, since you already believe Jesus isn’t Yahweh. Jesus comes in the name of Yahweh, as his supreme agent / representative.

There still remains a problem.

You believe Jesus is literally God. The point of the Jewish concept of agency is that Jesus isn’t literally God; Jesus is figuratively God.

 

[RLT63]

I believe the angel of the Lord is a prime example of agency. Trinitarian commentators often say that the angel of the Lord sometimes sounds like an angel but at other times as if God himself. They’re right about that.

I believe the angel of the Lord is in fact an angel representing God, acting as God’s agent, acting as God, but is not God himself.

God’s name is in the angel, which says to me that the angel is authorized by the one who sent him, God himself, to act as if God himself, though not being God himself.

Agency / shaliah / apostolos / being sent from God (Yahweh, adonai) should be a very easy concept for you to embrace, since you already believe Jesus isn’t Yahweh. Jesus comes in the name of Yahweh, as his supreme agent / representative.

There still remains a problem.

You believe Jesus is literally God. The point of the Jewish concept of agency is that Jesus isn’t literally God; Jesus is figuratively God.

Yes but I understand what you believe.

 

[Matthias]

Yes but I understand what you believe.

That’s all that I could reasonably ask for at this time. It puts you miles ahead of others.

I remain a Jewish monotheist; you remain a trinitarian. And there is peace in our valley.

Unless something has changed that I’m unaware of, you and I still agree that Jesus (the Son) was sent by Yahweh (the Father).

 

[RLT63]

That’s all that I could reasonably ask for at this time. It puts you miles ahead of others.

I remain a Jewish monotheist; you remain a trinitarian. And there is peace in our valley.

Unless something has changed that I’m unaware of, you and I still agree that Jesus (the Son) was sent by Yahweh (the Father).

Yes

 

[Taken]

This would explain how the Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins.

@Matthias @marks

I do not believe men were given the authority to forgive SIN.
I do not believe men SIN against men.

I do believe SIN is Against God.
And WHAT that means as revealed all throughout Scripture...
IS: SIN is UNBELIEF IN the Lord God Almighty.
AND the bottom line is:
A man WHO is NOT “WITH” God, “IS AGAINST God”.
Ie WITH and WITHOUT God.

God DIVIDED many things, From the Beginning.
Anciently God also DIVIDED men;
WITH Him.....ISRAEL.......Gods People
WITHOUT Him...Gentiles...gods people
Review History...ISRAEL was to become Sound in Belief & Truth, and THEN Teach the World (Gentiles).
Review History...ISRAEL consistently failed, Did Mix with Gentiles, BY Adopting Gentiles Ways, and at some times, Gentiles gods.

HELP for ISRAEL, God SENDS His WORD, in the Likeness AS a JEWISH man, to SEEK the Lost Jews. A Handful, Follow, Listen, Enlightened TO the Mysteries OF God. A FEW Jews accept, MANY Jews reject. The Handful SENT out to teach (the Mysteries of God) to JEWS First, then ALL Tribes of ISRAEL. Still MANY of ISRAEL Reject.

PROVOKE JEALOUSY, God SENDS ONE man; A JEW and GENTILE “mix”.
Saul “the Pharisee Jew”, ie Paul “the Gentile Roman Citizen”...
To Teach...(The Jewish God and the Mysteries there of)
TO: Gentile kings, Gentile people, Jewish people.

Many, Many Gentile people, Listen, Are captivated.
POINT BEING...
Jews and Gentiles are STILL to this DAY DIVIDED.
Jews TEACH Jews......Gentiles TEACH Gentiles.
Jews STILL HAVE Gentiles Warring Against them.
Gentiles STILL HAVE Jews Warring Against them.
Jews (the race & religions) are STILL divided amongst themselves.
Gentiles (the race & religions) are STILL divided amongst themselves.

( AND BTW...A GLARING FACT IS... All the while the Whole world of the General Population are Continuing their RACE / RELIGIONS DIVISIONS;
** Satan IS IN THE BACK ROOM “WITH” his (don’t give a crap about ANY Race, ANY Religions) ANTI-God “foot-soldiers” WHO ARE TAKING oppressive CONTROL of EVERY aspect of “the WHOLE world”.......EVERY mans life, body, household, children, livelihood; Mandating, Dictating, Can do’s, Can not do’s, and Threats, Thug and Army forces....
AND MARKING those with and without “them”. )
Luciferace Look it up..coming soon to your neighborhood!

**WHO can FORGIVE men FOR NOT BELIEVING IN the Lord God Almighty.....BUT the Lord God Almighty Himself?
(Not any different than ... IF your spouse, your child, your neighbor Trespasses Against You...NOT my authority to Forgive Them...It is YOUR place to Forgive THEM of their Trespass AGAINST You.)

** Men “IN” Christ...in simplicity say, they are Converted, they are Saved and Born Again..IN FACT....
“THEY ARE ALREADY MARKED WITH GOD FOREVER”.

** POINT:
Men “IN” Christ...Have the AUTHORITY TO ASSURE OTHER men, God FORGIVES THEM...(of their SIN of having NOT believed IN the Lord God) WHICH IS TOTALY Different than MEN Forgiving Men of SIN AGAINST God.

Perspective IN Context!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

So what do you believe about The Angel of The Lord?

The Angel of The Lord...
Gods Word appearing to ancient men in the Likeness AS a man, they Called a man, but believed/knew it was an (Unnamed) Holy Spirit Servant sent from God.

Jud 13:
[18] And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[marks]

YHWH (Adonai) is the God and Father of Jesus (adoni.

It was neither YHWH nor Jesus who met with Abraham under the oak tree. It was, however, someone who is adoni.

To me this is a denial of the reality of what is written. So I don't no what else to say. You say, It wasn't who it says it was, because of "agency", yet you've not yet shown me a passage where the context and information given show us that the Bible speaks that way. I can't find a place.

I've been able to think of two that sometimes are pointed to, but that don't actually show it conclusively. So I do not find this assertion to be reasonable grounds for not accepting the saying given. And considering that these understandings harmonize with everything else as I read the Bible this way, well, that's where I'm at.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

To me this is a denial of the reality of what is written. So I don't no what else to say. You say, It wasn't who it says it was, because of "agency", yet you've not yet shown me a passage where the context and information given show us that the Bible speaks that way. I can't find a place.

I've been able to think of two that sometimes are pointed to, but that don't actually show it conclusively. So I do not find this assertion to be reasonable grounds for not accepting the saying given. And considering that these understandings harmonize with everything else as I read the Bible this way, well, that's where I'm at.

Much love!

I was once where you are now.

Your deity is the Trinity.

The Messiah’s deity is the Father, and none other. My deity is the Father, and none other.

I’ve shown you how Jewish monotheism aligns with the Messiah, himeself a Jewish monotheist.

You’ve taken a different approach and the consequence of that is you have a deity which the Messiah and I don’t.

@Taken asks the question, what does it matter?

 

[marks]

Scripture is dripping with it. All we have to do in order to see it is read scripture with the concept of agency in mind.

Show me any passage and show how the Bible speaks that way. If it is indeed "dripping" with it, it shouldn't be difficult, yet you have not yet done that.

I get it. I tell my boss, I'll take care of that, and I send a shop worker to do it. I tell my boss, I took care of it. But I don't tell my boss I went to the shop, and repaired the machine, first I diagnosed . . . it would be deceptive.

Naturally God sent Christ, God sent Moses, sent the Apostles, sends us, yet the Bible doesn't speak deceptively, saying that He was the One standing there, He was the One eating, He was the One talking, when in reality it was another, at least, as I understand it.

I don't rule out anything just out of hand. I want to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. I take it's sayings for what they are, what they seem to be, so long as that harmonizes with everything else. In those times when I don't find harmony, it's generally because I haven't been taking the full saying, I've "glazed over" a word or two, failing to take in it's full significance.

So here I am, to look at a saying of the Bible, and to understand, "It doesn't mean actually what it says, not in the plainest sense", and in fact, that I have to negate the plain meaning of plainly stated things.

So I'm asking, where in the Bible do we do that, where the Bible itself demonstrates that this sort of writing appears in the Bible, and, if such be found, what is the reason for saying that is true in this case? Scripture interprets Scripture.

So for instance, IF we were to read in Daniel, "and the LORD said to Daniel, such and such . . .", and read, "though Daniel spoke with no one but for Gabriel the messenger", that would be an instance of speaking of the agent as though being the sender. Like someone describes me going into the shop as "Larry went to the shop to tell Joe to fix the machine", though I'm Mark, and I'm the guy that went. I don't see the Bible speaking that way.

Much love!

 

[RLT63]

I was once where you are now.

Your deity is the Trinity.

The Messiah’s deity is the Father, and none other. My deity is the Father, and none other.

I’ve shown you how Jewish monotheism aligns with the Messiah, himeself a Jewish monotheist.

You’ve taken a different approach and the consequence of that is you have a deity which the Messiah and I don’t.

@Taken asks the question, what does it matter?

The radio program I listen to was having a call in show and the host was debating whether Jesus is God. I called in and quoted John 1:1 and John 1:14. I said the problem that you are having is that there is subordination in the Trinity. Though Jesus is equal to the Father and of the same essence he is willfully subordinate, The Father sends the Son. The Son does the will of the Father. He said if Jesus is subordinate to the Father then there are two of them and they are not one God. I said Jesus said I and the Father are one but he held his ground. He does have a point.

 

[marks]

You’ve taken a different approach and the consequence of that is you have a deity which the Messiah and I don’t.

My approach is to found my understandings on exactly what I read in the Scriptures as the Scripture presents it. There is no disagreement over whether one sends another as their agent, how this sometimes transfers powers and authorities, Joseph, the beast, examples abound. As you've noted.

However, what you are suggesting is that the Bible is written in deceptive fashion, speaking one thing that actually isn't in fact true, according to the normal and general use of language. This even includes Biblical Hebrew, and this is attested to by the lack of affirmative examples to support this manner of writing being employed.

When the Bible says YHWH met with someone, I suggest that we simply accept this as a true saying, because that's what the Bible does, it gives us truth.

And now you what, claim I'm not a real Christian because I won't disbelieve the Bible? What a turn this conversation has taken! I'm going to stick to the Bible. And I don't think you were where I am at now. It's not just a matter of some surface perception. I think I have a much different idea about how God speaks to us.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The radio program I listen to was having a call in show and the host was debating whether Jesus is God. I called in and quoted John 1:1 and John 1:14. I said the problem that you are having is that there is subordination in the Trinity. Though Jesus is equal to the Father and of the same essence he is willfully subordinate, The Father sends the Son. The Son does the will of the Father. He said if Jesus is subordinate to the Father then there are two of them and they are not one God. I said Jesus said I and the Father are one but he held his ground. He does have a point.

As though, if there are differences, they must be different persons? To me this is a form of the basic question, how can three be one? Both are true. There is the Father, there is the Son, there is the Holy Spirit, each are God, and they are One God. No, it can't compute in the human mind, and why should it? The point is, if we accept the plain sayings of the Bible as they are presented to us, this will be the inescapable conclusion.

If we reject that conclusion, we will be forced to overturn the plain meanings of plainly stated passages, and assert them to be saying something that they do not in fact say.

Or, if we do not accept the plain sayings of plainly stated passages, we may end up with ideas quite different from what the Bible itself presents.

Since the Bible is our primary objective way to come to know God, and by it we test our inner subjective experience, as we personally come to know God, I suggest we hold very tightly to what it plainly says, accepting it's sayings, according to how the language is used.

Much love!

 

[RLT63]

As though, if there are differences, they must be different persons? To me this is a form of the basic question, how can three be one? Both are true. There is the Father, there is the Son, there is the Holy Spirit, each are God, and they are One God. No, it can't compute in the human mind, and why should it? The point is, if we accept the plain sayings of the Bible as they are presented to us, this will be the inescapable conclusion.

If we reject that conclusion, we will be forced to overturn the plain meanings of plainly stated passages, and assert them to be saying something that they do not in fact say.

Or, if we do not accept the plain sayings of plainly stated passages, we may end up with ideas quite different from what the Bible itself presents.

Since the Bible is our primary objective way to come to know God, and by it we test our inner subjective experience, as we personally come to know God, I suggest we hold very tightly to what it plainly says, accepting it's sayings, according to how the language is used.

Much love!

I believe they are 3 distinct persons but all are God. Hard to explain to people who don't understand

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Trinitarians are never going to succeed in convincing the Watchtower Society
that Jesus is God until they first convince themselves that Jesus is God's
descendant, and that Jesus has a legitimate place in God's genealogy.
_

 

[RLT63]

.
Trinitarians are never going to succeed in convincing the Watchtower Society
that Jesus is God until they first convince themselves that Jesus is God's
descendant, and that Jesus has a legitimate place in God's genealogy.
_

Nobody is going to convince JWs of anything except other JWs. No offense to anyone but all the ones I have known called their doctrine "The Truth". They are very confident.