Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God

[Matthias]

No, I don't think we can agree.

Then we won’t agree. You’ll sleep good tonight. So will I.

I think Jesus is God personified.

That’s an interesting choice of word. I too think Jesus is God personified.

All God is, become flesh.

I see in scripture that the Son is subordinate to the Father, his God.

 

[Matthias]

… I think John 1 presents a problem for Unitarians

It doesn’t present any problem at all to Jewish monotheists. I’ve also commented to @stunnedbygrace that it needn’t present any problem at all to trinitarians and binitarians.

There’s no need for any of us to rush out and burn the Geneva Bible. Or Tyndale’s translation. Or the dozens of others which recognize that John is speaking about the Father’s logos in the prologue to John’s Gospel and the incarnation of the Father’s logos in v. 14.

There’s nothing in those translations of John’s prologue that would necessitate a person leaving trinitarianism or binitarianism.

If there was, the Protestant reformers (trinitarians) never would have produced, used and championed the Geneva Bible - the best Protestant (trinitarian) scholarship of the day.

I’m not sure why people have so much difficulty with it but I suspect it’s tied, among other things, to KJV, tradition, and a general unawareness and disinterestedness on the part of the average church-goer when it comes to Church history and theology.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Then we won’t agree. You’ll sleep good tonight. So will I.



That’s an interesting choice of word. I too think Jesus is God personified.



I see in scripture that the Son is subordinate to the Father, his God.

So do I. Once He, being in very nature God, left the glory He shared with the Father, made Himself nothing, taking the nature of a servant, made in human likeness, being found in appearance as man, He was then subordinate to the Father. He didn’t consider equality with God to be something to use to His advantage in his human form.

 

[Matthias]

So do I. Once He, being in very nature God, left the glory He shared with the Father, made Himself nothing, taking the nature of a servant, made in human likeness, being found in appearance as man, He was then subordinate to the Father. He didn’t consider equality with God to be something to use to His advantage in his human form.

The early Church was subordinationist, but history documents that it didn’t remain that way. “Origen’s helpful suggestion,” to borrow a phrase from the Lutheran scholar J.L. Neve.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
• John 1:1 . . In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god.

Now: is Jehovah a god? Yes, there are many incidents in the Old Testament
where Jehovah is portrayed as a divine being.

And is God a god? Yes; He's often portrayed as a divine being too.

Now the thing is: Jesus addressed his Father as "the one true god" i.e. the
one true divine being (John 17:3) This is somewhat problematic because in
the Bible there's no middle ground between true gods and false gods; just as
there is no middle ground between fools and wise, nor between good and
evil, nor between righteous and unrighteous, nor between dead and alive,
nor between guilty and innocent.

• Psalms 82:6 . . I myself have said; "You are gods"

Those folks to whom God was speaking were gods; but were they true gods
or false gods? Well, seeing as there is only one true god, then they had to be
false gods, viz: imitations.

Humanity's fake deities began to appear in the book of Genesis.

• Gen 3:22 . . And Jehovah God went on to say: Here the man has become
like one of us in knowing good and bad

Now; the Watchtower Society protects the Word from a "false god" label by
their invention of a mid-range category of deities called "mighty ones". So
we could paraphrase John 1:1 to say: the Word was a mighty one. And
seeing as how the Word created the cosmos; then by extension we could
paraphrase Genesis 1:1 to say: "In the beginning, a mighty one created the
heavens and the earth."

Though not translations, our paraphrases are accurate enough because the
Word is very definitely as powerful as powerful can be (1Pet 3:5) and I expect
him to return.

• Rev 1:7-8 . . Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see
him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat
themselves in grief because of him. Yes, Amen. I am the Alpha and the
Omega-- says Jehovah God --the One who is, and who was, and who is
coming; the Almighty.

Now, the Almighty Jehovah God spoken of in that passage isn't the light
spoken of by 1 Timothy 6:16 rather it's the light spoken of by John 1:4-9. I
know that's true because first of all: the light spoken of in first Timothy will
never come out in public where every eye can see it; and second: I'm told
by Philippians 2:8-10 that the Word's alter ego Jesus has been authorized to
identify himself by the name that's above every name

So us lowly hominids have to respect the Word's alter ego as if he were the
one true God in person if for no other reason than reverence for the one true
God's name.

• Heb 1:54 . . He has become better than the angels, to the extent that he
has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
_

 

[Matthias]

@RLT63 would you post a translation, of your choosing, of Job 10:13 for us to look at?

Never mind. I have more time available now, so I’ll post a couple of translations of the passage myself.

“And these things You have hidden in your heart; I know that this was with You.” (NKJV)

“But these things you have concealed in your heart; I know that this is with you.” (NET)

“Yet these things You have concealed in Your heart; I know that this is within You.” (NASB)

“But in your heart you hid other plans. I know this was in your mind.” (NCV)

“But this is what you concealed in your heart, and I know that this was in your mind” (NIV)

“Yet You concealed these thoughts in Your heart; I know that this was Your hidden plan” (HCSB)

There’s half a dozen examples. We can look at additional translations, if you want to.

I’ll leave you alone with your thoughts now. * Same concept *

When we return I hope to find out what was with you, hidden in your heart, within you, in your mind - but, as always, it’s up to you whether or not you want to speak your logos / davar / word publicly.

 

[Matthias]

.
• John 1:1 . . In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was a god.

Now: is Jehovah a god? Yes, there are many incidents in the Old Testament
where Jehovah is portrayed as a divine being.

And is God a god? Yes; He's often portrayed as a divine being too.

Now the thing is: Jesus addressed his Father as "the one true god" i.e. the
one true divine being (John 17:3) This is somewhat problematic because in
the Bible there's no middle ground between true gods and false gods; just as
there is no middle ground between fools and wise, nor between good and
evil, nor between righteous and unrighteous, nor between dead and alive,
nor between guilty and innocent.

• Psalms 82:6 . . I myself have said; "You are gods"

Those folks to whom God was speaking were gods; but were they true gods
or false gods? Well, seeing as there is only one true god, then they had to be
false gods, viz: imitations.

Humanity's fake deities began to appear in the book of Genesis.

• Gen 3:22 . . And Jehovah God went on to say: Here the man has become
like one of us in knowing good and bad

Now; the Watchtower Society protects the Word from a "false god" label by
their invention of a mid-range category of deities called "mighty ones". So
we could paraphrase John 1:1 to say: the Word was a mighty one. And
seeing as how the Word created the cosmos; then by extension we could
paraphrase Genesis 1:1 to say: "In the beginning, a mighty one created the
heavens and the earth."

Though not translations, our paraphrases are accurate enough because the
Word is very definitely as powerful as powerful can be (1Pet 3:5) and I expect
him to return.

• Rev 1:7-8 . . Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see
him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat
themselves in grief because of him. Yes, Amen. I am the Alpha and the
Omega-- says Jehovah God --the One who is, and who was, and who is
coming; the Almighty.

Now, the Almighty Jehovah God spoken of in that passage isn't the light
spoken of by 1 Timothy 6:16 rather it's the light spoken of by John 1:4-9. I
know that's true because first of all: the light spoken of in first Timothy will
never come out in public where every eye can see it; and second: I'm told
by Philippians 2:8-10 that the Word's alter ego Jesus has been authorized to
identify himself by the name that's above every name

So us lowly hominids have to respect the Word's alter ego as if he were the
one true God in person if for no other reason than reverence for the one true
God's name.

• Heb 1:54 . . He has become better than the angels, to the extent that he
has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
_

Augustine had a workaround, a solution, for the “somewhat problematic” (to use your characterization) statement made by Jesus which is recorded in John 17:3.

“The proper order of the words is, ‘That they may know You and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent, as the only true God.’”

(Tractate on the Gospel of John, 105)

Do you find that persuasive?

 

[Matthias]

“In the beginning was the plan of Yahweh, and the plan was with Yahweh, and the plan was Yahweh’s. The same plan was in the beginning with Yahweh. All things were done according to it, and without it nothing was done, that was done. In this plan was life, and that life was the light to mankind. Now that light shines in the darkness, but the darkness does not take hold of it.”

(Yisrayl Hawkins, The Book of Yahweh: The Holy Scriptures)

 

[Matthias]

“In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God, from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency. In it was life, and this life was the light of humanity. Light was shining in darkness, and darkness did not master it.”

(Robert J. Miller, The Complete Gospels, Annotated Scholars Version)

 

[RLT63]

The early Church was subordinationist, but history documents that it didn’t remain that way. “Origen’s helpful suggestion,” to borrow a phrase from the Lutheran scholar J.L. Neve.

But the Father sends the Son, the Son does the will of the Father, he is at the right hand of the Father. Isn't that willful subordination?

 

[Matthias]

But the Father sends the Son, the Son does the will of the Father, he is at the right hand of the Father. Isn't that willful subordination?

Yes, it is.

The point is that the early Church believed that the Father alone is God - the Son was, in that case, a highly exalted human person, but not God himself. That’s a very different understanding of subordination, and the Church gradually moved away from it. Origen was instrumental in that process.

“5. The Problem. The immediate problem, which the Church has to solve, was stated in two questions: (1) How could the Church escape from subordinationism? or how could it get away from viewing Christ as kind of a “second God”... (2) How could the Trinity of special persons (hypostasianism) be maintained without sacrificing Christian monotheism? Thus far subordinationism had been the safeguard of monotheism.”

(J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p. 108)

“6. Origen’s Helpful Suggestion. It was the many-sided genius of Origen that helped to solve the problem. Origen, like Tertullian, was strongly opposed to Monarchianism with its emphasis on monotheism to the exclusion of hypostasianism and tri-personality. Abandoning the view of the Apologists and of Tertullian who conceived the Logos to be a person only from the time of the creation, Origen declared the Logos to have been a person from all eternity. ‘His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy produced by the sun.’ ‘The Father did not beget the Son and set Him free after He was begotten, but He is always begetting Him.’ This suggestion of an eternal generation was a needed contribution. It was unconsciously a step in the direction of the co-eternity and co-equality of the Son with the Father, as expressed in the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity.”

(Ibid.)

 

[Webers_Home]

.

“The proper order of the words is, ‘That they may know You and Jesus Christ, whom
You have sent, as the only true God.’”

I'll not be using Mr. Augustine's trick in my discussions with JWs, their
Governing Body would never accept it. And besides, the NWT's version of
John 1:1 doesn't disturb me. It's unfortunate so many traditional Christians
are hung up on capitalization.
_

 

[RLT63]

No. John is speaking in the prologue about everything which existed (preexisted) in the Father’s logos.

Everything that existed was God? I don't think that's what you mean.

 

[Matthias]

Everything that existed was God?

No. That would be pantheism.

I don't think that's what you mean.

It wasn’t. Thank you for asking about it. Since that thought crossed your mind it may well cross the minds of others, too. This affords me the opportunity to clarify it in advance.

Everything that was to be (future) created (brought into being) existed (as an idea, a concept, a thought, a plan, etc.) in the foreknowledge of the Father. There was nothing in existence outside of God until he brought it into being. What he brought into being wasn’t him. The creation is not God, it is the work of God.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Two ideas that have thus far evaded my comprehension are:

1» The universe is endless.

2» God had no beginning; He has always been.
_

 

[Matthias]

.


I'll not be using Mr. Augustine's trick in my discussions with JWs, their
Governing Body would never accept it. And besides, the NWT's version of
John 1:1 doesn't disturb me. It's unfortunate so many traditional Christians
are hung up on capitalization.
_

Now we’re back to Jesus saying in his prayer to God that someone - not himself, the one whom he is praying to, the Father - is the only true God.

If someone else is also the only true God, I’m satisfied that Jesus would have told us that there is.

 

[Matthias]

.
Two ideas that have thus far evaded my comprehension are:

1» The universe is endless.

I’m not sure that it is. Scientists *gulp * tell us that it’s still expanding. If that’s true, will it always be that way? It might or might not. God could set a boundary on it, perhaps he already has, as he did with the seas. God could also not set any boundary and allow / cause the universe to continue expanding forever. Some day we’ll find out.

2» God had no beginning; He has always been.
_

I take that as a fact. I don’t see any other plausible alternative.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I go to prepare a place for you suggests an expanding universe to my mind. :)

 

[Peterlag]

Some data on the image...

God made humans different from all the other creatures. In humans He put spirit in them. This is probably what it means to be made in His image. It does not mean God is a man and He made us like Him. He's spirit and He gave us spirit when he created humans. Eve did not want it so she gave it back to God. Well, we know it was not an apple. Adam also gave his back too. Now without spirit the human body will die. And that's what God told them. If you do this you will surely die. They said yeah, well... whatever. This put Adam and Even in a sin nature because they lost what made them holy. Now Christ got it back for us and so in Christ we no longer are alive to sin. Christ got back for us what Adam and Eve lost which is the gift of holy spirit.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

I go to prepare a place for you suggests an expanding universe to my mind.

It's hard enough to comprehend an infinite void, but even harder to
comprehend that the void is expanding in all directions. And on top of that,
the expansion's velocity isn't slowing down; it is, in fact, speeding up:
defying gravity's attempt to pull everything together.

Neil deGrasse Tyson remarked that the void's gravity-defying expansion is
something about which scientists know practically nothing.

* The velocity of the void's expansion is expressed by the so-called Hubble
Constant.
_