Search results

Yes, but not literally.

All good gifts come down from heaven and a person who doesn’t do his own will but the will of the person who sent him isn’t the person who sent him.

Jesus is a human person. His God, the Father, isn’t a human person. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

The Father’s logos isn’t “the same one person, JESUS”; Jesus isn’t the Father. See the difference in our theological perspectives now?

Yes. I did say that. I’m still saying that.

Yes and no. The old creation pre-existed notionally in the Father’s logos. When the Father created the heavens and the earth the creation that previously existed only in his mind, only in his plan, only in his purpose, was brought into literal existence. The creation is of God but the creation...

The human person (Jesus of Nazareth) who pre-existed notionally in the Father’s logos became flesh. John 1:1 - God is one person, the Father. John 1:14 - The human person (Jesus of Nazareth) who existed only in God’s logos is brought into existence. John is writing in his prologue about the...

Yes. The person John is writing about in John 1:1 (the Father) is the same person (the Father) who is speaking in Isaiah 41:4.

I don’t know either but, if Catholic Answers is practicing witchcraft and passing it off to unwary readers as the teaching of the Church, it would be reasonable (and responsible) for the Church to have taken action against them.

No. The speaker in Isaiah 41:4 is one person, not two separate persons. ”1. The one God. (a) theos is the most frequent designation of God in the NT. Belief in the one, only and unique God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4,6; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19) is an established part of...

It (logos) is expressive of God. It is with him. You have logos. It is expressive of you. It is with you. I have logos. It is expressive of me. It is with me. In his prologue, John is inviting his readers to think back to the creation narrative in Genesis. God spoke, he expressed himself, and...

My edit consisted of adding a comment on the Tyndale translation. I’m placing a link to the translation in this post. Gospel of John: Chapter 1 - TyndaleBible.com

I attempted to explain it by editing my post. I think my meaning will be more comprehensible by examining how the Tyndale translation renders the prologue. It may also be helpful for you to know that, while I’m a Christian, I’m a Jewish monotheist, not a trinitarian.

No. The Father’s logos (“it”) was made flesh (“he”). My response will perhaps be better understood by considering how the Tyndale translation (and others like it) renders the prologue in John’s Gospel. The Father was not on earth at the same time he was in heaven.

I appreciate your kindness but there’s no need to thank me for being honest. I have nothing to gain by being dishonest and everything to lose if I am dishonest. No. The person in John 1:3 is the Father. LORD is the Father. Yes and No.

The same one person.

No.

As I suspected, you don’t get it. I assert, against the teaching of trinitarianism - and have from the beginning (see post #6) - that Jesus is a human person. Jesus is God (in the same sense that Moses was) and Jesus is a human person. (My belief as a Jewish monotheist. That’s not what...

I’m not sure you do, but it appears to me that we were able to agree that trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is a divine person, not a human person.

Jesus is a human person. God isn’t a human person. Mary is the mother of Jesus, not the mother of God.