Did ANYONE In Scripture (Including Jesus), Claim Jesus IS God?

[marks]

John doesn't need to say what everyone already knows to be true. The term "logos" refers to "word", "reason", "speech" and "principle." Without the Council of Nicaea, no one would conclude consubstantiation from John chapter one.

No one? How many have you asked?

It's actually very simple, The Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. It's not hard to figure out! Particularly when you put this together with all the other passages that speak towards the same thing, Philippians 2 being a great example.

If a=b, and b=c, then a=c.

Much love!

 

[RLT63]

Good. The trinity is not in the Bible.

Original sin is not in the Bible but we all agree it happened

 

[Scott Downey]

Original sin is not in the Bible but we all agree it happened

Romans 5 speaks to these things.​

Death in Adam, Life in Christ​

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the [e]offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many [f]offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s [g]offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore, as through [h]one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one[i] Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Wrangler]

Original sin is not in the Bible but we all agree it happened

The difference is the concept is there! Stop playing word games. The concept of the trinity is not in the Bible.

 

[Johann]

The difference is the concept is there! Stop playing word games. The concept of the trinity is not in the Bible.

Replete in both the Old Testament and New--

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1Co 10:4 And all of the same spiritual drink drank, for they were drinking from a spiritual TZUR following them [SHEMOT 17:6; BAMIDBAR 20:11; TEHILLIM 78:15; 105:41], and that TZUR was Moshiach.

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual rock following, and that Rock was Messiah.

J.

 

[CadyandZoe]

HE and HIM are pronouns of a PERSON

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.
In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

I refer you to Genesis chapter one, where we read, "Let there be light." The logos, in this instance, is the command for light to come into being. Compare this to John's preamble, where he says, "Through [the logos] all things were made, and without [the logos] nothing was made that has been made.

Genesis 1 contains a verbal pattern. For six days in a row it announces, "Let there be . . . X, and there was X" where 'X' is the thing created on that day. In the beginning, God spoke. In that context, the logos wasn't a person; The logos was a command.

As such, the pronouns should be understood in the Neuter Case, not the Masculine Case.

 

[Johann]

Genesis 1 contains a verbal pattern. For six days in a row it announces, "Let there be . . . X, and there was X" where 'X' is the thing created on that day. In the beginning, God spoke. In that context, the logos wasn't a person; The logos was a command.

As such, the pronouns should be understood in the Neuter Case, not the Masculine Case.

Incorrect-

Genesis 1 Context vs. John 1 Context
The logos in Genesis 1 indeed refers to God’s creative speech, but the use of logos in John 1:1 is not merely a parallel to Genesis 1's phraseology.

John deliberately uses the term logos in a theological framework that presents the logos as both distinct and personal.

John 1:1-3 says: "In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

This passage attributes agency, eternality, and personhood to the logos (e.g., the personal pronoun "He" in verse 2 and following), which cannot be reduced to an impersonal "command."

Genesis 1 focuses on God's creative acts, while John 1 interprets the logos in light of Christ's preexistence and divine agency in creation. Both contexts complement but do not conflate one another.

2. Masculine Pronouns in John
Your claim that the pronouns for logos should be neuter is grammatically and contextually flawed:

In Greek, the word logos is grammatically masculine. John 1 correctly employs masculine pronouns (autos, "He") when referring to the logos in verses 2-4.

The switch to masculine pronouns signals John’s intent to emphasize personhood, aligning the logos with Christ, who is explicitly identified as the logos incarnate in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

If the logos were merely a command or concept, neuter pronouns would have been used consistently, but the text clearly attributes personal and masculine qualities to the logos.

3. Theological Precedent for Personhood of the Word
The personhood of the Word is consistent with broader biblical theology:

Wisdom Literature: In texts like Proverbs 8:22-31, Wisdom (Sophia) is personified as a co-creative agent with God, prefiguring the logos theology of John.

Hebrews 1:2: God created the world "through the Son," affirming that creation was mediated by a divine person, not an abstract command.

4. Logos in Jewish and Hellenistic Thought
By the time John wrote his Gospel, logos was a loaded term in both Jewish and Greek thought:

In Jewish theology (e.g., the Targums), the Memra ("Word") was seen as a distinct yet divine agent of God's will.

In Greek philosophy, logos referred to the rational principle ordering the universe, a concept John reinterprets to present Christ as the personal and divine agent of creation.

5. Trinitarian Implications
The argument implicitly denies the personal nature of the logos, which is central to Trinitarian theology. Scripture consistently portrays the Word as a person (the Son) who is in eternal relationship with the Father, not merely as an impersonal command or force.

Colossians 1:16-17: "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth... all things were created through Him and for Him."

The New Testament's portrayal of the logos as the divine Christ transcends the Genesis 1 framework of God's commands while affirming it.

The logos in Genesis 1 is not diminished by being God's command, but John 1 develops this concept into a fuller theological revelation: the logos is the preexistent, divine, and personal agent of creation, incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Grammatical, literary, and theological evidence strongly supports the masculine pronouns and the personal nature of the logos in John’s Gospel.

J.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No one? How many have you asked?

It's actually very simple, The Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. It's not hard to figure out! Particularly when you put this together with all the other passages that speak towards the same thing, Philippians 2 being a great example.

If a=b, and b=c, then a=c.

Much love!

I agree. It isn't hard to figure out, but you and I are not students of Plato. We have not adopted his philosophy, categories, or philosophical dichotomy. The apostles were not influenced by Philo or his students either.

Just look at the first chapter of Genesis and see "The Word" in action.

Day one: God said, "Let there be light and there was light."
Day two: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .
Day three: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .
Day four: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .
Day five: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .
Day six: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .

Based on the passage, it is clear to me that "the logos" is God's command "Let there be . . . 'X'. Logos = command. God spoke things into existence. Logos is speech.

 

[Johann]

I agree. It isn't hard to figure out, but you and I are not students of Plato. We have not adopted his philosophy, categories, or philosophical dichotomy. The apostles were not influenced by Philo or his students either.

Just look at the first chapter of Genesis and see "The Word" in action.

Day one: God said, "Let there be light and there was light."
Day two: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .
Day three: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .
Day four: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .
Day five: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .
Day six: God said, "Let there be . . . and there was . . .

Based on the passage, it is clear to me that "the logos" is God's command "Let there be . . . 'X'. Logos = command. God spoke things into existence. Logos is speech.

ABOUT VRIDAR: Authors' profiles (updated 14th March 2019)

14th March 2019: New post covering the professional side of my life as a librarian: On Being a Librarian ... Since I wrote the following spiel -- in late February 2012 to be more precise -- Tim Widowfield has joined me as a regular co-contributor to this blog. The closest piece to a little "bio" o

vridar.org

J.

 

[Nancy]

What are the options besides the trinity?

Do you notice the present tense? Isaiah was written 500 years before Christ, referring to a child born in his day. Jesus is not called any of the things Isaiah then lists. Profound.

Is there someone else that these titles would, or could pertain to?:

"And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

 

[Johann]

Is there someone else that these titles would, or could pertain to?:

"And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Titles of the Messiah-even Jewish monotheists have to admit this @Nancy.

J.

 

[JLB]

Hello @JLB,

The Word of God.

The Word is God. The Word was with God in the beginning.
The Word refers to the Son.

The Word became flesh.

God became flesh.

 

[Taken]

What do you mean "spiritually". I don't accept the premise that a passage has more than one meaning, i.e. a regular meaning and a spiritual meaning. Who told you that a passage can have a spiritual meaning?

@Wrangler
@Dan Clarkston
@CadyandZoe
@face2face


A body must Die Before its SOUL “CAN be MADE SAVED” AND its’s BODY, “MADE BORN AGAIN”.

 

[David in NJ]

I refer you to Genesis chapter one, where we read, "Let there be light." The logos, in this instance, is the command for light to come into being. Compare this to John's preamble, where he says, "Through [the logos] all things were made, and without [the logos] nothing was made that has been made.

Genesis 1 contains a verbal pattern. For six days in a row it announces, "Let there be . . . X, and there was X" where 'X' is the thing created on that day. In the beginning, God spoke. In that context, the logos wasn't a person; The logos was a command.

As such, the pronouns should be understood in the Neuter Case, not the Masculine Case.

HE is not a thing and must be understood as to WHOM the HE is referring to.

Back in the day as an Apostle = If you were in a court room as a eye-witness to JESUS and they asked you "Who is the Messiah?"
Are you going to say - "No one, it is a thing and/or purpose or "just a thought"

Question: Is God the FATHER a Person???

 

[MatthewG]

Hello @JLB,

Cool. I don’t know what was wrong anything I stated in the first place. Many people are critical. I’m hyper critical when I enter a church. It’s nothing personal.

 

[St. SteVen]

A body must Die Before its SOUL “CAN be MADE SAVED” AND its’s BODY, “MADE BORN AGAIN”.

What does that mean?

[

 

[Taken]

@Wrangler
@Dan Clarkston
@CadyandZoe
@face2face


A body must Die Before its SOUL “CAN be MADE SAVED” AND its’s BODY, “MADE BORN AGAIN”.

Jesus Taught In Parables.

A Parable “in the Natural Understanding of men, is A fanciful made-up STORY, to Reveal A TRUTH”.

A Parable “out of the Mouth OF HE who IS the Truth…does NOT “make up Stories”, rather Every Part of His Teaching “IS Truth”, regardless of WHAT His Teaching IS Called.

Jesus spoke with ONE SPEECH…
Some recognized Jesus IS the TRUTH, and believed EVERY word out of His Mouth…and became Followers…

Others Believed Jesus was a fanciful “story-teller”…and walked Away, believing He had nothing of interest to reveal regarding God.

God taught men, according to “parallels” men already understood in their natural existence.

Jesus taught men, according to “parallels, men already understood….WITH A NEW insight… HE IS THE TRUTH “narrating” THE TRUTH, the Whole Truth word for Word.

Every WORD Jesus Spoke … in Conversation…in His Teachings (Called PARABLES) was/is complete TRUTH.

When one Understands THAT…they HAVE begun on a Journey of Discovery of the Difference Between….Natural Understanding AND Spiritual Understanding.

Col 1:
[9] For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

Read the 40 some Parables of Jesus’ Teachings…
With the insight…Every Word IS TRUTH.

See if your own perspective of the Parable Changes.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[CadyandZoe]

@Wrangler
@Dan Clarkston
@CadyandZoe
@face2face


A body must Die Before its SOUL “CAN be MADE SAVED” AND its’s BODY, “MADE BORN AGAIN”.

The New Testament teaches that body, soul, and spirit are saved together.

 

[Behold]

The New Testament teaches that body, soul, and spirit are saved together.

Actually the NT does not teach what you just posted.


The NT teaches that the "body is dead because of Sin".

The NT teaches that the Mind has to be renewed, after the person is born again.

What is "SAVED"?
THat is the "born again Spirit".. that is the real person... who has become a "new CREATION....IN Christ"..
See, the body is just the container.....and to prove that your's isn't saved.......they are going to cremate it or bury it.

The Christian gets a "new body" because the one they have now is "dead because of sin".

 

[CadyandZoe]

HE is not a thing and must be understood as to WHOM the HE is referring to.

Yes, in Christian theology, the three persons of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are said to be of one ousia, which means they share the same essence or substance. The term ousia is a Greek word that can be translated as "being" or "essence." This doctrine emphasizes that while God is one in essence, He exists in three distinct persons.

I reject this doctrine for the reasons I have outlined. The Bible contains no explicit or implied suggestion that three persons can constitute one essence. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Bible, either explicitly stated or implied, indicating that Jesus Christ is of the same substance as God the Father.

The early Christians debated, within a Platonic framework, whether Jesus was ontologically equal to the Father. However, since we do not share that Platonic framework in our thinking, this is not a question we need to address.

The subject matter of the Preamble is the "logos," which is a thing, not a person. Therefore, the pronouns should be translated as "it," not "he." More significantly, we can't use the Preamble to prove "Trinity."

Back in the day as an Apostle = If you were in a court room as a eye-witness to JESUS and they asked you "Who is the Messiah?"
Are you going to say - "No one, it is a thing and/or purpose or "just a thought"

I'm unsure as to the basis for your objection. I never suggested that Jesus or the Messiah are things.

Question: Is God the FATHER a Person???

The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are persons. Nevertheless, the Bible does not teach the "God in three persons" concept

contrary to the Trinitarian doctrine, I do not accept that they comprise one essence. There is NO biblical evidence for "Trinity", the concept that God is three persons existing as one essence.