Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God

[Matthias]

Only God is eternal!

That should be a mutual agreed upon point.

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

The first thought that crossed my mind is that you’re short two.

The passage you quoted concerns a human person, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, supernaturally begotten by his God (there is no God besides his God) and conceived by his mother. The origin of Jesus, as is the origin of all human persons - with the exception of Adam and Eve - is in the womb of his mother.

 

[WalkInLight]

Yeah we already posted a lot of data on this "logos." Logos does not mean Jesus is God. If Jesus was God there would be a lot of verses that would say I am God. And not I am the son of God.

Its is an interesting problem. Imagine Jesus coming and saying "I am God".
Jesus would get a following for His status not for what He says. The Fathers discussion with Adam was about not eating of the tree of knowledge because if he did he would die. This is about the status of man verses God, not on who God is.

The nature of the Lord is not to loudly declare who He is, because who is in terms of status is not His argument.
His argument is about the value of love and behaviour towards others. Satan did not agree with His approach, and felt he could do better.
The Lord in His wisdom allows this to take place. Jesus becoming a man, is again the Lord putting emphasis on what is valuable and the nature of existence.

The apostles where called to a teacher, not to a man who claimed a status. Jesus spent years showing them His power, His love and way, being friends and walking without fault. This is all about the Lord being approachable, and what forgiveness and righteousness is all about.

If these issues mean little to you, then I leave you in peace. I follow Jesus because I hear His voice and listen.
In a real sense without Jesus speaking to our hearts and changing us, we are lost.

God bless you

 

[marks]

1. People from ancient cultures don’t think like 21st century Americans.

I'd guess maybe not, I've never met any of them myself. ;) I look at men like Daniel, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, I could go on and on, I'd like to think like they did! That's why I try to pay so much attention to the language, that's our one most solid link to how they thought. I hope the Holy Spirit is truly teaching me!

2. Isaiah 44:24 is a control passage for me. That constrains me to believing that Yahweh didn’t have a co-creator.

Yes, and I see the same thing concerning salvation, that YHWH declares He alone is Creator, is Savior, and these are likewise attributed to Jesus. So then we understant that YHWH and Jesus are One and the Same, or we understand that where it says Jesus created everything that was created, we mentally except Jesus Himself, considering that He also was created, so, technically, He didn't actually create everything that was created.

I find the statements strongly worded, without him nothing was made that was made, for instance. Should I surmise that ancient minds "know" that it doesn't really mean that? Or should I accept what it says, just for what it says?

Much love!

 

[marks]

That should be a mutual agreed upon point.



The first thought that crossed my mind is that you’re short two.

The passage you quoted concerns a human person, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, supernaturally begotten by his God (there is no God besides his God) and conceived by his mother. The origin of Jesus, as is the origin of all human persons - with the exception of Adam and Eve - is in the womb of his mother.

What does it mean to call Jesus "the Last Adam"?

Much love!

 

[WalkInLight]

I recently quoted another trinitarian scholar, Gordon Wenham, on Genesis 1:26 in Word Biblical Commentary:

“Christians have traditionally seen this verse as adumbrating* the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.”

A couple of things stand out to me in Dr. Wenham’s comment.

First, tradition. What could possibly go wrong with that? (I have Fiddler On The Roof tunes running through my mind.)

Second, universally admitted. Universally admitted by whom? Certainly not Joe Average Trinitarian. Admitted by trinitarian scholars.

Third, not what it meant to the original author. Who is that? Moses. So what did it mean to Moses? JAT either thinks Moses was a trinitarian (thus taking a non-historical posture) or that Moses didn’t know what it meant, he just wrote it down (disrespecting Moses.) I was fortunate not to have been raised to believe Moses was a trinitarian. The key for those of us who were taught to understand scripture from a historical perspective was in the phrase “progressive revelation”. Moses wasn’t, and didn’t need to be, a trinitarian in order for the Trinity to be the one true God.

What did it mean to Moses? Recently someone responded to that by asking, “what does it matter?” It doesn’t matter what people who lived in biblical times believed?

So where did this “tradition” come from? It came from the Church. The key question to ask is, when? Church history has the answer. Who (besides me) reads Church history? (Circling back now to trinitarian scholars.)

* foreshadowing (i.e. “hinting”)

The argument about God being 3 or one comes down to the value of the cross and the meaning of the resurrection.
I have wondered about this my whole life trying to find adequate words to make sense.

Jesus is talking about love, forgiveness and trust. We are very lost, hurt, alone, cut off, fighting our corner until death takes us.
We do not trust, we battle to make something out of this world of struggle.

Jesus demonstrates the heart of the Father, His attitude towards us and the path of salvation.
Jesus had to be God, the exact essence of who He is, to mean, His forgiveness for killing Him, is our forgiveness so that we are cleansed.
But this is not just a legal balance, it is a heart reality, a beginning of a conversation of honesty, openness and transformation.

No created being could do this or start this conversation or be a true representation of Gods offer. It is His humbling to sinful man and their insane blood lust to maintain power in the midst of sin, that is astounding and beyond question the highest deed any living being has ever done.

All I know is people strive to avoid this light, this open call, this everlasting statement of Gods heart, because it also implies we are sinners in need of saving, failures in need of starting again, of giving all to the Lord because of a book and the witness of others. That is a tough call, but for me it is my life.

God bless you

 

[Matthias]

The argument about God being 3 or one comes down to the value of the cross and the meaning of the resurrection.
I have wondered about this my whole life trying to find adequate words to make sense.

Jesus is talking about love, forgiveness and trust. We are very lost, hurt, alone, cut off, fighting our corner until death takes us.
We do not trust, we battle to make something out of this world of struggle.

Jesus demonstrates the heart of the Father, His attitude towards us and the path of salvation.
Jesus had to be God, the exact essence of who He is, to mean, His forgiveness for killing Him, is our forgiveness so that we are cleansed.
But this is not just a legal balance, it is a heart reality, a beginning of a conversation of honesty, openness and transformation.

No created being could do this or start this conversation or be a true representation of Gods offer. It is His humbling to sinful man and their insane blood lust to maintain power in the midst of sin, that is astounding and beyond question the highest deed any living being has ever done.

All I know is people strive to avoid this light, this open call, this everlasting statement of Gods heart, because it also implies we are sinners in need of saving, failures in need of starting again, of giving all to the Lord because of a book and the witness of others. That is a tough call, but for me it is my life.

God bless you

What I can agree with in your post is that it comes down to Jesus.

He tells us precisely who his God and the God of his disciples is. The Trinity isn’t that God; the Father is.

My position is that the God of Jesus is the one and only true God; that there is no God besides his God.

 

[Matthias]

I'd guess maybe not, I've never met any of them myself. ;) I look at men like Daniel, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, I could go on and on, I'd like to think like they did! That's why I try to pay so much attention to the language, that's our one most solid link to how they thought. I hope the Holy Spirit is truly teaching me!



Yes, and I see the same thing concerning salvation, that YHWH declares He alone is Creator, is Savior, and these are likewise attributed to Jesus. So then we understant that YHWH and Jesus are One and the Same, or we understand that where it says Jesus created everything that was created, we mentally except Jesus Himself, considering that He also was created, so, technically, He didn't actually create everything that was created.

I find the statements strongly worded, without him nothing was made that was made, for instance. Should I surmise that ancient minds "know" that it doesn't really mean that? Or should I accept what it says, just for what it says?

Much love!

The God of the ancients, from my perspective, can be no other than the God and Father of Jesus.

 

[Matthias]

What does it mean to call Jesus "the Last Adam"?

Much love!

Jesus is the ideal man. He is the beginning of the new creation.

 

[marks]

Jesus is the ideal man. He is the beginning of the new creation.

I'm not sure I understand how that means "last Adam". Are you saying He is the culmination of Adam's race?

I would answer that Adam is humanity, that all of humanity was in the loins of Adam, and when Adam was corrupted, humanity was corrupted. So that Christ came not descended from Adam, but having become just like Adam, a new humanity.

The first Adam, as the subsequent generations unfold, the fulness of humanity becomes seen. We all come from Adam. The Last Adam, Christ, we don't come from Him, we enter into Him, being baptized into Him, to become part of His new humanity, in this case, united to God Himself.

The first Adam, and the Last Adam, these designations are to signify two different humanities. Jesus did not share in Adam's corruption, being the Last Adam.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The God of the ancients, from my perspective, can be no other than the God and Father of Jesus.

The understood that no one can see God and live, and they also accepted that some of them met with God, had dinner with God, saw Him, several times. And they also seemed to understand that the Messenger of YHWH was YHWH Himself, looking at what they wrote. And I'm not really finding any clear cut examples of "agency" accounting for someone being named who wasn't actually the one.

Of course, we have no guarantee that the Bible writers themselves understood everything they wrote. Peter affirms some of them didn't.

No one can see God and live, meanwhile, YHWH came to see Abraham one day, and ate with him. Some would say, it wasn't actually YHWH, because, after all, no one can see God and live, however, what conclusions do we reach if we simply accept it for what it says?

Much love!

 

[theefaith]

Yes. Look it up.



I too believe what is written. The difference is you impose trinitarian dogma onto unitarian text. I do not.

While I agree that the text CAN BE taken to 'point' to the trinity, you DENY the text can be taken to point away from the trinity.



I said it would be the START of a conversation ... to admit there is ANY valid Scriptural support to reject the trinity.



Given the trinity is not in the Bible, it is a discussion that begins by you showing some humility regarding what you have to say.

the word may not be there but the doctrine is

the words Unitarian, theism, Protestant, heretic, and rapture are not there either

 

[Wrangler]

I maintain that "us" is plural, and describes the Creator

I know you do this but the contradiction is in denying the "me" in the 1C is singular and is a command, the 1st command, our Creator gave. It must be important to recognize him as a singular being since that is the 1C.

 

[Matthias]

The understood that no one can see God and live, and they also accepted that some of them met with God, had dinner with God, saw Him, several times. And they also seemed to understand that the Messenger of YHWH was YHWH Himself, looking at what they wrote. And I'm not really finding any clear cut examples of "agency" accounting for someone being named who wasn't actually the one.

Of course, we have no guarantee that the Bible writers themselves understood everything they wrote. Peter affirms some of them didn't.

No one can see God and live, meanwhile, YHWH came to see Abraham one day, and ate with him. Some would say, it wasn't actually YHWH, because, after all, no one can see God and live, however, what conclusions do we reach if we simply accept it for what it says?

Much love!

The law of agency is imprinted throughout scripture. That is the key to my position.

The one who is sent is considered as if he is the sender.

 

[Matthias]

I'm not sure I understand how that means "last Adam". Are you saying He is the culmination of Adam's race?

I would answer that Adam is humanity, that all of humanity was in the loins of Adam, and when Adam was corrupted, humanity was corrupted. So that Christ came not descended from Adam, but having become just like Adam, a new humanity.

The first Adam, as the subsequent generations unfold, the fulness of humanity becomes seen. We all come from Adam. The Last Adam, Christ, we don't come from Him, we enter into Him, being baptized into Him, to become part of His new humanity, in this case, united to God Himself.

The first Adam, and the Last Adam, these designations are to signify two different humanities. Jesus did not share in Adam's corruption, being the Last Adam.

Much love!

I see it as being part of the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21); humanity restored to what it was before sin entered the world.

The new creation.

 

[marks]

I see it as being part of the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21); humanity restored to what it was before sin entered the world.

The new creation.

But still that Jesus is of the line of Adam, is that correct? Adam's offspring? Somehow cleansed from the corruption of sin? Is that the idea?

Much love!

 

[marks]

The law of agency is imprinted throughout scripture. That is the key to my position.

The one who is sent is considered as if he is the sender.

What verses do you look at that show this Law of Agency?

For instance,

Genesis 24:37-40 KJV
37) And my master made me swear, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife to my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell:
38) But thou shalt go unto my father's house, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son.
39) And I said unto my master, Peradventure the woman will not follow me.
40) And he said unto me, The LORD, before whom I walk, will send his angel with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father's house:

Genesis 24 is about where Abraham sends his servant to obtain a wife for Isaac. But I don't see anything in the text that indicates Abraham himself going, as if, though it was his servant, it's written as him going, showing this law of agency. I don't see that.

Can you show me where this is clearly seen? Somewhere that tells us that one person went, but calls it as if it were another? The only one I can think of isn't really conclusive. I'm wondering if you are aware of others.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

But still that Jesus is of the line of Adam, is that correct? Adam's offspring? Somehow cleansed from the corruption of sin? Is that the idea?

Much love!

Adam is listed in his genealogy (Luke 3:23-38). Adam is an ancestor of Jesus.

It should go without saying that Yahweh doesn’t have any ancestors. The point is that Jesus isn’t Yahweh.

There is no God besides Yahweh. Yahweh is Jesus’ God and Father.

Adam was sinless because he didn’t sin. Adam didn’t remain sinless, because he sinned.

Jesus was sinless because he didn’t sin. Jesus remained sinless, because he didn’t sin.

 

[theefaith]

That should be a mutual agreed upon point.



The first thought that crossed my mind is that you’re short two.

The passage you quoted concerns a human person, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, supernaturally begotten by his God (there is no God besides his God) and conceived by his mother. The origin of Jesus, as is the origin of all human persons - with the exception of Adam and Eve - is in the womb of his mother.

the divine nature is eternal not the human nature

 

[Matthias]

What verses do you look at that show this Law of Agency?

For instance,

Genesis 24:37-40 KJV
37) And my master made me swear, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife to my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell:
38) But thou shalt go unto my father's house, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son.
39) And I said unto my master, Peradventure the woman will not follow me.
40) And he said unto me, The LORD, before whom I walk, will send his angel with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father's house:

Genesis 24 is about where Abraham sends his servant to obtain a wife for Isaac. But I don't see anything in the text that indicates Abraham himself going, as if, though it was his servant, it's written as him going, showing this law of agency. I don't see that.

Can you show me where this is clearly seen? Somewhere that tells us that one person went, but calls it as if it were another? The only one I can think of isn't really conclusive. I'm wondering if you are aware of others.

Much love!

Scripture is filled with examples of agency. It is a standard feature in Jewish culture.

I’ll provide you with several example, if that’s what you need. Before I do I’d like to ask, have you ever done a Google search for the law of / principle of agency in scripture?

 

[Matthias]

the divine nature is eternal not the human nature

Trinitarianism 101. Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.

But Jesus isn’t a trinitarian. His God isn’t the Trinity. Jesus is a human person and his God is the Father alone - Yahweh.