John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[Kermos]

You make some good points and raise some interesting questions. While "pros" sometimes can be translated as "with," it's usual meaning indicates motion towards an object. It points to or refers to the object, in the case of John 1:1, it points to or refers to God.

The Greek in John 1:1 is, "pros ton theon" and the same phrase is found many times where it's translated as, "to God."

Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, pros:

Of relation with accusative case (which is the case of "God" in John 1:1b.
(a) toward, with: Rom 5:1, 2Co 1:12, Col 4:5, 1Th 4:12, al.;
(b) with regard to: Mat 19:8, Mar 12:12, Rom 8:31, al.;
(c) pertaining to, to: Mat 27:4, Joh 21:22, Rom 15:17, Heb 2:17; Heb 5:1;
(d) according to: Luk 12:47, 2Co 5:10, Gal 2:14, Eph 3:4; Eph 4:14;

Here is a diagram that shows the general meaning of Greek prepositions. Note that "pros" is a line that goes "towards" the object. That's just how the grammar works. I didn't invent the Greek language. :)



The problem with translating it as "with" in John 1:1b is that it makes 2 people, i.e., one person with another makes 2 people. As I said before, solving that problem by introducing Greek philosophy (oousia, essence) is not a good solution. God is able to explain Himself without having to resort to Greek philosophy.

You think that the clause "the Word was with God" (John 1:1) indicates that there are two gods, so your spirit, by which you make your assertion, must be tested (1 John 4:1).

Let us consider the clause "the Word was with God" within the greater passage "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The English word "with" in the clause "the Word was with God" is the Greek word "πρός" (Strong's Greek: 4314. πρός - pros - with (denotes integrally together/accompaniment), at (denotes local proximity), to (denotes motion toward), and even in some cases "against" (denotes going up in opposition) - biblehub.com/greek/4314.htm).

Since the Greek word "pros" syntactically denotes the English word "with" in John 1:1-5, then the next points are all true with each other.

1. "The Word was with God" means that God is never without God's Word - the Word is never outside of being God, so the Word is God.
2. Even deeper, "with" means "integrally together/accompaniment" (with) in the clause "the Word was with God" - the Word of God was "In the beginning" (John 1:1) while simultaneously the God Most High alone is "In the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), so the Word is God.
3. Truly deeper into the language, "with" defines as "occupying the same locality with" (at) in the phrase "the Word was with God" - the Word was "In the beginning" (John 1:1) while exclusively YHWH God is "In the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), so the Word is God.
4. Progressing even deeper, "the Word was with God" is inextricably conjoined by the logical conjunction "and" to the clause "the Word was God" - the Word created everything in the beginning (John 1:1-5) while simultaneous Truth is that God created everything in the beginning (Genesis 1:1-31), so the Word is God.
5. Acknowledging even more, "with" means "progressing in unison toward the goal with" (to) in the clause "The Word was with God" - the goal of Creation is at hand for "all things came into being through" the Word (John 1:3) "in the beginning" (John 1:1) while simultaneously "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), so the Word is God.

In Spiritual Truth (John 14:6), "The Word was with God" means that the Word of God is intrinsically God, and the Word is inseparable from God.

In the beginning the Word was God who created all things (John 1:1-5).

See "never without" (1), "integrally together" (2), "occupying the same locality with" (3), "inextricably conjoined by the logical conjunction" (4), and "progressing in unison toward the goal with" (5).

"The Word is the One True God, YHWH" is the culminating conclusion of these marvelous points about John 1:1-5!

You failed to understand the greater Spiritual Truth (John 14:6) that Jesus the Word is the One True God within the John 1:1-5 passage, so your spirit's expression that the clause "the Word was with God" (John 1:1) indicates that there are two gods is not from God, so you are a false prophet (1 John 4:1).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

 

[robert derrick]

"The Word was with God" means that God is never without God's Word - the Word is never outside of being God, so the Word is God.

1. Even deeper, "with" means "integrally together/accompaniment" (with) in the clause "the Word was with God" - the Word of God was "In the beginning" (John 1:1) while simultaneously the God Most High alone is "In the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), so the Word is God.
2. Truly deeper into the language, "with" defines as "occupying the same locality with" (at) in the phrase "the Word was with God" - the Word was "In the beginning" (John 1:1) while exclusively YHWH God is "In the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), so the Word is God.
3. Progressing even deeper, "the Word was with God" is inextricably conjoined by the logical conjunction "and" to the clause "the Word was God" - the Word created everything in the beginning (John 1:1-5) while simultaneous Truth is that God created everything in the beginning (Genesis 1:1-31), so the Word is God.
4. Acknowledging even more, "with" means "progressing in unison toward the goal with" (to) in the clause "The Word was with God" - the goal of Creation is at hand for "all things came into being through" the Word (John 1:3) "in the beginning" (John 1:1) while simultaneously "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1), so the Word is God.

While I do not at all believe it is necessary for original languages to prove the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, which begins with the Word was God, I do like your reasoning logic with Greek help.

You are not just using Greek words to teach something you want to, but are showing how the Greek words themselves produce a sensible and inescapable conclusion for any honest reader.

Since in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the Word was with God in the beginning of creation, and the Word was the one creating all things, without Whom nothing was created, then the Word was God creating all things in the beginning: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Since in the beginning was God and the Word, and the Word was with God in the beginning, and God and the Word created all things, then the Word must be God, and was God in the beginning, and so God and the Word are one (as well as the Holy Ghost in 1 John 5).

Although any honest reader understands this intuitively, you bring it out in detail step by step through understanding of the Greek. The Greek is not necessary to prove it, but is very helpful in explaining how it is proven.

Good job.

And furthermore, while understanding Greek language can help debunk saying the word was a god, it also is not necessary, because Scripture says there was no god with God at any time; therefore, the Word cannot be a god.

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me. (Deut 32:39)

However, in so far as convincing people, you must realize, that while your reasoning is a benefit to reasonable readers, it has no benefit to the created-christers you are addressing.

They do not want to believe Jesus is our Lord and our God. We all know this by seeing how they refuse to believe the simple truth of Scripture, no matter what amount of Scripture and reasoning is brought in.

It's the reason they don't want to that is most important: they don't want the true Christ that is Lord and God, because they prefer another created christ that is kept at arm's length. They don't want Christ our Lord living within them, and they must know personally, but rather they prefer some superhero and demigod of the past, that they cannot possibly walk like on earth. This way they can excuse themselves from doing so, and go on with whatever un-christlike sinning they wish.

Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

So, while it is good to sharpen our teaching and perfect it by teaching it, it will not have any affect on the idolators of jehovah, because they don't want to be affected from their idolatry at all.

 

[Kermos]

It is indeed used in common by Luke and John (and others) as a referent to Jesus Christ. But I'm still not seeing the point. What John recounts as having been said about Jesus Christ -- call him what you will ("the Word" will do fine) -- is not ipso facto one of the many eyewitness testimonies referenced in Luke 1:1-2.

RedFan, @Rich R preaches that the Word does NOT refer to Jesus.

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is the Word (John 1:1-5, John 1:14).

Do you see the point of the correspondence now?

 

[Kermos]

Kermos, haven't we been through this before on another thread, where you wrote the exact same thing? (Are you the author, or are you quoting someone else?) I'm a Trinitarian like you, but as I pointed out last time, Paul's use of the singular δόξης is not probative of the point you wish to extract from it. I can easily show you an instance in Paul's writings where the word would NOT need to be plural in order to be attributed to two or more distinct persons. Take a look at Philippians 3:19, where the singular δόξα (nominative rather than genitive) is attributed to more than one person.

I agree with you that Titus 2:13 is referencing one and the same person. But Philippians 3:19 demonstrates that it is not for the reason you cite. And as I said last time, it is important when defending interpretations of Scripture not to overreach, lest your credibility be diminished.

You've got other arrows in your quiver. It's time to discard this one.

No way, RedFan, I am not dropping the grammatical and Spiritually accurate translation of the Greek for Titus 2:13!

Titus 2:13 truthfully exegeted with Greek grammar rules applied maintains consistent Apostolic testimony.

Here is the English-Greek full word-for-word of Titus 2:13:

awaiting-προσδεχόμενοι the-τὴν blessed-μακαρίαν hope-ἐλπίδα and-καὶ appearing-ἐπιφάνειαν the-τῆς glory-δόξης the-τοῦ great-μεγάλου God-Θεοῦ and-καὶ Savior-Σωτῆρος us-ἡμῶν Christ-Χριστοῦ Jesus-Ἰησοῦ

All of "God", "Savior", "Christ", and "Jesus" are genitive, singular, and masculine thus they are to be taken together as a single cohesive unit according to Greek grammar rules, and this unit has the genitive singular adjectives "glory" and "great" pointing at this unit for all the genitive singular words are inextricably tied together according to Greek grammar rules.

The logical "and" in the phrase "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Titus 2:13) is linguistically tied to Jesus Christ because the word "hope", which is singular, as well as the word "glory", which is singular, in the phrase "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of" (Titus 2:13); therefore, Paul singularly refers to "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" as One singular.

See that linguistically, "hope" and "glory" would need to be plural in order for "our great God" and "Savior" and "Christ Jesus" to be disassociated in the evil manner which unbelievers think applies.

THE APOSTLE PAUL INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GREAT GOD" (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ) WITH "LOOKING FOR THE BLESSED HOPE AND THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY OF THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR OF US, CHRIST JESUS" (TITUS 2:13).

The Greek grammar rules make it utterly clear in order to avoid confusion, yet unbelievers have managed to confuse themselves unto eternal punishment according to their current state. You are supporting their confusion of Paul's words about the greater Apostolic testimony. This is IMPORTANT!

 

[Kermos]

I think this is fantasy, my friend.

First, the Logos musings in John's Prologue would never have been the Apostle's early oral "testimony" -- conceptually, it just doesn't lend itself to preaching of the sort that we know was going on in the first decade after Pentecost, nor would it have been intelligible as an evangelical tool to convert the hearer to Christianity.

Second, if it had been preached in those early years in anything remotely resembling the form it took in the Prologue, don't you think there would be a trace of it in some Christian writing somewhere? Yet there isn't a hint of John's Logos philosophy in any other writing predating John's Gospel, whether by Paul, the Synoptics, or anyone. That's where it would naturally have shown up. Not in Philo.

Third, the timing is extremely tight if not impossible. Philo wrote about the Logos in his Questions and Answers of Genesis and Questions and Answers on Exodus between 20 C.E. and 35 C.E. -- in Alexandria, not in Palestine. So when he penned those works he was in no "position to hear" John's Logos "testimony" that, decades later, became the prologue to John's gospel.

Fourth, by early tradition Mark, not John, went to Alexandria to develop the church there, likely after Philo's death. We have no reason to believe that John ever set foot in Alexandria. So someone else would have needed to deliver John's Logos theories in Alexandria at the time Philo wrote his treatises -- or deliver a "tractate" (written by some disciple of John's who wasn't "uneducated and untrained," perhaps?) accurately recounting it. What's the likelihood of that?

Fifth, there is not a shred of a mention of Jesus Christ in Philo's writings -- as there surely would have been if he had heard and become enamored of John's "testimony," whether directly or through others (if indeed there were any repeaters of John's musings at that time).

Conclusion: John didn't influence Philo.

You keep coming to the defense of the unbelievers preaching, RedFan.

In your first point, your tone minimizes John's writing in John 1:1-14 by calling them "musings" instead of John's firm belief.

In your first point, you wrote that "John's Prologue would never have been the Apostle's early oral" which is COMPLETELY fabricated by you, even in support of the unbelievers preaching.

Your second point misses the fact that the Apostle John wrote John 1:1-14. Luke also referred to Jesus as the Word (Luke 1:1-2). Again, your writing is in support of the unbelievers preaching.

In your third point, you claim time frames that you cannot know. The Apostle Thomas is purported to have reached India. The Apostle Paul went all over the Mediterranean. The general time frame provide sufficient time for John's message to reach Philo's ears. Again, your writing is in support of the unbelievers preaching.

In your fourth point, you do not know whether Mark was in Alexandria pre or post Philo's death; furthermore, another Christian besides Mark may have carried John's message into the hearing area of Philo. You seem to be desperately trying to support the preaching of unbelief.

In your fifth point, you set Philo's writing on it's head, particularly, if as a Jewish religious leader, he was trying to dilute, discredit, and/or eliminate John's testimony about Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14). Jewish religious leaders didn't even say Jesus Christ's Name as recorded in Acts 5:28, and Philo was a Jewish religious leader. I do not understand how a professing Christian would ameliorate the sin of unbelievers as you have done with @tigger 2 who did a "like" of your post, RedFan.

The Apostle John was proclaiming the Word at least as early as the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2:1-6, so this places Philo in position to hear or read a tractate of the testimony of John that Jesus is the Word, yet John is excluded from being trained in Philo's philosophy because Scripture records that John was an "uneducated and untrained" man (Acts 4:13).

 

[Rich R]

RedFan, @Rich R preaches that the Word does NOT refer to Jesus.

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is the Word (John 1:1-5, John 1:14).

Do you see the point of the correspondence now?

What???? You must have misunderstood or I wasn't clear. I actually said the whole book is about Jesus.

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.​

 

[Wrangler]

Since in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the Word was with God in the beginning of creation, and the Word was the one creating all things, without Whom nothing was created, then the Word was God creating all things in the beginning:

Absurd. Words are WHAT's not WHO's.

Using words is an attribute of being, not a separate Being. The most anti-trinitarian book in the whole Bible, John also explicitly tells us at 20:31 that everything he wrote was to prove something other than the idea that Jesus is God; namely, that Jesus is God’s Anointed. So, it is funny to see trinitarians try to twist 1:1 – and indeed, his entire Gospel - to have a purpose other than what John explicitly stated is the purpose of his Gospel!

 

[Kermos]

What???? You must have misunderstood or I wasn't clear. I actually said the whole book is about Jesus.

John 5:39,

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Look at what you have been writing in this very thread as recorded in the following linked posts.

Jesus is the Word (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #329 in this thread), but you deny the Word of God.

In the same vein, Luke 1:1-2 identify Jesus is the Word, just like John 1:14 identifies Jesus is the Word (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #394 in this thread), so you intensely persist in your rejection of the Word of God.

You admit "the Word was God" (John 1:1) states that "the Word" is being referred to as "God" with your writing of 'the "word" was God Himself' (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #238 in this thread), but you wickedly proceeded to disassociate John's writing from John's writing in John chapter 1 where John declares Jesus is the Word (John 1:14) your heart evilly disassociates from Jesus being God "the Word was God" (John 1:1) since Jesus is the Word (John 1:14).

In effect, you deny the Word of God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14).

 

[Rich R]

Look at what you have been writing in this very thread as recorded in the following linked posts.

Jesus is the Word (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #329 in this thread), but you deny the Word of God.

In the same vein, Luke 1:1-2 identify Jesus is the Word, just like John 1:14 identifies Jesus is the Word (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #394 in this thread), so you intensely persist in your rejection of the Word of God.

You admit "the Word was God" (John 1:1) states that "the Word" is being referred to as "God" with your writing of 'the "word" was God Himself' (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #238 in this thread), but you wickedly proceeded to disassociate John's writing from John's writing in John chapter 1 where John declares Jesus is the Word (John 1:14) your heart evilly disassociates from Jesus being God "the Word was God" (John 1:1) since Jesus is the Word (John 1:14).

In effect, you deny the Word of God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14).

Luke 1:1-2,

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;​

Luke 1:2 does say that Luke and the other Apostles were ministers of the word, but I don't see anything there about Jesus being the word.

Hebrews says something that does connect Jesus with the word, but it doesn't actually say he is the word.

Heb 1:1-2,

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
​

Before Jesus came God spoke through the prophets. Later God spoke through Jesus.

I decidedly do not wickedly reject what God said in either Luke or Hebrews. I full believe and embrace it.

 

[Kermos]

Kermos, haven't we been through this before on another thread, where you wrote the exact same thing? (Are you the author, or are you quoting someone else?) I'm a Trinitarian like you, but as I pointed out last time, Paul's use of the singular δόξης is not probative of the point you wish to extract from it. I can easily show you an instance in Paul's writings where the word would NOT need to be plural in order to be attributed to two or more distinct persons. Take a look at Philippians 3:19, where the singular δόξα (nominative rather than genitive) is attributed to more than one person.

I agree with you that Titus 2:13 is referencing one and the same person. But Philippians 3:19 demonstrates that it is not for the reason you cite. And as I said last time, it is important when defending interpretations of Scripture not to overreach, lest your credibility be diminished.

You've got other arrows in your quiver. It's time to discard this one.

In Philippians 3:19, Paul writes "whose [] end [is] destruction, whose [] god [is] [their] appetite, and [whose] [] glory [is] in [their] shame, who set their minds on earthly things" (NASB).

English words enclosed in brackets, such as [is], represent English words that are absent of a source Greek word, and the [] indicate absent English words from the Greek.

See that every empty set, [], is a definite article in Greek (biblehub.com/interlinear/philippians/3-19.htm).

See that the plural "their" is added twice.

See that the verb "is" is added three times.

Here are the phrases matching the source Greek, these are exclusively singular words per Greek grammar, "[] end destruction" and "[] god appetite, and [] glory in shame" (the preposition "in" does not have a count, but "in" is grammatically part of the phrase). There are no other singular words in the verse, and these phrases contain no plural words.

The resulting phrases are quite telling about the truth that Paul exposes.

The direct articles are singular and specific thus the English words "the one" fits the article.

Let's visit the phrases again:

• "the one end destruction"
• "the one god appetite, and the one glory in shame"

More accurately translated, Paul writes "whose one end - destruction, whose one god - appetite, and one glory in shame, who set their minds on earthly things" (Philippians 3:19).

Paul wrote of the enemies of the cross of Christ (Philippians 3:18), like Watchtower Society people and @Rich R who sets his mind on earthly things** (Philippians 3:19). The WS people include @Keiw and @tigger 2.

Paul writes that all those people have one end, destruction - a collective end.

Paul writes that all those people have one god, lust - a collective god.

Paul writes that all those people have one glory in shame - a collective glory in shame.

Grammatically, "glory" modifies "shame", a singular. This is not a plural "glory" nor is "shame" plural.

According to the grammar, Paul writes that all those people have the singularly same destruction, lust, and glory in shame.

See that linguistically, "glory" and "shame" would need to be plural in order for "glory in shame" to be disassociated from the collective, singular oneness of the unbelievers - them being in one spirit of delusion, see John 8:44. Let's look at more of John chapter 8.

Those people deny Jesus by thinking that Jesus is not I AM. The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Word of God proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) and the Word of God says "I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever" (1 Chronicles 17:14), so according to the Word, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past and will exist in eternity future which means the Word is uncreated thus the Word proclaims that the Word is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past and future (Isaiah 45:5). Jesus declares "unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24), and those people do not believe Jesus.

Koine Greek is considered a command language so to speak**. The Greek grammar has delineating specific inflectve grammatical rules; on the other hand, English has a plethora of permutations that can lead to vagaries. Respecting Philippians 3:19, both the NASB and the more accurate translation convey similar meanings.

Now, see that I did not write that a singular cannot ever impact a plural when I wrote about Paul's absolute belief that Jesus is the great God (Titus 2:13), but God had me be very specific about the grammar and Spiritual Truth (John 14:6) of Paul's writing.

** explained elsewhere in this thread or on this site.

Your thoughts that "glory" in Philippians 3:19 modifies a plural is improper grammar.

You are encouraging the unbelievers in going the wrong way.

 

[Kermos]

Luke 1:1-2,

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Luke 1:2 does say that Luke and the other Apostles were ministers of the word, but I don't see anything there about Jesus being the word.

Hebrews says something that does connect Jesus with the word, but it doesn't actually say he is the word.

Heb 1:1-2,

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Before Jesus came God spoke through the prophets. Later God spoke through Jesus.

I decidedly do not wickedly reject what God said in either Luke or Hebrews. I full believe and embrace it.

The Apostle John declares Jesus is the Word with "the Word manifested flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

The Apostles "were eyewitnesses" "of the Word" (Luke 1:2).

Not just "earwitnesses" of the Word, but they were also "eyewitnesses" "of the Word" (Luke 1:2). Luke does specifically declare that they SAW the Word - they saw Jesus for Jesus is the Word of God!

They were "eyewitnesses" of Lord Jesus the Word.

You absolutely reject the Word of God for Jesus is the Word (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #329 in this thread), so you wickedly deny the Word of God.

In the same vein, Luke 1:1-2 identify Jesus is the Word, just like John 1:14 identifies Jesus is the Word (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #394 in this thread), so you intensely persist in your rejection of the Word of God.

You admit "the Word was God" (John 1:1) states that "the Word" is being referred to as "God" with your writing of 'the "word" was God Himself' (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #238 in this thread), but you wickedly proceeded to disassociate John's writing from John's writing in John chapter 1 where John declares Jesus is the Word (John 1:14) your heart evilly disassociates from Jesus being God "the Word was God" (John 1:1) since Jesus is the Word (John 1:14).

@tigger 2, your one spirit of delusion with Rich R is visible by your "like" of Rich R's post.

 

[Kermos]

What do you think begotten from the word beget means Kermos, incarnation?...LOL. And then this imaginary process found in your doctrine, of non-creation, triggers and produces a Jesus hypostasis union as a Jesus God-man of dual natures, and then at some point in time a Kenosis process is triggered that transforms Jesus yet again into a type of hybrid human natured of only a divine person...LOL

This is what you believe in when you read in scripture that Jesus was begotten. You believe that there were at least two impossible processes triggered and another later by the spirit of the Father. I don't think he knew he would be doing all this frankly to create his Son.

I read the same words in scripture to mean clearly that Jesus was created by his Father's holy Spirit. Simple, uncomplicated and scriptural.

Why did the Trinitarians invent a special case, new meaning for the simple word beget or begotten for scripture and regarding the Son of the Almighty? It is because they wanted Jesus to be much more that a human man and human person. They want him as a superman like a Greek or Roman god.

Get the picture now Kermos?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the meaning of begotten whether it is used in scripture or not...this is NO reason to change a meaning that has been the same for thousands of years, except if you adhere to another and different doctrine of the true Jesus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'According to Collins English Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word begotten is the past participle of the word beget, which means to have a child or to cause something to happen or be created.'

What Does Begotten Mean? | The Word Counter

Jesus reveals Himself as truly God and truly Man at His discretion.

Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.

Based on this Truth (John 14:6), Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as Man at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Furthermore. Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as God at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Here is an instance of Jesus, truly God, saying "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God.

Here is another instance, this time of Jesus, truly Man, saying "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" (John 20:17) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of Man thus including the person of Jesus and His brothers in one (John 17:21). See, the Son of Man being the firstborn of the born of God persons (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, John 3:3-8).

We, children of God, can also refer to Jesus in his capacity as truly God as well as His capacity as truly Man. We can use context to make the distinction.

We, born of the Holy Spirit of God persons (John 3:3-8), are one in God (John 17:21) because of the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17), thus God is One. We are the blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God's work in us.

People who do not believe that Jesus is God are people who are not blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God, so such people cannot see the Kingdom of God nor King Jesus (John 3:3-8). You do not believe that Jesus is God.

JESUS IS "I AM" BEFORE JESUS WAS BEGOTTEN.

JESUS, TRULY GOD, ALWAYS EXISTS "BEFORE ABRAHAM" AS "I AM" (JOHN 8:58) PRIOR TO MARY BEING TOLD ABOUT BEGOTTEN JESUS, TRULY MAN, BY GABRIEL "BEHOLD, YOU WILL CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB AND BEAR A SON" (LUKE 1:34).

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Jesus proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).

@JohnPaul, the content of this post goes for you as well because you like APAK'S spirit of delusion thoughts.

APAK and JohnPaul, you deny Jesus.

 

[JohnPaul]

Jesus reveals Himself as truly God and truly Man at His discretion.

Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.

Based on this Truth (John 14:6), Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as Man at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Furthermore. Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as God at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Here is an instance of Jesus, truly God, saying "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God.

Here is another instance, this time of Jesus, truly Man, saying "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" (John 20:17) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of Man thus including the person of Jesus and His brothers in one (John 17:21). See, the Son of Man being the firstborn of the born of God persons (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, John 3:3-8).

We, children of God, can also refer to Jesus in his capacity as truly God as well as His capacity as truly Man. We can use context to make the distinction.

We, born of the Holy Spirit of God persons (John 3:3-8), are one in God (John 17:21) because of the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17), thus God is One. We are the blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God's work in us.

People who do not believe that Jesus is God are people who are not blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God, so such people cannot see the Kingdom of God nor King Jesus (John 3:3-8). You do not believe that Jesus is God.

JESUS IS "I AM" BEFORE JESUS WAS BEGOTTEN.

JESUS, TRULY GOD, ALWAYS EXISTS "BEFORE ABRAHAM" AS "I AM" (JOHN 8:58) PRIOR TO MARY BEING TOLD ABOUT BEGOTTEN JESUS, TRULY MAN, BY GABRIEL "BEHOLD, YOU WILL CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB AND BEAR A SON" (LUKE 1:34).

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Jesus proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).

@JohnPaul, the content of this post goes for you as well because you like APAK'S spirit of delusion thoughts.

APAK and JohnPaul, you deny Jesus.

I deny nothing Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[True Faith]

Jesus reveals Himself as truly God and truly Man at His discretion.

Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God.

Based on this Truth (John 14:6), Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as Man at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Furthermore. Jesus Christ can refer to Himself as God at his discretion and when He deems it is appropriate.

Here is an instance of Jesus, truly God, saying "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of God thus including both the person of Jesus and the person of the Father in the One True God.

Here is another instance, this time of Jesus, truly Man, saying "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" (John 20:17) in which Jesus speaks in His capacity of Man thus including the person of Jesus and His brothers in one (John 17:21). See, the Son of Man being the firstborn of the born of God persons (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, John 3:3-8).

We, children of God, can also refer to Jesus in his capacity as truly God as well as His capacity as truly Man. We can use context to make the distinction.

We, born of the Holy Spirit of God persons (John 3:3-8), are one in God (John 17:21) because of the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17), thus God is One. We are the blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God's work in us.

People who do not believe that Jesus is God are people who are not blessed beneficiaries of the Holy Spirit of God, so such people cannot see the Kingdom of God nor King Jesus (John 3:3-8). You do not believe that Jesus is God.

JESUS IS "I AM" BEFORE JESUS WAS BEGOTTEN.

JESUS, TRULY GOD, ALWAYS EXISTS "BEFORE ABRAHAM" AS "I AM" (JOHN 8:58) PRIOR TO MARY BEING TOLD ABOUT BEGOTTEN JESUS, TRULY MAN, BY GABRIEL "BEHOLD, YOU WILL CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB AND BEAR A SON" (LUKE 1:34).

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Jesus proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).

@JohnPaul, the content of this post goes for you as well because you like APAK'S spirit of delusion thoughts.

APAK and JohnPaul, you deny Jesus.

A couple questions for you... then if you claim that Jesus was God Himself... "Was it the will of Jesus to do the will of his Father?"....Or we can go with the other question "Whose will did God Himself come down from heaven to do if not his own?"... An answer to either question will suffice....

 

[Rich R]

I deny nothing Jesus is the Son of God.

The plain, simple, easy to comprehend truth.

 

[Kermos]

What do you think begotten from the word beget means Kermos, incarnation?...LOL. And then this imaginary process found in your doctrine, of non-creation, triggers and produces a Jesus hypostasis union as a Jesus God-man of dual natures, and then at some point in time a Kenosis process is triggered that transforms Jesus yet again into a type of hybrid human natured of only a divine person...LOL

This is what you believe in when you read in scripture that Jesus was begotten. You believe that there were at least two impossible processes triggered and another later by the spirit of the Father. I don't think he knew he would be doing all this frankly to create his Son.

I read the same words in scripture to mean clearly that Jesus was created by his Father's holy Spirit. Simple, uncomplicated and scriptural.

Why did the Trinitarians invent a special case, new meaning for the simple word beget or begotten for scripture and regarding the Son of the Almighty? It is because they wanted Jesus to be much more that a human man and human person. They want him as a superman like a Greek or Roman god.

Get the picture now Kermos?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the meaning of begotten whether it is used in scripture or not...this is NO reason to change a meaning that has been the same for thousands of years, except if you adhere to another and different doctrine of the true Jesus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'According to Collins English Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word begotten is the past participle of the word beget, which means to have a child or to cause something to happen or be created.'

What Does Begotten Mean? | The Word Counter

APAK, you declare that you think there are "at least two impossible processes" for God.

Lord Jesus Christ declares "with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

Your heart rejects the Word of God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14).

This current post extends the Jesus, truly God, always exists "before Abraham" as "I AM" (John 8:58) prior to Mary being told the beget event of Jesus, truly Man, prophecy by Gabriel "you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son" (Luke 1:34) (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] in post #632 in this thread) post.

@JohnPaul, the content of this post goes for you as well because you like APAK'S spirit of delusion thoughts.

APAK and JohnPaul, you deny Jesus, so you deny God.

 

[True Faith]

APAK, you declare that you think there are "at least two impossible processes" for God.

Lord Jesus Christ declares "with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

Your heart rejects the Word of God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14).

This current post extends the Jesus, truly God, always exists "before Abraham" as "I AM" (John 8:58) prior to Mary being told the beget event of Jesus, truly Man, prophecy by Gabriel "you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son" (Luke 1:34) (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] in post #632 in this thread) post.

@JohnPaul, the content of this post goes for you as well because you like APAK'S spirit of delusion thoughts.

APAK and JohnPaul, you deny Jesus, so you deny God.

Actually the Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie...

Hebrews 6:18 "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:"

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

So again tell us where it is possible for God to lie???

 

[JohnPaul]

The plain, simple, easy to comprehend truth.

Thank you Rich.

 

[amigo de christo]

What a ignorant title .

 

[amigo de christo]

AS IF GOD is not HIS SPIRIT and HIS WORD .