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

[tigger 2]

How can we ever understand any scripture without you to tell us what it really means?

.......................................

All uses of "Lord" as used in address (vocative) in the Gospel of John (and others).

Examining the Trinity: KURIE (part 2)

Instead of criticizing the time and effort put in honestly studying this scripture, why don't you actually show me wrong by pointing out where I missed a use of kurios as a noun of address? Or even a use of kurie not used as a noun of address, etc.

Prove my study wrong instead of offtrack criticism.

 

[Rich R]

No, it's quite deeper than that... :)

Well, not really. There were just different ideas about who the one/many true God/Gods was/were. Like the writer of Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun.

There is a huge gulf between the Ancient Near Eastern worldview and that of the modern West. I said that in the modern When most modern, Western people hear the word "god" and they think of an old man with a white beard and sandals sitting on a cloud. That is not even close to the image formed in the minds of the Middle Eastern of 2,000 years ago.

In the past as well as the present, we who believe in the One True God know there is God and there are many false gods, both in the sense of persons and things. Even the Bible (God) acknowledges that, calling Jesus the King of kings and Lord of lords ~ the True God over all false gods. And, in addition, by nature, we want and need a true God, and we even make ourselves out to be God. This was true in all times in the past since the fall of Adam and Eve and continues to this very day, and will continue until Jesus returns.

Very true. I'm thinking of Romans 1 where Paul said that everyone knows their is a God. They just changed Him into an image.

You sell it way, way, short, Rich. You do see the words 'deity,' 'supernatural,' and 'supreme, in those definitions, do you not? I agree that it is not hard, though. Although... it is impossible without God Himself ("with man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible").

Like many English words, Greek words can have multiple meanings. Theos can indeed indicate a supernatural being, but it was also used of anyone with power and authority as per the 3rd definition in Strong's Concordance for "god."

Right, and expecting Him to be God's Christ, and thus God. They just missed it.

God anointed God? Was He not anointed at some point? This is absolutely against the idea that Jesus is God, saying quite the opposite. But that is the case with the vast majority of so-called "trinity proof verses."

Well, she's the mother of Jesus, by the Holy Spirit, Who came upon Mary, which tells us that Jesus was always (and will always be) fully of God ~ the Son of God (so He always was and is eternal and with the Father and the Holy Spirit and thus had no "mother"). The fact that He was born of a woman and thus also fully of Man ~ the Son of Man (so Mary was the man Jesus's mother) ~ is what qualifies Him uniquely as the Mediator between man and the Father.

All Christians are born again of God's incorruptible seed. That makes us His sons and daughters for eternity. What's the problem with the same applying to Jesus?

 

[RLT63]

.......................................

All uses of "Lord" as used in address (vocative) in the Gospel of John (and others).

Examining the Trinity: KURIE (part 2)

Instead of criticizing the time and effort put in to honestly study this scripture, why don't you actually show me wrong by pointing out where I missed a use of kurios as a noun of address? Or even a use of kurie not used as a noun of address, etc.

Prove my study wrong instead of offtrack criticism.

Thanks for the link. I see your source and where you are getting all of this. Very unbiased.

 

[Rich R]

No bias here of course
New Unitarian Bible Translation: Revised English Version (REV)

It is our assertion that there are theological issues that we understand more correctly than most translators, and thus our translation will reflect that theology.

Well, they do understand who Jesus is, that he is the son of God. They are also astute enough to understand a son can not be his own Father. I'll give you that. You think you understand who Jesus is more than me. Why can't they do the same?

It's a well known fact among serious Biblical scholars that there not a few textual corruptions in most translations. Sometimes the scribe made an honest mistake, but it's not unknown for them to make deliberate changes so as to fit with a certain theology.

Besides, I thought you were someone else when I replied. Had I know it was you, I would not have made that recommendation. Not that I don't like you, but I would have respected your view. I would only have recommended it to you if I sensed you were curious about non-trinitariansim.

 

[tigger 2]

Thanks for the link. I see your source and where you are getting all of this. Very unbiased.

All the studies on Examining the Trinity are my personal studies. I purposely avoided most non-trinitarian sources and quoted or cited mostly trinitarians.

Do you use only non-trinitarian sources for your studies/posts?

Again, the sarcasm is not helpful. Instead try proving any errors in my study.

 

[Rich R]

Only if we ignore Psalm 28:1 ~"To you, O LORD, I call; my Rock, be not deaf to me, lest, if Rou be silent to me, I become like those who go down to the pit." Jesus is this Rock, as we see throughout the Bible:

• Isaiah 8:13-14 ~ "But the LORD of hosts, Him you shall honor as holy. Let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. And He will become a Sanctuary and a Stone of offense and a Rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
• Matthew 16:15-18 ~ "(Jesus) said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
• Romans 9:32-33, directly referencing Isaiah 8:13-14, cited previously ~ "Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling Stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
• 1 Corinthians 1:23, directly referencing Isaiah 8:13-14, cited previously ~ "...but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles..."
• Ephesians 2:13-22, directly referencing Isaiah 8:13-14, cited previously ~ "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ... So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."
• 1 Peter 2:4-8, directly referencing Isaiah 8:13-14, cited previously ~"As you come to Him, a living Stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.' So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the Cornerstone,' and 'A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.'”

I agree. :)

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

I assume you are saying that Jesus is God because they are both called a "rock."

To the Ancient Near Easterner the word "rock" was used to describe a refuge. They called their gods a rock also.

I further assume you would say the same about both being called a savior. Joshua was also called a savior. There were others also called saviors. Still only one God though.

 

[RLT63]

Well, they do understand who Jesus is, that he is the son of God. They are also astute enough to understand a son can not be his own Father. I'll give you that. You think you understand who Jesus is more than me. Why can't they do the same?

It's a well known fact among serious Biblical scholars that there not a few textual corruptions in most translations. Sometimes the scribe made an honest mistake, but it's not unknown for them to make deliberate changes so as to fit with a certain theology.

Besides, I thought you were someone else when I replied. Had I know it was you, I would not have made that recommendation. Not that I don't like you, but I would have respected your view. I would only have recommended it to you if I sensed you were curious about non-trinitariansim.

There's plenty of information about it on the internet.

 

[RLT63]

All the studies on Examining the Trinity are my personal studies. I purposely avoided most non-trinitarian sources and quoted or cited mostly trinitarians.

Again, the sarcasm is not helpful. Instead try proving any "errors" in my study.

Well it's quite a site and you are well versed in JW theology. It must have taken a lot of time to put together, I have to give you credit. It's an impressive and comprehensive site.

 

[Rich R]

There's plenty of information about it on the internet.

Half the world bombs the scriptures. So what? Truth is truth. It's not a numbers game.

Still, you piqued my interest. I'll see what others have to say about it. Thanks!

 

[RLT63]

John 20:28 is a statement by Thomas who had refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected. His statement is a phrase without subject or verb and if subject and verb are to be supplied by the translator, it could read “you are My Lord and My God.” It is more likely, however, that it would be translated more like “My Lord and my God be praised.” This would mean that the phrase was meant as a doxology to the Father. Doxologies and other commonly used phrases frequently have words missing in the Greek text.

Many trinitarians say, instead, that this phrase by Thomas was an ADDRESS to Jesus. If true, this would mean that Thomas was naming Jesus by these words. However, it is rare that a person is addressed and not spoken to further. For example, “Then they said to him, ‘Lord, always give us this bread.’” (John 6:34).

However, there is actual proof that John did not intend this as an ADDRESS to Jesus.

You see, whenever John, and the other NT writers, used “Lord” as a noun of address, they used the form of the word known as a vocative. This means that if John understood Thomas’ words as an address to Jesus, he would write the word kurie. There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7). Whereas when the NT writers intended it as a subject (“The Lord then answered him..." - Luke 13:15) they used the nominative form of the word (Kurios). Kurios is the form used at John 20:28.

So, the probability is that this incomplete phrase is a doxology to the Father.

Furthermore, if John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement as some trinitarians insist, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident?

“But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing:] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5.)

Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

See my study of this scripture here:

Examining the Trinity: MYGOD

You do an excellent job of trying to convince us that this does not say what it clearly says.

 

[tigger 2]

You do an excellent job of trying to convince us that this does not say what it clearly says.

So, you still won't/can't provide evidence of errors in my personal study.

 

[RLT63]

So, you still won't/can't provide evidence of errors in my personal study.

It's like I have an apple and you are offering proof that it's an orange. You have made your case well.

 

[PinSeeker]

There is a huge gulf between the Ancient Near Eastern worldview and that of the modern West.

There was never any difference concerning different ideas existing ~ and even what some of those ideas were/are ~ about Who/who the One/many true God/gods was/were, as I said. And in that immediate sense, what the writer says about there being "nothing new under the sun" is just as true today as it was when he wrote what he wrote.

I said that in the modern When most modern, Western people hear the word "god" and they think of an old man with a white beard and sandals sitting on a cloud. That is not even close to the image formed in the minds of the Middle Eastern of 2,000 years ago.

In some cases, I guess, but this is irrelevant. You cannot suppose this with any sort of credibility, nor can I. In a court of law, Rich, what you say here would get the quickest subjection bias objection in the history of courts of law. :)

God anointed God? Was He not anointed at some point?

The second Person of the triune God is anointed by the first Person of the triune God.

This is absolutely against the idea that Jesus is God...

Absolutely not.

All Christians are born again of God's incorruptible seed. That makes us His sons and daughters for eternity.

Absolutely. Have you said that to Robert Derrick and his cohorts? :) Yes, the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Absolutely.

What's the problem with the same applying to Jesus?

Are you suggesting that one can possibly follow himself? :) Can I be a PinSeekerian? Or a PinSeekerist? Or a PinSeekerite? :) Or a disciple of myself? Can you be a RichR-ian? Or a RichR-rist? Or a RichR-ite? :) Or a disciple of yourself? I'm assuming your answer would be no to all these questions, and that would be correct. So in view of that, Jesus, as God's Christ, cannot be branded a Christian, as He (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit) is the object of the worship of all Christians ~ then, now, and forevermore.

And to that point, Jesus did, during His life on earth ~ only before and even during His crucifixion ~ worship God, which is an irrefutable testament to His being in the form of (morphe' as Paul says in Philippians 2, the thing itself) man. But He also ~ both before His crucifixion and after His resurrection ~ accepted and even welcomed the worship of Himself from others, which is an irrefutable testament to His being in the form of (morphe,' as Paul also says in Philippians 2, the thing itself) God. As you must know, Jesus, in Luke 4:8, said, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’” In doing so, He was referring directly to Deuteronomy 6:13, where God says, "It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear." Jesus, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is the One True God, the triune YHVH.

I assume you are saying that Jesus is God because they are both called a "rock."

Well, I would phrase that slightly differently, but yes, and not merely "a rock," but the Rock of Salvation.

To the Ancient Near Easterner the word "rock" was used to describe a refuge. They called their gods a rock also.

Sure. And God, the triune God, said and proved that He is the true Rock of salvation, over and over and over again.

I further assume you would say the same about both being called a savior.

Absolutely. And Lord, and God, and a host of other things, each in the sense of being the one and only true (Fill-In-The-Blank).

Joshua was also called a savior. There were others also called saviors.

Joshua was a type, a shadow ~ a picture ~ of the one true, ultimate Savior to come, as were the Joseph of Genesis, Moses, David, and others, and even a host of inanimate objects, like the ark that carried Noah and his family through the flood (Genesis 6-9), the manna given to the Israelites during the exodus (Exodus 16, Numbers 11, Deuteronomy 8, John 6), the rock that Moses struck with his staff (Exodus 17, Numbers 20), and the bronze serpent on the pole erected by the Israelites at YHVH's direction (Numbers 21). Just to name, you know, a few... :) But yes, as the writer of Hebrews wrote, "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son..." (Hebrews 1:1-2). Joshua was a foreshadowing of the true One to come.

Still only one God though.

Absolutely. And one Savior, and one Lord.

:)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rich R]

Well it's quite a site and you are well versed in JW theology. It must have taken a lot of time to put together, I have to give you credit. It's an impressive and comprehensive site.

Oops, I think I just answered someone else's mail. So maybe what follows makes sense, but maybe not! :)

No JW. I'm pretty sure they don't believe in the manifestations of the spirit which I do. Also I think they believe Jesus existed from the beginning. I, and many others, think Jesus was born when he was actually born. Until then he didn't exist other than in God's mind as part of the plan, the logos, of John 1:1. I'm not sure if JW thinks the dead don't really die but go to heaven or hell immediately after death. I look at a dead person in a casket and can see they really are dead, and they'll stay dead until the gathering together and the resurrections. I have to wonder what would be the need for any resurrection if we're already consigned to up or down. :)

BTW, that site is not mine. :) But, yes, they do have an exhaustive site there. I know them form many years ago. Trust me, they are not JW either, for much the same reasons as I cited above.

 

[Rich R]

There was never any difference concerning different ideas existing ~ and even what some of those ideas were/are ~ about Who/who the One/many true God/gods was/were, as I said. And in that immediate sense, what the writer says about there being "nothing new under the sun" is just as true today as it was when he wrote what he wrote.

Did the LA Rams play the Buffalo Bills in the 2nd century BC? They do tonight, so maybe some things are new?

Just goofing around. I know what you mean. Still, the Ancient Near Eastern brain fired quite differently than that of the modern Western mind upon seeing or hearing the word "god."

And to that point, Jesus did, during His life on earth ~ only before and even during His crucifixion ~ worship God, which is an irrefutable testament to His being in the form of (morphe' as Paul says in Philippians 2, the thing itself) man.

If being in the form of someone makes a person to actually be that someone, we have a huge problem. Shortly after Jesus was raised from the dead,

Mark 16:12,

After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.​

Should that be taken to mean he wasn't God at that time? Maybe reconsider what it means to be in the form of something.

But He also ~ both before His crucifixion and after His resurrection ~ accepted and even welcomed the worship of Himself from others, which is an irrefutable testament to His being in the form of (morphe,' as Paul also says in Philippians 2, the thing itself) God. As you must know, Jesus, in Luke 4:8, said, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’” In doing so, He was referring directly to Deuteronomy 6:13, where God says, "It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear." Jesus, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is the One True God, the triune YHVH.

Here's another good time to point out the difference between the Ancient Near East and the Modern West. We hear the word "worship" and immediately think it means obeisance (or whatever) to God. Not so to them. Do a word study on "worship" and you'll see some interesting things. For example,

2 am 16:4,

Then said the king to Ziba, Behold, thine [are] all that [pertained] unto Mephibosheth. And Ziba said, I humbly beseech thee [that] I may find grace in thy sight, my lord, O king.​

Beseech is the same Hebrew word translated as "worship" in most places. This is one man "worshiping" another man. There are several places where one man "bows" to another. Again, "bows" is the same Hebrew word.

Well, I would phrase that slightly differently, but yes, and not merely "a rock," but the Rock of Salvation.

I know what you mean. However Psalm 18:31 does call God, "a rock" (at least in English KJV). Maybe not in Hebrew though.

:)

Grace and peace to you.

Yes, we certainly are! Like I have nothing else to do...Oh wait...I do! Yikes time flies and work is piling up on me.

 

[RLT63]

The

Oops, I think I just answered someone else's mail. So maybe what follows makes sense, but maybe not! :)

No JW. I'm pretty sure they don't believe in the manifestations of the spirit which I do. Also I think they believe Jesus existed from the beginning. I, and many others, think Jesus was born when he was actually born. Until then he didn't exist other than in God's mind as part of the plan, the logos, of John 1:1. I'm not sure if JW thinks the dead don't really die but go to heaven or hell immediately after death. I look at a dead person in a casket and can see they really are dead, and they'll stay dead until the gathering together and the resurrections. I have to wonder what would be the need for any resurrection if we're already consigned to up or down. :)

BTW, that site is not mine. :) But, yes, they do have an exhaustive site there. I know them form many years ago. Trust me, they are not JW either, for much the same reasons as I cited above.

The site has many JW links
I had a JW friend when I was young and I couldn't date her unless I converted but I could visit her at home and go to the Kingdom Hall with her. From what I understand they believe they will be resurrected and live on the earth and only 144,000 will go to Heaven. I went to a service with her when they had communion and they passed bread and wine around and everyone refused it. Only a few elders took communion. I guess they are part of the 144,000

 

[BeyondET]

There is a huge gulf between the Ancient Near Eastern worldview and that of the modern West. I said that in the modern When most modern, Western people hear the word "god" and they think of an old man with a white beard and sandals sitting on a cloud. That is not even close to the image formed in the minds of the Middle Eastern of 2,000 years ago.


Very true. I'm thinking of Romans 1 where Paul said that everyone knows their is a God. They just changed Him into an image.


Like many English words, Greek words can have multiple meanings. Theos can indeed indicate a supernatural being, but it was also used of anyone with power and authority as per the 3rd definition in Strong's Concordance for "god."


God anointed God? Was He not anointed at some point? This is absolutely against the idea that Jesus is God, saying quite the opposite. But that is the case with the vast majority of so-called "trinity proof verses."


All Christians are born again of God's incorruptible seed. That makes us His sons and daughters for eternity. What's the problem with the same applying to Jesus?

Not if He was found in the appearance of man and humbled Himself. Though He was the form of God.

 

[PinSeeker]

Did the LA Rams play the Buffalo Bills in the 2nd century BC? They do tonight, so maybe some things are new? Just goofing around. I know what you mean.

Ugh. :) Yeah, I get the goofing around part, and I think you really do know what I mean. :)

...the Ancient Near Eastern brain fired quite differently than that of the modern Western mind upon seeing or hearing the word "god."

Yeah, I don't think so... :) But, surely we can just call that conjecture on both our parts and leave it at that.

If being in the form of someone makes a person to actually be that someone, we have a huge problem.

Well, if you understand it strictly in the English connotation of 'form' instead of the Koine Greek connotation of 'morphe,' then certainly that presents a problem... for you. :) The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not English. :)

Mark 16:12,

After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.​

Should that be taken to mean he wasn't God at that time?

Nope. See above. He kept Himself from being recognized by the two men. Luke documents, this also, and he writes, "...their eyes were kept from recognizing him" (Luke 24:16). Jesus did this on several occasions, one being for a short time with Mary Magdalene after His resurrection; for a very brief time, she thought Him to be the gardener before Jesus "opened" her eyes by calling her name (John 20:15-16).

Maybe reconsider what it means to be in the form of something.

Nope. See above. And this is yet another example of the misdirection you offer, be it inadvertent or purposeful; it is what it is.

Here's another good time to point out the difference between the Ancient Near East and the Modern West. We hear the word "worship" and immediately think it means obeisance (or whatever) to God.

Not me...

You do realize that in the word 'worship' (Hebrew שָׁחָה, Greek προσκυνήσῃς) we can actually parse that out as 'worth-ship.' It is defined as "showing reverence and adoration for something," and giving and acknowledging its worthiness of this reverence and adoration, even proclaiming it. Yes, we can worship other people, but not anywhere near in comparison to worshiping in spirit and truth the One True God, the triune Jehovah. It runs intimately closely with what Jesus said the first and greatest commandment is, which is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind." The second, "to love your neighbor as yourself" is only like the first and greatest commandment ~ and necessarily precipitated by the first. It also runs intimately closely with Jesus's teaching that in comparison to our love for God, our love for even our parents and our family is to pale in comparison, even to the point of being ~ again, in comparison to the love for God ~ a hate. As Jesus says in Luke 10, that "(i)f anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." And here we run head on into yet another claim that Jesus is God; He is irrefutably applying this to Himself.

I know what you mean.

I sure hope so... :)

So, on that, I think I'll withdraw, Rich, at least for now...unless I change my mind at some point... :) I'm through for now with the rationalizations and the misdirection (not to suggest that any one person here has the market cornered on that). Grace and peace to you.

 

[RLT63]

The

The site has many JW links
I had a JW friend when I was young and I couldn't date her unless I converted but I could visit her at home and go to the Kingdom Hall with her. From what I understand they believe they will be resurrected and live on the earth and only 144,000 will go to Heaven. I went to a service with her when they had communion and they passed bread and wine around and everyone refused it. Only a few elders took communion. I guess they are part of the 144,000

I think they also believe that Jesus was an archangel before the incarnation

 

[BeyondET]

John 17:1-3,

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.​

Jesus was talking to his Father and called Him the only true God. This is in complete agreement with Corinthians.

1 Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

Again, the Father is called the one God.

John calls Jesus the son more than 50 times and never calls him the Father.

John 1:1,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
​

If we say Jesus is God then that means he is either the Father (which is totally counter to the Creeds) or he is not the true God (John 17:3) nor the one God (1 Cor 8:6).

Many solve the problem by finding out exactly what the "word" (logos) is in John 1:1. Hint: it's not Jesus.

Please confine the discussion to these verses in John. All the other so-called proof verses don't change what John clearly said. All verses have to fit.

Yahweh Rapha, “the God Who Heals,”

John 10
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.