Who Is Messiah? (Part 3)
February 15th, 2010 by Mark C.
God’s Agent
Part of the reason westerners don’t understand the relationship between God and His Son is because they don’t understand the Hebrew concept of agency. In that culture, when an agent represented a principal, the agent was viewed as, and even addressed as, the principal. An agent speaking on behalf of another was looked on as if he were the person whom he represented. This is especially true of the Angel of the Lord representing God.
Exodus 23:
20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
The Angel of the Lord appeared to Hagar and spoke to her in Genesis 16:7ff, but verse 13 says that “she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me…” Similarly, an angel appeared to Manoah and his wife in Judges 13. Manoah did not know it was an angel at first, according to verse 16. But he realized it was the angel of the LORD in verse 21, yet in the next verse, he said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”
God had said that no one could see His face and live (Exodus 33:20). We are told in a number of other places that no one has seen God at any time, because He is invisible (John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; I John 4:12; I Timothy 1:17; 6:16). Yet Exodus 33:11 says, “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.” Similar references to speaking to God face to face can be seen in Genesis 32:30; Numbers 12:6-8 and Deuteronomy 34:10. How can this be if no one has seen God?
Moses said (in Deuteronomy 5:4) that “The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,” referring to the giving of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. God Himself at that time had said, “Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven” (Exodus 20:22). However they only heard a voice, but “saw no similitude” according to Deuteronomy 4:12. Jesus, in fact said they had “neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.” We are told that what they actually had seen and heard was an angel.
Acts 7:
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Galatians 3:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.Hebrews 2:
2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
In a similar way, Jacob says he saw God “face to face” in Genesis 32:30 after wrestling with “a man” (verse 24). Yet Hosea 12:4 says that “he had power over the angel.”
So does the Bible contradict itself? Was it God or His angel that spoke and interacted? In Jewish culture, especially in Biblical times, Rabbis had a saying that the personality of the master is invested in the agent. The agent is as his master’s person. When the agent speaks, it is looked on as if it is the master speaking. The agent even appropriates the name of the master. We saw that it was an angel through whom God gave the Ten Commandments, yet Exodus 20:1-2 says, “And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God…” Similarly, the angel speaks on behalf of God in Genesis 22:10-12; 31:10-13; and Judges 2:1-4. He speaks directly for God, as if He were God, even speaking in the first person (“I am the LORD,” etc.). The Scriptures say that it was God who spoke, even though literally God spoke through His angel. This is then in agreement with the verses that say nobody has seen God. (For more on this concept, see “Theophanies and Christophanies?” by John Cordaro.)
It is in this sense that it must be understood that Jesus represented God, although Hebrews 1 emphasizes that he was not an angel. As the Son of God, he was the ultimate representation of God, and thus many characteristics of God are attributed to him as well. Many of these are thought to be proof that he is God, but in fact what they prove is that he perfectly represents his Father. He is called the “image of the invisible God” in Colossians 1:15. He is the “brightness of His glory” in Hebrews 1:3. The Greek word for “brightness” literally means “reflected brightness.” If He reflects God, he can’t be God. The same verse also says he is the “express image of his person.” The words “express image” are the Greek word, charakter, a stamped image. The word for “person” is hupostasis, a substructure, or foundation. Jesus is the stamped image of God, and God is the substructure of that stamped image. Thus Jesus is not God Himself, but the ultimate manifestation of God. According to Philippians 2:6, he is “in the form of God” (literally, external appearance) and John 1:18 says that he is the only begotten Son (not the “only begotten God” as some versions render it), who declares, or makes known, the Father.
There are a number of things that are said about both God and Jesus, which Trinitarians use to prove that Jesus is God. For example, in Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26 we read of Jesus forgiving the sins of the paralyzed man. The Jews accuse him of blasphemy, saying, “who can forgive sins but God?” Trinitarians will say the Jews were right in saying no one could forgive sins but God, and so this proves that he was God. But a few verses later, Jesus says he is healing the man, “that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins.” Jesus can forgive sins, not because he is God, but because he was authorized by God to do so. Jesus said his meat was to do the will of him that sent him, and to finish his work (John 4:34). He did nothing himself, but only what the father taught him (John 8:28). This is why he is called savior and lord, as his Father was called. This is why he is called “Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last” just as his Father was. This is why he could say, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).
Trinitarians sometimes point to John 5:18 as proof that Jesus is God. But first of all, it doesn’t say that he claimed to be God. It says he called God his Father, “making himself equal with God.” But the word for “equal” is isos which is elsewhere used to refer to having the same characteristics (Matthew 20:12, Luke 20:36), or simply agreeing (Mark 14:56,59). It does not mean that he was identical with God. The context describes in what way they were equal.
John 5:
16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
All the things Jesus did, he did because the Father enabled and empowered him to do them. He so completely communicated God that John said he was God’s Word made flesh. Notice he did not say, God made flesh. But doesn’t John 1 say that the Word was God? Yes, but what is meant by “the Word”?
John 1 declares that God’s Word was in the beginning. In recent times, the word “word” (in Greek, logos) is interpreted as being a pre-existent person. But there is no basis for this assumption. In Hebrew terminology, God’s Word is His mind, His wisdom, His plan of salvation. It is His character, if you will; that which makes Him what He is, just as my word is what makes me what I am. This is what is meant by “The word was God.” The wisdom of God is personified in Proverbs 8, and verse 22 says, “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.” But no one considers God’s wisdom to be a separate person from God.
Similarly, God’s Word was in the beginning with God. It is said to be “with” Him in the Hebrew sense that thoughts held in one’s mind are said to be “with” them. (“And these things hast thou hid in thine heart: I know that this is with thee” – Job 10:13.) Therefore the Word (God’s mind, wisdom, plan) was in the beginning, and it was with God and it was God. It was understood this way for hundreds of years, and even after the doctrine of the Trinity was developed, verse 3 of John 1 still read, “All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made” in all English Bibles translated from Greek, before the KJV in 1611.
When you come to verse 14 of John 1, for the first time it refers to a person, when the word becomes flesh. At that point God’s plan, God’s purpose, God’s wisdom, is made flesh in the person of God’s Son. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Notice it says he is the only begotten of the Father, not “God the Son.”
The Gospel of John is often considered by Trinitarians to be the one that most clearly presents Jesus as God. What it does present is Jesus as a unique person who demonstrated God’s power. But he was able to do the things he did because God gave him that power. Phrases Jesus used such as “not of myself,” “nothing on my own” and “Him that sent me” occur in John far more than any other Gospel. John explicitly declared his purpose for writing his Gospel: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:31).
The person of Jesus the Messiah is not a pre-existent person. Luke 1:35 tells us that he was conceived in Mary’s womb by the power of the holy spirit, and for that reason he is called the Son of God. The words “conceive” and “beget” imply bringing someone into existence. There was a time when he did not exist. When the Scriptures mention him having glory with the Father beforehand, it is because the whole creation looks forward to him, and he is the reason and purpose for it. He existed in God’s foreknowledge therefore. We also existed in God’s foreknowledge according to Romans 8:28-30 and Ephesians 1:4. This does not make us God, nor does it mean we literally existed with God in the beginning.
Jesus the Messiah is the most exalted human being, whose coming was foretold by the Prophets. He is the central purpose for all creation, being the manifestation of God’s character and will in the form of a human. He perfectly represented his Father, and thus many of His Father’s attributes are seen in him. When viewed in light of the Hebrew culture from which the Bible comes, the similarities between the Father and the Son are understood. It is clear that Jesus Christ is the ultimate representation and communication of God.
But there are also distinctions made between them. Trinitarians will respond that there are indeed differences between the Father and the Son, and that is to be expected, because they are two separate persons, within the one God. But the differences stated in part 1 aren’t just differences between the Father and the Son. They are specifically stated as differences between God (as a whole) and Jesus. In addition, there are many clear, unambiguous references to Jesus as the Son of God, compared with the few verses dealt with in part 2 that seem to call him God. The fact that he is not the God, the Creator, is made clear by the fact that he himself is said to have a God (II Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:17; I Peter 1:3; Hebrews 1:9; Revelation 3:12). Can God have a God? And above all, his identity must be considered in light of his eternal purpose, that is, to rule the world on God’s behalf, as King on David’s throne.
Read more about the principle of agency in the Scriptures:
- “Divine Agency in the Scriptures” by David Burge
- “Law of Agency” from the Jewish Encyclopedia
- “Yeshua the Messiah – The Shaliach (Emissary) of God!” from Torah of Messiah
To Be Continued…
Mark writes..According to Philippians 2:6, he is “in the form of God” (literally, external appearance)
Response- Jesus shares the literal external appearance of God?
Michael wrote:
Concerning that Angel led Israel into the Promised Land:
There was a man named Oshea, the son of Nun, to which Moses assigned a new name:
Num 13:16 KJV
(16) These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.
“Angel” also means “messenger” and it is rendered as such commonly within our text. This messenger that succeeded Moses, and went before the people of Israel, was now named Joshua, which in the Greek, is translated to Jesus (which can be confirmed by Hebrews 4:8 in the Authorized Text.)
As Justin Martyr pointed out in “Dialogue with Trypho” this was the name of God concealed early in the scriptures, for it says in Exodus 23:21 “for my name is in him.”
Mark had commented:
Gen 35:1 KJV
(1) And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.
It seems to me that “angel” is a rather flexible, since we have proven instances of it meaning “human messenger” and “divine messenger” and “created spirit” and “divine spirit” and even “literal presence of God.”
Gen 48:15-16 KJV
(15) And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
(16) The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
It seems that “Angel” is a pretty broad term.
-Andrew
Michael,
No, I was saying that the phrase “in the form of God” literally means he is the external appearance of God. It is the Greek word morphe, defined as external appearance or the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision. He doesn’t “share” the external appearance, he “is” the external appearance, since God is invisible. He is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15).
Andrew,
The word “angel” can have a broad variety of uses, but the point is that the angel which spoke for God was addressed as God, and even spoke in the first person as God, which is the Hebrew principle of divine agency. But whether the angel was a human messenger or a spirit being, whatever it was, it was not God.
There were two angels or messengers of God mentioned in the article where it came to mind with me, where the “name of God” is
connected with them. I am considering if those two were the Lord Jesus manifest.
No, they were angels. While “angel” can sometimes mean “messenger,” when it specifies “the Angel of the Lord,” it is talking about a literal angel, i.e. created spirit being. Jesus was never an angel, since Hebrews 1 and 2 clearly distinguish Jesus from the angels.
Dear Mark,
But whether the angel was a human messenger or a spirit being, whatever it was, it was not God.
That, my friend, is a point of disagreement, and not one which I think you’re able to prove without a circular argument. The most literal interpretation of the account of Jacob’s wrestling match is that he was indeed wrestling against God, in the flesh.
1) Jacob was told that he had power with God and with men
2) Jacob knew the obvious implication “for I have seen God” and God reaffirmed this when he tells him that he appeared to him when he fleddest his brother.
Some people may argue that “Hebrews didn’t have an understanding that God could walk among them in the flesh” but it seems to me that Jacob is a very good example of a typical Hebrew.
Any protesting that Jacob, and all the other Hebrews in the bible who said they saw God, were “confused” contradicts your own argument that the “Hebrew understanding” was that God always dealt indirectly through agents.
Which, by the way, happens to be the argument of the Greek philosophers who say that God cannot suffer, and cannot stoop to be tainted by a corrupted creation.
I understand why you want to protest this point: if God literally appeared in the flesh to Adam, or Abraham, or Jacob, or Moses, then that opens the door to consider that he could also have appeared in the flesh, and called himself Jesus.
I’m not looking to argue with you here. After all, this is your article you’re writing, I was just posting a comment.
Jya ne,
-Andrew
Mark C wrote:
Wow. So when a voice booms down from the sky saying “I am the LORD” it’s not the LORD and he doesn’t mean “I am the LORD…”
I wonder how I could write in purple text? I’ve been meaning to ask, but I keep forgetting.
-Andrew
No circular reasoning necessary. I mentioned the reference in Hosea in the article.
Hosea 12:
2 The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him.
3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:
4 Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us;
Not every time, but when we are specifically told it was an angel, and the angel speaks on God’s behalf, then that’s what it means.
I used the purple text on my website, and when I copied and pasted it here, it still showed as purple. But it doesn’t show the code in editing mode so I can’t change it, and I don’t know if there is a way to change the color of the text in a comment.
Mark C wrote:
So, I guess that can follow Jacob’s example, and we can pray to created angels, and even call them God?
Gen 48:15-16 KJV
(15) And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
(16) The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
Unless your doctrine allows praying to the creation, instead of the Creator, you’ve got a problem here, because since you insist the word “angel” always means “created angel” we have Jacob praying to created angels… and even calling them God.
Col 2:18 KJV
(18) Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
So it seems that in the end, Jacob was beguiled of his reward.
Here, I have a simpler solution:
1) “man” shall mean “in the outward appearance of a man” or alternatively “of the race of men” depending upon context
2) “angel” shall mean “messenger” or “created spirit” or “an obviously supernatural entity” depending upon context
3) “God” shall always mean “God” which can appear in whatever form he pleases, be it whirlwind, bush, fire, cloud, voice, as a man, or like an angel.
4) “a god” or “gods” may mean “false gods” who shall be judged by the true God, the judge of the quick and the dead, who standeth in the congregation of the mighty, who shall arise, and judge the earth, and inherit all nations (see Psalm 82.)
This flies in the face of your “divine agency” theory, which claims to be the true “Hebrew thought model” yet depends upon claiming that the actual Hebrew scriptures were mistaken when they say that people saw God, and when the people say they saw God (your model self-contradicts.)
Here, I have a legal “model” for you: have you ever heard of “Pro Se?” God doesn’t need to have an attorney!
-Andrew
It doesn’t say Jacob prayed to the angel. “Tell me, I pray thee” is simply a way of asking somebody something.
I didn’t insist that it always means “created angel.” But in any case, as I said, the Bible doesn’t say Jacob prayed to the angel.
It doesn’t say Jacob worshiped the angel either. You’re erecting a huge straw man.
I didn’t say they were mistaken. It is a known Hebraic idiom to refer to and address an agent as if he were the principle who sent him. It was understood in that culture.
Your arguments are entirely based on misunderstanding and misinterpreting both what I said and what the Bible says. It would really behoove you to seriously look into this so that you can at least make an informed argument.
Without understanding Hebrew culture one misunderstands a lot of things in the Bible, because it was written from that culture and is seeped in it. I didn’t make this up; there are many sources you can learn this from, including the links at the end of the article.
According to John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, all things that were Created, were Created by Jesus.
Since you believe Jesus is a Created thing, are you saying that you believe Jesus somehow Created Himself?
Inquiring Mind,
Welcome! No, I don’t believe Jesus created himself. That would be quite a trick!
John 1 declares that God’s Word was in the beginning. In recent times, the word “word” (in Greek, logos) is interpreted as being a pre-existent person. But there is no basis for this assumption. In Hebrew terminology, God’s Word is His mind, His wisdom, His plan of salvation. It is His character, if you will; that which makes Him what He is, just as my word is what makes me what I am. This is what is meant by “The word was God.” The wisdom of God is personified in Proverbs 8, and verse 22 says, “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.” But no one considers God’s wisdom to be a separate person from God.
Similarly, God’s Word was in the beginning with God. It is said to be “with” Him in the Hebrew sense that thoughts held in one’s mind are said to be “with” them. (“And these things hast thou hid in thine heart: I know that this is with thee” – Job 10:13.) Therefore the Word (God’s mind, wisdom, plan) was in the beginning, and it was with God and it was God. It was understood this way for hundreds of years, and even after the doctrine of the Trinity was developed, verse 3 of John 1 still read, “All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made” in all English Bibles translated from Greek, before the KJV in 1611.
When you come to verse 14 of John 1, for the first time it refers to a person, when the word becomes flesh. At that point God’s plan, God’s purpose, God’s wisdom, is made flesh in the person of God’s Son. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Notice it says he is the only begotten of the Father, not “God the Son.”
Colossians 1 is a section that has several “proof texts” in it.
Colossians 1:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
This section is misunderstood largely because of the poorly translated prepositions, as well as the failure to understand the exalted position of Christ. Being “the image of the invisible God” means that he is the image or likeness (Greek eikon, from which we get our word “icon”) of God; he is the perfect representation of God. He is also the firstborn of every creature in the new creation, which will be completed when he returns.
Then verse 16 refers to creation. The first word “by” (in the beginning of the verse) is actually the Greek word en or “in.” The second word “by” (near the end of the verse) is dia meaning “through” or “for the sake of” and the word “for” is eis, which can be translated “unto” or “for.” The verse literally says, “In him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth…all things were created through or for the sake of him, and for him.”
The next verse continues with the prepositions. “Before” is pro and can refer to rank or importance as well as time. The word “by” in this verse is again en. He is before all things in rank and importance, and it is in him that all things consist. All these things describe the most highly exalted person in all of creation except for God himself, and that is exactly what Jesus Christ is.
The posts on this blog are excerpts from a longer article, which you can read in its entirety here.
“When you come to verse 14 of John 1, for the first time it refers to a person, when the word becomes flesh. At that point God’s plan, God’s purpose, God’s wisdom, is made flesh in the person of God’s Son. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Notice it says he is the only begotten of the Father, not “God the Son.” ”
I totally agree here with Mark in this part
“.” Notice it says he is the only begotten of the Father, not “God the Son ”
but I would like to add it also doesnt state the man Jesus either, this is still talking about the Word that Indwelled the Flesh of Jesus.
God’s plan, God’s purpose, God’s wisdom was the only begotten of the father and made a Dwelling IN not AS the man Jesus at His BAPTISM.
From this point those who recognized this miracle saw God’s plan, God’s purpose, God’s wisdom and God’ Power when they saw the Highly favoured Jesus.
Most of the time it was the Word speaking when Jesus spoke but we also see where it was just Jesus who spoke or prayed.
John 1
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
What do you see in this verse above?
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, [2] and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
What do you see in these verses?
I see something coming From God and dwelling upon Jesus
That is what John the Baptist was to bare record of
John could not of bared record of Jesus’ Birth, He could of only bared record of Word becoming flesh at the time of Jesus’ baptism. the Word was the only Begotten of God at the time .
Begotten doesnt always mean being born, it just means it something that came from.
While the only begotten could be called Son it doesnt have to mean it in the same way. it also can be giving personal postion as all things that God spoke of. like nations, cities but that dont make them a person in the same sense as us.
Or does the word begotten mean born the way man is as we see it was spoken of in references to nation.
The holy spirit descending on Jesus is later, in a different context from v.14, which is talking about his birth.
Also, begotten doesn’t mean born. Birth is the result of begetting, and beget means to bring into existence.
beget (from Merriam-Webster)
1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
In the Greek, “only begotten” is monogenes, from ginomai, which Strong’s defines as “a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen”-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being)”…
It can be used figuratively, but there is no reason to assume it is figurative when the context of John 1:14 is Jesus coming into existence, and when Matthew and Luke clearly define how he was begotten by God.
John 1
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Mark
Do you somehow see these verses being out of order. because if you take it as it is in order than this can not be refering to Jesus’ birth.
John was to be a witness and bare record of the Word becoming Flesh in the Man Jesus. this could only be at Jesus’ baptism.
Take it for what it says not what you think it means or been told it means.
No, Robert, they are not out of order. Here’s the whole context:
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 ¶ John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19 ¶ And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29 ¶ The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
Verses 6-8 speak of John bearing witness of the light in a narrative way, but does not yet record John’s actions or words.
Verses 9-11 talk about that light.
Verses 12-13 talk about those being born again.
Verse 14 says the Word was made flesh… and we beheld his glory as of the only-begotten of the Father (begotten means begotten).
Verse 15-18 now record what John actually said when he preached.
Verses 19-28 now record John’s interaction with the Jews.
Verses 29 and following describe John baptizing Jesus when the Holy Spirit descended. And it says “I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” It does NOT say that Jesus BECAME the Son of God at that time. Like I said, in v. 14, begotten means begotten, especially when Matthew and Luke describe HOW he was begotten of God. That is what it says, and what I take it to mean.
There was an angel that Joshua met in the promised land, and he came as the “captain of the Lord’s host.” ( see Joshua 5:13-15.)
I wonder if Joshua, upon meeting this man,( this captain of the Lord’s host with the drawn sword), thought upon what Moses said
in Exodus 23:20.
I have heard it said that this messenger was the Lord Jesus.
Mark
i just showed you that God’s word could be called the Son of God as many things including a nation and cities as daughters both begat by God .and have nothing to do with the Man Jesus
whats being spoke in Verses 29 is speaking of God’s Word that rested upon the Man Jesus not the Man Jesus
When John said, “Behold the Lamb of God.”, they were looking unto Jesus. With their eyes they beheld the flesh that God did sent
as his offering, into this world, his only begotten Son.
“When John said, “Behold the Lamb of God.”, they were looking unto Jesus. With their eyes they beheld the flesh that God did sent
as his offering, into this world, his only begotten Son.”
No Ray
John was just refering to the fact that Jesus was spotless(sinless) and was to be Lamb of God offered for the Sins of all mankind. this was known by John through the Holy ghost. At that time he seen who the Word was going to rest upon when he bared witness to the Word Becoming Flesh.
Let’s look at this a minute
John 1:1-3 says In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
So in the first verse we see the phrase “the Word was God.”
So if you believe the Bible then you believe that in the Beginning the Word was God. Word= God. God= Word. They are interchangeable.
So in verse 2 we could rightly say ‘God was in the Beginning with God’.(Which is true because God was there in the beginning with Himself).
then in verse 3 we could rightly say All things came into being through God (which also is true because God created all things)
now we get down to verse 14 which begins “And the Word became flesh”
so here we can rightly say ‘And God became flesh’
This is the only logical conclusion to come to if one is using Scripture to form their doctrines. To come to a conclusion other than this, one would have to use extra-biblical texts to form their doctrines. Texts which are not God-breathed as Scripture is.
I have no problem with verses 29 and following describing the Holy Spirit or the Word resting on Jesus. But that doesn’t change the meaning of “only-begotten” in verse 14, or the meaning of the words in Matthew and Luke.
“I have no problem with verses 29 and following describing the Holy Spirit or the Word resting on Jesus. But that doesn’t change the meaning of “only-begotten” in verse 14, or the meaning of the words in Matthew and Luke. ”
Your right it doesnt change the meaning of verse 14, the only beggoten of God Was GODS WORD which came into existance when God FIRST Spoke and was with God, Was GOD.
IT CAME TO REST UPON JESUS NOT BECAME JESUS AND CERTAINLY JESUS DIDNT BECOME IT.
This has nothing to do with the birth narrative in Luke or any if any other exist
robert said: “Your right it doesnt change the meaning of verse 14, the only beggoten of God Was GODS WORD which came into existance when God FIRST Spoke and was with God, Was GOD.”
so let’s see if we can follow your logic
the Word came into existence when God spoke
the Word is God
God came into existence when God spoke?
So God came into existence?
Since it says “the word was God” and also “the word was with God” it can’t be a one-to-one identity being spoken of here. The word is not just another name for God. If it were, it wouldn’t make sense to say “the word was with God.”
The following is from John 1:1 Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) by Anthony Buzzard, which can be read in its entirety here.
We might add that “As a man thinks in his heart [and speaks] so is he” (Prov. 23:7). A person “is” his word. “In the beginning there was the word,” that is, the word of God. Clearly John did not say that the word was a spokesperson. Word had never meant that. Of course the word can become a spokesperson, and it did when God expressed Himself in a Son by bringing Jesus onto the scene of history. So then Hebrews 1:2 says: “God, after He had spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, at the end of these days has spoken in a Son.” The implication is that God did not earlier speak through His unique Son, but later He did. There is an important chronological distinction between the time before the Son and the time after the Son. There was a time when the Son was not yet.
It would be a serious mistake of interpretation to discard the massively attested meaning of “word” in the Hebrew matrix from which John wrote and attach to it a meaning it never had — a “person,” second member of a divine Trinity. No lexicon of the Hebrew Bible ever listed davar (Hebrew for “word”) as a person, God, angel or man.
The Word “With God”
John’s prologue continues: “And the word was with God.” So read our versions. And so the Greek might be rendered, if one has already decided, against all the evidence, that by “word” John meant a person, the Son of God, alive before his birth.
Allowance must be made for Hebrew idiom. Without a feel for the Hebrew background, as so often in the New Testament, we are deprived of a vital key to understanding. We might ask of an English speaker, “When was your word last ‘with you’?” The plain fact is that in English, which is not the language of the Bible, a “word” is never “with” you. A person can be “with you,” certainly, but not a word.
But in the wisdom literature of the Bible a “word” certainly can be “with” a person. And the meaning is that a plan or purpose — a word — is kept in one’s heart ready for execution. For example Job says to God (10:13): “Yet these things you have concealed in your heart; I know that this is with you.” The NASV gives a more intelligible sense in English by reading, “ I know that this is within you.” The NIV reads “in your mind.” But the Hebrew literally reads “with you.” Again in Job 23:13, 14 it is said of God, “What his soul desires, that he does, for he performs what is appointed for me, and many such decrees are with him,” meaning, of course, that God’s plans are stored up in His mind. God’s word is His intention, held in His heart as plans to be carried out in the world He has created. Sometimes what God has “with Him” is the decree He has planned. With this we may compare similar thoughts: “This is the portion of a wicked man with God and the inheritance which tyrants receive from Him” (Job 27:13). “I will instruct you in the power of God; what is with the Almighty I will not conceal” (Job 27:11).
We should also consider the related concept of “Wisdom.” In Job we find this: “The deep says ‘It [Wisdom] is not in me.’ And the sea says, ‘It is not with me’ ” (Job 28:14). To have wisdom or word “with” one is to have them in one’s mind and heart. “With him is wisdom and strength. To him belong counsel and understanding” (Job 12:13). And of course Wisdom, that is Lady Wisdom, was with (Hebrew, etzel; LXX, para) God at the beginning (Prov. 8:22, 30).
In Genesis 40:14 we read “Keep me in mind when it goes well with you,” and the text reads literally “Remember me with yourself…” From all these examples it is clear that if something is “with” a person, it is lodged in the mind, often as a decreed purpose or plan. Paul remarked in Galatians 2:5 that the Gospel might continue “with [pros] them,” in their thinking. John in his Gospel elsewhere uses para, not pros to express the proximity of one person to another (John 1:39; 4:40; 8:38; 14:17, 23, 25; 19:25; cp. 14:23. Note also meta in John 3:22, 25ff, etc. See New Int. Dict. of NT Theology, Vol. 3, p. 1205).
Thus also in John 1:1, “In the beginning God had a plan and that plan was within God’s heart and was itself ‘God’ ” — that is, God in His self-revelation. The plan was the very expression of God’s will. It was a divine Plan, reflective of His inner being, close to the heart of God. John is fond of the word “is.” But it is not always an “is” of strict identity. Jesus “is” the resurrection (“I am the resurrection”). God “is” spirit. God “is” love and light (cp. “All flesh is grass”). In fact, God is not actually one-to-one identical with light and love, and Jesus is not literally the resurrection. “The word was God” means that the word was fully expressive of God’s mind. A person “is” his mind, metaphorically speaking. Jesus is the one who can bring about our resurrection. God communicates through His spirit (John 4:24). The word is the index of God’s intention and purpose. It was in His heart, expressive of His very being. As the Translators’ Translation senses the meaning, “the Word was with God and shared his nature,” “the Word was divine.” [British and Foreign Bible Society, 1973, emphasis added.] The word, then, is the divine expression, the divine Plan, the very self of God revealed. The Greek phrase “theos een o logos” (“the word was God”) can be rendered in different ways. The subject is “word” (logos) but the emphasis falls on what the word was: “God” (theos, with no definite article), which stands at the head of the sentence. “God” here is the predicate. It has a slightly adjectival sense which is very hard to put exactly into English. John can say that God is love or light. This is not an exact equivalence. God is full of light and love, characterized by light and love. The word is similarly a perfect expression of God and His mind. The word, we might say, is the mind and heart of God Himself. John therefore wrote: “In the beginning God expressed Himself.” Not “In the beginning God begat a Son.” That imposition of later creeds on the text has been responsible for all sorts of confusion and even mischief — when some actually killed others over the issue of the so-called “eternal Son.”
“Never did it mean a spokesman. Rather, word generally signified the index of the mind — an expression, a word. There is a wide range of meanings for “word” according to a standard source. “Person,” however, is not among these meanings.”
I would agree that in the OT word was not used to mean a ‘Person’
But we must look at how it is used in the NT. Word is specifically used as a title for Jesus Christ, not being indwelled by the ‘Word’ but literally being the Word.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Here the Word is called ‘the only begotten from the Father’
But we know from many verses that Jesus is the only begotten (John 1:18.John 3:16,1 John 4:9, etc)
We can’t have 2 beings each being called the ONLY begotten. Otherwise the phrase ‘only begotten’ would be in error.
If we look at Revelation 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Here we see that Jesus is literally. The Word of God.
God came into existence when God spoke?
So God came into existence?
If thats as far as your logic will let you go then have at it.
When i came into existance i had never spoke a single word, But sometime after that i begat my very first word and at that point my word came into existance but my word is me. so how can that be.
We have no idea how god came to be but do know how his word came to be
Robert says: “IT CAME TO REST UPON JESUS NOT BECAME JESUS…”
John 1:14 says “The word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”
I choose John’s testimony over Robert’s.
Begotten means begotten. What part of that word do you not understand?
The Word itself is not called “the only begotten of the Father.” It is God’s mind or plan. The person referred to by the sentence “the word was made flesh” is called “the only begotten of the Father.” The only begotten Son is the perfect expression of God’s mind, plan, or word.
Jesus is what the word became, so in Rev. his name is called that.
If we take the Bible for what it is. Without adding to it from extra-biblical texts we will see throughout that Jesus is proclaimed to be God.
1.Creator-God Created the universe BY HIMSELF
Thus saith the LORD[JEHOVAH] , thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isaiah 44:24
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1
Jesus Created the universe
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom./And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: Hebrews 1:8,10
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Colossians 1:16
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3
Here we see that God created all “BY MYSELF” Isaiah 44:24. But we see that Jesus also Created all. Some say that Jesus was created first and then God created everything else through Jesus. But this is not possible because in Isaiah 44:24 God makes it clear that He did it “BY MYSELF” not through a created being.
2. The Word- God is the Word/ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
Jesus is The Word/ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Revelation 19:13
This is one of the most popular and obvious references of Jesus being God. Jesus is the Word. The Word is God. Jesus is God.
3. Redeemer- God is our Redeemer
Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD[JEHOVAH], art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. Isaiah 63:16
Jesus is our Redeemer
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Titus 2:13-14
Here we see that JEHOVAH is the redeemer. Yet in Titus it says that Jesus is the one who redeems us. Jesus is Jehovah.
4. Glorified- God alone is worthy of Glory and will not give it to another. I am the LORD[JEHOVAH] : that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8
Jesus shares that Glory that God said He would not give to another And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:6
The only way Jesus could have something God will not give to another is if Jesus is in fact God. For we know that God does not lie. So God did not lie when He said “my glory will I not give to another”. Yet Jesus shared that Glory. The Only explanation for this is that Jesus is God.
6. Receiver of worship. God is the ONLY One who should be worshipped.
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Exodus 34:14
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matthew 4:10
Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. Revelation 14:7
Jesus openly receives worship.
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. Matthew 2:11
Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Matthew 14:33
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Matthew 28:9
Notice Jesus never rebukes anyone for worshipping Him. If He were not God He would recognize the command in the Law to worship no one but God and He would have quickly corrected those who worshipped Him. Had He been only a man and not also God in the flesh then this would mean Jesus would have sinned by allowing people to openly worship Him in disregard of the Law to worship God only. In other words if you don’t believe Jesus is God then you actually are believing Jesus is a sinner whether you realize it or not.
Yet we know according to the Bible He did not sin at all
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1 Peter 2:22. Jesus openly received this worship without rebuking anyone for it because Jesus is in fact God.
7. Gives salvation to those who call upon His Name
This is attributed to God in the OT book of Joel.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD[JEHOVAH] shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD[JEHOVAH] hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD[JEHOVAH] shall call. Joel 2:32
Paul attributes this to Jesus
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:9, 13
Here we see a prophecy by Joel that there will be a time when “whosever shall call on the name of JEHOVAH shall be delivered” Paul quotes this in Romans 10:13.
What name is Paul referring to? Jesus.
Who does Joel say we must call on to be delivered? JEHOVAH. Jesus is Jehovah.
8. The First and The Last. God is the First and the Last
Thus saith the LORD[JEHOVAH] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD[JEHOVAH] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6
Jesus claims to be the First and the Last
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Revelation 1:17-18
Here we see that JEHOVAH is the First and the Last. We also see that Jesus makes the claim to be the First and the Last. If Jesus was created by JEHOVAH then Jesus could not be the First as JEHOVAH would have preceded Him. Jesus is JEHOVAH.
9.John the Baptist prepared His Way.
Him that crieth in the wilderness prepared the way for God
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD[JEHOVAH], make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Isaiah 40:3
John the Baptist was the one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way for Jesus
He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. John 1:23
In Isaiah we see that “the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness” will Prepare the way for JEHOVAH and make straight a highway for our God. John the Baptist makes it clear that he is the voice crying in the wilderness. John the Baptist came to prepare the way for Jesus. Jesus is JEHOVAH.
10. There is one shepherd.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. John 10:16
God is that Shepherd. The LORD[JEHOVAH] is my shepherd; I shall not want. Psalm 23:1
Jesus is the Shepherd. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. John 10:11
According to Jesus there shall be one fold and one Shepherd. Psalm 23 says that JEHOVAH is that Shepherd. Yet in John Jesus claims to be the Shepherd. Jesus is JEHOVAH.
11. Gave His Life for us. God Gave His Life for us
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 3:16
Jesus Gave His Life for us
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. John 10:11
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
Jesus came to give His life for us as a sacrifice. In 1 John it says that God laid down His life for us. Jesus is God.
12.Raised Jesus from the dead.
God raised Jesus
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. Acts 4:10
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9
Jesus raised Himself from the dead
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. John 10:17-18
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. John 2:19
We all know that Jesus lived, died, and was raised from the dead. But who raised Him? According to Acts 4:10 God raised Him from the dead. But Jesus himself said He would raise up His body in three days in John 2:19. He also states in John 10:17-18 That He has the power to lay down His Life and to Take It again.
13. The one they have pierced. God says He is the One they have pierced
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. Zechariah 12:10
Here the LORD(JEHOVAH) tells us that they shall look upon ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED..a clear prophecy from God saying that He will be the One pierced on the Cross.
Jesus is the One they have pierced. In the NT this is applied to Jesus/And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. John 19:37
Inquiring Mind
1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
As you see in this verse Jesus is still only speaking FOR God , He is the exclusive expresed agent for Gods word when God speaks to man.
and His name is called The Word of God.
This is just a title of that position Jesus Fills
God has now appointed him the Mediator between HIM and man.
If you understand this than when Jesus makes a statement from God, he doesnt have to say “SAYEST GOD” because we should know that already. He has been exalted to that position.
also within this verse you see the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus are separate.
I suppose we could say that a builder was finishing his house he had built and told his employee to put the latches on the doors, and after that to put the latches on the windows.
Now if the employee puts the door latches on the doors and then says to himself, “Now that I have that done, I remember the next thing I am to do which is to put the latches on the windows.” , and so he takes the door latches off the doors and attempts to put them on the windows but finds they do not fit.
So he calls his employer to tell him of the problem he is having, and might even get fired were it not for the mercy of the employer.
Now if all the latches were the same this might have worked.
John said about the word of God that the same was in the beginning with God. Was it the same word and yet somewhat different in some way? Could it be the same in one sense and somewhat different in another sense? Could there be a difference without any differences? Might there be a distinction? Might a trumpet blow with a different sound?
Mark C said: The Word itself is not called “the only begotten of the Father.”
you must have misread John 1:14. I will repost it for you.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
‘the Word’ is the subject of this sentence. The list of things following ‘the Word’ is a list of things done by or done to the subject.
The Word became flesh
The Word dwelt among us
We saw the Word’s glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father. full of grace and truth.
If I take Isaiah 44:24 without any extra Biblical interpretation, might I discover that when Jesus was with God while God created all things through his Son, that there was nothing in Jesus but God himself?
Does alone denote the simple fact of being by oneself or itself?
I believe Jesus is the Son of God. That is who he is. I also believe that what he is, is God.
Does the scripture allow for this kind of interpretation?
If people can be salt, can’t Jesus be God?
Mark
“Begotten means begotten. What part of that word do you not understand? ”
Let me see
Not a single part.
Read what you wrote about it meaning
“.beget means to bring into existence.”
What part of the meaning you posted do you not understand
…and didnt’ God say, “I AM WHAT I AM.?”
Inquiring Mind,
I recommend you read the first parts of this series, or better yet the entire article from which they are taken. You are bringing up points that have been dealt with.
You also misread my comment. After “The Word itself is not called the only begotten of the Father’” I then said, “The person referred to by the sentence ‘the word was made flesh’ is called ‘the only begotten of the Father.’”
It seems you are misreading the verse now. It says the word was made flesh. At this point it becomes a person. Then it says “we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” This person whom the word became is called “the only begotten of the Father,” not the word itself.
What are you asking? Beget means “brought into existence” which is what God did with Jesus. It doesn’t mean something else came to rest on him. So what is the problem?
Mark C said: It seems you are misreading the verse now. It says the word was made flesh. At this point it becomes a person. Then it says “we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” This person whom the word became is called “the only begotten of the Father,” not the word itself.
You are inferring that it becomes a person. The verse says no such thing. The verse simply says, The Word became flesh, and etc, and etc
It lists things that are done by The Word or done to The Word, becoming flesh is just one of those things. The word His in the phrase ‘His Glory’ is obviously referring to the Word itself as there is no other subject of the sentence for it to refer to.
Mark C said: “I recommend you read the first parts of this series, or better yet the entire article from which they are taken. You are bringing up points that have been dealt with.”
Again, if you read the bible and use ONLY the Bible as your source of doctrine then these verses make it clear that Jesus is in fact God.
The only way these points can be ‘dealt with’, as you put it, to make them mean something else, is by interpreting them through the lens of an extra-biblical text.
Scripture composed of the OT and the NT is the only text ever written that is God-breathed. There is no evidence in Scripture that any other text has been written that is inspired by God, thus all doctrine about God must come from the written words of God and not be diluted by the ideas of extra-biblical teachings. Even those texts that seem to pertain to the culture of the ancient Hebrew (which you must have gotten your ‘agent theory’ from) can not be used to develop doctrine about God as they are not the words of God and are subject to error.
Certainly Jesus was a person, who was and is the “only begotten Son of God.” So whether I say “the word became a person” or you say “the word was a person to begin with” we are both inferring it. The fact is, John uses poetic language that is not always simple. We should interpret it in light of the many clear Scriptures. “One verse does not a doctrine make.” That’s why I recommended you read the rest of the article.
If you read the article, and/or other Biblical Unitarian writing, you will see that we in fact use ONLY the Bible as our source.
The concept of divine agency is seen in the God-breathed Scriptures. We don’t use extra-biblical sources. On the other hand, the Trinity was most definitely a case of “the written words of God and not be diluted by the ideas of extra-biblical teachings.” It didn’t exist as a doctrine until some two or three hundred years after the close of the New Testament, and was developed from Greek philosophical ideas rather than from the Bible.
“Begotten means begotten. What part of that word do you not understand? ”
Mark you wrote this to me
then i wrote
“Let me see
Not a single part.
Read what you wrote about it meaning
“.beget means to bring into existence.”
What part of the meaning you posted do you not understand”
then you wrote
“What are you asking? Beget means “brought into existence” which is what God did with Jesus. It doesn’t mean something else came to rest on him. So what is the problem? ”
Mark
which is it
does begotten mean begotten which to state is a waste of time.
then to ask me what i dont understand is sort belittling.
Or does it mean “brought into existence”
or could it mean made by, formed by as the verse below uses it or all 3 .
15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. 16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. 17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. 18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
Btw if your comment wasnt meant to belittle than mine wasnt either and if it was then by example mine was and i am sorry
Mark C. said: Certainly Jesus was a person, who was and is the “only begotten Son of God.” So whether I say “the word became a person” or you say “the word was a person to begin with” we are both inferring it.
Again, The verse has nothing to with becoming a ‘person’ and never suggest that it ‘became’ a person.
It says that it became ‘flesh’.
The Greek for flesh is ‘sarx’ which literally means ‘flesh’..not ‘person’
So when it says we saw ‘His glory’ it is referring to the Word that became flesh…not ‘the person that the Word became’ as this never says anything about the Word becoming a person. Just that it became literal,physical flesh.
Mark C. said : On the other hand, the Trinity was most definitely a case of “the written words of God and not be diluted by the ideas of extra-biblical teachings.” It didn’t exist as a doctrine until some two or three hundred years after the close of the New Testament, and was developed from Greek philosophical ideas rather than from the Bible.
I never said anything about a Trinity. I merely am showing you that the Bible shows that Jesus is God.
The fact that Jesus is God is shown throughout Scripture and has nothing to do with any Greek philosophical ideas.
Mark C. said: If you read the article, and/or other Biblical Unitarian writing, you will see that we in fact use ONLY the Bible as our source.
really?
Maybe you need to reread your blog.
“In Jewish culture, especially in Biblical times, Rabbis had a saying that the personality of the master is invested in the agent. The agent is as his master’s person. When the agent speaks, it is looked on as if it is the master speaking. The agent even appropriates the name of the master”
The foundation of your ‘agent theory’ is based on what you have heard of ‘Jewish Culture’ and Rabbinical teachings. This is not found in Scripture.
Inquiring mind, welcome to the blog!
You brought up many arguments that have been addressed many times in this blog, so if you are searching to read what Unitarians have to say without getting into a debate on every issue, then I suggest browsing around the archives. With that, I would like to address a specific argument you brought up and we can continue from there if you would like.
You said…
First, your arguments seems to make sense given the verses you quoted in the context you present. The problem is we need to look in and around to see what the bigger context is. You cited John 17:5 as Jesus having glory from God, therefore Jesus is God, as God does not give his glory to another, as you quoted from Isaiah. This argument is false for a couple of reasons. Lets see what is said before and after John 17:5, from the verse you quoted…
1These 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:
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
As we can see that Jesus is in prayer with his God asking for God to glorify him so that he may glorify God. First, If Jesus were God he would not need to ask for God’s glory because he would already have it. Surely God cannot be without glory! Second, in vs.3 Jesus goes on to define his creed of eternal life to the one whom he is praying to as knowing he, the Father, is the “only true God,” and knowing, MESSIAH Jesus, the one whom was sent by “the only true God.” I think the context here speaks volumes against any evidence that Jesus is equating himself as God.
From the book of John, we can expand our context upon Jesus definition of HIS God and OUR God, the Father, as stated in John 20:17…
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
We then read in context again after John 17:5, later in verse 22 …
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
What is that? Believers have been given glory also? Does that make us God? No, of course not, no one believes that we are God. But the scripture is saying that others are given God’s glory. So unless you believe that believers are God, then your argument is based on fallacy and not on the true context.
To sum it up, Jesus’ glory is a GIVEN glory, just as ours is, as stated in John 17:22, 24. God the Father’s glory is innate. There’s absolutely no comparison between God the Father’s glory and Jesus’ glory. Jesus has awesome glory. He told his disciples, “You will see the Son of Man coming in great glory.” Jesus’ glory is so great that the brightness of his coming will destroy the antichrist. But Jesus’ glory is a given glory.
- Joseph
Joseph said: First, If Jesus were God he would not need to ask for God’s glory because he would already have it.
The first error in your rebuttal is this statement. This is a false assumption that is cleared up by comparing this with more Scripture.
Philippians 2:5-7 5(Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
These verses clearly show that the glory and equality that Jesus shared with God was emptied so that He could take the form of a bond-servant.
Joseph said:Jesus goes on to define his creed of eternal life to the one whom he is praying to as knowing he, the Father, is the “only true God,” and knowing, MESSIAH Jesus, the one whom was sent by “the only true God.” I think the context here speaks volumes against any evidence that Jesus is equating himself as God.
Again this is a false assumption. You are assuming that since Jesus is calling His Father God, He cannot Himself be God as well. I could reverse that and say that since the Father calls Jesus God in Hebrews 1, the Father cannot be God. You see the error?
Joseph said: What is that? Believers have been given glory also? Does that make us God?
Of course not. We have been given glory because God dwells in us. Thus we have God’s Glory: in us.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
Joseph said: To sum it up, Jesus’ glory is a GIVEN glory, just as ours is, as stated in John 17:22, 24. God the Father’s glory is innate. There’s absolutely no comparison between God the Father’s glory and Jesus’ glory.
Again this is a false premise.
According to Jesus He shared the Father’s Glory from before the World was.
Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. John 17:5
‘with the glory I HAD WITH YOU’
Philippians 2:5-7 explains why Jesus needs to be ‘given’ this glory again. Jesus has set it aside for the sake of becoming as a man.
When I said “begotten means begotten” I was emphasizing that the word means what it means in any ordinary context. What it means is to procreate as the father, to sire, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth, to cause to be (”gen”-erate), to bring into existence (in the way implied by the other definitions – procreate, sire, generate, etc.).
In the verse you quoted, “Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee,” the word begat does not necessarily mean the same as formed. But whatever it means, it’s obviously figurative in that context. But I don’t believe John 1:14 is figurative, since Jesus is called not just “begotten” but “only-begotten son” in several places in the Bible. The one other use of that phrase in the NT is referring to Abraham offering his “only-begotten son” in Hebrews 11:17. And besides, the description of how Jesus was conceived by God in Matthew and Luke confirm that “only-begotten son” is not figurative but literal.
Is a being of flesh not a person?
Only if you start with the assumption that the Word was a pre-existent person who became flesh.
Sorry. I thought you were a Trinitarian. I assume you subscribe to the Oneness Doctrine?
If you read the rest of the post, you’ll see the Scriptural evidence for the concept of divine agency.
Mark C said: Is a being of flesh not a person?
People are persons. If that is what you mean then yes. John 1:14 however is specifically talking about the Word becoming flesh itself. As i stated previously the verse is listing things done by or to the Word. You could infer that the Word becoming flesh means it becomes a person. In fact later in Scripture you learn that it means the Word becomes a human and takes the name Jesus. However, John 1:14 is specifically listing things done by or to ‘the Word’ thus ‘His Glory’ is ‘the Word’s Glory’ and when it says ‘the only begotten’ it is referring to ‘the Word’.
Mark C said: Only if you start with the assumption that the Word was a pre-existent person who became flesh.
Believing that the Word was pre-existent to becoming flesh is not an assumption. It is acquired knowledge. Knowledge which can be obtained simply by reading John 1. In fact, believing that the Word is a pre-existant ‘person’ or has a personality can be seen throughout John 1. Prior to becoming flesh, the Word is identified by the masculine pronouns He and Him and is said to be the one through which the world was made. In fact, Life itself is said to be in Him.
Mark C said: Sorry. I thought you were a Trinitarian. I assume you subscribe to the Oneness Doctrine?
I believe in the Godhead of Scripture.
Made up of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
Mark C said:If you read the rest of the post, you’ll see the Scriptural evidence for the concept of divine agency.
The problem is you are trying to make Scripture conform to an idea that was created by extra-biblical means. You are coming to Scripture with the idea of an ‘agency’ from what you have heard of Hebrew culture, and you are trying to make the Scripture fit into this theory.
Everyone
Would you agree that the logos is preexistent but not “the Son”?
“Would you agree that the logos is preexistent but not “the Son”? ”
Xavier
Would you agree that the logos was the first thing that came into existance from God
How is that different from the Trinity?
ah, i thought u all had turned in for the night, been a couple hours since our last conversing. getting late here
Mark C said: How is that different from the Trinity?
The Trinity is merely the title of a doctrine that sums up how some view the Godhead.
Much like your ‘agent theory’ is a title that sums up how you view Christ’s relationship to God.
Unlike the Trinity, Godhead is a title that is used in Scripture.
The Greek word’s translated Godhead are : theotes and theios.
which both basically mean divine nature.
The Father, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are all seen as sharing this Divine Nature in Scripture. All being active in equally in Creation, Salvation, the work of Christ on earth, the indwelling of believers, and all 3 are used interchangeably for one another throughout Scripture. From this we can see that they all share in the same divine nature and are part of the ‘theotes’ the Godhead.
Which is what some have called ‘Trinity’.
Inquiring Mind,
The first error in your rebuttal is this statement. This is a false assumption that is cleared up by comparing this with more Scripture.
No, it is based upon the verse you quoted from Isaiah. If God cannot share his glory with another, therefore he always has his own glory. It would be your assumption that God can “empty” his Glory. I already proved that God’s glory is given to others beyond Jesus, as stated in John 17:22. You stated that Christ is God because he received glory, therefore, by your own argument and logic, that would make us God also.
Philippians 2:5-7 5(Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
These verses clearly show that the glory and equality that Jesus shared with God was emptied so that He could take the form of a bond-servant.
Many points here. Firstly, you must ASSUME that Paul is talking about what Jesus was before his “Incarnation” – that is, during his supposed pre-existence as God the Son in heaven before he was born. Paul gives no hint here, however, as he specifies the historical person Christ Jesus, that he has any such notion in mind.
The word “form (Greek, morphe)” in Philippians 2:6 means “station in life [status], rank, position,” and not “inherent nature,” as some translators or commentators would interpret the Greek word (see NIV on Philippians 2:6, for example)? Here we appeal to the immediate context to help us understand how Paul is using the word. In verse 7 he says that Christ took the “form,” the morphe, of a servant — literally, of a slave. What does this mean? Does morphe suggest that a servant has some kind of “inherent nature” that would constitute him a slave, or does it not rather imply that servanthood is, per se, a matter of “status, rank, or position”? One’s position as a servant is either a matter of choice or a matter of circumstances. We cannot see, therefore, that the context supports any other meaning for morphe than that which deals with one’s rank or status.
Equality, be it noted, is not the same as identity. Paul is not saying that Christ was identical with God. The Greek text of Philippians 2:6 shows that Christ recognized his equality with God but that he did not consider this God-given equality a harpagmos. KJV translates this word as “robbery.” The word can imply something that is snatched or taken by force.
Again, you must assume the “pre-existent Christ” divested himself of the manifestation of some of his attributes of deity in order to become man. Here Trinitarians, Oneness, ect., use the term “kenosis” to support the idea of Christ’s personal preexistence. KJV ignores such ideas by translating that he “made himself of no reputation,” an obvious reference to the period of his human lifetime and ministry. We have already seen that Paul is talking about the historical man Christ Jesus, not about a person who was later to become Christ Jesus! It is therefore this historical person who “emptied” himself. In such a setting, the word suggests that Christ put away any temptation for self-aggrandizement or to exalt himself in any way. Christ’s “self-emptying” left within him no room for pride, arrogance, or any plans being made without total subjection to the will of God. (Heb. 10:7-10; Psa. 40:7-9)
I just got done citing Scripture, in which Jesus defines “his God” as “the Father.” It would help for you to quote my response in it’s entirety. Here it is again…
From the book of John, we can expand our context upon Jesus definition of HIS God and OUR God, the Father, as stated in John 20:17…
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
So, we see Jesus’ definition of God in light of his statements in John 17:3! The one and only true God is the Father, the same Father that Jesus defined as HIS God in John 20:17. There is no way around Jesus’ defining creed.
Paul verifies the same creed in 1 Corinthians 8:6…
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Messiah Jesus, by whom are all things, and we by him.
No mention of God the Son, or the Son of God, being God. We must remember that these creeds being recited are statements being made, not to be mistaken as analogies or metaphors.
Hebrews 1 holds arguments in Scripture which I could use in favor to prove that Christ did not pre-exist being only spoken through, “in these last days.” We would then we interpret the context of the rest of Hebrews by the latter context defining the subject matter. The Hebrews writer in 2:5 says that it is about “the inhabited earth of the future that we are speaking.” He himself points to the future founding of a new order on earth, the Kingdom of God which Jesus will inaugurate.
You just based your argument on God does not share his Glory with others, so that makes Jesus God, because he DID receive God’s glory. So which is it? You are now admitting that one can have God’s glory and not be God?
As I showed in context, we believers received the glory from God that Jesus received, as Jesus states in John 17:22, so that we may ALL be “one with God.”
So your assumption is based on a literal pre-existence. If anything you may be able to argue the pre-existence Jesus as the Son of God, but not as God the Son as you stated is part of your beliefs. In John 17, Jesus clearly defines God being separate from himself in identity and rank, as the one receiving the “glory.”
I think the evidence best supports, the Glory that Messiah had with God, is the promised Glory from OT prophecy. His glory was “with the Father” before the world began, and in John 17:5 he prayed that it would come into manifestation.
Jesus explains clearly why him, and us, need to be given this glory in the very same chapter that we are debating…
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
It’s all about hearing our Messenger from God, Messiah Jesus, so that we can receive glory from God and be one in God’s plan and purpose of Eternal life (John 17:3).
- Joseph
Joseph said: I already proved that God’s glory is given to others beyond Jesus, as stated in John 17:22. You stated that Christ is God because he received glory, therefore, by your own argument and logic, that would make us God also.
you are circling back to the same logic i showed to be wrong in my last response. let’s look at this again.
John 17:5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
From this we see that before the world was, Jesus already shared this Glory with the Father. I already showed you that God said He would not give His Glory to another. In order for Jesus to have once shared this Glory and yet still ask for it back, He must have somehow given it up, which is explained in the verses in Phillipians i posted.
Us having God’s Glory does not make us God by my logic. I explained that as well. We are not directly given the Glory in the same manner that Jesus is. Jesus already said that He shared the Glory with the Father before the world was even created. Now He is asking the Father to send this Glory.
The reason Jesus is able to say that He is giving us glory and yet we are not God is because He is sending the Holy Spirit to dwell within us. God Himself is dwelling in us. He is giving us God. Thus, He is giving us God’s Glory.
Joseph said:
Many points here. Firstly, you must ASSUME that Paul is talking about what Jesus was before his “Incarnation” – that is, during his supposed pre-existence as God the Son in heaven before he was born. Paul gives no hint here, however, as he specifies the historical person Christ Jesus, that he has any such notion in mind.
The word “form (Greek, morphe)” in Philippians 2:6 means “station in life [status], rank, position,” and not “inherent nature,” as some translators or commentators would interpret the Greek word (see NIV on Philippians 2:6, for example)? Here we appeal to the immediate context to help us understand how Paul is using the word. In verse 7 he says that Christ took the “form,” the morphe, of a servant — literally, of a slave. What does this mean? Does morphe suggest that a servant has some kind of “inherent nature” that would constitute him a slave, or does it not rather imply that servanthood is, per se, a matter of “status, rank, or position”? One’s position as a servant is either a matter of choice or a matter of circumstances. We cannot see, therefore, that the context supports any other meaning for morphe than that which deals with one’s rank or status.
Seems you have a misunderstanding of the meaning of morphe.
The Greek term morphe is defined as a literal form or shape.
It comes from the root word meros which is defined as :a part, a share, or a portion.
Jesus was in the literal shape of God according to Paul. Jesus then took the literal shape of a servant.
You don’t have to have any assumptions to see that Paul is talking about Jesus being God. You only have to read the Bible in English to see it. If you look at the original Greek it makes it even clearer that the word’s Paul is using mean that Jesus was literally the form,shape of God.
Joseph said:
“I just got done citing Scripture, in which Jesus defines “his God” as “the Father.” It would help for you to quote my response in it’s entirety. Here it is again…
From the book of John, we can expand our context upon Jesus definition of HIS God and OUR God, the Father, as stated in John 20:17…
17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
So, we see Jesus’ definition of God in light of his statements in John 17:3! The one and only true God is the Father, the same Father that Jesus defined as HIS God in John 20:17. There is no way around Jesus’ defining creed.”
We just saw from looking at the Greek morphe that Jesus literally took the form of a servant and thus took on the role of a servant and could consider The Father to be His God and His Father.
Joseph said: “Paul verifies the same creed in 1 Corinthians 8:6…
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Messiah Jesus, by whom are all things, and we by him.
No mention of God the Son, or the Son of God, being God. We must remember that these creeds being recited are statements being made, not to be mistaken as analogies or metaphors.”
God and Lord are 2 Titles that both Jesus and the Father share.
The fact that Paul says we only have 1 Lord further shows that Jesus must be literally God.
We are clearly shown in the NT that God is Our Lord.
(Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:10Romans 12:19, Revelation 1:8,Revelation 4:8,etc)
We are shown that Jesus is Our Lord.
(Acts 2:36,Acts 7:59,Romans 5:1, etc)
We are then told that we only have 1 Lord.
(1 Corinthians 8:6,Ephesians 4:5)
We can clearly see from this that if God is our Lord, Jesus is also our Lord, yet we are told we only have 1 Lord, then they must be the same being.
Joseph said: “You just based your argument on God does not share his Glory with others, so that makes Jesus God, because he DID receive God’s glory. So which is it? You are now admitting that one can have God’s glory and not be God? ”
You are twisting my words now. I never said Jesus was God because He RECEIVED God’s Glory. I said He is God because He had God’s Glory from the beginning.
Joseph said: “If anything you may be able to argue the pre-existence Jesus as the Son of God, but not as God the Son as you stated is part of your beliefs. In John 17, Jesus clearly defines God being separate from himself in identity and rank, as the one receiving the “glory.”
Jesus never defines God as ‘being separate from Himself..’
Telling God that He is the True God and that Jesus Christ is the One whom He sent doesn’t imply that He is ‘separate from Himself’.
Being sent by God doesn’t imply being separate from God.
My mind can send my hand to touch this keyboard and type this response. That doesn’t mean they are part of separate beings. It just means they play separate roles as parts of me.
Joseph said: I think the evidence best supports, the Glory that Messiah had with God, is the promised Glory from OT prophecy. His glory was “with the Father” before the world began, and in John 17:5 he prayed that it would come into manifestation.
Jesus Himself said that HE had the Glory before the world began. It was not only with the Father but with Jesus as well. Thus by Jesus own words He existed as a person and had the Glory of the Father.
Now i must bid you ado for tonight. It is late here. I may be back another day. I am not sure yet.
I can see neither of us are budging on our position. You all have a blessed evening. I will be praying for you.
God Bless.
robert
If you believe John when he says that from the beginning was the logos and the logos was God, yes. Note that the New English Bible has, “what God was, the Word was,” which perhaps best carries the sense behind John 1.1.
So God’s logos preexists creation itself since “all things [ta panta=universe] were made through it, and without it was not anything made that has been made. In it was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it” [John 1.2-4, REV].
With that said, we are talking about the personification of God’s very own word here and not some preexistent being as such [cp. Wisdom in Pro 8].
“With that said, we are talking about the personification of God’s very own word here and not some preexistent being as such ”
Xavier
Yes it could be put that way.
God did give personification to nations and cities, even genders to them too
I wrote
“Would you agree that the logos was the first thing that came into existance from God”
Xavier answered
If you believe John when he says that from the beginning was the logos and the logos was God, yes.
Xavier
then why is it so hard for people to understand that the Only Beggotten of God being spoke of in John1 is the logos not Jesus.
Why cant they see that the Logos became flesh when the holy spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism.
why cant they understand that the logos lived inside of Jesus being put there by God at Jesus’ baptism and Spoke through the Man Jesus during Jesus’ ministry.
to me this is clear and is supported thru out the Ot and NT
robert
Jesus is what the logos became which is to say, they are not one to one equal. The logos remains God and like you said, it “lived inside of Jesus”. Or as scripture puts it, “pitched its tent [tabernacled, skenoo] in the flesh” [Jn 1.14]. In a similar way like the shekinah glory tabernacled in the Temple or “the presence of YHWH” on the ark of the covenant.
Yes
i do agre that not even the logos is equal to God, It still relies on God mind to form the words.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
God tabernacled with his Word.
The Word of God received that which was of God which was his Word. The Word gave this Word to the Word which the Word received. The Word received had the power of the Word which the Word received. Once the Word was received by the Word, from the Word, the Word spoke that Word. When the Word was spoken by the Word which the Word had received by the Word, the heavens and the earth were created. They were created by the power of the Word.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
So understanding that the logos is the only begotten son this statement harmonizes.
because if was Jesus than how can he be here and there at same time, or how can Jesus be a man when No man has seen God.
It always has been the logos who declared God since the beginning.
other thing is the logos is what gave Jesus the power to become the Son of God at his resurection as it will us too.
Jesus was just the first Begotten of the dead to become the son of God in the true sense
You present this as if there are only two possibilities – either Jesus was not the logos, the only begotten son of God, or else Jesus was the logos and therefore God. This presumes that the logos is a person who is God. But Xavier pointed out before that the New English Bible has, “what God was, the Word was,” which perhaps best carries the sense behind John 1.1. And the logos is an “it” not a “him” (REV Commentary).
For one thing, “in the bosom of the Father” is not a place, it’s a state of being, implying the relationship with the Father. There is a third possibility besides the two you presented. Jesus is the Son of God, being the fleshly embodiment of God’s Word – the Word made flesh. That’s why “his name is called the Word of God” (Rev. 19:13).
The Bible says that Jesus IS the Son of God – not that the Son of God is IN HIM.
While he was on earth he was called the son of God and that could be refering to the Word indwelling him or just as we can be called. but being called Son of God doesnt mean you are the Son of God, you must be declared. Jesus was also called the king of the kingdom but that hasnt happened yet either till God makes all his enemies a footstool
i think you must separate the Word from Jesus to understand who speaking at the time because God spoke through Jesus and we see times when Jesus spoke for himself.
Now after his resurection He is the son of God himself as Romans 1 states and is still represents Gods word as a mediator.
Luke never states that Jesus was the Word in the flesh at his Birth nor does any and nor does any claim his conception was by God , it was of God as mine in your was too.
John1 setting is 30 years after Jesus birth and literally states it because of John the baptist was to witness the Word becoming Flesh and did at Jesus’ baptism.
‘This presumes that the logos is a person who is God”
Mark
No it doesnt
It just shows an aspect of God not a person, God gave personification to Nations but they arent persons, beside putting the word” It” doesnt make it not a person, it just lacks gender
robert
The human being Jesus, who was procreated [begotten] by God the Father through His spirit [Lu 1.30-35] “is the only begotten son” and not the logos.
Unlike the Greek idea of the logos as an independent, rational being that governed life, “for Jewish people, the logos was the word of [YHWH], an expression of God’s wisdom and creative power. By Jesus’ time, the logos was viewed as coming from God and having his personality (see Ps 33:6, 9;Prov 8:22-31)…
The divine Wisdom that has existed from before time with God can now be known in [eisand through, dia] Jesus Christ…
John writes that this Logos, this Wisdom, became flesh and lived among (1:14). What God is, the Logos is. The Logos [became "enfleshed" in the human] Jesus Christ…
The term “the Word” (Gk. Logos) conveys the notion of divine self-expression or speech and has a rich OT background. God’s Word is effective: God speaks, and things come into being (Gen. 1:3, 9;Ps. 33:6; 107:20; Isa. 55:10–11), and by speech he relates personally to his people (e.g., Gen. 15:1).” NLT Study Bible
Actually the jewish conception of Gods Word was the SON long before Jesus was born. It was an oral tradition of 2nd temple jews and was written in talmud but was removed and went back to oral because of the christian trinity. Gods spirit was considered a mother. and God himself was the father.
you can see why it is only orally passed on.
I read this in an article by a jewish rabbi and i will see if i can find it again and i have seen it refered to while studying the history of the talmud.
this is one of the references
“M. Vulliaud quotes Isaac Meyer’s assertion that, “the triad, of the ancient Cabala is Kether, the Father; Binah, the Holy Spirit or the Mother; and Hochmah, the Word or the Son.” But in order to avoid the sequence of the Christian Trinity this arrangement has been altered in the modern Cabala of Luria and Moses of Cordovero, etc.” 44.
The Jewish Encyclopœdia makes clear that the Cabalistic trinity is not to be confused with Christianity.
“… The Jewish Encyclopœdia…goes on to say that what appears to be Christian in the Cabala is only esoteric doctrine.” 45.
robert
So are you suggesting that some of the Jews who follows Cabalistic tradition were trinitarians? That is, believed that the one God of Israel, YHWH, was a “triune God”?
Actually not from what i read, they just gave titles to aspects of God but didnt think of them as persons just gave them personifications are they did nations and cities
and from what i read it wasnt just a Cabalistic tradition it was an oral tradition of 2nd temple Jews long before Jesus
robert
Yes, the qualities of YHWH are sometimes personified in the Hebrew scriptures.
Jerome himself twice refers to this same saying in other commentaries in an abbreviated form. From On Isaiah 11, commentary on Isaiah 40.9:
Sed et in evangelio quod iuxta Hebraeos scriptum Nazaraei lectitant, dominus loquitur: Modo me tulit mater mea, spiritus sanctus.
But also in the gospel which the Nazaraeans read, written according to the Hebrews, the Lord says: Just now my mother, the holy spirit, bore me [away].
From Origen, On Jeremiah, homily 15.4 (de Santos 6; Lagrange 12):
Ει δε τις παραδεχεται το, Αρτι ελαβε με η μητηρ μου, το αγιον πνευμα, και ανηνεγκε με εις το ορος το μεγα το Ταβωρ, και τα εξης….
And if any accepts the [statement]: Just now my mother, the holy spirit, took me by one of my hairs and carried me to Tabor, the great mountain, and what follows….
this kinda shoots out the water that Mary was of the house of David
James, as the leader of the Jerusalem Jewish believers in Yahshua, was apparently a Nazaraean (or Nazir) and “high priest” (Mary was of the lineage of Aaron) and entitled to enter the “Holy of Holies” for which we also have evidence. Eusebius quotes Hegesippus, who states: “This apostle was consecrated from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from anima food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never word woollen, but linen garments [i.e. as the priests did]…And indeed, on account of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just, and Oblias (or Zaddick and Ozleam) which signifies justice and protection of the people. Some of the seven sects [of Judaism], therefore, of the people, mentioned by me above in my Commentaries, asked him what was the door to Jesus? And he answered, ‘that he was the Saviour.’. From which, some believed that Jesus is the Christ…” [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter XXIII].
robert
Whilst your citations are interesting in so far as evidence for the clear apostasy of scripture that took place after the Apostolic age, it troubles me that you seem to pay more credence to these extra-biblical statements than to the inspired scripture itself [that is, if you believe scripture is godly inspired].
Xavier
I believe that the original writtings of the NT would be inspired but we dont have them. there has been so many groups with the opportunity to corrupt all or just a part of them.so by reading early church fathers i check for changes when they reference a particular verse or a particular belief at that time.
this is not done so i can base my belief but to understand why man has veered so far from God. My belief and the context of the NT comes from the OT. really all i need out of the NT would be the to know what was the necessary changes for the Abrahamic covenant to reach its fullness. the rest is just getting to know my future King.
robert
How will you do this if you do not believe the writings which speak of said “future King” [I am presuming you mean Jesus?] are corrupt or not original?
FYI: There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the NT. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.
No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century.
Yet you mistrust the geniuneness, authority and even the historicity of said texts?
“How will you do this if you do not believe the writings which speak of said “future King” [I am presuming you mean Jesus?] are corrupt or not original?”
I prove whats being said in the Nt by the Books and the Prophets of OT as did the first christians
robert
But you just said the NT texts are not original, hence corrupt. Sounds like a waste of time trying to compare what you perceive is one original work [OT] with a spurrious one [NT].
Most false doctrine is based on less than .01% of what written in the NT through Misunderstanding ans Misinterptretation that doesnt mean everything is a fable. The OT is a good Judge of what written in NT.
robert
How do you know the OT is 100% correct?
How do you know the OT is 100% correct?
I believe that no translation or copies can be claimed 100% correct but there has been 2 different groups that use it and it still matches pretty close. It would of been very hard to have corrupted the OT without are major contraversy between the 2 groups about it. I believe translation based on the original language of hebrew would be best to get the actual hebrew context.
You act like a deny the NT but all i do is prove and reprove what i base my faith on
Inquiring Mind,
No, it was your initial argument that because Jesus receives glory, that this supports him being God as you stated here…
“4. Glorified- God alone is worthy of Glory and will not give it to another. I am the LORD[JEHOVAH] : that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8
Jesus shares that Glory that God said He would not give to another And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:6
The only way Jesus could have something God will not give to another is if Jesus is in fact God. For we know that God does not lie. So God did not lie when He said “my glory will I not give to another”. Yet Jesus shared that Glory. The Only explanation for this is that Jesus is God.”
I then went on to prove that God shares his glory with believers as as stated in John 17:22. So, by your logic in your argument #4 above in the bold, believers sharing in God’s glory would also make them God. Upon closer examination of the context, you then changed your position.
As I stated before, if you want to argue a pre-existing Messiah Jesus, this still does not prove that Jesus is God. John 17 is riddled with scripture that defines Jesus’ position to God. We must interpret the whole chapter 17 in context, not just from a single verse.
For your doctrine to be true you must assume that first, Jesus is God, and second, that God is able to empty all of his “glory” from himself. The text does not read that.
Here is John 17:22 again for sake of clarity…
“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:”
It does not say…
“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given to them in part; that they may be one, but not exactly as we are one:”
Again, the text simply reads that we are given the glory that Jesus’ received from his God, the Father, SO THAT, we may be one with God, as Jesus is one with God. How can we be one with God as Jesus is one with God? I would say because we have received the glory that Jesus received. It is your interpretation upon the text that the glory given to believers is different in the context of John 17.
Trinitarian commentators often interpret the Greek word morphe in light of some of its usage in classical Greek literature, that is, from the period five or six centuries earlier. That usage could imply “what is essential and permanent.” But the New Testament is not written in “classical Greek,” but rather in what is called Koine Greek, the popular language of Paul’s day. From many Koine manuscripts discovered by archaeologists and dating from the first century, we know that some terms had acquired new meanings. One of those terms was morphe, usually translated “form.” From Professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute, Kenneth S. Wuest, himself a Trinitarian, we learn that in Koine Greek the word morphe had come to refer to “a station in life, a position one holds, one’s rank. And that is an approximation of morphe in this context [Philippians 2]” (The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, p. 84).
Right, it says Jesus, not God. You are reading that part into the text. Does God have a God? Is this what you are implying?
False argument. Many persons in the Bible share titles with God and Jesus, this does not prove that they are God.
As far as Jesus and God both having the title “Lord,” the Hebrew in Psalm 110 gives us a clear distinction as to the definition of rank that the title Lord applies, something that the Greek lacks in it’s translation of the Hebrew to Greek…
“1The LORD (Heb., YHVH – Adonai) said unto my Lord (Heb., adoni), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”
The Messiah is called adoni (my lord) and in every one of its 195 occurrences adoni (my lord) means a superior who is not God. Adonai on the other hand refers exclusively to the One God in all of its 449 occurrences. Adonai is the title of Deity and adoni never designates Deity.
You certainly did imply, go back and read your statement #4 in post #31.
Logical fallacy, your hand and your mind are controlled by your will. Jesus and his God have clear distinctions in which Jesus chose to follow his God’s will rather than his own…
Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Also, as pointed out by Mark C. in part 1 of this article series…
There are a number of specifically stated differences between God and His Son, Jesus:
* God cannot die (I Timothy 6:16), but Jesus died.
* God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), but Jesus was tempted in all things, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
* God is omniscient, i.e. He knows all things (I John 3:20), but Jesus said there were things that he did not know, including when he would return (Mark 13:32).
* God is omnipotent, i.e. all powerful, but Jesus said he could do nothing of himself without the Father (John 5:30).
* Jesus said that his doctrine was not his own, but His that sent him, and then differentiated between God and himself, emphasizing that he sought God’s glory and not his own (John 7:16-18).
* Jesus made a distinction between himself and God, saying there is none good but one, that is, God (Mark 10:17-18).
* Jesus prayed to God (Luke 6:12). If he were God, he would have been talking to himself.
* Jesus was the Lamb of God (John 1:29,36), the perfect sacrifice to God. How could he sacrifice himself to himself? Jesus was the perfect sacrifice to God on behalf of mankind.
* Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 10:12; I Peter 3:22). If he were God, how could he sit on his own right hand?
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Jesus did pre-exist, this proves that he is God, how?
If you want to argue that Jesus pre-existed, well there is plenty of scripture contrary. I think the crux of understanding lies within understanding the Hebrew concept of being foreknown or foreordained. When a Jew wished to designate something as predestined, he spoke of it as already ‘existing’ in heaven.” So, “preexistence” statements in the NT really have to do with foreordination and predestination. It was the Greeks who misunderstood Jewish ways of thinking and turned Jesus into a cosmic figure who entered the earth from outer space.
The typical mode of Jewish thought is clearly illustrated in 1 Peter. This reminds us immediately that Peter did not abandon his Jewish ways of thinking (based on the Hebrew Bible) when he became a Christian. Peter’s letter is addressed to “the elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1, 2). Peter believed that all Christians were foreknown, but that did not mean that we all preexisted! According to Peter the Messiah himself was foreknown, not just his death for our sins but the person Messiah himself (1 Pet. 1:20). Peter uses the same word to describe the “existence” of the Son of God in God’s plan as he did to describe the “existence” of the Christian church (v. 2).
Hope to see you return.
Shalom, Joseph