Jesus is God

[Runningman]

Nothing like taking the OT out of context.

View attachment 246165

The OT verses I quoted were out of context? I don't know why you would say that unless you're claiming that God is a human being.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

not keeping up

It's all about the Pentiums, baby
Uhh, uh-huh, yeah

What y'all wanna do?
Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? Slackers
Wastin' time with all the chatroom yakkers?
9 to 5, chillin' at Hewlett Packard?
Workin' at a desk with a dumb little placard?
Yeah, payin' the bills with my mad programming skills
Defraggin' my hard drive for thrills

I got me a hundred gigabytes of RAM
I never feed trolls and I don't read spam
Installed a T1 line in my house
Always at my PC, double-clickin' on my mizouse
Upgrade my system at least twice a day
I'm strictly plug-and-play, I ain't afraid of Y2K
I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him "Money" for short
I phone him up at home and I make him do my tech support

You've gotta be the dumbest newbie I've ever seen
You've got white-out all over your screen
You think your Commodore 64 is really neato
What kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito?
You're usin' a 286? Don't make me laugh
Your Windows boots up in what, a day and a half?
You could back up your whole hard drive on a floppy diskette
You're the biggest joke on the Internet

Your database is a disaster
You're waxin' your modem, tryin' to make it go faster
Hey fella, I bet you're still livin' in your parents' cellar
Downloadin' pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar
And postin' "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er
I should do the world a favor and cap you like Old Yeller
You're just about as useless as jpegs to Hellen Keller

Wanna run wit my crew, hah?
Rule cyberspace and crunch numbers like I do?
They call me the king of the spreadsheets
Got 'em printed out on my bedsheets
My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box
You say you've had your desktop for over a week?

Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique
Your laptop is a month old? Well that's great
If you could use a nice, heavy paperweight
My digital media is write-protected
Every file inspected, no viruses detected
I beta tested every operation system
Gave props to some, and others? I dissed 'em
While your computer's crashin', mine's multitaskin'
It does all my work without me even askin'

Got a flat-screen monitor forty inches wide wide
I believe that your says "Etch-A-Sketch" on the side
In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user
You've got your own newsgroup, "alt.total-loser"
Your motherboard melts when you try to send a fax
Where'd you get your CPU, in a box of Cracker Jacks?

Play me online? Well, you know that I'll beat you
If I ever meet you I'll control-alt-delete you
What? What? What? What? What?
(Weird Al Yankovic, It's All About The Pentiums, 1999)
_

 

[williamjordan]

Okay, you're free to just lay out anything you feel like saying. Like I said, I agreed with a "good percentage" of what you said. I have a feeling we're going to understand who the Father and Son are completely different though. Don't worry, I'll provide scripture for everything I believe in as always.

Passages which refer to Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father include, but are not limited to, John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, Hebrews 1:10-12, John 8:58, Matthew 11:27, Colossians 2:9, just to name a few.

John 1:1 and Philippians 2:6 directly speak of Jesus' consubstantiality with God prior to the incarnation, whereas texts such as 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:10-12 seem to imply it. For example, in 1 Corinthians 8:6,

εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him

καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι'αὐτοῦ
And one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him

Notice the parallelism: Jesus’ work in creation is coextensive with the Father’s. It is the one Creator — the “one God, the Father, from whom,” and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom” — are “all things.” All things that subsist in the category of “creation” — and without exclusion — are “from” the Father. If it exists inside that category of “creation” then it is “from” the Father. That means, all things in creation, without exclusion to any created thing. If Jesus is “created,” he falls into that category. Yet, according to Paul, all things that are “from” the Father, came into existence “through” the Son. You cannot distinguish between the “all things” that are “from the Father,” and the “all things” that are “through the Son.” Therefore, this implies Jesus' eternality, which is a trait that is uniquely God's. This is why I suggest that 1 Corinthians 8:6 implies Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father.

We can discuss some of these other texts which I mention, but I really do not want to exhaust my efforts at this time to explain them, because I'm not so sure you read all my responses. The overall gist of what I'm suggesting is this: That the pre-incarnate Jesus eternally existed with God, and in the incarnation He took upon Himself the form of a servant by coming in the likeness of men, or as John 1:14 states, "the Word became flesh." So when we come to texts such as John 17:3 or 1 Corinthians 15, these should be understood in light of the fact that the pre-incarnate Jesus became a man, who was born under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and could therefore refer to the Father as His God. You have heard it said in the Psalm (22:10),

Upon You I was cast from birth;
You have been my God from my mother’s womb. (Psalm 22:10)

Who is Psalm 22 speaking of (Mark 15:34 cf. Psalm 22:1)? And from whence does He claim that the Father had been His God? And in Jeremiah 32:27, what does the Lord claim that He is God of? Is it not even remotely ironic that “the Word of the LORD” can say, “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?” and yet, become flesh?

And even though the pre-incarnate Jesus took on flesh, and as a result of that, has a God; He retained His consubstantiality with the Father, “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

 

[williamjordan]

You are really saying a lot using smoke screens.

Real simple question, Is Jesus God or not, from your understanding, and is the son of God the same as God or not?

No, I am not using "smoke screens." You have injected yourself into the middle of a conversation (which you probably have not followed thus far) between Runningman and myself. There is some dialogue between he and I that took place in another thread that is flowing over into this conversation. I have already spent many hours, and thousands of words responding to Runningman and I'm not about to rehearse it all over again. You can see our initial conversation over here: https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/one-god-worship.208537/

The conversation picks up at Post #11, and continues through to #50. This may help you to understand my comments better.

 

[CS1]

No, I am not using "smoke screens." You have injected yourself into the middle of a conversation (which you probably have not followed thus far) between Runningman and myself. There is some dialogue between he and I that took place in another thread that is flowing over into this conversation. I have already spent many hours, and thousands of words responding to Runningman and I'm not about to rehearse it all over again. You can see our initial conversation over here: https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/one-god-worship.208537/

The conversation picks up at Post #11, and continues through to #50. This may help you to understand my comments better.

can you please answer my questions Is Jesus God or not, from your understanding, and is the son of God the same as God or not?

 

[VARob]

From what I have observed, on this site a person is not permitted to make a case for unitarianism.
It is not tolerated, they simply get banned.

I'm not sure exactly what Runningman believes, but he is making some good points. JMO.

 

[williamjordan]

can you please answer my questions Is Jesus God or not, from your understanding, and is the son of God the same as God or not?

Since you are having a difficult time clicking a link which I provided to you, and reading Post #11 on that thread, let me repost exactly what I already said for you.

The Jews did not make a false pretense in John 10:33, and there's nothing in the context to suggest that is the case. How many times in the discourse does Jesus call God, "Father"? Are you suggesting that the Jews stood around with their fingers in their ears? The Jews heard Jesus loud and clear, and knew what Jesus was claiming by calling God His own Father. Unfortunately, you miss the point.

Pay particular attention to v. 36. Because Jesus actually reiterates and clarifies what the Jews are accusing Him of in v. 33 — “you say… ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” Jesus is not correcting the Jews, rather, He restates what the Jews are already accusing Him of: blasphemy for claiming to be “the Son of God,” which is equivocal with “making Himself equal with God” (cf. John 5:18, 19:7). So it’s not that the Jews understood Jesus “incorrectly” in v. 33.

In John 19:7, the Jews indicate that Jesus claimed to be “the Son of God” and for this reason, He deserved death. This alone should tell us about Jesus’ very own application of such title — “the Son of God.” But more to the point, this coincides with what is said earlier in John, as there is a direct correlation between the words spoken in John 19:7 and those in John 5:18 (“For this reason they tried all the more to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God”), and John 10:25-33.

Jesus’ application of the title “Son of God” carries with it its fair share of nuances, but might I suggest that one of the more prominent nuances in NT usage is an extremely Jewish one? What I mean by that, is that the “Son of God” epithet is used frequently of the Davidic King, who is God’s vicar, God’s “right hand man,” who mediates God’s presence, and is in that sense (by way of extension), “equal with God.” But I also understand that Jesus’ application of such title runs even deeper than that of the Davidic King motif, for even the Jews of Jesus’ day understood Jesus’ application (what I would consider a more personal application), as going beyond the scope of what any man could rightfully claim for themselves without the charge of blasphemy being brought against them (hence the, “you being a man make yourself out to be” tid bit).

In both, John 5 and John 10, Jesus acts as God acts — in inseparable union — “For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.’” Jesus uses the present middle indicative for the word “work,” which indicates a presence of past action still in progress. Just as the sustainer of all things (God the Father) continues to work (throughout history) and is thereby exempt from the rules of the Sabbath, in this same manner, Jesus too has been working (hence, 5:18). Jesus’ works are co-extensive with the Father’s. Thusly, Jesus’ application of “the Son of God” epithet of Himself, is intrinsically tied (in a facet of ways) to the idea of Him being “one with” and “equal to,” God. And as in John 5, it is this application in John 10 that leads His Jewish audience to react in such manner.

Given the echoes of Ps. 95 and Deut. 32 in the John 10 discourse, might I suggest that the anarthrous θεὸν in v. 33 is probably best understood — by no means as indefinite — but as qualitative (i.e., “Who died and made you God?” or “Who made you [equal with] God?”), and therefore understood as a reference to Jesus’ equality with God (as in John 5:18), as Jesus claims to do the very prerogatives of God (as he does in John 5);

“My sheep hear my voice, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand...' For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be [equal with] God" (John 10:25–33)

The words that Jesus utters in vv. 27–28 — “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand” — are of particular interest. For not only do these words echo that of Psalm 95, but the contextual setting in which they apply run parallel to one another,

For He is our God,
And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.
Today, if you would hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,
As in the day of Massah in the wilderness,
“When your fathers tested Me,
They tried Me, though they had seen My work.
“For forty years I loathed that generation,
And said they are a people who err in their heart,
And they do not know My ways.
“Therefore I swore in My anger,
Truly they shall not enter into My rest.” (Psalm 95:7-11, NASB)

Make the connections: John 10:27 (“My sheep hear My voice”) parallels Ps. 95:7 (“Today, if you would hear His voice”). John 10:28 (“My sheep… no one will snatch them out of My hand”) also parallels Ps. 95:7 (“we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand”). John 10:28 also parallels Deuteronomy 32:39 (“there is none that can deliver out of My hand”) and Isaiah 43:13 (“none can deliver from My hand”). John 10:32 (“I showed you many good works”) parallels Ps. 95:9 (“They tried Me, though they had seen My work”).

 

[wattie]

Hebrews 1:6
But when God was about to send his first-born Son into the world, he said, “All of God's angels must worship him.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 7&version=GNT

Yeah.. angels worshipping Jesus.. now that's a bit different to a royal servant bowing before a human king.

Angels have a status superior to people.. and they worship Jesus. That says alot.

 

[CS1]

Since you are having a difficult time clicking a link which I provided to you, and reading Post #11 on that thread, let me repost exactly what I already said for you.

I'm sorry I a not into semantics I went to post 11 and then to 50 and glossed over what was said. because of the

What I did notice was much confusion. The context of Christ is eternal which HE has always been God the Creator, the Son the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of the living God are all Eternal distinct, and yet one.

 

[SanderB]

I would say Jesus is God, as all parts of the Trinity are considered God. The Holy Spirit is the connection between the Father & Son. This video explains the concept quite simply. Also, how the Trinity works is a mystery. We should focus on loving God, and not debating how the Trinity works:

 

[williamjordan]

I'm sorry I a not into semantics I went to post 11 and then to 50 and glossed over what was said. because of the

What I did notice was much confusion. The context of Christ is eternal which HE has always been God the Creator, the Son the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of the living God are all Eternal distinct, and yet one.

Notice what you said: "I'm sorry I am not into semantics. I went to post 11 and then to 50 and glossed over what was said." And that's the problem. You glossed over what was said in two of the posts, and missed out on everything said in between, such as,

This is the second half of my previous response (from Post #33).

Lastly, I think you are missing the point in John 8. You cite John 8:41, but just one verse prior (John 8:40), Jesus states,

“But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God; this Abraham did not do” (John 8:40)
Pay particular attention to the language. Jesus states that, unlike the Jews of Jesus’ day, Abraham did not try to kill Him. But there remains a question: At what point in time would Abraham even had seen Jesus to have the opportunity to do so? The immediate context, and the overall context of John’s gospel sheds quite a bit of light. In the immediate context, we find the answer in John 8:58-59,

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I am.”
In John 8:58, Jesus expresses an existence of a different order than that of Abraham by contrasting between Abraham, who “came into being” (genesthai), and He, who simply is (ego eimi). As I have expressed elsewhere on various forums,

By itself, ego eimi does not imply eternal pre-existence; however, when placed alongside genesthai and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by genesthai (“came into being”), ego eimi or its related forms (because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb “to be”) stands in sharp contrast to the aorist genesthai which speaks of “coming into being.” It is this sharp contrast between being and becoming which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58 that ego eimi implies eternality, not merely temporal priority. Jesus’ words closely echoes Psalm 90:2, which speaks of the eternal being of God in contrast to those things that “came into being” — “Before the mountains came into being (genethenai) and the earth and world were formed, even from age to age, You are (su ei, second-person equivalent of ego eimi),” Psalm 90:2 (see LXX).

Further, in case you didn’t catch it the first time (and as expressed in my previous post), what is so ironic about the ego eimi statement of Jesus in John 8:58, is that it occurs in the context of the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:1-10:21). The Feast of Tabernacles is the very occasion the Song of Moses was to be recited (Deut. 31:21-32:43), and it is here that we read (according to the LXX),

Behold, behold that I am (ἐγώ εἰμι),
And there is no god besides Me.
I kill, and I will make alive;
I will smite, and I will heal;
And there is no one who shall deliver out of My hand. (Deut. 32:39 LXX)
Additionally, in further answering the quesion, “At what point in time would Abraham even had seen Jesus to have the opportunity to do so?”, the overall context of John’s gospel provides us with more details.

The prologue of John’s gospel speaks of the Word existing “with” God. The term used here for “with” is the Greek word πρὸς (pros), which, when followed by a noun in the accusative case, speaks of face-to-face communion, interaction. One does not need to leave the first chapter of John to find examples in which πρὸς signifies a person near or moving towards another person (e.g., 1:29, 42, 47). Of course, this comports well with John 17:5, where Jesus speaks of His pre-existence with the Father. This πρὸς τὸν θεὸν (John 1:1b) language or some slight variation thereof, is used throughout the Testaments — some (17) occurrences of the phrase found within the NT, according to NA28 (Jn. 1:1, 2, 13:3; 1 Jn 3:21; Rev. 12:5, 13:6; Acts 4:24, 12:5, 24:16; Romans 5:1, 10:1, 15:30; 2 Cor. 3:4, 13:7; Phillippians 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:8, 9) — and another 20+ examples in the Genesis and Exodus accounts of the Greek OT/LXX (Gen. 17:18, 18:27, 18:31, 20:17, 24:49, 24:54, 24:46; Exodus 2:23, 3:11, 3:13, 8:25, 8:26, 9:29, 10:18, 18:19, 19:8, 19:21, 19:23, 19:24, 24:1, 24:2, 32:30). Also, similar phraseology (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα) is found in John 5:45; 14:6, 12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 20:17; 1 John 1:2. In each of these occurrences (aside from the occurrences where the neuter article τὰ is present), they explicitly refer to distinct individuals in some form of communication with one another.

Later in the prologue (John 1:18) we are met with an admittedly curious phrase, “No one has ever seen God.” Yet, throughout Scripture men are said to have seen God, even “face-to-face.” For instance, Genesis 15:1 states,

“the Word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision” (Genesis 15:1 LXX)
The language here is similar to what’s found in John 1:1b — ῥῆμα Κυρίου πρὸς Ἀβρὰμ — but instead of “the Word” being “with God”; it is “the Word of the LORD” that came to (or was “with”) Abram. Hence, Abram had a visionary experience where he saw the Word, and addressed Him as none other than YHWH (Genesis 15:2; also see Jeremiah 1). Abraham was not experiencing some mental disorder (i.e., psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder); he was not interacting with voices he heard in his head, but was interacting with someone other than himself.

In John 1:18 we are met with an OT allusion to 1 Samuel 3. In the account of 1 Samuel 3, we read,

Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, nor had the Word of the Lord yet been revealed to him. So the Lord called Samuel again for the third time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, ‘Here I am, for you called me.’ Then Eli discerned that the Lord was calling the boy… And the Lord appeared again at Shiloh, because the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the Word of the Lord. (1 Samuel 3:7-9, 21)

Everyone who has ever seen YHWH, has in fact seen the “one and only God” through or by means of the Word; for He is the one who exposits God to men (ἐξηγέομαι) — He who is “the image of the invisible God.” Similarly, the prologue of John refers to Jesus as “the Word,” and attributes to Jesus actions performed by the mysterious “the Word of the LORD” figure in the OT. It is because Jesus (as the Word) is, as to His nature, God; He is then thereby qualified to perfectly reveal/exegete the Father (cf. John 12:45, 14:9), as He is the exact reflection of God's very being.

To further illustrate that “the Word” in John 1:1 is personal, John 1:3a uses the δια + the genitive construct,

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
All things came into being through Him

The significance of this is brought out on pg. 373 of Daniel Wallace’s, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics,

An intermediate agent, usually expressed by δια + the genitive, is an agent who acts on behalf of another or in the place of another. This agent is not, strictly speaking, used by another as an instrument would be” (Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 373)
This sort of construct (δια + the genitive) is typically used to express or denote agency. Hence, in John 1:7, 1:10, 3:17 — it is used to express real, personal agency.

Does this sound like I'm arguing that Jesus is not eternal, especially in light of my post (#176 and #183) on this very thread? And I'm the one that's "confused"?

 

[wattie]

I would say Jesus is God, as all parts of the Trinity are considered God. The Holy Spirit is the connection between the Father & Son. This video explains the concept quite simply. Also, how the Trinity works is a mystery. We should focus on loving God, and not debating how the Trinity works:

Thanks for the video, Sander. This is very helpful. I look at the bible project animation videos as part of bible study with my friend.

 

[SanderB]

Thanks for the video, Sander. This is very helpful. I look at the bible project animation videos as part of bible study with my friend.

You're welcome sir. It is awesome that you enjoy thosw videos. I watched a few of them in 2021, and should continue to nowadays. Visual learning is the best for me.

 

[Runningman]

Passages which refer to Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father include, but are not limited to, John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, Hebrews 1:10-12, John 8:58, Matthew 11:27, Colossians 2:9, just to name a few.

John 1:1 and Philippians 2:6 directly speak of Jesus' consubstantiality with God prior to the incarnation, whereas texts such as 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:10-12 seem to imply it. For example, in 1 Corinthians 8:6,

εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him

καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι'αὐτοῦ
And one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him

Notice the parallelism: Jesus’ work in creation is coextensive with the Father’s. It is the one Creator — the “one God, the Father, from whom,” and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom” — are “all things.” All things that subsist in the category of “creation” — and without exclusion — are “from” the Father. If it exists inside that category of “creation” then it is “from” the Father. That means, all things in creation, without exclusion to any created thing. If Jesus is “created,” he falls into that category. Yet, according to Paul, all things that are “from” the Father, came into existence “through” the Son. You cannot distinguish between the “all things” that are “from the Father,” and the “all things” that are “through the Son.” Therefore, this implies Jesus' eternality, which is a trait that is uniquely God's. This is why I suggest that 1 Corinthians 8:6 implies Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father.

We can discuss some of these other texts which I mention, but I really do not want to exhaust my efforts at this time to explain them, because I'm not so sure you read all my responses. The overall gist of what I'm suggesting is this: That the pre-incarnate Jesus eternally existed with God, and in the incarnation He took upon Himself the form of a servant by coming in the likeness of men, or as John 1:14 states, "the Word became flesh." So when we come to texts such as John 17:3 or 1 Corinthians 15, these should be understood in light of the fact that the pre-incarnate Jesus became a man, who was born under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and could therefore refer to the Father as His God. You have heard it said in the Psalm (22:10),



Who is Psalm 22 speaking of (Mark 15:34 cf. Psalm 22:1)? And from whence does He claim that the Father had been His God? And in Jeremiah 32:27, what does the Lord claim that He is God of? Is it not even remotely ironic that “the Word of the LORD” can say, “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?” and yet, become flesh?

And even though the pre-incarnate Jesus took on flesh, and as a result of that, has a God; He retained His consubstantiality with the Father, “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

I hope you're beginning to feel better while you recover.

Sorry I've been late to reply, but your responses are like dissertations. That's okay and you're free to respond how you wish, but many targets just gives me a lot of things to knock down. I don't have time to write a novel in response to the thousands of words you're giving me. If you could keep your responses more concise and clearer, we can extend this conversation out step-by-step as we look at single points at a time.

That being said, the way I like to have conversations on message boards is by talking about single things. So the first point you claimed is that John 1:1 refers to Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father. Another interpretation of John 1:1 is that it's a parallel to Genesis 1:1 where God spoke creation into existence using His words.

How do you know that John 1:1 is about Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father and not a reference to God creating things with His word in the beginning? If God's word is His creative power or the vehicle through which He creates, how do you know that when it says "The word was God" that it doesn't mean the word of His power is inseperable from His identity and, therefore, His word is, in effect, Himself?

 

[williamjordan]

I hope you're beginning to feel better while you recover.

Sorry I've been late to reply, but your responses are like dissertations. That's okay and you're free to respond how you wish, but many targets just gives me a lot of things to knock down. I don't have time to write a novel in response to the thousands of words you're giving me. If you could keep your responses more concise and clearer, we can extend this conversation out step-by-step as we look at single points at a time.

That being said, the way I like to have conversations on message boards is by talking about single things. So the first point you claimed is that John 1:1 refers to Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father. Another interpretation of John 1:1 is that it's a parallel to Genesis 1:1 where God spoke creation into existence using His words.

How do you know that John 1:1 is about Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father and not a reference to God creating things with His word in the beginning? If God's word is His creative power or the vehicle through which He creates, how do you know that when it says "The word was God" that it doesn't mean the word of His power is inseperable from His identity and, therefore, His word is, in effect, Himself?

You gave me a good laugh with the dissertation comment. I understand; I do tend write a lot in my responses, but I like to provide plenty of details. The reason is two-fold:

• As I write, I tend to challenge even my own views in anticipation of possible objections.
• And if I don't put it all in one post someone is going to mistaken something I said.

I do think John 1:1 is parallel to Genesis 1:1, but to answer your question, the reason I don't think your interpretation works is for these reasons:

1. The prologue does not identify “the Word” existing ἐν (“in” or “within”) God (cf. John 1:1, “In [ἐν] the beginning”; John 1:4, “In [ἐν] Him was life”; John 5:26, “to have life in [ἐν] Himself”). Rather, it speaks of the Word existing “with” God.
   
   This is quite technical, but the term used here for “with” is the Greek word πρὸς (pros). When followed by a noun in the accusative case, this term speaks of face-to-face communion, interaction. One does not need to leave the first chapter of John to find examples in which πρὸς signifies a person near or moving towards another person (e.g., 1:29, 42, 47). The language used in John 1:1b (πρὸς τὸν θεὸν) or some slight variation thereof, is used throughout the Testaments — with some (17) occurrences of the phrase found in the NT, according to NA28 (Jn. 1:1, 2, 13:3; 1 Jn 3:21; Rev. 12:5, 13:6; Acts 4:24, 12:5, 24:16; Romans 5:1, 10:1, 15:30; 2 Cor. 3:4, 13:7; Phillippians 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:8, 9) — and another 20+ examples in the Genesis and Exodus accounts of the Greek OT/LXX (Gen. 17:18, 18:27, 18:31, 20:17, 24:49, 24:54, 24:46; Exodus 2:23, 3:11, 3:13, 8:25, 8:26, 9:29, 10:18, 18:19, 19:8, 19:21, 19:23, 19:24, 24:1, 24:2, 32:30). Similar phraseology (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα) is also found in John 5:45; 14:6, 12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 20:17; 1 John 1:2. In each of these occurrences (aside from the occurrences where the neuter article τὰ is present), they explicitly refer to distinct individuals in some form of communion with one another.
   
   
2. John 1:3a ("All things came into being through Him") uses the δια + the genitive construct. The significance of this is brought out on pg. 373 of Daniel Wallace’s, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics,
   
   
   An intermediate agent, usually expressed by δια + the genitive, is an agent who acts on behalf of another or in the place of another. This agent is not, strictly speaking, used by another as an instrument would be” (Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 373)
   See John 1:7, 1:10, 3:17. The phraseology found in John 1:3 is normative language elsewhere used of Jesus in the context of creation (1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:15-16, Hebrews 1:2).
   
   
3. That θεὸς in 1:1c is anarthrous weighs heavily. Had John wished to identify the λόγος as “God the Father,” or perhaps even as some attribute existing within God, then might I suggest that he would have used the articular θεὸς, in which then John 1:1c would coincide with John 1:1b. The way John has written John 1:1c makes for a type of distinction between the λόγος and τὸν θεὸν (John 1:1b) that does not seem to suite the interpretation you put forth.
   
   
4. There are multiple examples in the OT where "the Word of the LORD" appears in a visionary experience (i.e., Jeremiah 1:4-9). In one of those examples (1 Samuel 3:7-9, 21), "the Word of the LORD" is said to do the very thing that the prologue of John attributes to Jesus (John 1:18): expositing God to men. We know that the account in 1 Samuel 3 is visionary, as it says, "And the Lord appeared again at Shiloh, because the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the Word of the Lord."

So there's multiple facets at play that demonstate that “the Word” is personal, and numerically distinct from the one whom He is “with.” I could go on, but I think this will suffice for now. One thing you should probably look into is how the various Jewish Targumims interpret the Genesis account, and equally, how they speak of "the Word of the LORD."

 

[wattie]

This thread is basically a follow on to the Christ is God thread from posthuman. Thanks to magenta for linking to the other thread in this one.

 

[Runningman]

You gave me a good laugh with the dissertation comment. I understand; I do tend write a lot in my responses, but I like to provide plenty of details. The reason is two-fold:

• As I write, I tend to challenge even my own views in anticipation of possible objections.
• And if I don't put it all in one post someone is going to mistaken something I said.

I do think John 1:1 is parallel to Genesis 1:1, but to answer your question, the reason I don't think your interpretation works is for these reasons:

1. The prologue does not identify “the Word” existing ἐν (“in” or “within”) God (cf. John 1:1, “In [ἐν] the beginning”; John 1:4, “In [ἐν] Him was life”; John 5:26, “to have life in [ἐν] Himself”). Rather, it speaks of the Word existing “with” God.
   
   This is quite technical, but the term used here for “with” is the Greek word πρὸς (pros). When followed by a noun in the accusative case, this term speaks of face-to-face communion, interaction. One does not need to leave the first chapter of John to find examples in which πρὸς signifies a person near or moving towards another person (e.g., 1:29, 42, 47). The language used in John 1:1b (πρὸς τὸν θεὸν) or some slight variation thereof, is used throughout the Testaments — with some (17) occurrences of the phrase found in the NT, according to NA28 (Jn. 1:1, 2, 13:3; 1 Jn 3:21; Rev. 12:5, 13:6; Acts 4:24, 12:5, 24:16; Romans 5:1, 10:1, 15:30; 2 Cor. 3:4, 13:7; Phillippians 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:8, 9) — and another 20+ examples in the Genesis and Exodus accounts of the Greek OT/LXX (Gen. 17:18, 18:27, 18:31, 20:17, 24:49, 24:54, 24:46; Exodus 2:23, 3:11, 3:13, 8:25, 8:26, 9:29, 10:18, 18:19, 19:8, 19:21, 19:23, 19:24, 24:1, 24:2, 32:30). Similar phraseology (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα) is also found in John 5:45; 14:6, 12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 20:17; 1 John 1:2. In each of these occurrences (aside from the occurrences where the neuter article τὰ is present), they explicitly refer to distinct individuals in some form of communion with one another.
   
   
2. John 1:3a ("All things came into being through Him") uses the δια + the genitive construct. The significance of this is brought out on pg. 373 of Daniel Wallace’s, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics,
   
   
   
   See John 1:7, 1:10, 3:17. The phraseology found in John 1:3 is normative language elsewhere used of Jesus in the context of creation (1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:15-16, Hebrews 1:2).
   
   
3. That θεὸς in 1:1c is anarthrous weighs heavily. Had John wished to identify the λόγος as “God the Father,” or perhaps even as some attribute existing within God, then might I suggest that he would have used the articular θεὸς, in which then John 1:1c would coincide with John 1:1b. The way John has written John 1:1c makes for a type of distinction between the λόγος and τὸν θεὸν (John 1:1b) that does not seem to suite the interpretation you put forth.
   
   
4. There are multiple examples in the OT where "the Word of the LORD" appears in a visionary experience (i.e., Jeremiah 1:4-9). In one of those examples (1 Samuel 3:7-9, 21), "the Word of the LORD" is said to do the very thing that the prologue of John attributes to Jesus (John 1:18): expositing God to men. We know that the account in 1 Samuel 3 is visionary, as it says, "And the Lord appeared again at Shiloh, because the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the Word of the Lord."

So there's multiple facets at play that demonstate that “the Word” is personal, and numerically distinct from the one whom He is “with.” I could go on, but I think this will suffice for now. One thing you should probably look into is how the various Jewish Targumims interpret the Genesis account, and equally, how they speak of "the Word of the LORD."

Okay I think I understand your perspective. Perhaps a better question is, is it Biblically viable that God's literal spoken words are actually a part of who He is? If yes, then that can change everything. I want to quickly show that your interpretation of John 1:1 being a reference to Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father is not the accurate interpretation of what God's Word is.

The word of God is literally alive and active. It is some kind of force, power, or perhaps it is an extension of God. After all, Hebrews 4:12 says God's word is living and active, able to discern thoughts and intentions.

Hebrews 4
12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it pierces even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Additionally, the Sword of the Spirit is the word of God. Much like how God created the world with His words, to bring about real, tangible, results. When we wield the Sword of the Spirit properly it is effective in spiritual warefare. The Sword of the Spirit is God's word.

Ephesians 6
17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

So it makes more sense that John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 are related in this sense that God's word is part of who He is because the word of God is living.

1 Peter 1
23For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

1 Thessalonians 2
13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

Psalm 138
1I will praise you, Lord, with all my heart;
before the “gods” I will sing your praise.
2I will bow down toward your holy temple
and will praise your name
for your unfailing love and your faithfulness,
for you have so exalted your solemn decree
that it surpasses your fame.

Hebrews 11:3
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

John 1:1 is a reference to God using His words to create because it's living and a part of who He is.

 

[Runningman]

Matthew 4
4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’

 

[CS1]

Notice what you said: "I'm sorry I am not into semantics. I went to post 11 and then to 50 and glossed over what was said." And that's the problem. You glossed over what was said in two of the posts, and missed out on everything said in between, such as,



Does this sound like I'm arguing that Jesus is not eternal, especially in light of my post (#176 and #183) on this very thread? And I'm the one that's "confused"?

I did not say you were confused; I guess both of us need to read. I will say, for the sake of argument, I am a simple man and very much busy. All I need to hear from you, please, is whether you Believe Jesus is God. Yes or no. If you can do that for me, a simple man, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you,

 

[Runningman]

Something Paul said. Notice the "from whom", the "for whom", and the "through whom." This is important. Also note who Paul said God is and who Paul said the Lord is.

1 Corinthians 8
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.