Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

That is irrelevant to the point I was making by using what Tertullian stated however.

For the point was that his writings on John 1:1 proves that Tertullian wasn't ignorant to the true definition of the Logos and also how the word "pros" was also being used in John 1:1.

For he reveals that he understood that God was thinking "pros" towards himself.

It also proves how the trinity doctrine was falsely fabricated by the early apostates within the church, and whether you like it or not, Tertullian was considered one of the founders of the trinity doctrine.

Furthermore, you didn't get your doctrine from the scriptures but from the fabrication of years and years of the scriptures being adulterated by men who had substituted truth by the Holy Spirit with their own wayward carnal human reasoning.
When it comes to any Theological issue its Scripture that determines the validity of the doctrine being proposed or defended. As to the Trinity I prefer to discuss Scripture vs what one individual believes or believed. I follow Jesus not Tertullian. What Tertullian believes about 'pros' is irrelevant.

Was with God” (πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν/eimi- pros- ho- theh·os ).

“With” (πρός/pros) does not convey the full meaning, because there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition [links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence] {πρός /pros}, denotes motion towards, or direction, the Word is oriented toward God; is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus:

“Are not his sisters here with us” (πρὸς- ἡμᾶς Matt. 13:56)

“How long shall I be with you” (πρὸς -ὑμᾶς, Mark 9:16).

“To be present with the Lord” (πρὸς -τὸν- Κύριον, 2 Cor. 5:8).

“The eternal life which was with the Father” (πρὸς- τὸν -πατέρα, 1 John 1:2).

Thus John’s statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but is distinguishable from God, and enjoys a personal relationship with Him.
The idea is that Jesus and God are facing each other in the beginning.
 
No, I am talking about the Jewish philosophical personification of the Memra and I am not talking about what is actual found in the scriptures, for they didn't get it from the scriptures.
The Jewish personification of Memra is philosophically erroneous. It seems that Jewish philosophers are saying that spoken words carry power, but could it be that the power is not in the actual words, but in the One who spoke those words. What the Biblical authors were conveying is that when God spoke and X happened, it was an effortless moment for God.
Instead of reading into Scripture what is not there, allow scripture to inform us. John intention is to communicate with the churches under his bishopric. That would be the churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation. They are Greek. The most obvious selection would be the Greek Logos, vs Jewish Memra. Which would catch his churches attention? The intention of connecting Logos with Jesus in John 1:1 is to communicate that the Logos ,who the Greeks believed to be the 'uncaused cause', is actually Jesus Christ.
I said nothing about X but rather that the Logos by it's own definition revolves around Gods thought and reason or his Logic either spoken or unspoken and that is what is being personified and John most likely used this this to reveal God's plan and foreknowledge of Jesus the same way that Paul used the "the alter to the unknown god" to reveal the true God.
Unnecessary rabbit trail. Apply this to the OP. What in John 1:1a or b supports this idea.
Yes and you just said it right above, because the word Logos by its very definition revolves around the thinking and reasoning and logic, but when the Logos was made flesh, it was no longer and abstract but rather a real living human being with the name and title of Jesus Christ. All that John is saying in his prologue is that God's divine Logic became a living human being and that this human being was in his plan and foreknowledge before the world began and that it was through what he would send Jesus to do, that he went ahead and created all things knowing as he did in advance that sin would corrupt it.
Are you stating that Jesus pre existed as a thought prior to the incarnation?
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

You will notice also that I bolded the last verse above and the reason why I did this, is because it is actually what you have done with your false idea that God became a moral human being in Jesus Christ who who could be subject to suffering and death.
Seems your god is limited. My God is all powerful. He created and sustains all. Therefore, powerful enough to created a body in which He dwelled fully as God and human, while on this earth. And being the only perfect sacrifice, voluntarily gave His mortal life us.
 
When it comes to any Theological issue its Scripture that determines the validity of the doctrine being proposed or defended. As to the Trinity I prefer to discuss Scripture vs what one individual believes or believed. I follow Jesus not Tertullian. What Tertullian believes about 'pros' is irrelevant.

Was with God” (πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν/eimi- pros- ho- theh·os ).

“With” (πρός/pros) does not convey the full meaning, because there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition [links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence] {πρός /pros}, denotes motion towards, or direction, the Word is oriented toward God; is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus:

“Are not his sisters here with us” (πρὸς- ἡμᾶς Matt. 13:56)

“How long shall I be with you” (πρὸς -ὑμᾶς, Mark 9:16).

“To be present with the Lord” (πρὸς -τὸν- Κύριον, 2 Cor. 5:8).

“The eternal life which was with the Father” (πρὸς- τὸν -πατέρα, 1 John 1:2).

Thus John’s statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but is distinguishable from God, and enjoys a personal relationship with Him.
The idea is that Jesus and God are facing each other in the beginning.
Wow, you just don't want to see this do you?

From the minute you wake up in the morning until you go to bed at night, you are thinking - pros - towards yourself - (in a motion or direction towards yourself) and the word Logos is by its very definition a word associated with the thought and the reason and the logic.

Furthermore, my point was in how Tertullian understood the Greek words and their grammar and that it has a much broader meaning than what you are taking it to mean.

So are you going to argue that your own thoughts are not with "pros" you every single minute of the day?

But even going further, we are not exactly like God concerning what he can do with his thoughts, because he is infinite and we are finite.

Sorry but Jesus wasn't with or facing God in the beginning and John never says this either.

For it was the Logos that was "pros" God in the beginning and until you get a grip on what that really means, you are going to remain in the confusion that you are in right now, and all the Greek or Hebrew knowledge or human taught Bible knowledge in the world isn't going to be able to bring this to you.

By the way, while you want to use what you think is proper grammar in John 1:1, what happens when you do this with John 17:3 below?


John 17:3 This is eternal life, that they might know you, The Only True God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".

First off, the adjective phrase "The Only True God" only modifies one single person in this verse and it is God and not Jesus and secondly the words "and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" makes a clear distinction between "The Only True God" and who was sent by "The Only True God".
 
Last edited:
The Jewish personification of Memra is philosophically erroneous. It seems that Jewish philosophers are saying that spoken words carry power, but could it be that the power is not in the actual words, but in the One who spoke those words. What the Biblical authors were conveying is that when God spoke and X happened, it was an effortless moment for God.
Instead of reading into Scripture what is not there, allow scripture to inform us. John intention is to communicate with the churches under his bishopric. That would be the churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation. They are Greek. The most obvious selection would be the Greek Logos, vs Jewish Memra. Which would catch his churches attention? The intention of connecting Logos with Jesus in John 1:1 is to communicate that the Logos ,who the Greeks believed to be the 'uncaused cause', is actually Jesus Christ.

I agree but only in regards to it being Jesus Christ in God's thought and reason for the creation, for God knew in advance of the creation that it would fall into corruption through sin and therefore God would have to have a redeemer to restore his purpose for creating it all.
Unnecessary rabbit trail. Apply this to the OP. What in John 1:1a or b supports this idea.

Again, it is the fact that because John uses the word translated God twice, and being he is a Jew and Jews only believe in one single God, it would have made it necessary for him to use the definite article for both instances of the word God if indeed he was speaking of two who were both the same singular God.

Like I said, you cannot compare those other instances where the definite article is absent with John 1:1, because in those other instances, the writer is only speaking of one who is being called God and not two like in John 1:1.

This is why the word Logos itself must define for us in what way John is saying that "The Logos was God", for he is not speaking of another person of God's being but rather he is speaking of God's own thought and reason and logic.
Are you stating that Jesus pre existed as a thought prior to the incarnation?

Yes, that is exactly what I am stating, he was in God's forethought and foreknowledge and therefore what the Greek and Hebrew philosophers personified, John was revealing that this personification was Jesus in God's Divine Plan and foreknowledge of him.


Seems your god is limited. My God is all powerful. He created and sustains all. Therefore, powerful enough to created a body in which He dwelled fully as God and human, while on this earth. And being the only perfect sacrifice, voluntarily gave His mortal life us.

Sorry but there are certain things which the Bible reveals that God cannot do and so it isn't a matter if him being limited in regards to his power but rather in him being true to his already complete and perfect Divine nature and which by the way, is what makes him so powerful and constant and worthy of our trust anyhow.
 
Last edited:
Wow, you just don't want to see this do you?

From the minute you wake up in the morning until you go to bed at night, you are thinking - pros - towards yourself - (in a motion or direction towards yourself) and the word Logos is by its very definition a word associated with the thought and the reason and the logic.

Furthermore, my point was in how Tertullian understood the Greek words and their grammar and that it has a much broader meaning than what you are taking it to mean.

So are you going to argue that your own thoughts are not with "pros" you every single minute of the day?

But even going further, we are not exactly like God concerning what he can do with his thoughts, because he is infinite and we are finite.

Sorry but Jesus wasn't with or facing God in the beginning and John never says this either.

For it was the Logos that was "pros" God in the beginning and until you get a grip on what that really means, you are going to remain in the confusion that you are in right now, and all the Greek or Hebrew knowledge or human taught Bible knowledge in the world isn't going to be able to bring this to you.

By the way, while you want to use what you think is proper grammar in John 1:1, what happens when you do this with John 17:3 below?


John 17:3 This is eternal life, that they might know you, The Only True God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".

First off, the adjective phrase "The Only True God" only modifies one single person in this verse and it is God and not Jesus and secondly the words "and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" makes a clear distinction between "The Only True God" and who was sent by "The Only True God".
The only true God modifies ONE Being, God.
The clear distinction is between Father and Son.
 
Wow, you just don't want to see this do you?

From the minute you wake up in the morning until you go to bed at night, you are thinking - pros - towards yourself - (in a motion or direction towards yourself) and the word Logos is by its very definition a word associated with the thought and the reason and the logi
Furthermore, my point was in how Tertullian understood the Greek words and their grammar and that it has a much broader meaning than what you are taking it to mean.

So are you going to argue that your own thoughts are not with "pros" you every single minute of the day?

But even going further, we are not exactly like God concerning what he can do with his thoughts, because he is infinite and we are finite.

Sorry but Jesus wasn't with or facing God in the beginning and John never says this either.

For it was the Logos that was "pros" God in the beginning and until you get a grip on what that really means, you are going to remain in the confusion that you are in right now, and all the Greek or Hebrew knowledge or human taught Bible knowledge in the world isn't going to be able to bring this to you.
And? I could be the most self centered person in the world. That has no bearing on how John was using pros.

How can we decipher what John was teaching on the subject of Jesus and deity? We could look at what his disciples wrote on the topic.
Polycarp (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians he says,

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.1


By the way, while you want to use what you think is proper grammar in John 1:1, what happens when you do this with John 17:3 below?

John 17:3 This is eternal life, that they might know you, The Only True God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".

First off, the adjective phrase "The Only True God" only modifies one single person in this verse and it is God and not Jesus and secondly the words "and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" makes a clear distinction between "The Only True God" and who was sent by "The Only True God".
This is an old and faulty JW argument which fails on two points.
For now.
If the Father is the one true God that would make Jesus a false God in Jn 1:1. Would have been nice to reconcile your argument, instead of making the Lord look psychotic. Your arugment might hold water if Jesus said ,"Only you, Father, are the true God." This is not what Jesus said. Note, Jesus said "you, the only true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Note when “true God’ occurs it is contrasting God against false gods and this is what Jesus is doing. {2 Chronicles 15:3 ; Jeremiah 10:10 , 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 John 5:20 , 21).
 
I agree but only in regards to it being Jesus Christ in God's thought and reason for the creation, for God knew in advance of the creation that it would fall into corruption through sin and therefore God would have to have a redeemer to restore his purpose for creating it all.


Again, it is the fact that because John uses the word translated God twice, and being he is a Jew and Jews only believe in one single God, it would have made it necessary for him to use the definite article for both instances of the word God if indeed he was speaking of two who were both the same singular God.

Like I said, you cannot compare those other instances where the definite article is absent with John 1:1, because in those other instances, the writer is only speaking of one who is being called God and not two like in John 1:1.

This is why the word Logos itself must define for us in what way John is saying that "The Logos was God", for he is not speaking of another person of God's being but rather he is speaking of God's own thought and reason and logic.


Yes, that is exactly what I am stating, he was in God's forethought and foreknowledge and therefore what the Greek and Hebrew philosophers personified, John was revealing that this personification was Jesus in God's Divine Plan and foreknowledge of him.
To be clear. Are you stating that Jesus did not exist as a cognitive center of self consciousness, with free will, separate but not independent from the Father?
 
And? I could be the most self centered person in the world. That has no bearing on how John was using pros.

I never said that it did either.
How can we decipher what John was teaching on the subject of Jesus and deity?

By seeking and asking and waiting upon God for the answer, for you are not going to get them from Polycarp or any other non inspired writer of scripture.
We could look at what his disciples wrote on the topic.
Polycarp (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians he says,

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.1
So Jesus has a God and Father above himself and yet he himself also is a God, that is what you end up with from what Polycarp said or at least what his words might have been twisted to say, for being he wasn't inspired by God like the scriptures are, therefore neither would their be a seal of protection from the Holy Spirit on his writings.

This is an old and faulty JW argument which fails on two points.
For now.
If the Father is the one true God that would make Jesus a false God in Jn 1:1. Would have been nice to reconcile your argument, instead of making the Lord look psychotic. Your arugment might hold water if Jesus said ,"Only you, Father, are the true God." This is not what Jesus said. Note, Jesus said "you, the only true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Note when “true God’ occurs it is contrasting God against false gods and this is what Jesus is doing. {2 Chronicles 15:3 ; Jeremiah 10:10 , 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 John 5:20 , 21).

There you go again misquoting John 1:1 as saying Jesus existed before God created the worlds and that he is who John is referring to in John 1:1c "and the Logos was God".

It says "The Logos was God" and not "and Jesus Christ was God" and this is where you are going to run into trouble ever time also.

Oh and by the way, Jesus most definitely did say "Only You Father are the True God" for he said it this way "that they might know you (Father the one he was praying to), The Only True God and that word Only in that Adjective phrase very clearly means that the Father alone is God.

Furthermore the word "Only" most certainly does modify the Father when it is used the way it is in that adjective phrase that only modifies the Father alone in that verse and I also believe that you are not stupid and therefore you are aware of this fact.

Which brings us to this question, for if you cannot be honest about what Jesus truly said in this verse because of obvious bias, then how can you be trusted with a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew for any other passage of scripture either?



However, I do realize that you must try to alter what Jesus said, for it is either that, or you would have to humble yourself and admit you are wrong and repent from believing and teaching false doctrine and just like I had to do myself likewise.
 
To be clear. Are you stating that Jesus did not exist as a cognitive center of self consciousness, with free will, separate but not independent from the Father?
Yes and here is proof that he was only foreknown before the foundation of the world and not present with God and as God and right from Peter himself in 1 Peter 1:20 below.

1 Peter 1:20 "Who truly was "foreknown" "proginóskó" before the world was, but was in these last days manifested for you".


Here is a question you need to examine, for if Peter believed that Jesus pre existed and was actually with "para" God and was God before the world was, then why didn't he just say that and why did he instead use the word "foreknown" in the above passage?

It simply makes no sense at all and especially when we consider that his very words were also inspired by God just like Jesus' words were also.
 
Last edited:
Yes and here is proof that he was only foreknown before the foundation of the world and not present with God and as God and right from Peter himself in 1 Peter 1:20 below.

1 Peter 1:20 "Who truly was "foreknown" "proginóskó" before the world was, but was in these last days manifested for you".


Here is a question you need to examine, for if Peter believed that Jesus pre existed and was actually with "para" God and was God before the world was, then why didn't he just say that and why did he instead use the word "foreknown" in the above passage?

It simply makes no sense at all and especially when we consider that his very words were also inspired by God just like Jesus' words were also.
Fore ordained.
 
I never said that it did either.


By seeking and asking and waiting upon God for the answer, for you are not going to get them from Polycarp or any other non inspired writer of scripture.
If I tell you that God told me that Jesus existed as God in the beginning, would that be acceptable to you?
So Jesus has a God and Father above himself and yet he himself also is a God, that is what you end up with from what Polycarp said or at least what his words might have been twisted to say, for being he wasn't inspired by God like the scriptures are, therefore neither would their be a seal of protection from the Holy Spirit on his writings.
Ok lets keep within your parameter, and only accept bonified authors who are inspired by God. That would only be the NT authors. No one else.
Oh and by the way, Jesus most definitely did say "Only You Father are the True God" for he said it this way "that they might know you (Father the one he was praying to), The Only True God and that word Only in that Adjective phrase very clearly means that the Father alone is God.
Is it only you Father or you the only true God.
John 17:3 (ASV) And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (BBE) And this is eternal life: to have knowledge of you, the only true God, and of him whom you have sent, even Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (CEB) This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.
John 17:3 (CEBA) This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.
John 17:3 (CJB) And eternal life is this: to know you, the one true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.
John 17:3 (CSB) This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent-Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (DBY) And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (ESV) And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (GNT) And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
John 17:3 (GNTA) And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
John 17:3 (GW) This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
John 17:3 (HNV) This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.
John 17:3 (JUB) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (KJVA) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent .
John 17:3 (LEB) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (MSG) And this is the real and eternal life: That they know you, The one and only true God, And Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
John 17:3 (NAS) "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17:3 (NCV) And this is eternal life: that people know you, the only true God, and that they know Jesus Christ, the One you sent.
John 17:3 (NIRV) "And what is eternal life? It is knowing you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (NIV) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (NKJV) And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17:3 (NLT) And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.
John 17:3 (NRS) And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (NRSA) And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Yochanan 17:3 (OJB) And this is Chayyei Olam, that they may have da’as of the only Elohei HaEmes (G-d of Truth, True G-d) and Yehoshua, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach whom You sent.
John 17:3 (RHE) Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (RSV) And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (RSVA) And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (TMB) And this is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (TMBA) And this is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (TYN) This is lyfe eternall that they myght knowe the that only very God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ.
John 17:3 (WBT) And this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (WEB) This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (WNT) And in this consists the Life of the Ages--in knowing Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (WYC) And this is everlasting life, that they know thee very God alone [that they know thee alone very God], and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (YLT) and this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send -- Jesus Christ;

Seems the vast majority disagrees with you.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore the word "Only" most certainly does modify the Father when it is used the way it is in that adjective phrase that only modifies the Father alone in that verse and I also believe that you are not stupid and therefore you are aware of this fact.
Should not use the word 'stupid', especially when you are wrong.
Which brings us to this question, for if you cannot be honest about what Jesus truly said in this verse because of obvious bias, then how can you be trusted with a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew for any other passage of scripture either?

However, I do realize that you must try to alter what Jesus said, for it is either that, or you would have to humble yourself and admit you are wrong and repent from believing and teaching false doctrine and just like I had to do myself likewise.
What you have posted is simple an ad hominem attack.

It simply attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. This is usually the last position of ignorance knowing that it cannot compete with the intelligence and character of X, it is usually a sign of desperation on the part of the one insulting. [Logically Fallacious]

28 translations point the finger back at you.
 
Yes and here is proof that he was only foreknown before the foundation of the world and not present with God and as God and right from Peter himself in 1 Peter 1:20 below.

1 Peter 1:20 "Who truly was "foreknown" "proginóskó" before the world was, but was in these last days manifested for you".
Common sense would as 'what was foreknown'? That would come from the immediate text.
17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Same old game. Holding vs 20 in isolation and twisting it to fit your false ideology. Against the backdrop of the text we can conclude easily that Peter is writing about God's foreknowledge of Jesus' sacrifice. Peter is linking Jesus death to God's eternal plan.
Here is a question you need to examine, for if Peter believed that Jesus pre existed and was actually with "para" God and was God before the world was, then why didn't he just say that and why did he instead use the word "foreknown" in the above passage?

It simply makes no sense at all and especially when we consider that his very words were also inspired by God just like Jesus' words were also.
But since you brought Peter up who is a bonified inspired NT author, let's see what he wrote about Jesus.

2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Again =To be clear. Are you stating that Jesus did not exist as a cognitive center of self consciousness, with free will, separate but not independent from the Father?
 
If I tell you that God told me that Jesus existed as God in the beginning, would that be acceptable to you?

Absolutely not, for I have already seen that you are so pre indoctrinated and bias that you could see the truth if it was a broad side of a barn staring your right in the face.
Ok lets keep within your parameter, and only accept bonified authors who are inspired by God. That would only be the NT authors. No one else.

Is it only you Father or you the only true God.
John 17:3 (ASV) And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (BBE) And this is eternal life: to have knowledge of you, the only true God, and of him whom you have sent, even Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (CEB) This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.
John 17:3 (CEBA) This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.
John 17:3 (CJB) And eternal life is this: to know you, the one true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.
John 17:3 (CSB) This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent-Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (DBY) And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (ESV) And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (GNT) And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
John 17:3 (GNTA) And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
John 17:3 (GW) This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
John 17:3 (HNV) This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.
John 17:3 (JUB) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (KJVA) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent .
John 17:3 (LEB) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (MSG) And this is the real and eternal life: That they know you, The one and only true God, And Jesus Christ, whom you sent.
John 17:3 (NAS) "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17:3 (NCV) And this is eternal life: that people know you, the only true God, and that they know Jesus Christ, the One you sent.
John 17:3 (NIRV) "And what is eternal life? It is knowing you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (NIV) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (NKJV) And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17:3 (NLT) And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.
John 17:3 (NRS) And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
John 17:3 (NRSA) And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Yochanan 17:3 (OJB) And this is Chayyei Olam, that they may have da’as of the only Elohei HaEmes (G-d of Truth, True G-d) and Yehoshua, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach whom You sent.
John 17:3 (RHE) Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (RSV) And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (RSVA) And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (TMB) And this is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (TMBA) And this is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (TYN) This is lyfe eternall that they myght knowe the that only very God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ.
John 17:3 (WBT) And this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (WEB) This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (WNT) And in this consists the Life of the Ages--in knowing Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (WYC) And this is everlasting life, that they know thee very God alone [that they know thee alone very God], and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3 (YLT) and this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send -- Jesus Christ;

Seems the vast majority disagrees with you.

The above really proves what I just got through saying, for it doesn't matter whether he said "Only you Father" or "you (Father) The Only True God" for what he is saying is still pertaining to the Father alone, for that is who he is speaking to when he says it.

Furthermore, none of those translations of the text disagree with what I am saying the text actually says, or at least none of the literal ones do.

I can tell also that this is really bothering you by how you have come back with three posts almost immediately on it.

It is just a shame that you are continuing to fight against the truth on it like you are, but you are not going to win against the truth, for you will either admit to it in this life or when you stand before God.
 
Should not use the word 'stupid', especially when you are wrong.

I said you weren't stupid and therefore there is only one other reason why you cannot see the truth on this and it is because you have been spiritually blinded because of your years and years of twisting the verses to make them fit with what you already believed when you started and which you were also taught to believe.

I used to do it myself, so I know all about it but Thank God I didn't go as far or deep with it as you have and therefore God was able to pull me out of it before I did go that deep and far with it.
What you have posted is simple an ad hominem attack.

That would certainly be convenient if it really was an ad hominem attack but once again, I said that you weren't stupid and not that you were and therefore you are just using this because you cannot fight against the truth that I am speaking and therefore you feel the need to discredit me whatever way you can.

This is common for Trins when they get trapped in a corner by the truth.
It simply attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. This is usually the last position of ignorance knowing that it cannot compete with the intelligence and character of X, it is usually a sign of desperation on the part of the one insulting. [Logically Fallacious]
That is false and I have already spotted you on it.
28 translations point the finger back at you.
Indeed they do and they point back at me as being correct in my interpretation of the verse also, that isn't boasting but it is a fact and the only reason why, is because I don't trust in flesh and blood for the truth of God's word but rather in the Spirit and just like we are taught in the scripture that we must.
 
Common sense would as 'what was foreknown'? That would come from the immediate text.
17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. Same old game. Holding vs 20 in isolation and twisting it to fit your false ideology. Against the backdrop of the text we can conclude easily that Peter is writing about God's foreknowledge of Jesus' sacrifice. Peter is linking Jesus death to God's eternal plan.

Sorry but that is incorrect, for it clearly says "he was foreknown" and not only what he did but he himself and he is a personal pronoun and therefore it refers to a person and yes it still includes what he did on the cross and I am not arguing with that.
But since you brought Peter up who is a bonified inspired NT author, let's see what he wrote about Jesus.

2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Just like usual with all trins, they cut out the rest of the verse to make Peter to be saying that Jesus is "our God and Savior" when that is not what Peter is saying at all but rather he is calling Jesus "the righteousness of our God and Savior" instead" because God's righteousness was first fulfilled in Jesus.


By the way, we have also now become "The righteousness of God" and all that this really means, is that God's righteousness as first fulfilled in Christ Jesus is now also fulfilled in us through Jesus and as seen in the verse below.

"For he made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might be made the righteousness of God through him", I am not sure where the verse is and it is getting to late for me to look it up but you know it exists don't you?

Again =To be clear. Are you stating that Jesus did not exist as a cognitive center of self consciousness, with free will, separate but not independent from the Father?
Yes and nothing that you said has changed this but only made my position with it stronger than before, for all you do is to show that you are not willing to be honest with these passages.
 
I never said that it did either.


By seeking and asking and waiting upon God for the answer, for you are not going to get them from Polycarp or any other non inspired writer of scripture.

So Jesus has a God and Father above himself and yet he himself also is a God, that is what you end up with from what Polycarp said or at least what his words might have been twisted to say, for being he wasn't inspired by God like the scriptures are, therefore neither would their be a seal of protection from the Holy Spirit on his writings.



There you go again misquoting John 1:1 as saying Jesus existed before God created the worlds and that he is who John is referring to in John 1:1c "and the Logos was God".

It says "The Logos was God" and not "and Jesus Christ was God" and this is where you are going to run into trouble ever time also.

Oh and by the way, Jesus most definitely did say "Only You Father are the True God" for he said it this way "that they might know you (Father the one he was praying to), The Only True God and that word Only in that Adjective phrase very clearly means that the Father alone is God.

Furthermore the word "Only" most certainly does modify the Father when it is used the way it is in that adjective phrase that only modifies the Father alone in that verse and I also believe that you are not stupid and therefore you are aware of this fact.

Which brings us to this question, for if you cannot be honest about what Jesus truly said in this verse because of obvious bias, then how can you be trusted with a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew for any other passage of scripture either?



However, I do realize that you must try to alter what Jesus said, for it is either that, or you would have to humble yourself and admit you are wrong and repent from believing and teaching false doctrine and just like I had to do myself likewise.
Jesus did NOT say "Only you Father".
You are charged with adding words to Scripture.
 
Absolutely not, for I have already seen that you are so pre indoctrinated and bias that you could see the truth if it was a broad side of a barn staring your right in the face.
Why? Pre indoctrination is irrelevant. If I am stating that the Father or HS revealed to me truth, how does pre indoctrination affect anything. Example = If I am pre indoctrinated into thinking the earth is flat and I receive a theological revelations that the earth is round, how does my previous belief affect the new revelation.
The above really proves what I just got through saying, for it doesn't matter whether he said "Only you Father" or "you (Father) The Only True God" for what he is saying is still pertaining to the Father alone, for that is who he is speaking to when he says it.
Don't change the subject. First, own what you write.
Your post. Oh and by the way, Jesus most definitely did say "Only You Father are the True God"
As previously posted 28 translations prove this wrong.
Now I will address the latest idea.
Second reason its wrong.
Placing "only" before the antecedent [only you Father]can have the effect of making the antecedent both sufficient and necessary, placing "only" before the consequent [the only true God, as it is in John 17:3b) does not. That is, in logical terms, affirming that the Father is the true God is the same as affirming that He is the only true God. The antecedent, in this case, is sufficient, but not necessary.
Furthermore, none of those translations of the text disagree with what I am saying the text actually says, or at least none of the literal ones do.
Since you brought up literal. Let's apply the literal argument. If you want Jn 17:3 to be read laterally how do you reconcile this with
2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have [a]obtained like[b] precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
JN 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
I can tell also that this is really bothering you by how you have come back with three posts almost immediately on it.
Not really, I had a choice between cleaning the cat litter box and answering you, so I cleaned the box first.
Sorry but that is incorrect, for it clearly says "he was foreknown" and not only what he did but he himself and he is a personal pronoun and therefore it refers to a person and yes it still includes what he did on the cross and I am not arguing with that.
And again, your comment is correct if vs 20 is the ONLY vs that existed. Care to address the verse against the backdrop of the text. Or are you going to ignore this also?
Common sense would as 'what was foreknown'? That would come from the immediate text.

17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Same old game. Holding vs 20 in isolation and twisting it to fit your false ideology. Against the backdrop of the text we can conclude easily that Peter is writing about God's foreknowledge of Jesus' sacrifice. Peter is linking Jesus death to God's eternal plan.

Just like usual with all trins, they cut out the rest of the verse to make Peter to be saying that Jesus is "our God and Savior" when that is not what Peter is saying at all but rather he is calling Jesus "the righteousness of our God and Savior" instead" because God's righteousness was first fulfilled in Jesus.
Notice what is missing from this response.
Hint, Chapter and verse.
Also notice how you play both sides of the fence as it convivences you. When it suits you the passage is figurative, or interpreted by some other far off verse, and when it suits you the verse stands alone and is literal.
Yes and nothing that you said has changed this but only made my position with it stronger than before, for all you do is to show that you are not willing to be honest with these passages.
Phil 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Pay close attention to “consider” in vs 6. Consider = think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision. To have not considered equality with God something to be grasped, Jesus would to have considered it something to grasp also. What was Jesus thinking carefully about? To make a decision you need to have more than one option to decide on, therefore He decided between considering it something to be grasped, and not to be grasped. Therefore to be able to consider between two options one would have to have cognitive ability to freely choose, otherwise known as free will. And if free will then a cognitive, thinking, center of self-consciousness separate from the One He is considering equality with.
 
Why? Pre indoctrination is irrelevant. If I am stating that the Father or HS revealed to me truth, how does pre indoctrination affect anything. Example = If I am pre indoctrinated into thinking the earth is flat and I receive a theological revelations that the earth is round, how does my previous belief affect the new revelation.

Because that is exactly what you are, that is why.
Don't change the subject. First, own what you write.
Your post. Oh and by the way, Jesus most definitely did say "Only You Father are the True God"
As previously posted 28 translations prove this wrong.
Now I will address the latest idea.
Second reason its wrong.
Placing "only" before the antecedent [only you Father]can have the effect of making the antecedent both sufficient and necessary, placing "only" before the consequent [the only true God, as it is in John 17:3b) does not. That is, in logical terms, affirming that the Father is the true God is the same as affirming that He is the only true God. The antecedent, in this case, is sufficient, but not necessary.
LOL and with that foolish carnal human reasoning on this, what would prohibit any one else who would claim to be God along with the Father from being God also and how would what Jesus said in John 17:3 make any sense or have any cogent meaning at all either?

Congratulations therefore, for you just opened the door for guys like David Koresh or Jim Jones to say that they are God along with the Father also, and that is what proves what you are saying as false and also shows just how ridiculous and worthless your carnal human reasoning on this text truly is.

In fact, they might have been taught this nonsense also like you were, for they both came out from trinity believing churches just like you also.
Since you brought up literal. Let's apply the literal argument. If you want Jn 17:3 to be read laterally how do you reconcile this with
2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have [a]obtained like[b] precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
JN 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Sorry but none of those verses are actually revealing Jesus as God.

In 2 Peter 1:1 Paul isn't calling Jesus "Our God and Savior" but rather he is giving Jesus the title of "The righteousness of Our God and Savior" instead and by the way, the scriptures also says that we who have believed become "the righteousness of God through Jesus also" and that is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21 as seen below.

2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

What Paul is saying here, is that Jesus became what we are before God in order that we might become what he is before God and that is "The Righteousness of Our God" and just like Paul says also.

The same thing is being done by Paul in Titus 2:13 except here Paul is giving Jesus the title of "The Glory of our Great God" and this shouldn't be that hard to accept because in Colossians 1:15 Paul also calls Jesus "the image of the invisible God" the glory of God is witness within and through Jesus Christ.

Titus 2:13 Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of "the glory of Our Great God and Savior" Jesus Christ.

It is a title to express the fact that God's glory is manifested through Jesus who will soon be appearing.

"God was in Christ and not God was Christ or Christ was God but rather God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" See also John 14:10 and Acts 2:22.


Which by the way, brings us to John 20:28 (God was in Christ).

Now, pay close attention.

While Jesus was alive on earth before he died and was resurrected, can you show any other place in the NT where any other of his disciples ever called him their Lord and God and if not, why not being you believe that Thomas was doing this in John 20:28?

Sorry but Thomas is not calling Jesus his God here either but instead he is addressing Yahweh God the Father what was and is within the Son.

For he was taught this in John 14:6-10 and now seeing Jesus alive from the dead, he knew for certain that Jesus was the Lord (kurios) and that God the Father had to be in Jesus in order for him to be alive from the dead and standing before him. See Romans 8:11 below.

Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.

In essence therefore, what Thomas is doing in John 20:28 is this, "for if you will confess with your mouth, the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved"


It is the fact that God was in Jesus that was the reason why he was alive from the dead and just as Paul tells us also in Romans 8:11 above and therefore although Thomas was speaking to Jesus when he said it, he was making his confession of faith in both Jesus his Lord and also the Father God who was in Christ and through whom Jesus was raised from the dead.





 
Last edited:
And again, your comment is correct if vs 20 is the ONLY vs that existed. Care to address the verse against the backdrop of the text. Or are you going to ignore this also?

What on earth are you talking about in the above, we are discussing 1 Peter 1:20 and what do you mean by "only" here?

I have already said that his being foreknown is concerning both his existence and what he would accomplish at his coming and again the personal pronoun makes this very clear.
Common sense would as 'what was foreknown'? That would come from the immediate text.

17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Same old game. Holding vs 20 in isolation and twisting it to fit your false ideology. Against the backdrop of the text we can conclude easily that Peter is writing about God's foreknowledge of Jesus' sacrifice. Peter is linking Jesus death to God's eternal plan.


Notice what is missing from this response.
Hint, Chapter and verse.
Also notice how you play both sides of the fence as it convivences you. When it suits you the passage is figurative, or interpreted by some other far off verse, and when it suits you the verse stands alone and is literal.

Sorry but once again, he uses the personal pronoun and which makes it clear that he is speaking of the person and what the person did period and the context doesn't change this either, for if Peter was only speaking of what he had done, he would have used the none personal pronoun "it" instead but he didn't.

1 Peter 1:20, NIV: He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

1 Peter 1:20, ESV: He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

1 Peter 1:20, KJV: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

1 Peter 1:20, NASB: For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

1 Peter 1:20, NLT: God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days.

1 Peter 1:20, CSB: He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was revealed in these last times for you.

Phil 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Pay close attention to “consider” in vs 6. Consider = think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision. To have not considered equality with God something to be grasped, Jesus would to have considered it something to grasp also. What was Jesus thinking carefully about? To make a decision you need to have more than one option to decide on, therefore He decided between considering it something to be grasped, and not to be grasped. Therefore to be able to consider between two options one would have to have cognitive ability to freely choose, otherwise known as free will. And if free will then a cognitive, thinking, center of self-consciousness separate from the One He is considering equality with.

No, you pay attention.


Jesus was tempted in all ways like we are and also suffered being tempted because he wouldn't succumb to the temptations.

So let me ask you this, when you are tempted do you make a careful consideration to what you are going to do with the temptation?

But again, it reads like this "not something to be grasped, considered to be equal unto God". so the word "considered" is followed by the negative "not" in the verse and which means Jesus never considered it and not that he did.

So unlike us when we are tempted, Jesus never took the thought of a seizure to become or exist as God's equal. even though many kings and emperors at that time and with far less authority than Jesus did.

Once again also, the word "equal"- "isa" doesn't mean the same exact being or substance of whatever it is either said to be equal unto or not equal unto.
 
Back
Top