Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

Because that is exactly what you are, that is why.

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.


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.
Bald faced denials of 2 Peter 1:1; John 20:28; Titus 2:13.
 
Because that is exactly what you are, that is why.
What I believe and practice prior to a heavenly revelation is irrelevant. If that was common practice 2/3 of the NT would be missing. Paul was anti Jesus prior to meeting Him. If I told you that God revealed to me that Jesus is God why is that not good enough, and if not good enough what would be?
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?
Don't dance around it. You wrote
Your post. Oh and by the way, Jesus most definitely did say "Only You Father are the True God"
And 28 translations disagree with you.
Own it.
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.
On the contrary, its you who opens the doors for this type, by claiming divine revelation, just as they did.
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"
Where? Read again.
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:
Reading 101, nothing in the text hints at your idea.
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.

irrelevant.
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.
This is such a bad argument. Since Paul called Jesus A in Colossians its reasonable to conclude that Paul is calling Jesus B in Titus.
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.
First grammatical.
We are looking for the “glorious appearance” not the “appearance of glory” and the grammatical basis for this view is the widely acknowledged fact that a descriptive noun in the genitive [glory] following another noun[appearance] may exhibit an attributive use of the genitive, in which the noun functions as a description of the preceding(or “head”) noun. In this view, glory is what characterizes the appearance.

Second theological.
The only one that appears is Jesus never the Father; therefore 2:13 speaks only of Jesus.

Third textual.
Titus 1:4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.
In Titus 1:4 the Father is identified as God, and Jesus is identified as Lord and Savior.

Tit 1:3 but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;

Tit 2:10 not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.

In 1:3 and 2:10 the individual identified as God is also the Savior, or the individual identified as Savior is also God. Can the question be answered?

Tit 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

In 2:13 Jesus is identified as God and Savior.

Do we have contradictions here? Is Paul being polytheistic? Or could there be another answer?

1:4 Father is God and Jesus is Lord and Savior, 1:3 and 2:10 God is Savior, 2:13 Jesus is God and Savior. Reconcile.
"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.
grasping for straws.
Which by the way, brings us to John 20:28 (God was in Christ).

Now, pay close attention.
I'm on the edge of my chair.
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?
It does not matter. John recorded what Thomas said. My God and my Lord. You cannot get around it. It only has to be said once.
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.
Come on. Could you not come up with a better answer? Nothing in the text, or the entire Bible states this. Or lets follow your idea. Does there exist any verse in which anyone speaks to Jesus but rather is addressing YHWH who is within the Jesus.
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"
Your wrong. But since you brought up that God raised Jesus from the dead, how do you reconcile the following which are explicit and literal.
According to the whole of Scripture who raised Jesus from the dead?
Romans 6:4 teaches that the Father raised Jesus from the dead.
John 2:19-21; 10:17,18 proclaims the Son raised Himself from the dead.
Romans 8:11 proclaims the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.
And Acts 3:26, 13:30, 17:30,31; 1 Thess. 1:9,10; Heb. 13:20 reveals that only God could raise Jesus from the dead.

Therefore the whole of Scripture reveals the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in unity as God was responsible for raising Jesus from the dead.
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.
Highly contrived nonsense.
 
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.
Wrong, the text is referring to what Jesus would accomplish not His existence. Don't try to squeeze existence into the verse when the text does not support this. Foreknowledge of X doing Y does not equate to for-knowledge of a future existence of X.
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.
It dose not matter how many translations you post. You are isolating the verse in order to spin it. The text speaks of the foreknowledge of Jesus work not existence.
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?
The text is in chronological order. Jesus considered His equality with God before the incarnation.
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.
The problem here is that you are changing a noun into a verb to make your assumptions/presuppositions work!

The rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
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.
You have no clue.
Equal = 2470 ἴσος [isos /ee•sos/] adj. Probably from 1492 (through the idea of seeming); TDNT 3:343; TDNTA 370; GK 2698; Eight occurrences; AV translates as “equal” four times, “agree together + 2258” twice, “as much” once, and “like” once. 1 equal, in quantity or quality.
 
What I believe and practice prior to a heavenly revelation is irrelevant. If that was common practice 2/3 of the NT would be missing. Paul was anti Jesus prior to meeting Him. If I told you that God revealed to me that Jesus is God why is that not good enough, and if not good enough what would be?

It would be the same thing as if Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or any other cultist said it and therefore only the scriptures themselves reveal the truth and not your supposed spiritual experiences, that is why.
Don't dance around it. You wrote
Your post. Oh and by the way, Jesus most definitely did say "Only You Father are the True God"
And 28 translations disagree with you.
Own it.

LOL, what I meant, was that it is the same difference and I don't give a hoot about your supposed superior grammar expertise on it either I don't accept it from you, for it is saying the same thing but only in a different way.

For as I said, if what you are saying was true, then anyone else beside Jesus could also be included as being God along with the Father.

Furthermore, the Jews only believed in God as one single person and being and when Jesus addressed God as the Father, they knew perfectly well that he was speaking of the single person and being of Yahweh God.

Jesus never taught that God was more than one person either, just examine his teaching on how to pray and who he addresses as God in that teaching.

Now before we go any further, explain to me and everyone that might be following this argument how your interpretation of John 17:3 doesn't permit that anyone can also claim to be God along with the Father and being you think that Jesus was saying here that there is only one God while you believe that God is more than one single person?

You need to explain how this could possibly make any sense or have any real meaning at all to the Jewish disciples or to anyone else reading it with the way you are interpreting it?
 
Last edited:
Wrong, the text is referring to what Jesus would accomplish not His existence. Don't try to squeeze existence into the verse when the text does not support this. Foreknowledge of X doing Y does not equate to for-knowledge of a future existence of X.

It dose not matter how many translations you post. You are isolating the verse in order to spin it. The text speaks of the foreknowledge of Jesus work not existence.

The text is in chronological order. Jesus considered His equality with God before the incarnation.

The problem here is that you are changing a noun into a verb to make your assumptions/presuppositions work!

The rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”

You have no clue.
Equal = 2470 ἴσος [isos /ee•sos/] adj. Probably from 1492 (through the idea of seeming); TDNT 3:343; TDNTA 370; GK 2698; Eight occurrences; AV translates as “equal” four times, “agree together + 2258” twice, “as much” once, and “like” once. 1 equal, in quantity or quality.
You are in total darkness concerning the truth and that darkness is what you yourself have chosen, because you love your false doctrine rather than the truth and spend all of your time finding deceptive ways of making the scriptures say what you want them to in order to support your love of your false doctrine.

Here is more of what Peter says about Jesus below and he is speaking of the person and not just what he did and therefore in verse 20 it is the person who was foreknown by God and not just what he did.

1 Peter 1: 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Ah what's up Doc? For I see four personal pronouns concerning Jesus in just those two verses of 20-21 and which are part of the context 1 Peter 1:20 just as much as what was said before this.

If you can't accept the truth about this, then I am not going to discuss it any longer with you, for if so, you love darkness rather than the light and therefore you deserve it also.

So if you still want to argue with it, then you are on your own, for I am not going to entertain any more of it from you.
 
The text is in chronological order. Jesus considered His equality with God before the incarnation.
Oh really, so do you hold to that same rule for Titus 2:13?

NIV Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

NKJV Titus 2:13 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Which one is correct according the the chronological order of the original Greek?

It isn't glorious appearing but rather the appearing of the glory but you cherry pick the versions that agree with your false doctrine and which proves that you are bias and therefore not to be trusted when handling the word of God.

Now then, you know as well as I do that the Greek doesn't always read the same way as how we would translate it to English but no matter how you slice it Jesus did not consider it period

What was not considered was the harpagmos and not the isa itself.


This is how it reads in the Greek "who in the form of God existing, not something to be grasped considered to be equal with God"

By the way, there is no "it" in the text like the KJV translates this "considered it not robbery to be equal with God" so it would be more like "considered not robbery to be equal with God' and which makes all the difference in the world also.

And no matter how you slice it, it means that he didn't consider robbery (something to seize) to be equal with God
The problem here is that you are changing a noun into a verb to make your assumptions/presuppositions work!
Something to be grasped makes up for the noun in the better translations and I am fully aware of the fact that harpagmos is a noun in this text and that is why I used the word "seizure" and not to seize.

So I am sorry, but your little craftiness and trickery isn't going to work on me here.
 
Last edited:
Oh really, so do you hold to that same rule for Titus 2:13?

NIV Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

NKJV Titus 2:13 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Which one is correct according the the chronological order of the original Greek?

It isn't glorious appearing but rather the appearing of the glory but you cherry pick the versions that agree with your false doctrine and which proves that you are bias and therefore not to be trusted when handling the word of God.

Now then, you know as well as I do that the Greek doesn't always read the same way as how we would translate it to English but no matter how you slice it Jesus did not consider it period

What was not considered was the harpagmos and not the isa itself.


This is how it reads in the Greek "who in the form of God existing, not something to be grasped considered to be equal with God"

By the way, there is no "it" in the text like the KJV translates this "considered it not robbery to be equal with God" so it would be more like "considered not robbery to be equal with God' and which makes all the difference in the world also.

And no matter how you slice it, it means that he didn't consider robbery (something to seize) to be equal with God

Something to be grasped makes up for the noun in the better translations and I am fully aware of the fact that harpagmos is a noun in this text and that is why I used the word "seizure" and not to seize.

So I am sorry, but your little craftiness and trickery isn't going to work on me here.
Phil. 2:5-7 refers to the first coming of Christ; Titus 2:13 to the second coming.
Christ did NOT consider His equality with God something to grasp, i.e. cling to.
 
It would be the same thing as if Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or any other cultist said it and therefore only the scriptures themselves reveal the truth and not your supposed spiritual experiences, that is why.
Thankyou, now we have terms.
LOL, what I meant, was that it is the same difference and I don't give a hoot about your supposed superior grammar expertise on it either I don't accept it from you, for it is saying the same thing but only in a different way.
Same difference =oxymoron,
Furthermore, the Jews only believed in God as one single person and being and when Jesus addressed God as the Father, they knew perfectly well that he was speaking of the single person and being of Yahweh God.
What the Jews believed is irrelevant. Why? Because I can easily quote Jews who believe in Jesus and that He is God.
Jesus never taught that God was more than one person either, just examine his teaching on how to pray and who he addresses as God in that teaching.\
Quote please
Now before we go any further, explain to me and everyone that might be following this argument how your interpretation of John 17:3 doesn't permit that anyone can also claim to be God along with the Father and being you think that Jesus was saying here that there is only one God while you believe that God is more than one single person?
What is the difference between Jesus being God and someone else claiming it. Jesus is the main subject the NT, any one else claiming to be God would have to prove through scripture.
You need to explain how this could possibly make any sense or have any real meaning at all to the Jewish disciples or to anyone else reading it with the way you are interpreting it?
Simple, you argue using one verse and ignore the immediate text, chapter, book, and Bible. That is how you spin it. Notice you are entrenched in this verse, insist that it is literal and explicit and explain away any verse that states explicitly and literally that Jesus is God as figurative and implicit.
If Jn 17:3 is explicit and literal then 2 Pe 1:1 and Titus 2:13 are also explicit and literal.
 
You are in total darkness concerning the truth and that darkness is what you yourself have chosen, because you love your false doctrine rather than the truth and spend all of your time finding deceptive ways of making the scriptures say what you want them to in order to support your love of your false doctrine.

Here is more of what Peter says about Jesus below and he is speaking of the person and not just what he did and therefore in verse 20 it is the person who was foreknown by God and not just what he did.

1 Peter 1: 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Ah what's up Doc? For I see four personal pronouns concerning Jesus in just those two verses of 20-21 and which are part of the context 1 Peter 1:20 just as much as what was said before this.

If you can't accept the truth about this, then I am not going to discuss it any longer with you, for if so, you love darkness rather than the light and therefore you deserve it also.

So if you still want to argue with it, then you are on your own, for I am not going to entertain any more of it from you.
1 Peter 1: 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Reading 101
He was chosen before the creation of the world = one has to ask why or for what? = you were... redeemed... with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
but was revealed in these last times for your sake =one has to ask what was revealed? Whatever Jesus was chosen for.
And bad logic. Foreordained or chosen for redemptive works before the foundation of the world does not prove that Jesus did not pre exist the beginning.
 
Oh really, so do you hold to that same rule for Titus 2:13?

NIV Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

NKJV Titus 2:13 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Which one is correct according the the chronological order of the original Greek?

It isn't glorious appearing but rather the appearing of the glory but you cherry pick the versions that agree with your false doctrine and which proves that you are bias and therefore not to be trusted when handling the word of God.
Sorry, unless you have something to support this, such as Greek grammar, you have nothing but opinion.
We are looking for the “glorious appearance” not the “appearance of glory” and the grammatical basis for this view is the widely acknowledged fact that a descriptive noun in the genitive [glory] following another noun[appearance] may exhibit an attributive use of the genitive, in which the noun functions as a description of the preceding(or “head”) noun. In this view, glory is what characterizes the appearance.

How about theology.
The only one that appears is Jesus never the Father; therefore 2:13 speaks only of Jesus.
Now then, you know as well as I do that the Greek doesn't always read the same way as how we would translate it to English but no matter how you slice it Jesus did not consider it period

What was not considered was the harpagmos and not the isa itself.

This is how it reads in the Greek "who in the form of God existing, not something to be grasped considered to be equal with God"
You cannot translate like this. Now if you want to use this method then look up John 1:1 because it states word for word, in order, '...and God was the Logos.' If its good for the goose its good for the gander. If you are saying that your method of translating is good for Phil 2 then its good enough for John 1:1.
Now we can close up and go home.
By the way, there is no "it" in the text like the KJV translates this "considered it not robbery to be equal with God" so it would be more like "considered not robbery to be equal with God' and which makes all the difference in the world also.

Again, 'robbery' is a noun not a verb. You just used it as a verb. The rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
Look it up.
And no matter how you slice it, it means that he didn't consider robbery (something to seize) to be equal with God
Again you are using robbery and seize as verbs.
Something to be grasped makes up for the noun in the better translations and I am fully aware of the fact that harpagmos is a noun in this text and that is why I used the word "seizure" and not to seize.
But you just explained it away as a verb.
 
Sorry, unless you have something to support this, such as Greek grammar, you have nothing but opinion.
We are looking for the “glorious appearance” not the “appearance of glory” and the grammatical basis for this view is the widely acknowledged fact that a descriptive noun in the genitive [glory] following another noun[appearance] may exhibit an attributive use of the genitive, in which the noun functions as a description of the preceding(or “head”) noun. In this view, glory is what characterizes the appearance.

How about theology.
The only one that appears is Jesus never the Father; therefore 2:13 speaks only of Jesus.

You cannot translate like this. Now if you want to use this method then look up John 1:1 because it states word for word, in order, '...and God was the Logos.' If its good for the goose its good for the gander. If you are saying that your method of translating is good for Phil 2 then its good enough for John 1:1.
Now we can close up and go home.


Again, 'robbery' is a noun not a verb. You just used it as a verb. The rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
Look it up.

Again you are using robbery and seize as verbs.

But you just explained it away as a verb.
We are finished with our discussion or didn't you get that any better than you do the scriptures?
 
Finished? No you gave up. As always you cannot handle the truth.

Nope but it is more like I have learned that the best thing to do with someone like you, is to not allow you too much time and space to dream up and rehearse or practice on your fallacious arguments over and over again but instead to just let God have his way with you by his Holy Spirit and if God wills, you will repent but if not, you will continue in your false doctrines.

It is just that simple because I know that I am not going to be the one to convince you of your error anyhow but only God can do that by his Holy Spirit, and it will be if and when he wills and desires it to be also.

However, you are welcome to continue in your delusions about why I am not going to waste anymore time with you on this, for however you want to see it, it matters nothing to me anyhow.
 
Last edited:
Nope but it is more like I have learned that the best thing to do with someone like you, is to not allow you too much time and space to dream up and rehearse or practice on your fallacious arguments over and over again but instead to just let God have his way with you by his Holy Spirit and if God wills, you will repent but if not, you will continue in your false doctrines.

It is just that simple because I know that I am not going to be the one to convince you of your error anyhow but only God can do that by his Holy Spirit, and it will be if and when he wills and desires it to be also.

However, you are welcome to continue in your delusions about why I am not going to waste anymore time with you on this, for however you want to see it, it matters nothing to me anyhow.
And you continue
 
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.


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.



No, I never said that Jesus was a personification but only that the Logos was to the Greek and Hebrew philosophers and that John used their philosophy to reveal who Jesus was and that he was in God's plan and foreknowledge before God created the world.

Jesus is no personification but rather a real tangible living and now glorified human being.


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.

Of course, for just as Tertullian admitted, God's Logos always existed inside of himself just like ours does also and that God reciprocates "pros" with his Logos just like we who are made in his image do likewise every day of our lives and all through the day also.

Tertullian's words reveal that he was not completely ignorant about what John was revealing in his prologue and therefore he was guilty of twisting that which was made known unto him by God into something coming from his own human reasoning about it and quite like what Paul said in Romans 1 below.


Romans 1:
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

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.

I answer that On the contrary Damascene says," The Logos of God is likewise Substantial and has a Hypostatic / Personal being", but other words as our own where thought follows after thought are activities if the soul".

Of course The Logos is contained therein for the Greeks say," God has from all Eternity generated His Consubstantial Word.".

That is further to say," Emanation of The Divine Intellect is Procession of The Word in God which is rightly called Generation, and The Consubstantial Word Himself Proceeding is properly called ever Begotten and Son.

Lastly when you anti Trinitarians assert The son pre existed in God mind as the reason God converse with Himself, the Latin angelic doctor says," God The Father spontaneously wills to Beget The Son by Nature, just as He spontaneously wills to be God".

When you anti Trinitarian erroneously assert the logos was a god, uttered into existence as the son of God, the Latin doctor communis says," God follows His own Nature sort to speak in Begetting a Subsisting Unchangeable God".

We call Him The only Begotten Son which is in The Bosom of The Father He hath declared Him.


...... Alan
 
Last edited:
Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

The Greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into English as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of. But the Greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the English “a”, or “an”. Often the Grammarians add the English indefinite articles “a” or “an” to give the proper sense of the passage, therefore pointing to an unidentifiable person, someone we do not have prior knowledge of. But this does not mean that every time a noun lacking the definite article occurs in the Greek text it should have an indefinite article in the translation. Depending on the context of the verse, chapter, book, and the main idea that the writer, translators render nouns lacking the definite article, either indefinite, definite, or none.

The gospel of John is intended to be read based on the thesis which is the first 18 verses, which is anchored on the first verse. If one believes that in the first verse, Jesus is God, then one reads the gospel from that point of view, but if one believes Jesus is a created being based on the first verse, then one will read the rest of the gospel based on that point of view. Therefore, the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1

Dissect vs 1 into a logical argument [premise 1] In the beginning was the Word, [premise 2] and the Word was with God, [conclusion] and the Word was God [or a god.] Therefore, premise 1 and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.

In the beginning, was (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν)[en- ar•khay eimi].

If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razor's edge, where one side there exists only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razors edge is what John is opening to. John does not open referring to the beginning of Genesis but prior to it, in fact prior to time itself. Note this imaginary line relates to the eternal and the temporal, and not to the Genesis account of creation because creation is not mentioned until vs. 3. Notice where John places the Logos in reference to the beginning; if the Logos is a created being, then the Logos would be included in the ‘beginning’ or after. Using [ἦν eimi] “was”, which denotes absolute existence instead of [ἐγένετο, egeneto] “came into being”, or “began to be”, which is used in vs. 3, John is placing the Logos prior to the beginning. John is saying that the Logos absolutely existed prior to the beginning, and the only One who existed prior to the beginning is God in the eternal. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for John 1:1 is “the Word was God” not “was a god”.

Any rebuttal should be able to support its position by using John 1:1 only.
This is a great way to look at John 1. I like how you connected it with Genesis 1.
 
The gospel of John is intended to be read based on the thesis which is the first 18 verses, which is anchored on the first verse. If one believes that in the first verse, Jesus is God, then one reads the gospel from that point of view, but if one believes Jesus is a created being based on the first verse, then one will read the rest of the gospel based on that point of view. Therefore, the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1

Your conclusion of "Therefore, the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1" is false. The diety of Jesus isn't the question the book of John is answering. John directly tells you the question he is answering at the end of John 20:

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

As John clearly proclaims, Jesus is the son of God rather than God. Being God's son and Jesus being God are mutually exclusive. If you doctrine denies asserts that Jesus is not God's son, you are at variance with what John's gospel is teaching.

Dissect vs 1 into a logical argument [premise 1] In the beginning was the Word, [premise 2] and the Word was with God, [conclusion] and the Word was God [or a god.] Therefore, premise 1 and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.

. . .

Any rebuttal should be able to support its position by using John 1:1 only.

OK, here goes:
  • If the words to the effect of logical operators such as "if", "then", "therefore", "since", etc... are present in John 1:1 then John 1:1 may be considered a logical argument under the conditions that the words are arranged to present a logical arguement.
  • If words to the effect of logical operators are utterly and completely absent when from John 1:1 when John absolutely knows how to use them and demonstrates that he knows how to construct a logical argument throughout his extensive writings in the New Testament, then then John 1:1 cannot be considered a logical argument.
As is readily observed by any competent reader who has actually read John 1:1 and any of John's writings, there are no words to the effect of logical operators in John 1:1 and John definitely knows how to use them, therefore John 1:1 cannot under any circumstances be considered a logical argument unless you are completely delusional.
 
Your conclusion of "Therefore, the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1" is false.
No. And you would need to prove that.
The diety of Jesus isn't the question the book of John is answering.
Never said it was.
John directly tells you the question he is answering at the end of John 20:

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Two different items.
As John clearly proclaims, Jesus is the son of God rather than God. Being God's son and Jesus being God are mutually exclusive. If you doctrine denies asserts that Jesus is not God's son, you are at variance with what John's gospel is teaching.
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”20:28

OK, here goes:
  • If the words to the effect of logical operators such as "if", "then", "therefore", "since", etc... are present in John 1:1 then John 1:1 may be considered a logical argument under the conditions that the words are arranged to present a logical arguement.
  • If words to the effect of logical operators are utterly and completely absent when from John 1:1 when John absolutely knows how to use them and demonstrates that he knows how to construct a logical argument throughout his extensive writings in the New Testament, then then John 1:1 cannot be considered a logical argument.
As is readily observed by any competent reader who has actually read John 1:1 and any of John's writings, there are no words to the effect of logical operators in John 1:1 and John definitely knows how to use them, therefore John 1:1 cannot under any circumstances be considered a logical argument unless you are completely delusional.
spitting hairs. John wrote a letter the churches, not a graduate thesis. It is a logical argument.
Dogs sit
John sits
John is a dog.
 
Back
Top