No because the dictionary describes circumstantial evidence as evidence pointing you in the right direction, but the circumstantial evidence does not conclusively prove a point or someone's guilt. I know the concrete evidence does not exist and all you have to do is admit you have no concrete evidence to prove your point? If we was in a court of law I would win because I would provide concrete evidence to prove my point against your circumstantial evidence.
Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.
- Thread starter Towerwatchman
- Start date
johnny guitar
Well-known member
But The Word is identified as The Son of The Father in 1:14.
It says at John 1:14 that the Word became human and lived here on earth among us. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father. It is saying there that only after they seen his glory and after the Word became human and lived among them was there a Son of the Father.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
It is saying The Word is IDENTIFIED as The Son of The Father, NOT that The Son did NOT exist prior to the incarnation.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
The text is plain, "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Who is "He" and "His".
He=used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified.
His=belonging to or associated with a male person or animal previously mentioned or easily identified.
Who would that be? =GOD.
As to your red herring. The text is identifying the one that shed His blood as God. You have a problem with that take it up with Paul when you see him.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Here is where your boat sinks. You did not address the possessive pronoun "His". Notice, that is the jugular in my argument. Address that properly and you might have something. BTW 'His" is found in the original language.meaning don't be ignorant when knowledge is available. and right here in, Genesis 1:1 that is knowledge to Isaiah 44:6 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
BEGINNING: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218
My source for the definition, Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.
this KNOWLEDGE gives us the UNDERSTANDING of God as the the ECHAD of himself as the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" this same "LORD", all caps as in Isaiah 44:6
well, well, well, now what do Genesis 1:1 in the "BEGINNING" have to do with Deuteronomy 6:4? it establish the "LORD" .... as in Isaiah 44:6 as the "FIRST" who is "GOD" in Genesis 1:1. do you follow so far?
see, in Isaiah 44:6 you clain that "LORD" the King of Israel is not the same one person as the REDEEMER, who is the "LORD"... hello, of hosts. well that ignorance at it's best. for the REDEEMER is the SAVIOUR. and the Saviour is GOD who is the "FIRST". lets see it in scriptures. listen and LEARN, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you." is this not the Lord JESUS who saves us? yes, because he SAVED us, and Listen as to who the saviour is, "behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you."
NOW is the REDEEMER, and the SAVIOUR is the SAME ONE "PERSON", the "LORD?", let the bible tell us. Isaiah 49:26 "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob."
Towerwatchman, did you here "GOD?" if you didn't listen again, "I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer"
did you see the word, "THY" saviour, and "THY" Redeemer, as in Isaiah 44:6, "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
his is in reference to Jacob, Israel, .... HIS REDEEMER, is "THY", (Jacob, Israel), REDEEMER. it is Jacob, Israel who is being redeemed.
but the the scripture that sank your boat is Isaiah 49:26, "I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob".
yes, the SAME ONE "LORD" who is GOD, in Deuteronomy 6:4. the same ONE "GOD" who who came and REDEEMED, and SAVE us from our sins. (Isaiah 35:4), the SAME ONE "LORD" in Isaiah 49:26, "I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer"
can you see now? that the LORD is Saviour, and Redeemer, the same One person.
and who is he the saviour and redeemer of? listen, "I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob"
Jacob? is this what I told you before? .......... yes, you need to READ my motto below. and re-read it so more.......YIKES!.
PICJAG, 101G.
PS, now how do we say "MOTTO?".... just READ BELOW, and LEARN.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
That was not your question. It was "I am still waiting for concrete documentation of there being a Son of God before the Word became flesh?
As to Jesus, we do.
Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
Place 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 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 the cognitive ability to freely choose, otherwise known as free will, which originates from a center of consciousness. And note, Jesus as a center of consciousness who possesses free will and cognitive ability is considering equality with a separate being from Himself [God].
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Again in the arena where truth is established, a court of law = Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a case.
All inquiries and examinations of truth, including historical investigations, have their own unique deficiencies. Either the evidence is sufficient or it is not. Jurors cannot dwell on what might have been or what could have been done unless they have evidence and a good reason to believe that the truth was lost along the way. Juries cannot assume that there is a better explanation, other than the one offered by the prosecution simply because they were imperfections in the case, reasonable doubt must be established with evidence. In a similar way, skeptics cannot reject the reasonable in furtherance is from the evidence we do have, simply because they may possibly some evidence we don't have, skeptics also need to defend their doubt. [Cold Case Christiantiy}
Now in all fairness, you have not posted anything that supports your position. In a court of law, you would have lost. Personal opinions are not universal truths.
Yahchristian
Well-known member
So which noun are you referring to as “GOD”?
1) first center of consciousness
2) second center of consciousness
3) third center of consciousness
4) the being
5) the divine nature
6) other, please explain
In other words, which noun goes in this blank?
“How can Jesus’ blood be __________’s blood? Simple Jesus is God."
And which noun goes in this blank?
“How can Jesus’ blood be God’s blood? Simple Jesus is __________."
And you have not posted anything a jury would believe that the Son existed before the Word became flesh. And I can clearly demonstrate without any controversy that there was a Son of God after the Word became flesh.
This has been explained and the men have to talk in the present tense when discussing Jesus. Or they could not have said let this mind be in you which was also in the Word who being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.
Last edited:
It is saying that only after they seen him is there a Son of God. Show me where they are talking about him being the Son before the Word became flesh?
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Only after The Word became a Man is The Word RECOGNIZED as The Son of God. Existence is NOT in view in 1:14,18, ONLY IDENTITY.
The identity of who? If you say Jesus you have to do more than say it means it is Jesus who was the Word and instead prove it is Jesus?
Yes.
I say yes and no.
I would say a different ie "neo-"person … but …
Yes the same person in as far as being the same God, ... comparative to a man and his distinctive conscience being the same man. … But definitely two persons between God and the born/resurrected Jesus, yet the same God.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
This always seems to be the problem when someone is trying to prove the existence of X. Once sufficient evidence has been provided, the opposition says it's insufficient. How do we resolve it? I've always proposed to follow the same methods used in the courts of law. Identify direct and indirect evidence, imaginary, probable or reasonable doubt, what is a reliable witness, what are reliable documents, and as to evidence, when enough is enough.
In a court of law, you would lose your case. Instead of defending a positive thesis ‘there is evidence that the Son of God did not exist before the Word became flesh", you want the neutral position ‘no direct evidence that states the Son existed before the Word became flesh. Basically avoiding the implication of defending the claim, sitting on the fence claiming to have no burden of proof, while insisting that the bar be set high and asking for explicit justification for belief in such a statement.
For a moment let's envision this debate in a court of law.
TWM = presents circumstantial Scriptural evidence that Jesus is the Logos, internally the verses do not disagree with each other but support each other, and as more and more are accumulated builds a powerful collection of scripture that points to only one conclusion. = Jesus is the Logos in John 1:1.
Nathan= states he has doubt because there is no explicit or direct evidence that Jesus is not the Logos before the incarnation.
BTW In a court of law, the jury is instructed to filter out imaginary doubt and probable doubt from reasonable doubt. Also, reasonable doubt requires evidence.
What would the judge rule?
In the real world, the judge would rule on the side that presents evidence that strongly supports their evidence. "I doubt it judge" carries no weight in the real world.
Now some people live in an imaginary world in which they think it operates as they see fit.
Really? Do you know the difference between present and past tense? If you are correct I should not find anything in the past tense in the following passage.
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it [b]robbery to be equal with God, 7 but [c]made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Note the text in bold past tense. vs 6-10 past events, vs 10 present or future events.
Now again, can you seriously address the previous post?
Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
Place 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 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 the cognitive ability to freely choose, otherwise known as free will, which originates from a center of consciousness. And note, Jesus as a center of consciousness who possesses free will and cognitive ability is considering equality with a separate being from Himself [God].
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Notice the bad argument.
"It is saying that only after they seen him [Jesus] is there a Son of God. Show me where they are talking about him [Jesus] being the Son before the Word became flesh?
It is still Jesus, is it not? Call me A, and then after event C, call me B. Is it a fact, that since I am not identified as B before event C I do not exist before event C, or that I cannot be identified as A and B after event C?
I would say the second distinction's ie Jesus' blood is God's ie the being's blood. ...
Jesus ie the 2nd distinction is God ie the being.
It can not be Jesus because the only one identified as being with God is the Word.
I would win in a court of law because I have concrete evidence to prove my case and at court you provide only circumstantial evidence.