Are you saying the God here is not the Father?
Yes. In John 1:1 you have two beings, both called "God" being distinguished from each other.
No, my complaint is with your claim. You seem to be saying that Jesus was his Father.
No, you've imagined this. I've never claimed that Jesus was his own Father or anything like that.
Jesus said he came out from God. If we take Jesus to his word then it means before he came out from God he was in God...I suppose that is what Jn 1:1 is saying.
John 1:1 says that the word was with God. It doesn't say he "came out from God" or that "he was in God". Your suppositions are wrong.
It is. See:
So it is with "the Father" and "Jesus". Both can properly be called "God" even though they have separate identities.
Stop making false statements.
Here it is God recognizing a man and his wife as one flesh. It applies to my wife and me.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
It applies generically to husbands and wives, as I said, and it doesn't deny the individual identities of either the husband or the wife, as I said. It pertains to you if you are a man who has a wife or a wife who has a husband because those are the groups that are addressed which is also...just as I said.
I did not pre-suppose anything I said Jesus calls the father his God and bows down to him...where did God bow down to Jesus and call him God? you are presupposing that Jesus is his father.
No, I'm not. I don't know where you arrived at this conclusion, but it came from your imagination.
I read your post John did not record the words "Jesus is God"...
I know. I addressed this. Just like I predicted that you'd be unable to grasp this simple matter. I was right.
You said John recorded Jesus is God sir. If John recorded "Jesus is God" then I must see"Jesus is God"
No. By very fact that he applied the term "God" to Jesus, he called him God. I've explained this to you already.
According to your logic Mary is the mother of God.
There is no correlation to anything I've said and this remark.
It is not relevant it is a rabbit trail. The scripture is my evidence. I support my claims with the scripture.
You have denied sound reasoning in favor of meritless assumptions and conclusions. You still mistakenly believe lack of evidence is evidence and word-for-word statements are the only way to convey meaning.
My position is consistent...Jesus is not God,
This goes against scripture in John 1:1 and John 20:28 where Jesus is identified as "God". This is indisputable.
This at least is true.
Your question has nothing to do with the topic. You are trying to derail the discussion.
I showed you how ridiculous your position is. There is little doubt you must understand at least that much, because so you continue to dodge the question.
If you are going to say John recorded something then you must show the exact words that John recorded to be that something John recorded...
Sir, you started by saying John recorded the words but you did not produce the words.
I did. I even underlined them for you. Did the author use the word "God" in reference to Jesus? Yes, he did. That means the author called Jesus God.
So why ask me if I think he didn't? You keep making rabbit trails and when i don't follow them you are mad...That has nothing to do with the topic.
I'm not mad at you. I was trying to help you see how silly your position is. I feel sorry for you.
That is your opinion. It has nothing to do with the topic
You were given remediation. That was a fact. I thought you wouldn't grasp the remediation, that was my opinion. Now that you have shown that you didn't grasp the extra help, my former opinion is now fact. And all of that was relevant to our discussion. Your inability to understand why and how doesn't change that.
You have shown your opinion of what the text means... The text does not say Jesus is God.
It does, and I've told you why. The tactic that you are trying to use here is both logically unsound and intellectually dishonest. If I had been quoting what the text says, I would have put the passage in quotes and given it in Greek. Anything else is a paraphrase of the idea. You are trying to act as though my saying that John says that Jesus is God is the same as saying John said "Jesus is God".
So why do you not understand?
I do. You don't.
No, he wouldn't be God...Jesus said God the father gave him to have life in himself..in vs 27 he tells us he is a man...
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Ah yes, the old interpret-the-whole-book-by-isolated-passages-in-other-contexts technique. It is utterly ineffective when you are arguing that a word used to describe Jesus isn't used to describe Jesus. The word is there for anyone to see it for themselves.
that is your opinion John Milton you are trying your little tricks to go off on rabbit trails. but it won't work... Jn 5;25-27 blows a hole in your argument.
Whatever you say, Newbirth.