Does God have eyes?

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Yes, but since I believe the gospels were written to address more specific concerns than the gospel the risk of applying a specific remark to a general situation or a general remark to a specific situation is a reason to be careful about the application of one to the other.
Did you mean to say the gospels were written to address more specific concerns than the epistle? If so, I find that a wise way to interpret the gospels vs the epistles but since John wrote both, at least that is my current perception, then I think the concern would be lessened. Unless you think that John may have changed his understanding of what he meant by "Word" from the time between he wrote his gospel to the time he wrote his epistle.

That comment was intended for the two of you jointly, but I moved it to another place and forgot about it. The point was I appreciate having a conversation and not a molotov cocktail party. I have always found you to be a pleasant person to interact with.
Thanks. I think the same of you. I don't think others who name Christ as their savior take his words seriously. Mt 12:36. And that we are not to judge the eternal destiny of each another.
I'm honestly not sure. My conception would depend on the temporal location of "Christ" that we are discussing. During his incarnation, I have no reason why it must be different than that of a believer.
I'm sitting on the fence on this one. I'm not sure if God is indwelling Christ or IS Christ or both. I believe both, that Christ is God and that God (the Father) indwells in Christ, but not sure which one these verse in Colossians are describing.
Perhaps. But the more natural way to express that in Col. 1:19, I would think, would be to use the present infinitive κατοικεῖν to show that God was still dwelling in Christ rather than the aorist infinitive κατοικῆσαι. That's what I was trying to say in the other thread.
ok
I am, too, but I don't anticipate an answer on this side of the valley.
I'm not sure what the limit it to what our human minds can grasp of God. Romans 11:33
Maybe He will surprise you if you search and seek him with fervency. He answered my fervent request about the doctrine of the trinity.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
You've yet to prove that there is any problem. "o theos" is the title of the Father in the NT, who is YHWH, unless contextually or grammatically differentiated (e.g. John 10:34-36).
Theos is a title applied to any idol or entity that serves as God. Zeus is also Theos in the Greek language. YHWH is the name of the Hebrew Theos/ God
I don't think such a distinction is made out as these are not severable with respect to Jn 1:1. However I have clearly been emphasizing the text.
You are focused on what you think and what you don't think. But not on what the scripture means.
You quarreled with "the word is God, understand?"
The scripture does not say "the word is God"
Certainly one could take issue with this usage of the present tense (viz. "The Word is God") because the bible makes clear that the "Word was God" (imperfect), which equates to a state of affairs arising in the eternal past without reference to any human being.
This brings us to the point of Jesus a human being, being called God.
In the transposition of the imperfect to the present, today's false prophets can augment their authority by dint of naively misappropriating Jn 1:1c to themselves. Here "the Word is God" transposes to "They themselves are de facto God" just because they assert themselves as ministers of the Word of God (e.g. like Mahomet who by asserting himself as the prophet of God and by misappropriating to himself the sentiment of "The Word is God" made himself out to be, and became, the de facto God of the Arabians).
The Jews had the same notion when Jesus said he is the son of God. They claimed that he was saying that he is God. Jesus flatly denied it...
John 10:36
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Therefore, and for the suppression of cults of every variety, it is necessary to preserve the imperfect in Jn 1:1c to differentiate "the Word" from mere human beings (whereas the Logos of God, i.e. the risen Christ, continues to have the same status as before - Rev 19:13, John 6:62, Dan 7:13,14 etc).
That is not suppressing cults in fact it is forming cults. Notice , true worshippers, worship the father...
John 4:23
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Conversely, beyond the dangerous manipulation of verb tense. I see it it as lexically and theologically dangerous to deny that the validity of the English translation the "Word was God" just because it is almost impossible to come up with a better simple translation within the confines of the English language, although one can qualify any translation by annotations of the Greek text.
I see it as more dangerous since the Word is definitely referring to the son of God and not his father.
Ergo, IMO, no-one is going to help themselves by arbitrarily repudiating, without more, the validity of the translation "The Word was God."
In other words, you are comfortable with "Jesus was God", making Jesus his own father.
I agree, but theos does not have one referent in Greek, but carries different connotations and meanings within scripture depending on context and grammar. Theos can also be used both in a titular sense, and in a non titular sense (e.g. when it is used with pronouns cf. John 20:28 - which is a subtlety that few grasp).
That changes everything when one considers the fact that the author specifically emphasizes in two places the Word was with another entity. And the Word alone was made flesh. The other entity was not made flesh. The Word was known as the son of God, not the other entity. Since we do not believe in two Gods /YHWHs. We must conclude that the Word who was with YHWH is not YHWH himself but the Word/Son of YHWH
I agree. Thus in Ps 45:6, I have offered wondered why Elohim is translated "God" when it seems to have been directed to a mere human being. "God" here comes from the LXX and "God" would never be used of a human being in English, although in the LXX era, "theos" was probably compatible with an application to human beings.
YHWH was referred to as Elohim in the OT. Elohim also translates to idols in the OT...Moses was referred to as an Elohim and also the Israelites were referred to as Elohim.
An alternative translation could be the English word "King" Gk: βασιλεὺς which has historically carried an implication of divine appoinment, at least amongst certain monarchs during the era of the English civil war.
Why would you want to do that with Elohim and not with Theos?
However the text suggests more than divine appointment: i.e. divine agency. Re the agents of YHWH: we know that the angel agents of YHWH assumed the YHWH title, and the human agents the Elohim title (Jesus implies as much in Jn 10:34-36), so it may be we have to accept that the biblical use of divine titles doesn't easily correlate with the English word "God."
The text also refers to YHWH as Elohim. Your argument is moot.
Such is true. Per the gospels, Jesus is of God and from God, which still falls with the meaning of the English word "divine."
Therefore Jesus is not God,
 

cjab

Well-known member
Theos is a title applied to any idol or entity that serves as God. Zeus is also Theos in the Greek language. YHWH is the name of the Hebrew Theos/ God
False in the mouth of Christ, and in the NT generally.

You are focused on what you think and what you don't think. But not on what the scripture means.
The scripture does not say "the word is God"
A negative is invalid without saying what scripture does say. Hence your assertion has no validity of any kind, and you would also have to prove scholarly credentials to maintain such a thing, which you have yet to adduce. (We don't take BS here.)

This brings us to the point of Jesus a human being, being called God.
Not a point I am interested in, as I don't "call "Jesus" God" and neither does scripture, even where I accept that the risen and ascended Christ now possesses God-like attributes.

The Jews had the same notion when Jesus said he is the son of God. They claimed that he was saying that he is God. Jesus flatly denied it...
John 10:36
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
This is an irrelevant digression which I will not respond to.

That is not suppressing cults in fact it is forming cults. Notice , true worshippers, worship the father...
John 4:23

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
It is not in the manner of forming cults to say that the best translation of Jn 1:1c is "The Word was God."

Even if the translation is imperfect: as I have already said, you have yet to give an alternative translation that betters it. Your critique therefore has no validity.

I see it as more dangerous since the Word is definitely referring to the son of God and not his father.
The Son of God is Jesus the man. Jesus the man did not exist in Jn 1:1, as it is referring to what was "in the beginning" and THERE IS ONLY ONE BEGINNING (cf. Rev 3:14) that relates to the heavenly version of Jesus [i.e. the Word]. And the bible does not say "the Word was the Son of God."

Adoptionism is heresy (and has been from the days of Cerinthus). Sorry.

In other words, you are comfortable with "Jesus was God", making Jesus his own father.
I think you know perfectly well that I maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.
That changes everything when one considers the fact that the author specifically emphasizes in two places the Word was with another entity. And the Word alone was made flesh. The other entity was not made flesh. The Word was known as the son of God, not the other entity. Since we do not believe in two Gods /YHWHs. We must conclude that the Word who was with YHWH is not YHWH himself but the Word/Son of YHWH
Which is why I have justly criticized you for apparently knowing no Greek grammar. You would not make this self-evident and irrelevant argument if you understood my grammatical position (and the position of others such as Prof. C Caragounis - a Greek speaker) i.e. that [anathrous - predicate] theos has a different contextual meaning to [definite] theos in the Greek, which is a title of the Father. Really you should study some Greek, because you're not yet able to sensibly converse with me on this point.

YHWH was referred to as Elohim in the OT. Elohim also translates to idols in the OT...Moses was referred to as an Elohim and also the Israelites were referred to as Elohim.

Why would you want to do that with Elohim and not with Theos?
Because Elohim is acknowledged to be used of human rulers to whom the word of God came. If Jesus was "The King of the Jews" on this account, so also could these mighty rulers/prophets be described as (minor) kings (in the kingdom of God) cf. "kings and priests to serve our God" - Rev 5:10.

As for theos, I'm not particularly interested, because the only issue is where theos is used to translate Elohim, and not where theos is used in its primary sense. In other words "theos" is pretty irrelevant in quotations from the OT - we can go straight to the Hebrew for the authentic sense.


The text also refers to YHWH as Elohim. Your argument is moot.

Therefore Jesus is not God,
"Jesus is not God" is a completely different argument to whether "The Word is [anarthrous] God."

I'm just sorry that you haven't yet grasped that there a world of difference between the two statements "Jesus is God" and "The Word is God." This is why I recommend you do some serious study on this issue before you lecture people that "The Word is not God" because this could be a very serious issue for the validity of your faith.
 
Last edited:

Newbirth

Well-known member
False in the mouth of Christ, and in the NT generally.
Are you saying Jesus and the NT are generally false?
A negative is invalid without saying what scripture does say.
But, it is valid here, unless you don't know that I was referring to what you wrote.
cjab said:
You quarreled with "the word is God, understand?"
Hence your assertion has no validity of any kind, and you would also have to prove scholarly credentials to maintain such a thing, which you have yet to adduce.
It is not an assertion it is a fact. I don't have to prove scholarly credentials to maintain anything. The scripture does not say "the Word is God"
(We don't take BS here.)
It is not my problem that you don't take yourself here.
Not a point I am interested in, as I don't "call "Jesus" God" and neither does scripture, even where I accept that the risen and ascended Christ now possesses God-like attributes.
But you agree that Jesus is the Word and you are supporting the Word is God.
This is an irrelevant digression which I will not respond to.
How is it irrelevant that Jesus said he is the son of God? You will not respond because you don't have a response.
It is not in the manner of forming cults to say that the best translation of Jn 1:1c is "The Word was God."
Yes, it is. Do you not agree that Jesus is the Word? Do you not agree that the same Jesus is the son of God? Do you not agree that God is the father of Jesus? If you believe those things and still believe Jesus was God at some point then you must also agree that Jesus was his own father.
Even if the translation is imperfect: as I have already said, you have yet to give an alternative translation that betters it. Your critique therefore has no validity.
I don't have to give anything sir. Based on the information saying Jesus is the son of God I cannot conclude thatJesus was somehow his own father.
The Son of God is Jesus the man.
Is there another Jesus? Was not the Word made flesh?
Jesus the man did not exist in Jn 1:1, as it is referring to what was "in the beginning" and THERE IS ONLY ONE BEGINNING (cf. Rev 3:14) that relates to the heavenly version of Jesus [i.e. the Word].
Are you trying to say that Jesus did not exist as a man in the beginning? Don't be afraid to say it that way. But the nonsense about Jesus the man implies another Jesus who is not a man.
And the bible does not say "the Word was the Son of God."
No, it does not. But it does say the Word was made flesh ...
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Adoptionism is heresy (and has been from the days of Cerinthus). Sorry.
I never mentioned adoptionism.
I think you know perfectly well that I maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.
I am not sure what you maintain hence the reason for the discussion. If you maintain that Jesus is the logos/word made flesh then Jesus was not God
Which is why I have justly criticized you for apparently knowing no Greek grammar. You would not make this self-evident and irrelevant argument if you understood my grammatical position (and the position of others such as Prof. C Caragounis - a Greek speaker) i.e. that [anathrous - predicate] theos has a different contextual meaning to [definite] theos in the Greek, which is a title of the Father. Really you should study some Greek, because you're not yet able to sensibly converse with me on this point.
You are justifying yourself, that does not count. If you want to support grammar that is up to you. God / Theos refers to any Supernatural being in Greek of which there are many. There is no special title set aside for YHWH in the Greek language.
Because Elohim is acknowledged to be used of human rulers to whom the word of God came. If Jesus was "The King of the Jews" on this account, so also could these mighty rulers/prophets be described as (minor) kings (in the kingdom of God) cf. "kings and priests to serve our God" - Rev 5:10.
And there it is...the translators you support translated Elohim as God. Why are you not reading Jn 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was king? In the OT YHWH was referred to as Elohim but his name is YHWH
As for theos, I'm not particularly interested, because the only issue is where theos is used to translate Elohim, and not where theos is used in its primary sense.
You are not interested because Theos is also used to refer to YHWH.
In other words "theos" is pretty irrelevant in quotations from the OT - we can go straight to the Hebrew for the authentic sense.
How is it irrelevant when Theos is used to refer to YHWH and the devil in the NT?
"Jesus is not God" is a completely different argument to whether "The Word is [anarthrous] God."
Nonsense Jesus is the Word made flesh. It is one argument.
I'm just sorry that you haven't yet grasped that there a world of difference between the two statements "Jesus is God" and "The Word is God."
There is no difference. Was the Word made flesh?
This is why I recommend you do some serious study on this issue before you lecture people that "The Word is not God" because this could be a very serious issue for the validity of your faith.
I recommend that you pray that God gives you understanding. You are trusting your own understanding...
 

cjab

Well-known member
Are you saying Jesus and the NT are generally false?
You fail to distinguish between theos used as a title (with the definite article and otherwise contextually and gammatically unqualified) and theos used as a noun (with or without the article). As a mere noun (not as a title - as you wrongly suggested) theos can be applied to anything serving as an idol god, or with God-like properties (i.e. the Word Jn 1:1, the prophets Jn 10:34-36 or even the risen Christ Jn 20:28) but as a title (unqualified - definite article unless the focus is on the power/wisdom of God), theos is restricted to the Father.

But, it is valid here, unless you don't know that I was referring to what you wrote.
cjab said:
You quarreled with "the word is God, understand?"
It is never valid to deny something without offering an alternative version of truth. You cannot just deny "The Word was God."

It is not an assertion it is a fact. I don't have to prove scholarly credentials to maintain anything. The scripture does not say "the Word is God"
Scripture says: Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (God was the Word) where the emphasis is on God, but in English this is not valid as it doesn't reflect the anarthrous-predicate-non-titular-noun usage of Θεὸς. Hence it is best translated as "The Word was God" annotated by the focus being on the power/wisdom of God with respect to creation).

Again, what is your grammatical/lexical objection?

It is not my problem that you don't take yourself here.

But you agree that Jesus is the Word and you are supporting the Word is God.
Jesus and the Word are properly names/titles that reflect different jurisdictions. Jesus the man had limited God-like properties. The Word although the same "person" / identity as Jesus has much enchanced God-like properties - see Revelation 1 and John 17:5 etc.

How is it irrelevant that Jesus said he is the son of God? You will not respond because you don't have a response.
The "son" is a human being. The Word is not a human being. You can't advance the Word in heaven as having specifically human/flesh attributes when there is nothing to suggest it in Jn 1:1ff.

Yes, it is. Do you not agree that Jesus is the Word?
The Logos "became" Jesus. There was a transposition. As an identity statement, it is true.

Do you not agree that the same Jesus is the son of God? Do you not agree that God is the father of Jesus? If you believe those things and still believe Jesus was God at some point then you must also agree that Jesus was his own father.
Your logic is flawed because the Word is a title for what is in heaven but Jesus a name for what existed on earth. There was a kenosis. The Word was stripped of its heavenly God-like attributes but not its identity nor such God-like attributes as were consistent with being in the earth's jurisdiction (which reflect the identity of Word). This is why Jesus was a human being.

I don't have to give anything sir. Based on the information saying Jesus is the son of God I cannot conclude thatJesus was somehow his own father.
Straw man.

Is there another Jesus? Was not the Word made flesh?
"made" being the operative word, and where "God" is not titular but used as a mere noun in Jn 1:1c.

Are you trying to say that Jesus did not exist as a man in the beginning? Don't be afraid to say it that way. But the nonsense about Jesus the man implies another Jesus who is not a man.
"The beginning" refers to the beginning of creation (cf. Gen 1:1). Failure to recognize the parallel between Gen 1:1 and Jn 1:1 is eisegesis.

No, it does not. But it does say the Word was made flesh ...
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Emphasis is on "Word was made flesh".

I never mentioned adoptionism.
It's implied in everything you say.

I am not sure what you maintain hence the reason for the discussion. If you maintain that Jesus is the logos/word made flesh then Jesus was not God
Heaven is not earth (they are even distinguished in the Lord's prayer).

Was Jesus ever called "the Logos" on earth? No. On earth he is properly denoted as the Son of God, in heaven he is properly denoted as the Logos. However we learn that even in heaven, the Logos now bears the name Jesus.

The ascended Son is denoted as in heaven, and the Logos as made flesh. Recognition must always be given to the fundamentally different jurisdictions that these titles relate to.

To say "Jesus is not God" is strictly to make a statement about Jesus the man to the exclusion of the risen Jesus (cf. Jn 1:1c). I suspect this is why The words God and Jesus are not associated with each other. To make such an association is very confusing because it sows endless jurisdictional confusion. So now: Jesus is Lord, the Father is God, is surely the NT convention (excluding some noteworthy idiosyncrasies as James 3:9 in some manuscripts).

You are justifying yourself, that does not count. If you want to support grammar that is up to you. God / Theos refers to any Supernatural being in Greek of which there are many. There is no special title set aside for YHWH in the Greek language.
You incorrect. The New Testament is not like pagan literature. There is no titular "God" in pagan literature (unless it is Zeus) I would conjecture. However in the NT and in the LXX there is a titular God - the Father/YHWH.

And there it is...the translators you support translated Elohim as God. Why are you not reading Jn 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was king? In the OT YHWH was referred to as Elohim but his name is YHWH
Because the Word is in heaven, and "king" relates only to the jurisdiction of the earth. This is why Jesus is "King of the Jews" but not "[the] God of the Jews."

You are not interested because Theos is also used to refer to YHWH.
Of course theos refers to YHWH. Titular theos is YHWH.

How is it irrelevant when Theos is used to refer to YHWH and the devil in the NT?
As I have said above, theos can function as a noun and as a title. As a noun, suitably qualified, it is contextually applicable to false gods. As a title, it denotes the Father alone. As a title, theos commonly carries the article, but there are well documented grammatical exceptions, and some noteworthy contextual exceptions e.g. where the power/wisdom of the Father is being prioritized over the person of the Father (e.g. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" - 2 Corinthians 5:19).

Nonsense Jesus is the Word made flesh. It is one argument.

There is no difference. Was the Word made flesh?

I recommend that you pray that God gives you understanding. You are trusting your own understanding...
I find your arguments deeply flawed. As I have said, you need to learn some Greek in order to progress. There is only so far that you can go in English. To deny that the Word was God is an excommunicable offence in most Christian circles; and you have not provided any other translation, or a better translation.
 
Last edited:

Newbirth

Well-known member
You fail to distinguish between theos used as a title (with the definite article and otherwise contextually and gammatically unqualified) and theos used as a noun (with or without the article).
That is your argument sir. My argument is that Theos is used to refer to the devil, idols, Jesus, and YHWH. It is up to you to believe they are all Gods.
As a mere noun (not as a title - as you wrongly suggested) theos can be applied to anything serving as an idol god, or with God-like properties (i.e. the Word Jn 1:1, the prophets Jn 10:34-36 or even the risen Christ Jn 20:28) but as a title (unqualified - definite article unless the focus is on the power/wisdom of God), theos is restricted to the Father.
This is where semantics comes in, you should look up 2 Cor 4:4.
It is never valid to deny something without offering an alternative version of truth. You cannot just deny "The Word was God."
Why not? The Word was God tells me that the word Jesus, was God his father. That is contrary to the rest of the scripture which teaches that Jesus is the son of God.
Scripture says: Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος (God was the Word) where the emphasis is on God, but in English this is not valid as it doesn't reflect the anarthrous-predicate-non-titular-noun usage of Θεὸς. Hence it is best translated as "The Word was God" annotated by the focus being on the power/wisdom of God with respect to creation).
That changes nothing, it just makes God his son Jesus. While the rest of the scripture teaches that God is the father of Jesus.
Again, what is your grammatical/lexical objection?
2Cor 4:4... The same Greek word is used to refer to the devil (god of this world) and God the father of Jesus Christ.
Jesus and the Word are properly names/titles that reflect different jurisdictions. Jesus the man had limited God-like properties.
But the same Jesus. A doctor who goes home to his family at the end of the day to be a dad and a husband is not a different person.
The Word although the same "person" / identity as Jesus has much enchanced God-like properties - see Revelation 1 and John 17:5 etc.
What is the point of that argument? You just conceded that it is the same person.
The "son" is a human being. The Word is not a human being. You can't advance the Word in heaven as having specifically human/flesh attributes when there is nothing to suggest it in Jn 1:1ff.
The body(human being) is just a tabernacle for the Word. Your argument is suggesting two different persons. The scripture the Word was made flesh. So for you to assume anyone is saying that the word in heaven was flesh would be your misunderstanding.
The Logos "became" Jesus. There was a transposition. As an identity statement, it is true.
Therefore the Logos of God became... Jesus the son of God.
Your logic is flawed because the Word is a title for what is in heaven but Jesus a name for what existed on earth.
Your understanding is flawed since they are one and the same. A title or name does not make a different person. You were a baby before you became an adult. That which was in heaven came down to earth.
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
There was a kenosis. The Word was stripped of its heavenly God-like attributes but not its identity nor such God-like attributes as were consistent with being in the earth's jurisdiction (which reflect the identity of Word).
In essence, you are saying that The Word was a God who was stripped of its heavenly God-like attributes. So exactly how many Gods do you have?
This is why Jesus was a human being.
Jesus was a human being because he was born of a woman.
Straw man.
How is that a strawman? Where is the evidence of the validity of that statement?
"made" being the operative word, and where "God" is not titular but used as a mere noun in Jn 1:1c.
These were the questions...Based on this passage...not Jn 1;1 c
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(1)Is there another Jesus?
(2) Was not the Word made flesh?
"The beginning" refers to the beginning of creation (cf. Gen 1:1). Failure to recognize the parallel between Gen 1:1 and Jn 1:1 is eisegesis.
Why do you keep dodging the questions? I asked ...Are you trying to say that Jesus did not exist as a man in the beginning? It is not a trick question, I don't believe Jesus was a man in the beginning either.
cjab said:
Jesus the man did not exist in Jn 1:1, as it is referring to what was "in the beginning" and THERE IS ONLY ONE BEGINNING (cf. Rev 3:14) that relates to the heavenly version of Jesus [i.e. the Word].
Emphasis is on "Word was made flesh".
Emphasis is on who we saw him as...
It's implied in everything you say.
that would be your opinion. so provide the evidence.
Heaven is not earth (they are even distinguished in the Lord's prayer).
I never said heaven is earth.
Was Jesus ever called "the Logos" on earth? No.
Is this close enough?
On earth he is properly denoted as the Son of God, in heaven he is properly denoted as the Logos. However we learn that even in heaven, the Logos now bears the name Jesus.
The scripture is written for people on earth Jesus is referred to as the Logos in the scripture. And you just concede that the Logos is Jesus. So what is the point of the argument?
The ascended Son is denoted as in heaven, and the Logos as made flesh. Recognition must always be given to the fundamentally different jurisdictions that these titles relate to.
It is the same person regardless of title or jurisdiction.
To say "Jesus is not God" is strictly to make a statement about Jesus the man to the exclusion of the risen Jesus (cf. Jn 1:1c).
The risen Jesus is not God, and neither did Jesus die to become God. To say Jesus is God is to assume that God died.
I suspect this is why The words God and Jesus are not associated with each other.
That is because Jesus is not God, bot God and Jesus are associated as Father and son.
To make such an association is very confusing because it sows endless jurisdictional confusion.
How so? The association is written in the scripture. Jesus is the son of God.
So now: Jesus is Lord, the Father is God, is surely the NT convention (excluding some noteworthy idiosyncrasies as James 3:9 in some manuscripts).
Therefore Jesus the Word is not God...
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
You incorrect. The New Testament is not like pagan literature.
You are funny...Greek is a pagan language.
There is no titular "God" in pagan literature (unless it is Zeus) I would conjecture.
There are many Gods in pagan Greek...Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Hestia and Demeter, Hades to name a few.
However in the NT and in the LXX there is a titular God - the Father/YHWH.
There is also a god of this world...2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Because the Word is in heaven, and "king" relates only to the jurisdiction of the earth. This is why Jesus is "King of the Jews" but not "[the] God of the Jews."
So is Jesus the God of anyone? In order for the statement, The Word is God to be true as you claim, Jesus the Word must be God of something.
Of course theos refers to YHWH. Titular theos is YHWH.
The same exact word also refers to the god of this world referring to the devil.
As I have said above, theos can function as a noun and as a title.
That is nonsense, there is no place where Theos is used not to refer to god as a title of authority. Grammar cannot replace or override context The Hebrew equivalent for Theos would be Elohim. Moses was referred to as an Elohim and YHWH is referred to as an Elohim. Idols and false gods are also referred to as Elohim. In the NT they would all be referred to as Theos with minor differences in spelling depending on the context.
As a noun, suitably qualified, it is contextually applicable to false gods.
Semantics
As a title, it denotes the Father alone.
So a title is not a noun?
the "god of this world" is a title for the devil...

As a title, theos commonly carries the article, but there are well documented grammatical exceptions, and some noteworthy contextual exceptions e.g. where the power/wisdom of the Father is being prioritized over the person of the Father (e.g. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" - 2 Corinthians 5:19).
That does not help your position...If God was in Christ it follows that God is not Christ. Else God in you would make you God. Therefore the Word was God cannot be a proper translation.
I find your arguments deeply flawed.
One can find anything they want to find in their imagination.
As I have said, you need to learn some Greek in order to progress.
As I said you need to get some understanding from God.
There is only so far that you can go in English. To deny that the Word was God is an excommunicable offence in most Christian circles; and you have not provided any other translation, or a better translation.
Who cares what Christian circles think? God did not call them to be Christians, you guys are struggling to become something that god never asked you to become.. You know and agree that the Word / Jesus is not God but you stand by a translation that says The Word/ Jesus was God because you are afraid of being excommunicated.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You are funny...Greek is a pagan language.
It originated as one. By the era of the NT, it has been in use amongst the Jews for a considerable time (Koine Greek). Koine is not quite the same at Epic (Homeric) or Attic. One of the changes amongst the Jews was the use of theos as a title of YHWH. The Jewish philosopher Philo used the philosophical Logos to denote "the first-born of God."

There are many Gods in pagan Greek...Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Hestia and Demeter, Hades to name a few.

There is also a god of this world...2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

So is Jesus the God of anyone? In order for the statement, The Word is God to be true as you claim, Jesus the Word must be God of something.
Your argument entails endless confusion between heaven and earth. The Logos of God is a heavenly, not a fleshly concept. Jesus was a man of the flesh.

The same exact word also refers to the god of this world referring to the devil.
Contextually differentiated.

That is nonsense, there is no place where Theos is used not to refer to god as a title of authority. Grammar cannot replace or override context The Hebrew equivalent for Theos would be Elohim. Moses was referred to as an Elohim and YHWH is referred to as an Elohim. Idols and false gods are also referred to as Elohim. In the NT they would all be referred to as Theos with minor differences in spelling depending on the context.
Irrelevant. Theos can be used as a noun or as a title.

Semantics

So a title is not a noun?
the "god of this world" is a title for the devil...
....but not the same title as "the God". Within the phrase, "god of this world" theos is used as a noun, not as a title.

That does not help your position...If God was in Christ it follows that God is not Christ. Else God in you would make you God. herefore the Word was God cannot be a proper translation.
Stop imputing to me the falsehood that I aver the Christ as "God." Christ was a man, and a man is not God.

One can find anything they want to find in their imagination.

As I said you need to get some understanding from God.

Who cares what Christian circles think? God did not call them to be Christians, you guys are struggling to become something that god never asked you to become.. You know and agree that the Word / Jesus is not God but you stand by a translation that says The Word/ Jesus was God because you are afraid of being excommunicated.
You slander/misrepresent me by imputing grotesquely false positions that i do not hold, by reason of always confounding the jurisdictions of heaven and earth. Until you desist from this, there is no point in continuing a debate.

I don't care that I am excommunicated by High Trinitarians/Sabellians. But denying the Word (in heaven) as God (possessed of the wisdom and power of God) is to (1) repudiate apostolic teaching e.g. in 1 Cor 8:6, and (2) to make Christ out to be not the begotten Son of God, but a mere man, like you or me.

What is your faith based on? Stop masquerading your incongruities and shallow understanding of scripture behind your abusive critique of others; otherwise you will be consigned to "mockers and scoffers" category on the day of judgement.
 
Last edited:

Newbirth

Well-known member
It originated as one.
Then it is one.
By the era of the NT, it has been in use amongst the Jews for a considerable time (Koine Greek).
Just because the Jews use something pagan does not make it not pagan.
Koine is not quite the same at Epic (Homeric) or Attic.
Who cares ? It is still pagan.
One of the changes amongst the Jews was the use of theos as a title of YHWH.
That is like putting a Benz logo on a Ford and calling it a Benz
The Jewish philosopher Philo used the philosophical Logos to denote "the first-born of God."
That does not make a pagan language not pagan
Your argument entails endless confusion between heaven and earth.
It is not my fault that you are confused.
The Logos of God is a heavenly, not a fleshly concept. Jesus was a man of the flesh.
The logos was made flesh. What part of the Logos was made flesh do you not understand? The flesh is an earthly concept therefore the Logos was made an earthly concept.
Contextually differentiated.
How so? In both cases they refer to rulers of worlds.
Irrelevant. Theos can be used as a noun or as a title.
Theos can be used as a noun or as a title for any god, it is not exclusive to YHWH as a title.
....but not the same title as "the God". Within the phrase, "god of this world" theos is used as a noun, not as a title.
Which title is not a noun? The God of this world is Satan. The God of heaven is YHWH.
Stop imputing to me the falsehood that I aver the Christ as "God." Christ was a man, and a man is not God.
The Word Logos was made flesh was he not? Therefore Christ is the Word / Logos made flesh. You are arguing that the Logos? Word is God is a correct translation. Are you not?
You slander/misrepresent me by imputing grotesquely false positions that i do not hold, by reason of always confounding the jurisdictions of heaven and earth. Until you desist from this, there is no point in continuing a debate.
What misrepresentation? You affirm that Jesus is the Logos and you affirm that the Logos is God is the best translation. Here is your position
"Jesus is not God" is a completely different argument to whether "The Word is [anarthrous] God."

I'm just sorry that you haven't yet grasped that there a world of difference between the two statements "Jesus is God" and "The Word is God." This is why I recommend you do some serious study on this issue before you lecture people that "The Word is not God" because this could be a very serious issue for the validity of your faith.
With one part of your mouth you are saying there a world of difference between the two statements "Jesus is God" and "The Word is God."
With the other part of your mouth you are saying Jesus is the Logos made flesh no more no less.
I think you know perfectly well that I maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.
That means you maintain there is no world of difference between the statement "Jesus is God" and "The Word is God, while maintaining there is a world of difference between the statement "Jesus is God" and "The Word is God.
I don't care that I am excommunicated by High Trinitarians/Sabellians. But denying the Word (in heaven) as God (possessed of the wisdom and power of God) is to (1) repudiate apostolic teaching e.g. in 1 Cor 8:6, and (2) to make Christ out to be not the begotten Son of God, but a mere man, like you or me.
If the word in heaven is God and his father is God, how many Gods do you have?
What is your faith based on?
My faith is based on God raising his son from the dead
Stop masquerading your incongruities and shallow understanding of scripture behind your abusive critique of others; otherwise you will be consigned to "mockers and scoffers" category on the day of judgement.
The scare tactic does not work on me. You exposed your double-mindedness...You maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.
But you also maintain there a world of difference between the two statements "Jesus is God" and "The Word is God.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You exposed your double-mindedness...You maintain that Jesus is the Logos made flesh: no more, and no less.
But you also maintain there a world of difference between the two statements "Jesus is God" and "The Word is God.
Forgive me, but I don't like the insolent tone of your posts and will not be responding further. If you can't see the harmony in the above (in heaven the Word is invested with the power and glory of God that the man Jesus did not possess), there is no point in further discussion. Of course in some sense, in the "King of the Jews" sense, Jesus was Lord or God's deputy on earth, cf. Thomas in John 20:28. However this is encapsulated in the idea of the Son of God, but which for you seems to be a concept without any clear definition.

I'm not wasting words on someone whose mind is closed and who masks their own idiosyncratic theology behind attacks on others.
 
Last edited:

Newbirth

Well-known member
Forgive me, but I don't like the insolent tone of your posts and will not be responding further.
You don't like that you are exposed.
If you can't see the harmony in the above (in heaven the Word is invested with the power and glory of God that the man Jesus did not possess), there is no point in further discussion.
This is a bible discussion forum...not your opinion discussion forum
Of course in some sense, in the "King of the Jews" sense, Jesus was Lord or God's deputy on earth, cf. Thomas in John 20:28. However this is encapsulated in the idea of the Son of God, but which for you seems to be a concept without any clear definition.
Stop dancing all over the place...the issue is The Logos /Word was God as a correct translation. You have to explain at what point The word was God and at what point he was not God...
I'm not wasting words on someone whose mind is closed and who masks their own idiosyncratic theology behind attacks on others.
Do as you please and run away, it's the only way you can deal with the truth.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You don't like that you are exposed.

This is a bible discussion forum...not your opinion discussion forum

Stop dancing all over the place...the issue is The Logos /Word was God as a correct translation. You have to explain at what point The word was God and at what point he was not God...

Do as you please and run away, it's the only way you can deal with the truth.
There is no truth in you as you don't believe Jn1:1c.

Your arguments are human arguments and insubstantial hubris.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
There is no truth in you as you don't believe Jn1:1c.
How so? You say there is no truth in me because I believe Jesus is the son of God and not God? Jesus never said he was God. he said he was with god his father. He said God his father sent him. Do you believe Jesus sent himself?
Your arguments are human arguments and insubstantial hubris.
That would be your opinion. It does not affect the fact that Jesus is not or ever was YHWH his God
 

cjab

Well-known member
How so? You say there is no truth in me because I believe Jesus is the son of God and not God? Jesus never said he was God. he said he was with god his father. He said God his father sent him. Do you believe Jesus sent himself?
I said you don't believe Jn 1:1c (which doesn't mention "Jesus".)

That would be your opinion. It does not affect the fact that Jesus is not or ever was YHWH his God
I'm not disputing that the Father and YHWH are the same person. I'm disputing your inability to understand what the Word of God, the Logos, denotes in terms of being the ruler over all creation (Rev 3:14, Jn 1:1c).
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I'm not disputing that the Father and YHWH are the same person. I'm disputing your inability to understand what the Word of God, the Logos, denotes in terms of being the ruler over all creation (Rev 3:14, Jn 1:1c).

The Logos of John 1:1c is the word proclaimed by Jesus during his ministry. Jesus made God the Father known to the world and for that reason it says, "and the word was God." The Father spoke HIS words and did HIS works through this man of flesh and that is how Jesus made the Father known to the world. John sums up the same idea at verse 1:18. The word of God is the bread of God such that Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and finish His work." When we consume bread it becomes our flesh and so it was with Christ. The bread of God is the word of God and it became flesh because he consumed this bread by doing it, and as such, he became the embodiment of the word.

Of course, he himself explained all that in John 6.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The Logos of John 1:1c is the word proclaimed by Jesus during his ministry.
No it is not. That is mere fancy. There is nothing that identifies the Logos in Jn 1:1 with the words that Jesus spoke. Rather Jesus said "ὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν" (The words (rhēmata) that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life).

Jesus made God the Father known to the world and for that reason it says, "and the word was God."
This is again wrong. The knowledge of God is not "God" and the words of God are not "God."

The Father spoke HIS words and did HIS works through this man of flesh and that is how Jesus made the Father known to the world. John sums up the same idea at verse 1:18. The word of God is the bread of God such that Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and finish His work." When we consume bread it becomes our flesh and so it was with Christ. The bread of God is the word of God and it became flesh because he consumed this bread by doing it, and as such, he became the embodiment of the word.

Of course, he himself explained all that in John 6.
This does not make the Word of God, "God". There is nothing that can account for the idea excepting the Word united with the Father in heaven, per 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16, Rev 3:14.

There is, to my knowledge, not a single early church Father who agrees with you.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
No it is not. That is mere fancy.

Actually John spends the whole Gospel describing and explaining this fact.

There is nothing that identifies the Logos in Jn 1:1 with the words that Jesus spoke.

Read 1:1-5 and you will find that you are wrrong.

Rather Jesus said "ὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν" (The words (rhēmata) that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life).

That's nice but what did you miss?

This is again wrong. The knowledge of God is not "God" and the words of God are not "God."

A word makes something known. That is what a word does. Jesus made God known to us, the word was God.

This does not make the Word of God, "God".

Nobody said God and His word are equivalent things nor did John at 1:1c.

God's word makes God known to us. That is what a word does by definition - it makes something known.

There is nothing that can account for the idea excepting the Word united with the Father in heaven, per 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16, Rev 3:14.

That would be pure imagination and a complete disregard for John's explanation.

There is, to my knowledge, not a single early church Father who agrees with you.

So you are concerned about the approval of men rather than God?

John agrees. He explained what he meant. You just don't bother to look because you don't care.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Actually John spends the whole Gospel describing and explaining this fact.
No he does not: John 1:3 "πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν. (All things through him came into being and without him came into being not one thing that has come into being.)

This is not being spoken of an abstraction, but of a person,.

Read 1:1-5 and you will find that you are wrrong.



That's nice but what did you miss?
I missed nothing. We have the Logos of God, and the Spirit of God, and the Logos made flesh breathing the very words of God that are spirit.

You fail to distinguish the spiritual personification from the medium by which the personification works.

A word makes something known. That is what a word does. Jesus made God known to us, the word was God.
No. You cannot cast an abstraction as "God." Individual words are not "God." Your logical hurdle is that you may only cast God as God when you discount the Logos being a personification in heaven. You also fail to pick up that if angels could denote themselves as YHWH, then so too can the Logos be cast as God.

Nobody said God and His word are equivalent things nor did John at 1:1c.

God's word makes God known to us. That is what a word does by definition - it makes something known.
Jesus said, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit." Words are the medium by which the Spirit of God works. The giver of the words is Jesus or the Logos in heaven, the originator is the Father.

That would be pure imagination and a complete disregard for John's explanation.
What about John 17:5, 6:62?

So you are concerned about the approval of men rather than God?
We do have to wonder what church you belong to, if any. Remember that Paul and Jesus warned against false prophets. The apostles said "Follow us, not someone preaching strange doctrines." You can't maintain the illusion of orthodoxy based on repudiating what was handed down to those far closer to the apostles than you.

And you are an adoptionist. By your theology, Christ is not the only begotten of the Father. He is an adopted son, like any other son. He is not even the son of God at all, except in the traditional Israelite manner of conceiving YHWH as a Father. You make the very terminology of the NT out to be bogus.

John agrees. He explained what he meant. You just don't bother to look because you don't care.
You cannot account for Jn 1:1c except by casting the very words of Jesus as "God". Yet it is beyond dispute that the Logos is the name of a personification in heaven - see Rev 19:13. See Rev 20:4: the Word of God is what is given to men via this personficiation, who is the ascended Christ.

Moreover the Logos was with God in the beginning. If what you suggest is true as to the beginning being the beginning of the gospel, the teaching in Jn 1:1b would be "The Word was with Jesus."

You don't realize that you're not making any sense, and it is necessary for you to prove authority other than some 20th century radical unitarian.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
No he does not:

Yes he does. The entire Gospel explains his prologue.

John 1:3 "πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν. (All things through him came into being and without him came into being not one thing that has come into being.)

This is not being spoken of an abstraction, but of a person,.

Everything came to pass through the word.

And?

I missed nothing.

Yeah you did.

But you apparently don't want to know about it.

We have the Logos of God, and the Spirit of God, and the Logos made flesh breathing the very words of God that are spirit.

You fail to distinguish the spiritual personification from the medium by which the personification works.

I'm not interested in fabrications.

No. You cannot cast an abstraction as "God."

It isn't an abstraction.

Individual words are not "God."

The word expressed by Jesus was making God known to the world. That's what a word does - makes something known.

Beginning of Prologue: ... and the word was God 1:1
End of Prologue: the only begotten makes Him known 1:18

Elementary.

Your logical hurdle is that you may only cast God as God when you discount the Logos being a personification in heaven.

I have no such hurdle. This seems to be a fantasy of your own imaginations.

You also fail to pick up that if angels could denote themselves as YHWH, then so too can the Logos be cast as God.

That statement doesn't make any relevant sense whatsoever.

Jesus said, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit." Words are the medium by which the Spirit of God works. The giver of the words is Jesus or the Logos in heaven, the originator is the Father.

And God is spirit isn't He?

What about John 17:5, 6:62?


What about them?

We do have to wonder what church you belong to, if any. Remember that Paul and Jesus warned against false prophets.

Yes, I've noticed that you have learned from them.

The apostles said "Follow us, not someone preaching strange doctrines." You can't maintain the illusion of orthodoxy based on repudiating what was handed down to those far closer to the apostles than you.

Let me guess. The false prophets are whoever you decide you want them to be and the true prophets are whoever you want them to be.

That's pretty naive.
And you are an adoptionist. By your theology, Christ is not the only begotten of the Father.

Wrong again.

He is an adopted son, like any other son. He is not even the son of God at all, except in the traditional Israelite manner of conceiving YHWH as a Father. You make the very terminology of the NT out to be bogus.

You must be having a conversation with someone else in your imagination now.

You cannot account for Jn 1:1c except by casting the very words of Jesus as "God".

The word was God. A word makes something known. Jesus made God known.

It isn't difficult.

Yet it is beyond dispute that the Logos is the name of a personification in heaven

Well if that's what you want....... since what you want is all that matters, right?

- see Rev 19:13. See Rev 20:4: the Word of God is what is given to men via this personficiation, who is the ascended Christ.

He is the word at Revelation 19:13 because the word became flesh.

Moreover the Logos was with God in the beginning.

What beginning? Whatever beginning you want?

If what you suggest is true as to the beginning being the beginning of the gospel,

I said no such thing.

the teaching in Jn 1:1b would be "The Word was with Jesus."

No it wouldn't. The word was pros God the Father and the Father was abiding in Jesus and Jesus spoke the word of the Father.

It's all there in your Bible.

You don't realize that you're not making any sense, and it is necessary for you to prove authority other than some 20th century radical unitarian.

Well when you try and fit truth into your confused nonsense it will never make sense.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
I said you don't believe Jn 1:1c (which doesn't mention "Jesus".)
Do you agree that the Logos / Word is Jesus.../ or Is there another Jesus who was as not the Word/ Logos made flesh?
I'm not disputing that the Father and YHWH are the same person.
Read my post properly...That would be your opinion. It does not affect the fact that Jesus is not or ever was YHWH his God. I did not mention anything about the Father and YHWH is the same person here.
I'm disputing your inability to understand what the Word of God, the Logos, denotes in terms of being the ruler over all creation (Rev 3:14, Jn 1:1c).
Who are you disputing that with? I made no objections to Rev 3:14, and Jn 1:1 c is not a stand-alone passage.
 
Top