YHWH PIERCED = JESUS PIERCED

[Towerwatchman]

What can be more modifying than Jesus having a God?

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever… therefore God, your God, has anointed you”

Now let’s take a look at who is Jesus’ God who anointed him.

“The Spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me, because YHWH has anointed me”

So now that we have irrefutably confirmed that YHWH is Jesus’ God who anointed him we know for a fact that “God” is not used of Jesus as it is used of YHWH who, once again, does not and cannot have a God

Simple, the article being present or not has no bearing on whether it refers to YHWH. The fact is that θεος (with or without the article) refers to YHWH over 98% of the time in the NT.

When theos does not carry the definite article it could be translated as "God/YHWH" depending on the text. John 1:6,12,13 and 18 theos does not carry the definite article but is translated as God/YHWH based on the text.
When theos carries the definite article it always refers to God/YHWH with the exception of heavy modification identifying someone else.
The modification is a description of the noun clarifying who the noun is. Nothing you posted above qualifies as a modifier. You are re-defining the grammatical definition of modifier.
Note,
Acts 14:11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!”
Theos carries the definite article but based on the text [theos is plural] we can conclude its not theos/YHWH.

2 Cor. 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Theos carries the definite article 'of this age' modifies 'ho theos' and clarifies 'ho thoes' is referring to Satan.

Personification also applies to abstract qualities like we see in Prov. 8 where God’s wisdom is personified.

Red herring.
Re post.
Personification assets human characteristics onto an inanimate object to better describe it. Is the HS now considered an inanimate object if it is the spirit of God?

God’s spirit.

Read again.
Jn 14:26 But the [a]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you,
God exist as a Spirit. How does a spirit send His spirit. That would be the Father sending the Father. Your answer makes no sense unless God who is a spirit has another spirit to send.

Refer back to Heb. 1:8-9 where ό θεος refers to two different individuals, Jesus who has a God and YHWH who can’t have a God and is also the God of Jesus.

You just argued for two Gods.

So then Elohim must also best describe Dagon, the god of the Philistines. He must also have been a plurality and singularity.

Irrelevant. We are discussing YHWH who is described in multiple passages as plurality and singularity.

He was called God once, in Heb. 1:8 and the very next verse proves he is not YHWH.

Jesus is called God in several verses, but let's stick to Hebrews. You are arguing a minor point. You seem to insist that "therefore God your God" somehow proves Jesus is not God. How does "Your God" prove that Jesus is not God when He is identified twice as God with the use of 'ho theos.'?
Your = belonging to or associated with any person in general.
Jesus Himself said He has a God. But notice how He identifies Him as His Father. = relational.
Jn 20:17 "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended. to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. '"

Jesus is both Son of God, and God. Note ‘Son’ establishes position in the hierarchy of the Trinity, not an inferior being when compared to the Father. The Father is addressing the Son as ‘The God’ twice because Jesus is God.

The so called early church fathers were 1. not inspired by God so what they wrote is not proof of anything and 2. The so called ECF did not believe in the trinity as it was later formulated in the 4th-8th century, they were mostly subordinationists. In fact here is what Tertullian said:

They never claimed to be inspired or have to be inspired. What makes their input valuable is that they are are either disciples of the apostles or a disciple of a disciple. They are what we have that is closest to the Apostles.

Tertullian live approx 150-220AD

Note the following ECF and what they wrote about Jesus being God.

Ignatius (105 AD): "Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ, our God."

ibid: "I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ."

Aristides (125 AD): "The Christians trace the beginning of their religion to Jesus the Messiah. He is called the Son of the Most High God. It is said that God came down from heaven. He assumed flesh and clothed Himself with it from a Hebrew virgin."


Diognetus (c.125-200 AD): "God did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, angel, or ruler.... Rather He sent the very Creator and Fashioner of all things - by whom He made the heavens.... As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so God sent Him. He sent Him as God."

Second Clement (c.150 AD): Brethren, it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God - as the Judge of the living and the dead."

Justin Martyr (c.160 AD): "The Word...He is Divine."

ibid: "The Father of the universe has a Son. And He, being the First-Begotten Word of God, is even God."

ibid: "For Christ is King, Priest, God, Lord, Angel, and Man."

ibid: "He deserves to be worshipped as God and as Christ."

ibid: "David predicted that He would be born from the womb before the sun and moon, according to the Father's will. He made Him known, being Christ, as God, strong and to be worshipped."

ibid: "The Son ministered to the will of the Father. Yet, nevertheless, He is God, in that He is the First-Begotten of all creatures."

ibid: "If you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the Only, Unbegottten, Unuttterable God."

Melito (c.170 AD): "God was put to death, the Kiing of Israel slain."

Athenagoras (c.175 AD): "There is the one God and the Logos proceeding from Him, the Son. We understand that the Son is inseparable from Him."

Irenaeus (c.180 AD): "For He fulfills the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Savior of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things that have been formed, the Only-Begotten of the Father."

ibid: "I have shown from the Scriptures that none of the sons of Adam are, absolutely and as to everything, called God, or named Lord. But Jesus is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word.... He is the Holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God."

ibid: "Thus He indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was in Bethlehem.... God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us.

ibid: "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indcates this."

ibid: "Christ Himself, therfore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers."

ibid: "Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has first passed into man?"

ibid: "It is plain that He was Himself the Word of God, who was made the son of man. He received from the Father the power of remission of sins. He was man, and He was God. This was so that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us."

Note what was being taught in the early church.

-The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God.

So clearly the majority of believers were not even close to being trinitarian in the 2nd and 3rd century.

What you quoted does not say that. It says they were startled because they left the worlds pantheon of gods to the one only True God, and now the Trinity is being taught. It does not say that "they" after careful consideration and study concluded the Trinity to be false.

 

[Towerwatchman]

I don’t need to cite a translation for it to be substantiated because the Hebrew grammar is enough but if you absolutely need it then here you go.

New Living Translation (NLT)
“Listen, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”

International Standard Version (ISV)
"Listen, Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”

New American Bible (NAB)
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!”

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.

I would not trust these translations.

Note Jesus cites the Shema in Mark 12
Mk 12:29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. [NKJV}


Let's put your translations to the test.

New Living Translation (NLT)
“Listen, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”
Mk 12:29 ‘Listen, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord.


International Standard Version (ISV)
"Listen, Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”
Mk 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord[a] our God is one Lord,


New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.
Mk 12:29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one;

Notice the contradictions?

New American Bible (NAB)
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!”
Mk 12:29 Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!

NAB has a serious problem with Mk 12:29. God the Father is not Lord alone. Ever heard of "The Lord Jesus Christ"?

Nothing is “missing that only I know about”. John simply never cites Isaiah 6:1-5 and much less does he apply it to Jesus. You just keep forcing your presuppositions here it’s completely absent.

John does not have to cite Isaiah 6:1-5.

Note what John wrote. vs 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.


Let’s go back to John where this originates from.
Jn 12:37-41 “But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

This is 53:1 but where in Chapter 52 or 53 does Isaiah state explicitly that he saw any glory or anything with his eyes. Answer nowhere.

Notice the next sentence which introduces something else that Isaiah said.

Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”

Referring to Isa 6:9&10.
"These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him."

Any mention of seeing anything in the immediate text of 6:9&10?
6:1-5, Isaiah saw God and His glory.

This is not what John cited or is even referring to.

Wrong, just because John did not cite X one cannot conclude that it is not what John is referring to. John quotes 6:9,10 and states that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory when he [Isaiah] wrote 6:9,10. What did Isaiah see when he wrote 6:9,10 - 6:1-5 the glory of God. And somehow this does not make sense? In a court of law this would satisfy 'beyond a reasonable doubt".

“Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not the mere possible doubt or imaginary doubt, it is the state of the case which after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charges, and in this case the evidence. This definition is important because it recognizes the difference between reasonable and possible, The definition acknowledges something important, every case has unanswered questions that will cause jurors to wonder. All the jurors will have doubts as they come to a decision. We will never remove every possible uncertainty that's why the standard is not beyond any doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt simply requires us to separate our possible and imaginary doubts from those that are reasonable. Reasonable doubt requires evidence.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

“Whom they have pierced” , is defining or clarifying who “Me”is. It’s hard to get around it. Outside the Trinity it’s polytheism.

Here is what you are totally ignorant of and right from the mouth of Jesus also.


Matthew 25:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Notice whatever they had done good or bad to Jesus' sheep, they did also unto Jesus himself and this is also what Yahweh is revealing in Zechariah 12:10, for when they pierced Jesus physically, they also pierced the Father spiritually because Jesus is at the bosom of the Father Yahweh.


Therefore just like it is with the Saints and their association with Jesus, the same is being demonstrated with Jesus and his association with the Father Yahweh in Zechariah 12:10, for when they pierced Jesus they were in turn piercing Yahweh also in a Spiritual sense.

It is called piercing by association, are you getting the message yet?

 

[JNelson]

When theos does not carry the definite article it could be translated as "God/YHWH" depending on the text. John 1:6,12,13 and 18 theos does not carry the definite article but is translated as God/YHWH based on the text. When theos carries the definite article it always refers to God/YHWH with the exception of heavy modification identifying someone else.

False, Jews did not say God’s name so they would say Adonai (Lord) in place of YHWH. That’s why in the NT where ever an OT verse is cited that has the name YHWH they wrote κύριος. In Hebrew Adonai is reserved only for YHWH while adon/adoni is the common word for lord that applies to all types of people.

The modification is a description of the noun clarifying who the noun is. Nothing you posted above qualifies as a modifier. You are re-defining the grammatical definition of modifier.
Note,
Acts 14:11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!”
Theos carries the definite article but based on the text [theos is plural] we can conclude its not theos/YHWH.

2 Cor. 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Theos carries the definite article 'of this age' modifies 'ho theos' and clarifies 'ho thoes' is referring to Satan.

And Jesus having a God proves he is not YHWH.

Red herring.
Re post.
Personification assets human characteristics onto an inanimate object to better describe it. Is the HS now considered an inanimate object if it is the spirit of God?

In Prov. 8 God’s wisdom is being personified so according to you, God’s wisdom is an inanimate object.

Read again.
Jn 14:26 But the [a]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you,
God exist as a Spirit. How does a spirit send His spirit. That would be the Father sending the Father. Your answer makes no sense unless God who is a spirit has another spirit to send.

You’re arguing for two gods. If God is spirit and there are two spirits then that’s two gods

You just argued for two Gods.

No, You’re the one who keep arguing for two gods. I simply recognize and accept that θεος, has other meanings which apply to others like angels or men.

Irrelevant. We are discussing YHWH who is described in multiple passages as plurality and singularity.

Not irrelavent. If you’re going to make an assertion you have to be consistent. Elohim is just the common word for God in Hebrew, whether it’s for YHWH, men, angels, false gods etc.

Jesus is called God in several verses,

He’s not.

but let's stick to Hebrews. You are arguing a minor point. You seem to insist that "therefore God your God" somehow proves Jesus is not God. How does "Your God" prove that Jesus is not God when He is identified twice as God with the use of 'ho theos.'?

It’s very simple
1. Θεος does and can apply to others besides YHWH. This doesn’t mean there’s more than one true God, it just shows that the word has several meanings.

2. In that same verse it says “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you”. So we need to ask the question, what God anointed Jesus? and the answer is found in Isa. 61:1 “because YHWH has anointed me”. So, we know exactly who Jesus’ God is, YHWH, which means Jesus is not YHWH as there’s only one YHWH.

Your = belonging to or associated with any person in general.

Yep, Jesus belongs to YHWH as do we.

Jesus Himself said He has a God. But notice how He identifies Him as His Father. = relational.

Yes, YHWH is his father and our father

Jn 20:17 "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended. to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. '"

Yep, Jesus is very clear that his God and Father is also our God and Father. Are you implying that Jesus Father is nit

Jesus is both Son of God, and God.

Not according to Jesus himself, “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I SAID, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

Note ‘Son’ establishes position in the hierarchy of the Trinity, not an inferior being when compared to the Father. The Father is addressing the Son as ‘The God’ twice because Jesus is God.

God is not subordinate to anyone in any way that why he is God Aligmighy, The Most High.

They never claimed to be inspired or have to be inspired.

I’m glad you recognize that because it means that what they believed has no bearing on the truth found in scriptures.

What makes their input valuable is that they are are either disciples of the apostles or a disciple of a disciple. They are what we have that is closest to the Apostles.

They allegedly are disciples of the apostles etc. but there is no real proof of that. But if they were it still doesn’t make their beliefs true as we know there were many who learned from the disciples who then turned to false teachings. That’s why I stick to scriptures alone so you don’t need to keep citing words of uninspired men.

Note what was being taught in the early church.

Not by the majority of believers which is proof enough that those men went quite astray from what the apostles taught.

What you quoted does not say that. It says they were startled because they left the worlds pantheon of gods to the one only True God, and now the Trinity is being taught. It does not say that "they" after careful consideration and study concluded the Trinity to be false.

It does, read it again.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God”

He goes on to say “They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the one God”

This is the last I will write about the so called “ECF” because what they believed doesn’t matter, all that matters is what the men inspired by God wrote and that is found in scriptures alone.

 

[JNelson]

I would not trust these translations.

You asked and I provided. Whether or not you trust these translations is irrelevant. I don’t fully trust any translation done by trinitarians because their bias is seen in many verses but aside from that they are good translations and I use them everyday.

Note Jesus cites the Shema in Mark 12
Mk 12:29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. [NKJV}

Yes, Jesus is citing from the Septuagint “Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν”

Let's put your translations to the test.
Notice the contradictions?

No contradictions my friend. The phrase YHWH is one means the same thing as YHWH alone. It’s just two different ways to say the same thing.

New American Bible (NAB)
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!”
Mk 12:29 Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!

NAB has a serious problem with Mk 12:29. God the Father is not Lord alone. Ever heard of "The Lord Jesus Christ"?

Again, Jews did not say God’s name so they would say Adonai (Lord) in place of YHWH. That’s why in the NT where ever an OT verse is cited that has the name YHWH they wrote κύριος. In Hebrew Adonai is reserved only for YHWH while adon/adoni is the common word for lord that applies to all types of people. In Greek there’s only one word that’s used for both, κύριος.

Another good example is love. In Greek there are several words that mean love (αγαπη, φιλεω etc.) yet in English only one word represents all of them. This is why context is important!

John does not have to cite Isaiah 6:1-5.

Note what John wrote. vs 41 These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.


Let’s go back to John where this originates from.
Jn 12:37-41 “But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

This is 53:1 but where in Chapter 52 or 53 does Isaiah state explicitly that he saw any glory or anything with his eyes. Answer nowhere.

Notice the next sentence which introduces something else that Isaiah said.

Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”

Referring to Isa 6:9&10.
"These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him."

Any mention of seeing anything in the immediate text of 6:9&10?
6:1-5, Isaiah saw God and His glory.

YHWH, the one who sent Isaiah is the same one who sent Jesus. So again, you are arguing for multiple YHWHs (polytheism) or that Jesus sent himself, both of which we know is completely unbiblical.

Wrong, just because John did not cite X one cannot conclude that it is not what John is referring to. John quotes 6:9,10 and states that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory when he [Isaiah] wrote 6:9,10. What did Isaiah see when he wrote 6:9,10 - 6:1-5 the glory of God.

“Isaiah said these things” plural, which means both 53:1 and 6:10 not just one of those like you’re falsely asserting.

Jesus’ glory came from God for what he did (these things) which is why John goes on to say in v. 43 “for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.”

Note the contrast here. John is saying that many did not believe because they loved man’s glory as opposed to God’s glory. Jesus did not care about being glorified by men he cared about being glorified by God which is why he did everything he did. That is Jesus’ glory that Isaiah saw.

“How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?”

“Yet I do not seek my own glory”

And somehow this does not make sense? In a court of law this would satisfy 'beyond a reasonable doubt".

No, it wouldn’t. Not even close.

“Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not the mere possible doubt or imaginary doubt, it is the state of the case which after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charges, and in this case the evidence. This definition is important because it recognizes the difference between reasonable and possible, The definition acknowledges something important, every case has unanswered questions that will cause jurors to wonder. All the jurors will have doubts as they come to a decision. We will never remove every possible uncertainty that's why the standard is not beyond any doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt simply requires us to separate our possible and imaginary doubts from those that are reasonable. Reasonable doubt requires evidence.

The evidence is that YHWH is Jesus’ God and he is the one who glorifies Jesus for what he accomplishes. Also, everything I wrote above is clear evidence.

 

[Tanachreader]

You asked and I provided. Whether or not you trust these translations is irrelevant. I don’t fully trust any translation done by trinitarians because their bias is seen in many verses but aside from that they are good translations and I use them everyday.

Yes, Jesus is citing from the Septuagint “Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν”

No contradictions my friend. The phrase YHWH is one means the same thing as YHWH alone. It’s just two different ways to say the same thing.

Again, Jews did not say God’s name so they would say Adonai (Lord) in place of YHWH. That’s why in the NT where ever an OT verse is cited that has the name YHWH they wrote κύριος. In Hebrew Adonai is reserved only for YHWH while adon/adoni is the common word for lord that applies to all types of people. In Greek there’s only one word that’s used for both, κύριος.

Another good example is love. In Greek there are several words that mean love (αγαπη, φιλεω etc.) yet in English only one word represents all of them. This is why context is important!

YHWH, the one who sent Isaiah is the same one who sent Jesus. So again, you are arguing for multiple YHWHs (polytheism) or that Jesus sent himself, both of which we know is completely unbiblical.

“Isaiah said these things” plural, which means both 53:1 and 6:10 not just one of those like you’re falsely asserting.

Jesus’ glory came from God for what he did (these things) which is why John goes on to say in v. 43 “for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.”

Note the contrast here. John is saying that many did not believe because they loved man’s glory as opposed to God’s glory. Jesus did not care about being glorified by men he cared about being glorified by God which is why he did everything he did. That is Jesus’ glory that Isaiah saw.

“How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?”

“Yet I do not seek my own glory”


No, it wouldn’t. Not even close.

The evidence is that YHWH is Jesus’ God and he is the one who glorifies Jesus for what he accomplishes. Also, everything I wrote above is clear evidence.

You will never get past this.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

 

[JNelson]

You will never get past this.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

I don’t need to “get past” anything. John 1:1-18 is not about Jesus being God and then becoming a human, it’s about Jesus’ baptism where God comes and dwells in him. Baptism is the context of John 1 which you can’t get past.

Nor can you get past the simple biblical fact that Jesus’ God and Father is YHWH, the only true God.

 

[Tanachreader]

I don’t need to “get past” anything. John 1:1-18 is not about Jesus being God and then becoming a human, it’s about Jesus’ baptism where God comes and dwells in him. Baptism is the context of John 1 which you can’t get past.

Nor can you get past the simple biblical fact that Jesus’ God and Father is YHWH, the only true God.

The Apostle John says the following about YHWH Jesus
“the world was made by him,”
The simple biblical fact is the WORD was God who came down from Heaven, was born a Jewish man, walked under the Law.
The Apostle says
“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

John is saying HE is God the Creator.

Again you are recognized as being one of these.
“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

AND

“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”

 

[JNelson]

The Apostle John says the following about YHWH Jesus
“the world was made by him,”
The simple biblical fact is the WORD was God who came down from Heaven, was born a Jewish man, walked under the Law.
The Apostle says
“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

John is saying HE is God the Creator.

Again you are recognized as being one of these.
“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

AND

“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”

Good job ignoring the actual context of John 1. There’s only one God, YHWH, and he is Jesus God and Father. What you believe is blatant polytheism.

 

[Tanachreader]

Good job ignoring the actual context of John 1. There’s only one God, YHWH, and he is Jesus God and Father. What you believe is blatant polytheism.

So your saying the apostle was wrong.

As a Jew under the Law He has a God.

But John also said He was God the Creator and He Jesus confirms that He came down from Heaven.
Before Abraham was, I am.

Give up and seek the Kingdom of Heaven as you don’t know Him and He hasn’t breathed on you.

 

[JNelson]

So your saying the apostle was wrong.

Nope, I’m saying you’re wrong because you ignore the context the apostles gives.

As a Jew under the Law He has a God.

We don’t have a god because there’s a law the must have one. You’re response implies that we can choose to not have a God which is simply wrong.

But John also said He was God the Creator and He Jesus confirms that He came down from Heaven.
Before Abraham was, I am.

Once again, you’re reading your presuppositions into the text. “Εγω ειμι” is not a claim to be God, it means I am he and all throughout the gospel Jesus claim to be the sin of God not God.

Give up and seek the Kingdom of Heaven as you don’t know Him and He hasn’t breathed on you.

Why would I give up when you clearly can’t refute what scriptures actually say??

 

[Tanachreader]

Nope, I’m saying you’re wrong because you ignore the context the apostles gives.

We don’t have a god because there’s a law the must have one. You’re response implies that we can choose to not have a God which is simply wrong.

Once again, you’re reading your presuppositions into the text. “Εγω ειμι” is not a claim to be God, it means I am he and all throughout the gospel Jesus claim to be the sin of God not God.

Why would I give up when you clearly can’t refute what scriptures actually say??

John 1-14 blows up your nonsense.
Nothing to refute.
The simple biblical fact is the WORD was God who came down from Heaven, was born a Jewish man, walked under the Law.
The Apostle says
“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

John is saying HE is God the Creator.

 

[JNelson]

John 1-14 blows up your nonsense.
Nothing to refute.
The simple biblical fact is the WORD was God who came down from Heaven, was born a Jewish man, walked under the Law.
The Apostle says
“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

John is saying HE is God the Creator.

Why do you ignore the immediate context?

V. 6 “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.”

V. 15 “John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”

Did John the Baptist do this when Jesus was born or 30 years later??

The answer is in John 1:29-30 “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’

It’s quite clear that John 1:14 is a reference to Jesus’ baptism when God came to dwell on earth in Christ. This is what scriptures teach.

“the Father who dwells in me does his works.”

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”

 

[Tanachreader]

Why do you ignore the immediate context?

V. 6 “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.”

V. 15 “John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”

Did John the Baptist do this when Jesus was born or 30 years later??

The answer is in John 1:29-30 “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’

It’s quite clear that John 1:14 is a reference to Jesus’ baptism when God came to dwell on earth in Christ. This is what scriptures teach.

“the Father who dwells in me does his works.”

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”

His preexistance you deny.
13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Jesus pre-existed in His divinity is further proven by His being the object of worship repeatedly in the Gospels (Matthew 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; 20:28).

 

[Yahweh will increase]

You will never get past this.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

And you will never get it through your head that the above verse was fulfilled only after Jesus was born and already in the world and not before it, remember also that John wrote all of this after Jesus died and was resurrected.

Look at John 1:6-7 and tell me, was John speaking here before or after the word was made flesh?

Yet it isn't until verse 14 that John actually reveals that the word was made flesh in Jesus and which shows that John 1 isn't even in an exact chronological order at all and this is where you trins totally get lost to, for you think that it is John 1:6-7 proves that it isn't.

 

[johnny guitar]

I don’t need to “get past” anything. John 1:1-18 is not about Jesus being God and then becoming a human, it’s about Jesus’ baptism where God comes and dwells in him. Baptism is the context of John 1 which you can’t get past.

Nor can you get past the simple biblical fact that Jesus’ God and Father is YHWH, the only true God.

Evasion. You did NOT respond to John 1:10.
NO baptism in John 1 UNTIL v. 29 and God did NOT come to dwell in Jesus at His baptism.

 

[johnny guitar]

And you will never get it through your head that the above verse was fulfilled only after Jesus was born and already in the world and not before it, remember also that John wrote all of this after Jesus died and was resurrected.

Look at John 1:6-7 and tell me, was John speaking here before or after the word was made flesh?

Yet it isn't until verse 14 that John actually reveals that the word was made flesh in Jesus and which shows that John 1 isn't even in an exact chronological order at all and this is where you trins totally get lost to, for you think that it is John 1:6-7 proves that it isn't.

Are you saying Jesus made the world AFTER He was born????
What asininity is this?????????????
BTW The Word was made flesh AS(NOT in)Jesus Christ.

 

[johnny guitar]

Why do you ignore the immediate context?

V. 6 “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.”

V. 15 “John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”

Did John the Baptist do this when Jesus was born or 30 years later??

The answer is in John 1:29-30 “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’

It’s quite clear that John 1:14 is a reference to Jesus’ baptism when God came to dwell on earth in Christ. This is what scriptures teach.

“the Father who dwells in me does his works.”

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”

Absolute Nonsense. 1:14 concerns the Word BECOMING a MAN, i.e. the birth of The Son of God AS MAN.
God came to earth AS MAN, NOT in a Man.

 

[JNelson]

His preexistance you deny.

Jesus was “foreknown” as per scriptures.

13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Your false interpretation of John 1 was refuted with clear scriptures in its context so now you run to another topic.

Jesus says “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” so according to you the disciples also came down from heaven.

Jesus pre-existed in His divinity is further proven by His being the object of worship repeatedly in the Gospels (Matthew 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; 20:28).

Jesus is a human being with a God, YHWH. You deny this simple truth and thus you deny Jesus and his God

 

[Tanachreader]

Jesus was “foreknown” as per scriptures.

Your false interpretation of John 1 was refuted with clear scriptures in its context so now you run to another topic.

Jesus says “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” so according to you the disciples also came down from heaven.

Jesus is a human being with a God, YHWH. You deny this simple truth and thus you deny Jesus and his God

You deny His divinity and His very words.

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.