Jesus is not God ..... Part 3

[Ben57]

Hello tidhrei5736

I did not mean to step on toes I should have added a little more to my post that NO English Bible is without theological bias. I was wanting to point out that we as individuals must decide if we accept a grammaticl translation or a theological translation of the texts we rerad. John 1:1 is one place that most Bibles do not follow rules of Greek gramma and translate according to theology. If you want an indepth discutionon the ruels relationg to John 1: 1 I will be more that happy to accomodate you by starting another post.

You asked....

“Why is it that the word ‘God’ is translated as ‘a god’ in John 1:1b and 18b of the New World Translation, and yet the identical construction is rendered as ‘God’ in verses 2, 6, 12, and 13 in the same context?”

The very simple answer to that is the gramma and context of those texts demand the translation given in that Bible (by the way, to emphasis what I already said NO English Bible is without theological bias)

One of your sites has old quotes that originate back in 1953 and parroted by many people because one schollar wrote a piece about John 1:1 in the NWT. This original schollar used quotes from Colwell work in 1933 which he mis quotes, and the othes followed.

Scholars from the last twenty years such as Dickson and Hartley shed new light on Colwels rule and now no notable Greek scholar will say as they used to that the second occurence of the word thoes shows identity.


I was not using the ..."assumption that the missing definite article preceding "theos" automatically changes the meaning of the sentence is erroneous and there are many instances where "theos", unaccompanied by the definite article, still translates to "God". "... The word theos preceding the verb means that the word theos is not to be used as definate but as describing a quality. It is up the the translator to detemin how he is going to show a quality. Most find it very difficult because of their trinitarian background to do so that is why some changed the ending to the "Word was devine" or "The Word was godlike" or "what God was the Word was". It then is left up to the reader to decide how to use those words. The Bibles that say "and the Word was a god" are being very literal in their translation.

I am more than able to answer anything my might bring up regarding John 1:1 and the context.

[Ben57]

Hello tishrei,

I am sorry that I did not complete my last post properly.

I should have added that NO Bible is without some form of theological bias. If we are serious about understanding the Bible we should not stay with just one translation. I use and compare about 25 different versions along with Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and grammar books.

So what I am also saying (and failed to make clear before) is that we as individuals, must decide for ourselves if we are going to accept a theological translation of a particular verse or a grammatical translation.

John 1:1 is possibly the main verse in the Bible that causes so much fuss, because to translate it according to the rules of grammar puts that verse at adds with the theological idea of the Trinity.

I appear to have not explained myself very well because my post was not to show

The assumption that the missing definite article preceding "theos" automatically changes the meaning of the sentence is erroneous and there are many instances where "theos", unaccompanied by the definite article, still translates to "God".

Although the lack of the definite article “the” has some bearing on the subject, I was not trying to say that just because the definite article is missing it automatically becomes indefinite. The main point is the grammar and the rules of predicate nominative nouns. The second occurrence of the word “theos” is such a noun.

Predicate= a) to affirm as a quality, attribute, or property of a person or thing !to predicate the honesty of another‘s motives" b) Logic to assert (something) about the subject of a proposition

nominative = Gram. designating, of, or in the case of the subject of a finite verb


In the phrase “god was the word” (as per the original greek) the word “god” is not giving us the identity of the Word but a “quality, attribute, or property of a person or thing” in this case “Word”

In recent times, a study of Colwell’s rule by prominent professors has reviled that Colwell's rule has abused and miss used by many theologians and scholars to make John 1:1 show the identity of the Word by capitalizing the “G” in the last instance of the word god.


You mention as a lot of people do “verses 2, 6, 12, and 13” of John 1 and say that they are in the same context. I am not sure just what “context you mean here. But I will talk about the gramma.

The words in this color are the literal translation from the Greek Blue is from RSV.

The Greek translation is sourced from on Bible software (On Line Bible)



John 1:1 god(noun) was (verb) (referring to the subject of the sentence) the Logos

Note that the grammar and construction are NOT the same.

John 1:2 “toward the God” (definite noun with the definite article the no verb following and does not refer to the “he” at the beginning of the verse)

He was in the beginning “with God”

John 1:6 “man sent from God” (no definite article but no verb following either) named (the word God not referring to the “man”)

There was a ”man sent from God”, whose name was John.

John 1:12 “granthepower children God caused to be” (there is a verb following the word God but it is not referring to the subject but an act that God did)

“But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;”

John 1:13 “but of God begotten” (again this does not reflect the grammar of John 1:1)

“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

So although Verses 2,6,12 use the word God the context and the Grammar shows that it should have a capitalized “G”, referring to the Almighty.

I hope you can see the point I am trying to make. ALL Bibles have some form of theological bias. John 1:1 is one that most people translate on theological grounds.

Do a web search for Professor s Harley and Dickson for up to date information on Colwells rule. By the way both these two men are Trinitarian and prefer the theological bias of John 1:1 but their works show that John 1:1 is speaking of a quality or attribute of the “Word” when god is applied to it at John 1:1 and not identity.

Why is this the least favored of positions to take? Because it would mean a re think on the idea of a “Trinity”. Translators have gone against the rules of Greek Grammar in the case of John 1:1. So I ask the question, should we be in favor of theological translations of grammatical translations? The choice is yours and mine to make.

Ben

[tishrei5736]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your detailed response. Yes, I understand your argument that there is theological bias with some translations and that it is our choice to choose a grammatical versus theological translation.

However, I still have doubts about your grammatical arguments for the end of John 1:1:

The main point is the grammar and the rules of predicate nominative nouns. The second occurrence of the word “theos” is such a noun.

Predicate= a) to affirm as a quality, attribute, or property of a person or thing !to predicate the honesty of another‘s motives" b) Logic to assert (something) about the subject of a proposition

nominative = Gram. designating, of, or in the case of the subject of a finite verb


In the phrase “god was the word” (as per the original greek) the word “god” is not giving us the identity of the Word but a “quality, attribute, or property of a person or thing” in this case “Word”

In "god was the word", the Greek word "theos" is a nominative singular noun of male gender. How have you decided that "theos" is a predicate of "logos"? In fact, "logos" is also a nominative singular noun of male gender.
I would be more convinced of your argument if "theos" was a GENITIVE noun and not nominative. However, it is a nominative singular male noun in Greek.

If we are serious about understanding the Bible we should not stay with just one translation. I use and compare about 25 different versions along with Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and grammar books.

While having different versions, lexicons and grammar books is good, it is not enough. It is also important to look at the historical framework in which the work was written, who wrote it and why, along with the archeological studies. Also an understanding of the type of literature it is written in and who the audience was and why it was accepted into the canon of scripture. There are many different manuscripts from which the final work (which often was written many years after the event) was sourced from and these also need to be considered. One should also look at it from a 'structuralist' angle which is not only the grammar of the phrases but the grammar of the text. The end result is to be able to look at the text with the greatest number of perspectives. This also helps to understand the theological framework in which the text was actually written in its original form as opposed to the theological framework within which the more recent English tranlators have been working within.

[Ben57]

Greetings tishrei5736

To start with I would like to say that I fully agree with you on the following…

While having different versions, lexicons and grammar books is good, it is not enough. It is also important to look at the historical framework in which the work was written, who wrote it and why, along with the archeological studies. Also an understanding of the type of literature it is written in and who the audience was and why it was accepted into the canon of scripture. There are many different manuscripts from which the final work (which often was written many years after the event) was sourced from and these also need to be considered. One should also look at it from a 'structuralist' angle which is not only the grammar of the phrases but the grammar of the text. The end result is to be able to look at the text with the greatest number of perspectives. This also helps to understand the theological framework in which the text was actually written in its original form as opposed to the theological framework within which the more recent English tranlators have been working within.

That is why I feel that understanding John 1:1 is very important. What is the original writer saying, who were his audience, what did he believe and what did his audience believe. What does the context of John 1 imply to its audience but hew words used in it.



I am not schooled in Greek but I have read a lot of Greek grammar texts, so I am not speaking as an expert. However I have followed debates on John 1:1 on many different web sites dealing with NT Greek and looked up many works by modern scholars.

You are correct that ….

In "god was the word", the Greek word "theos" is a nominative singular noun of male gender. How have you decided that "theos" is a predicate of "logos"? In fact, "logos" is also a nominative singular noun of male gender.

It is more that that. The Greek word “theo” is not a proper noun and, generally, can not be considered in the same way as a name. It is a noun describing a class of something in the same way as the words king, queen or president do. There are several kings and queens residing over various countries around the world as there are many presidents. However, those terms can refer to one individual in given contexts. The word president for example describes a position held by the head of a company or head of State. Take for example the sentence “John is a president”. The word president here describes the work John does (possible as the head of a company or state). Now, in America the word president can be a “proper noun” under certain circumstances. When addressing Mr. Bush, it is evidently the right thing to do to address him as “Mr. President”. In that instance the word president becomes his name and every one knows who is being referred to. At other times the word president is a predicate nominative noun because it is describing a quality of the person.

By researching what scholars such as E,C. Colwell (formulated what is known as Colwell’s rule) P.B. Harner, D.E. Hartley and P.S. Dickson we see that the word theos in the second instance is a anarthrous predicate nominative noun. (for those not familiar with anarthrous this word means without the letter “a” preceding the noun)

I would be more convinced of your argument if "theos" was a GENITIVE noun and not nominative.

The “theos” here is not belonging to something, not showing ownership, but describing what the “Logos” is.

Ben

[Bandit]

Hello,
I am new and have been reading the threads on this and in part 2.
Everyone seems low key and not too quick to judge others which is nice.

Here are some of my beliefs.

I believe Jesus was a man with the spirit of a mortal man.
I do not see him as God, yet I see him as God manifested in the flesh and the express image of the invisible God.
I believe Jesus is all the titles and everything the bible says he is i.e., Messiah, Savior, Son of God after the spirit, son of man after the flesh, the true vine, firstborn from the dead, his eternal priesthood, the first begotten, the first and the last, etc.

I also believe Jesus is both the First Adam and the Last Adam, and that God used the same spirit in creating both men (bodies). All the empty blanks of preeminece are filled in as First Adam.
All the empty blanks are filled in as the 'Lord from Heaven', and in obedience in the Last Adam.
The empty blanks of the cross, a blood sacrifice, remission of sin, obedience and disobedience of a commandment (s), AND reconcilation is evident in both Adams.

I believe the first Adam was WITHOUT SIN and perfect, when God made him and before he fell.
I believe the Last Adam was WITHOUT SIN and learned obedience and was MADE perfect.

In Jesus dwells the fulness of the godhead bodily and there was an eternal purpose that God purposed in Jesus.

I do NOT believe in reincaranation in its common understanding, that we come back over and over as a different person.
Yet I believe that both Adams were MADE and are the same man in spirit. First man from dust and the last man from the womb of a woman.

The bible says God GAVE Jesus authority, power, glory and to be ruler over all and the head of the church.

Yet in the end, when the Son delivers the kingdom to God, he gives back the authority to God, that God may be all in all.

To my knowledge there are only two churches in the Nation who see any of this.

I see the beginning in John 1 as the beginning of the time line of man.
I see the Logos in two perspectives- a person and the spoken word.
SPOKEN as in the beginning, "God said, Let there be..."

Sorry, but I have no real interest in debating (again) the godman theories, triGod, angel theory, coequal spirts or eternal lesser gods, because the tabernacle of God is with MEN.

Plain and Simple.

I believe God is ONE entity and the seven spirits of God are his attributes which contribute to making the ONE God with one spirit, plural.



For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus;


I use the KJV for most all of my studies and greek and hebrew concordances . I believe the bible is the written and inspired Word of God. I have spent time studying the pagan myths, early rome, various godman theories and the history of the bible in the making.
I am currently asking God for more understanding in the Book of Revelations.
I do not study for head knowledge. I am a believer.

Is there anyone who has an interest in studying the man Christ Jesus?
Not his humanity, but that he was a man and was raised up from mortality to immortality. The Jesus after the seed of David.
Adam IS the root of both David and Jesus.

It is really a very neat mystery and revelation to build our faith upon.
Anyone? Anyone out there see any of what I see?
OR wanna give it a chance?

post up here or send me a PM and
Thank You and Peace.

Glory be to our Lord Jesus Christ and his Father, for ever. Amen

[Faithfulservant]

Hello Bandit and welcome

You dont see him as God but you see him as God manifested in the flesh? How is it that you dont accept his being God if he is God in the flesh?

"I believe Jesus is all the titles"

MIGHTY GOD: Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace

WORD: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

I am interested in how Jesus was "disobedient" in a commandment.

adam ~da = man, mankind

If Jesus who is the first and last Adam ,which I agree is a name for Jesus in the bible, if Jesus is God manifested in the flesh.. How can we reason that God sinned? Adam, the man, sinned and thus created the fallen nature of men.

Lets study this

Matthew 28:19 ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ *Note that the word ‘name’ is singular, showing that all three Persons are one Being.

As the Creator Colossians 1:16-17 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

The NT states that the Jesus is the Creator of all things. For instance, the author of Hebrews writes:
Hebrews 1:8a, 10-12 But about the Son he says… ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

The author has the Father addressing the Son as the actual Creator of the cosmos. The author applies to the Son an OT passage which refers to Yahweh’s work in creation:

Psalm 102:24-27 “‘O my God,’ I say, ‘take me not hence in the midst of my days, thou whose years endure throughout all generations!’ Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure; they will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou art the same, and thy years have no end.”

the OT says somewhere else that Yahweh ALONE stretched out the heavens:

Job 9:7-8 He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. He ALONE stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.”

For Hebrews to write that the Son personally laid the foundations of the earth and that the heavens are the work of his hands means that the author truly believed that the Son was Yahweh God (yet not the Father), the very eternal Creator himself!
Yahweh God created the heavens with his own hands and he alone stretched them out. The Son created the heavens with his own hands.Therefore we can conclude that the Son is Yahweh God.

He changed the water into wine, creating something new John 2:1-11
He multiplied a small amount of food on two separate occasions to feed thousands John 6

He created new eyes from mud John 9; Mark 8

He had authority over nature and controls His creation for He calmed the sea and walked upon it and caused the fish to have the coin in its mouth so He and Peter could pay the temple tax Matthew 17:27

He gave life to the physically dead.

He gave life to the spiritually dead, making a new creation.

He has the ability to forgive sins Luke 7:47–50 and judge all people John 5:27
He sends forth the Holy Spirit John 15:26
He accepts worship Hebrews 1:6, Matthew 14:33
He is called ‘Lord’ Romans 10:9 where ‘Lord’ (kurios) is a translation of the Old Testament Yahweh (= God) Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32 which makes this clear
Jesus said: ‘My Father is greater (meizon) than I’ John 14:28. But this refers to the Father’s greater position in Heaven, not superior nature. Philippians 2:5–11 states that Jesus had equality by nature with God, but voluntarily took on the lower position of a servant. The same arguments apply to related passages about Jesus submitting to His Father’s will.

The word ‘better’ (kreitton) would have been used to describe superiority in nature if this is what had been meant. Indeed, kreitton is used to describe Jesus’ superiority in His very nature to the angels Hebrews 1:4 He is greater than us in position, but he is still a human being like us, so is not better in nature

Jesus is called ‘the firstborn of every creature’ Colossians 1:15 However, in Jewish imagery, ‘firstborn’ means ‘having the rights and special privileges belonging to the eldest child’. It refers to pre-eminence in rank more than to priority in time. This can be shown in passages where the term ‘firstborn’ is used of the pre-eminent son who was not the eldest, e.g. Psalm 89:27, where David is called ‘firstborn’ although he was actually the youngest son.

‘Firstborn’ does not mean ‘first created’; the Greek for the latter is protoktisis, while firstborn is prototokos. In fact, the verses after Colossians 1:15 show that Christ Himself is the creator of all things.

Jesus is Son of God. From this, some people try to show that Jesus is somehow less than God. But in Jewish imagery, ‘the son of’ often meant ‘of the order of’ or ‘having the very nature of’. For example, ‘sons of the prophets’ meant ‘of the order of prophets’ 1 Kings 20:35 ‘sons of the singers’ meant ‘of the order of singers’ Nehemiah 12:28 pharisees and sadducees understood that He was claiming to be God, which is why they wanted to kill him for blasphemy John 19:7

Jesus is the ‘only-begotten Son’ John 3:16 The Greek word translated ‘only-begotten’ is monogenes, which means ‘unique, ‘one of a kind’. Jesus is the unique Son of God, because he is God by His very nature. Believers in Him become ‘sons of God’ by adoption Galatians 3:26–4:7

This is shown in the human realm by Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham’s ‘only begotten son’. Abraham had other sons, but Isaac was the unique son of the Abrahamic Covenant Genesis 5–18,20 born when his parents were old.

-"Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and act wisely, and shall do judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely. And this is His name by which He shall be called, JEHOVAH, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Jer 23:5-6 *Righteous Branch - name for Jesus

We find Our Great God naming 'the righteous Branch', Jesus Christ, as 'JEHOVAH, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.' This names Him as God Almighty and Eternal, since the name/title 'JHVH, or YHWH' was only applied to the God of Israel, 'The Great I AM', by the Spiritually inspired Hebrew writers of Testament.

Compare the two verses Isa 61:1-3 and Luke 4:17-21.
"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on Me; because Jehovah has anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to preach the acceptable year of Jehovah and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to appoint to those who mourn in Zion, to give to them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the mantle of praise for the spirit of heaviness; so that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of Jehovah, that He might be glorified."
"For I Jehovah love judgment-"


We find that Isa 61:8, names the speaker of verses 1-3 as 'Jehovah'. He states that He has been anointed by Jehovah to preach the Gospel. Again, we find 'JHVH, or YHWH' being assigned by God's inspiration to two different beings. In the Gospel of Luke we find this entry concerning Jesus,
"And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And unrolling the book, He found the place where it was written, 'The Spirit of the Lord is on Me; because of this He has anointed Me to proclaim the Gospel to the poor,etc'- "
"And He began to say to them, Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your ears."

More Scriptural proof that Jesus is 'Jehovah' occurs in Isa 48:16-17 & Zec 2:10-11, "Come near to Me, hear this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From its being, I was there; and now the Lord Jehovah, and His Spirit, has sent Me. So says Jehovah, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, I am Jehovah your God -"
"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion. For lo, I come, and I will dwell in your midst, says Jehovah. And many nations shall be joined to Jehovah in that day, and shall be My people; and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that Jehovah of Hosts has sent me to you. "


We again see the name 'Jehovah' being used to indicate two individual beings. We have 'Jehovah' speaking and being sent by 'the Lord Jehovah, and His Spirit'. In other words, 'Jehovah your God' is sent by the 'Lord Jehovah and His Spirit'. The 'sent One' is identified in the Gospels,
Luke4:43 And He (Jesus) said to them, I must proclaim the gospel, the kingdom of God, to other cities, because I was sent on this mission,
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, If God were your father, you would love Me, for I went forth and came from God; for I did not come of Myself, but He sent Me.


In these, and numerous other, verses of the Bible, Jesus is proclaimed as the 'Sent One', which in agreement with Isa 48:16-17, and other Scriptures, names Him as 'Jehovah God.'

Additional Biblical testimony that Jesus is God, is provided by the Gospel of John.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.


From verse 14, we can determine that ' the Word' is Jesus. The final portion of verse 1 proclaims that the Word was God.

*Note; The argument that this part of the verse should read, 'the Word was a god', is refuted by the original Greek manuscripts, which read, 'God was the Word.' in addition, the title 'ho theos' is used for the name 'God'. Throughout ALL the Greek manuscripts, this title was used only to name the One, True, God.

John 14:8-9 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip?"
"He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?"


"I am currently asking God for more understanding in the Book of Revelations." Arent we all
"I do not study for head knowledge. I am a believer." Me too

"Is there anyone who has an interest in studying the man Christ Jesus?
My life is studying Jesus as the Author of my Salvation.

Thank you for your post. You gave me a challenge and I put the bible to the test once again reaffirming my belief in the word. Wow I spent 4 hours on this post! Time sure does fly by fast when your having fun.

Faithful Servant

[tishrei5736]

Hi Ben,

Thanks again for your response.

Originally Posted by Ben57

By researching what scholars such as E,C. Colwell (formulated what is known as Colwell’s rule) P.B. Harner, D.E. Hartley and P.S. Dickson we see that the word theos in the second instance is a anarthrous predicate nominative noun. (for those not familiar with anarthrous this word means without the letter “a” preceding the noun)
Ben

The “theos” here is not belonging to something, not showing ownership, but describing what the “Logos” is.

I have done some research on Colwell and his rule. Although he tackles John 1:1c regarding it as a definite noun, he argues that its anarthrous occurrence does NOT argue necessarily for its qualitativeness or indefiniteness. He supports this by referencing to the confession of Thomas, oJ kuvriov" mou kaiV oJ qeov" mou (John 20:28) - "My Lord and my God".

That is why I feel that understanding John 1:1 is very important. What is the original writer saying, who were his audience, what did he believe and what did his audience believe. What does the context of John 1 imply to its audience but hew words used in it.

May I ask you who you believe John's audience was and what they believed with respect to John 1:1? Thanks.

[Bandit]

Hi FaithfulServant. 4 hours?! that is a blessing.
Thanks for responding and thanks also for not judging me, because so many do.
I will just respond to the quote portion below, because too much written at once gets complicated.

You dont see him as God but you see him as God manifested in the flesh? How is it that you dont accept his being God if he is God in the flesh?

"I believe Jesus is all the titles"

MIGHTY GOD: Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace

WORD: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

I am interested in how Jesus was "disobedient" in a commandment.

adam ~da = man, mankind

If Jesus who is the first and last Adam ,which I agree is a name for Jesus in the bible, if Jesus is God manifested in the flesh.. How can we reason that God sinned? Adam, the man, sinned and thus created the fallen nature of men.

God is manifested in many ways. I see God manifested in people who love Him. I see God manifested in His written Word, the waters, the heavens, a burning bush but they are things, because God is a Spirit. The man Jesus was a manifestation of God in his 3 1/2 year ministry.

The prophecy in IS. denotes future giving Jesus TITLES. His NAME shall be called, not he shall be.
The titles and authority were all given to him.

John1. Everyone pretty much sees that the same way, it just depends on what time they put the horse in front of the cart.

We know God cannot sin or be disobedient or obedient because He is God.
Remember- you see Jesus as God from birth in the manger. I see him as a man that God MADE.
God made 2 different men at two different times. Correct?



First Adam was DISOBEDIENT he disobeyed the commandment (Adam is not God to me)
He ate of the tree and the curse was DEATH.

Last Adam (jesus) (jesus is not God to me) was OBEDIENT even to the death of the cross.
In John we see Jesus (last Adam) had recieved a commanment also.
10:17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
10:18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

In the garden you see Jesus asking his father for the cup to pass him, then he says...NOT MY WILL, BUT THINE BE DONE.

The commandment Jesus (last Adam) recieved was DEATH.

Your question of Jesus being disobedient- as Last Adam he was obedient, not disobedient.

FaithfulServant, It is probably better for you to just stay with Jesus being God, it is much easier.?.?
Thanks for trying
I will try to get the firstborn out over the weekend.

[Bandit]

I am sorry FaithfulServant, what I meant to say is, the way you see Jesus is easier than how I see him and I will admit seeing him as God from the start is easier than seeing Jesus as first and last Adam and how God is revealed through, in, for and by man.

Then what I meant to say is, I will get the firstborn out and reply to the other parts of your post in order a little at a time.

[Faithfulservant]

Hello Bandit

Im going to wait to respond to your post because I want you to be able to focus on other parts then we can narrow it down.

do you honestly think its more difficult to see Jesus as just a man rather than seeing him as a part of a triune Godead? Trying to grasp the the idea that God is three parts? knowing which roles each aspect of God plays into our lives? I beg to differ. It took me a long time to grasp the fullness of it. I didnt understand it until I began asking for wisdom and understanding and then the scriptures started popping out at me everytime I opened my bible. I used to read the bible and take it at face value.. thats not what its meant to be.. But to have God interpret it FOR me .. oh man the jewels I find everyday.

You know those 3D pictures you see where you look through them to see the real picture.. thats what its like for me. I read something I see the face value then I meditate on it and I start to see the REAL thing underneath. I have examples but they are personal revelations from my Lord and I dont know if anyone can truly understand it except the person receiving then again ive never tried to explain a verse to someone.

Like I said I welcome the challenge! I love being able to test the word according to my beliefs. It reaffirms my conviction. I would like to see scriptures defending your belief system. So if you can take the time to show them to me so I can look them up myself I would appreciate it.

I also am curious if you consider yourself a Christian? and what were the churches that practiced this same theology? Is Jehovah's Witness one of them?

Faithful Servant

[Bandit]

FaithfulServant,
Thanks for being so kind to me. I am not used to others even considering me as child of God because my understanding is so different.
I posted here because I saw the thread was not in a fighting angry debating, confused thread. But now it appears to be more based on trinity and Jehova
Witness.

I was raised in an Apostolic Church. I am not Jehova Witness, but they and the mormons came to my house for about a year, along with other religions and things just did not match up for me.
I repented and was baptised in Jesus name at 9. Recieved the Holy Ghost speaking with tongues at 12. So yes I am a Christian but I can't bring myself to claim a specific organized religion. I think there is a bit of good in all religions.

There are only two churches that I know of who see Jesus as First and LastAdam and they are Apostolic. The sad part is, they have been scorned and ridiculed and hated so badly that they decided to keep it within the church walls to keep peace with everyone.
I keep it to myself mostly too, but once in awhile I like to see if others are beginning to see it. I am thinking this is how God wants it to be. Some things are supposed to remain hidden.?.
The First and Last Adam is not an easy thing to see, I can tell you that.

You will not find what I am talking about anywhere online, published or anywhere outside of the two churches who see it.
They did come out of a trinitarian background and this particular revelation has only been out for the last 50 years.

I have been around and around with the triGod, the Jesus ONLY, the Jesus that Jehova created, the polyGod, the angel theory.
I do know the Christian Science see Jesus as a man kind of like I do, but they also see Adam and Eve as a myth. SO, there ya go

I have never believed God as 3 parts. Just one huge massive loving and all powerful all knowing spirit. With one little spirit of the man Jesus making up the complete godhead.

I dont believe the godhead was ever completed until after Jesus went to the cross and was raised up to immortality.
I say this because God was at peace when he created man, first Adam. Then God mainly only deals with the righteous seed through the O.T. and you see wrath and destruction and He wont go outside of the Holy of Holies to commune.
Then after Jesus (second Adam) laid down his life in obedience you see a
God of grace and peace again.

I see others views very clearly and understand what they are seeing because I keep my mind and heart open and honest willing to be taught. Besides I wanted to know what other religions taught.

But I have lost interest in the other theories because it is always the same thing and the same scriptures and they argue back and forth, (which I wont do) and I see different scriptures on top of the main godhead scriptures.
I dont even consider it Theology the way most do. I see it as knowing
our God better by knowing who Jesus is.

We can just talk about it a little. Whenever I see someone feeling uneasy, confused or threatened or they start to judge, I back off and just let it rest.

Have a good weekend FaithfulServant and I will get a
post back to you soon on the other scriptures. Hope I answered well enough so far.

In Christ,
Bandit

[Bandit]

Dear FaithfulServant,
another 4 hours bites the dust. Oh what Joy Thanks for keeping me busy

John 14:8-9 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip?"
"He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?"
He changed the water into wine, creating something new John 2:1-11
He multiplied a small amount of food on two separate occasions to feed thousands John 6

He created new eyes from mud John 9; Mark 8

He had authority over nature and controls His creation for He calmed the sea and walked upon it and caused the fish to have the coin in its mouth so He and Peter could pay the temple tax Matthew 17:27

He gave life to the physically dead.

He gave life to the spiritually dead, making a new creation.

He has the ability to forgive sins Luke 7:47–50 and judge all people John 5:27
He sends forth the Holy Spirit John 15:26
He accepts worship Hebrews 1:6, Matthew 14:33
He is called ‘Lord’ Romans 10:9 where ‘Lord’ (kurios) is a translation of the Old Testament Yahweh (= God) Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32 which makes this clear
Jesus said: ‘My Father is greater (meizon) than I’ John 14:28. But this refers to the Father’s greater position in Heaven, not superior nature. Philippians 2:5–11 states that Jesus had equality by nature with God, but voluntarily took on the lower position of a servant. The same arguments apply to related passages about Jesus submitting to His Father’s will.

If it is ok Faithfulservant, I will just look at these with you for now, then come back to Hebrews, Col and the Preeminence.
Please don't get me wrong, I do see the equality of son with the father, but I am seeing the equality from this side of Jordan and Calvary. I am seeing Jesus as the image and manifestation of God and this side of Calvary, they are inseperable. But I'll come back to that and the firstborn etc...


When I see Phillips question, I am looking at a man who was asking for more than what Jesus had offered and shown. I am seeing Philip desiring to see a physical being at the same time, along side with Jesus. Now Jesus understood God is a spirit and taught the disciples to worship God in spirit. The disciples had not recieved the Holy Ghost yet, so they could not have known the father the same way Jesus knew him. He had done everything in teaching, in prayer and in works, yet Phillip wanted to see the Father. Jesus manifested the father in his life. Sometimes I think Jesus may have been sad at the question, because he asked Phillip, "How can you ask this " (so to speak)

Matthew 28:19 ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ *Note that the word ‘name’ is singular, showing that all three Persons are one Being.

I am seeing this as a commandment in water baptism, name singular, showing one name and one authority for all three titles. I see the Father and Holy Ghost as one entity and one spirit, for there are many titles.
I am seeing the SON as a seperate entity yet one in essence with the father.
I do not see three persons (entities) here, I see three titles displaying the one God. Three manifestations and three titles of the one God, but not 3 entities.
Holy Ghost is called promise, comforter, gift, gift of God.

John 17:21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 17:22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 17:23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Above, I am seeing the oneness of God displayed in the Apsotles. God, Jesus, the apostles, clear up to us in the present, we are also one with the father.
It is showing that the father is IN the son and the son IN the father. His prayer here is so that the apostles can share IN and be made perfect in one the same way the father and son are one.

He changed the water into wine, creating something new John 2:1-11
He multiplied a small amount of food on two separate occasions to feed thousands John 6

He created new eyes from mud John 9; Mark 8

He had authority over nature and controls His creation for He calmed the sea and walked upon it and caused the fish to have the coin in its mouth so He and Peter could pay the temple tax Matthew 17:27

He gave life to the physically dead.

He gave life to the spiritually dead, making a new creation.

I am seeing These wonderful miracles as the power of God being displayed through the man Jesus. Jesus was a man, He was nothing without the father and I see his humility directing the glory to his father in his teachings.
We see Moses pass the red sea, which is just as great of a miracle as what Jesus did. But moses is not God. We see Peter and John healing the lame man in Acts. We see Peter raise Tabitha from the dead, but it was not that Peter is God- IT was the power of God.
We see the prison shaken through the praises and singing and Paul was set free, though the power of God.
Jesus said, "GREATER things than this shall ye do."
Jesus passed the authority on to the Apostles to remit and retain sin. But we know sin is not remitted by a man, rather through the teaching of repentance of the heart.

He has the ability to forgive sins Luke 7:47–50 and judge all people John 5:27
He sends forth the Holy Spirit John 15:26
He accepts worship Hebrews 1:6, Matthew 14:33
He is called ‘Lord’ Romans 10:9 where ‘Lord’ (kurios) is a translation of the Old Testament Yahweh (= God) Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32 which makes this clear
Jesus said: ‘My Father is greater (meizon) than I’ John 14:28. But this refers to the Father’s greater position in Heaven, not superior nature. Philippians 2:5–11 states that Jesus had equality by nature with God, but voluntarily took on the lower position of a servant. The same arguments apply to related passages about Jesus submitting to His Father’s will.

Yes I believe with you that Jesus sends the Holy Ghost.
Yes I believe with you that Jesus accepts worship, but this worship is not outside of the Father (God).

Yes I believe that Jesus is called Lord as in leader, ruler, excercising authority- but not outside of the father. I see Jesus as excercising the authority of God as in the RIGHT HAND.

"Lord": 1203 despotes des-pot'-ace perhaps from 1210 and posis (a husband); an absolute ruler ("despot"):--Lord, master.
2424 Iesous ee-ay-sooce' of Hebrew origin (3091); Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites:--Jesus.
2634 katakurieuo kat-ak-oo-ree-yoo'-o from 2596 and 2961; to lord against, i.e. control, subjugate:--exercise dominion over (lordship), be lord over, overcome.
2960 kuriakos koo-ree-ak-os' from 2962; belonging to the Lord (Jehovah or Jesus):--Lord's.
2961 kurieuo ko-ree-yoo'-o from 2962; to rule:--have dominion over, lord, be lord of, exercise lordship over.
2962 kurios koo'-ree-os from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):-- God, Lord, master, Sir.
3134 maran atha mar'-an ath'-ah of Chaldee origin (meaning our Lord has come); maranatha, i.e. an exclamation of the approaching divine judgment:--Maran-atha.
4462 rhabboni hrab-bon-ee', or rhabbouni hrab-boo-nee' of Chaldee origin; corresponding to 4461:--Lord, Rabboni.

Phil.2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 2:9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 2:10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I see Jesus in the FORM of God but not God. I see this equality spoken here from Jordan and calvary and forward. I see the man Jesus as God manifesting himself IN and through the man Jesus.
Yet there is an obedience factor here, and God is not required to be obedient to anything. Yet Jesus RECIEVED a commandement from His father in Matthew.
Jesus made no reputation of himself, yet humbled himself and BECAME obedient unto death.

Jesus was MADE in the likeness of men and being FOUND in fashion as a man.
Later we see God ALSO HATH what???
HIGHLY EXALTED HIM and GAVE HIM A NAME above all names.
Jesus did not exalt himself. God exalted him.
We see THINGS OF heaven THINGS IN earth and THINGS under the earth. We see everything
bowing and confessing, sooner or later, that Jesus is Lord.
WHY?
to the glory of the Father.

John14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

I see a relationship here. I see Jesus expressing his Love for his father and doing his best for the world to see. Once again we see Jesus was given a commandment.
At this point in time, I see Jesus acknowledging God, as being greater than he is. He not only refers to his father as a father but also as God.
Below we see Jesus in his immortal state of being and he acknowledges God as both father and God.
I dont see where Jesus ever directly claimed to be God. I see that God exalted him to the position, within the godhead after the cross.

Below we see Jesus not being touched. This is where he had to go to the father and sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat, like the priests with the OT sacrifices. Later, they are able to touch him.

John 20:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.