• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

John 1:1 Discussion


·´sociopathic meanderer`·
1The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God.The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.”*see as many translations as you can find, many will not read in ex3:14 "..i am..".also, keep in mind that ex3:14 was an 'angel' speaking on behalf of [yhwh] and not himself.

It is believed that John.8:59 further supports the position that YAHushua is the "I AM." Why else would the Jews try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews, a stoneable offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of "ego eimi" a blasphemy? Does the use of "ego eimi" automatically identify the speaker as YAHWEH, the I AM?

Several individuals aside from YAHushua used "ego eimi" as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In John.9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by YAHushua said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Saviors use of it was somehow different. After all, he came down from heaven.

If, in fact, YAHushua spoke Greek to the Jews (which I doubt), he used the phrase "ego eimi" at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (John.8:58). YAHushua said, "I am the bread of life" to a large crowd, in John.6:35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, "I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven." But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, "I came down from heaven" and ignored "ego eimi." The same is true of verses 51 & 52.
In John.8:12, 18, 24, & 28, YAHushua used "ego eimi" with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning.

The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard YAHushua say "Ego eimi." They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as "I am YAHushua of Nazareth."
This brings us back to John.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of John.8 shows that YAHushua;
1Accused the Jews of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15).
2Said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3Implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4Said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5Said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6Implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7Said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8Said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
9Accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10Accused them of not knowing YAHWEH (vs.55).
11Accused them of lying (vs.55).

Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood YAHushua's words leading them to believe;
1That he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2YAHushua had a devil (vs.52).
3That he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4That he saw Abraham (vs.56).

YAHushua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, "ego eimi," but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.Keep in mind that be exalting him to the throne of the almighty, you are agreeing with the jew's whom opposed our savior.

Then in verse 56 YAHushua says Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." He did not say he saw Abraham as the Jews misunderstood. How did Abraham see YAHushua's day?

Heb.11:13 says, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."

They saw YAHushua's day of the reigning King, by faith.

YAHushua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am." "Was" is from the Greek "ginomai" meaning, "to come into being, ... to arise." What YAHushua actually meant was, "Before Abraham comes into being (at his resurrection unto eternal life), I will." Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading "Heterosis (Of Tenses)," subheading "The Present for the Future," he writes, "This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present."

Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is John.8:58. In other words, although properly written, "Before Abraham comes to be, I am," with "I am" in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, "Before Abraham comes to be, I will."
Some people believe this verse should be translated, "Before Abraham existed, I existed." However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). "Was" is in the aorist tense and "am" is in the present tense. Let's look a little closer at "was." Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, "It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented." The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, "The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, ..." Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, "Before Abraham comes to be" not "Before Abraham was (or existed)."
2jesus, does not identify the bible as his word, but as his fathers.this in no way makes them equals for others throughout the bible have given this same warning
3Had YAHWEH given YAHushua the power to ressurect? YAHushua said,

"I can of my own self do nothing," "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John.5:30a; 8:28; 14:10).

consider 1th4:16.the voice of an archangel is scripturally doing what you unscripturally claim the almighty cannot delegate to another being.
4parallels prove little to nothing, consider the titles `king of kings`=Nebudchanezzar,'elohim'=men/'angels'/the most high,'master(lord)'=men/'angels'/the most high .ect.

continued below


·´sociopathic meanderer`·
5yes they are worshipped?so are many in scripture.

Also many people believe that only Almighty YAHWEH can forgive sins and receive worship. Since YAHushua did both while here on earth, they believe he must be the Almighty. YAHushua indeed is worthy of our esteem and honor, but only as YAHWEH's representative, not as YAHWEH Himself. YAHWEH commanded even the angels of heaven to do obeisance** to YAHushua (Heb.1:6). Rev.5:12 ,13 show both YAHWEH and the Lamb [YAHushua] receiving obeisance**. [Many Christian bibles mistranslate this word here with Worship, but look it up in the Greek and compare.] Eventually, those believers comprising the Philadelphia assembly will receive 'worship' as well (Rev. 3:9). The 'worship' they receive however, is not directed at them as though they were YAHWEH.

A study of the Hebrew and Greek words that were translated "worship" will show that the Almighty is not always the recipient. Of the 170 occurrences only about half refer to the worship of YAHWEH. This is hidden from the reader of Scripture because half of those occurrences were translated 'to bow, bow down, do reverence, do obeisance,' as can be seen in the following verses: Gen.18:2; 19:1: 23:7,12; 27:29; 1 Sam.24:8; 25:23,41; 2 Sam.9:6; 14:4,22.

YAHushua said to a man with palsy in Matthew.9:2, "thy sins be forgiven thee" . The account continues,

Matt. 9:3 "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified YAHWEH, which had given such power unto men."

Were they correct? Had YAHWEH given YAHushua the power to forgive sins? YAHushua said,

"I can of my own self do nothing," "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John.5:30a; 8:28b; 14:10b).

YAHWEH gave YAHushua the authority to forgive sins, judge men, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. He is YAHWEH's Representative with the power to act in His name. The word "power" in Mt.9:2 is from the same Greek word that was translated "authority" in John.5:27 and throughout the New Testament. This same power was given to the Angel of YAHWEH in Exodus;

Ex.23:20-21, "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for My Name is in him."

Again some believe that therefore this Angel is also Yahweh, but that is not what it truly says, does it now? It was an Angel FROM Yahweh.

note also that scripturally power/authority/ect. has been GIVEN to the son, if he were almighty, then he would of always had it.rather simple.
6 see #4^
7In John 17:11,21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.” I know it is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or “substance” just as he and his Father were one being or “substance.” I know the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose, a prayer that has not yet been answered.
8very much like 7^This verse is sometimes used to prove the Trinity, but it proves nothing of the kind. The exact same language about being “in” is used many times of Christians. We assert that when the same exact language is used both of Christ and of Christians, it needs to be understood the same way. We are “in” Christ, and Christ is “in” us (cp. John 14:4-7; 17:21,23 and 26). When used in the sense of “in God,” or “in Christ,” the word “in” refers to a close communion, a tight fellowship. It was part of the covenant language of the day, when people spoke of being either “in” or “cut off from” the covenant.
9being the image of something or someone in no way shape or form logically or scripturally makes one equal to that which they reflect.Adam was also created in the imaged of Elohim, is Adam therefore Yahweh? An image is something that 'resembles' something more important, like a photo is an image of the real person. YAHushua resembles YAHWEH in that their characters are almost identical. "Not that any man has seen the Father" (John. 6:46) bodily, but we have seen His character through His Son.

keep in mind that your term 'god the son' is never found in scripture, though 'son of god' is found well over 50times.keep in mind that if you mean to elevate all of the 'sons of god' to his throne, that you are missing a few 'sons of god', see job1 and 38.HF
not one of your verses say he will ever be 'equal to his father'.



Well-Known Member
Bryan X said:
Shares? What do you mean shares? Isn't it true that God performed all those miracles through Christ? But does that mean Christ is God? Well, I don't think so.

Christ and God are 2 [very] different people('beings' is a much better term, I'd rather use)...yes, that's true. That statement only proves that since Christ differs from God, then He is not God. By the way, that seems a little hypocritical to me how you say that Christ shares the same attributes of God and then say that they are 2 different beings.

Oh my, this thread just might go a long way.

Jesus, is God in human form after he emptied HIMSELF. Christ is the visible manifestation of an invisible GOD. It is interesting to note that Jesus said that until he returned to heaven, the Holy Spirit would not be able to come down to indwell believers.

See John 16:7-16


Well-Known Member
Lu.1:35 The Holy Spirit/El Shadai shall cause to concieve, the Holy thing, You bear shall be called the Son of God! No! Really He will be me. You know, I am.

And My son is really me! Don't you understand how this works?

And Ronald said, "No explain it to me!"

true blood

Active Member
"One" is the Greek word hen, neuter, meaning one in purpose, not one person which would be heis, masculine. This is the climax of Jesus' claim of oneness with his Daddy, and this oneness is of purpose. Since the Greek word hen is used, not heis, then "one" does not mean "equal to" but signifies "unity of purpose" You and I could have unity of purpose pertaining to matters in which we're mutually involved. There it is. John 14:28 and I Corinthians 11:3 BOLDLY indicate that God is superior to Jesus Christ. How can Jesus Christ be equal to God and yet, according to other scriptures, God be superior to Jesus Christ? Consider an isosceles triangle, it has two angles which contain the exact same number of degrees. Even though equal, the angles are not identical. Besides this, the equality spoken of in the scriptures hinges on your understanding of Oriental mannerisms. According to Oriental culture, a son is equal to his father. When Jesus Christ said that God was his Dad, he put himself on par with God. It did not make him God, but it gave him many of the same privileges as God. Similarly, a son born into a family of a king has many of the same basic privileges as his father, but yet the king represents the greater of the two. The father is always greater than the son, but yet their privileges are many times equal because of the father's power and position to make them so. Further, God exhorts us "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." Jesus Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God. So if we let these same thoughts be in us that Jesus Christ had, then we bring ourselves up to that level of equality as sons of God. We could say if questioned by Jesus as his disciples were, "But whom say ye that I am?" Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

true blood

Active Member
Another difference between God and Jesus Christ regards that of knowledge. God is omniscient, but Jesus Christ knew only those things which he ascertained from his knowledge of the Scriptures and from the rest of the senses world, plus that which God revealed to him. Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Plus Jesus Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet God is never tempted; indeed, cannot be tempted. The Scriptuures also indicate that God's will is a seperate and distinct will from Jesus Christ's. Matthew 26:39, 26:42, Luke 22:42, John 5:30 and Matthew 20:23 deomonstrate that Jesus Christ carried out his Father's will while putting his own wishes aside. According to the Word of God, God said Jesus Christ was His Son. Other witnesses proclaimed the same: John the Baptist, all the gospel writers, Simon Peter, Nathanael, the centurion, God's angles, the blind man, Martha, Philip, the Ethipian eunuch, Paul, the revilers and mockers at the cross, devil spirits, the high priest Caiaphas, disciples in the boat on Galilee, elders of the people, and others including Jesus Christ himself.


·´sociopathic meanderer`·
"Holy Spirit/El Shadai"

these are not the same thing, one refers to the 'set-apart spirit' and the other to the 'almighty'.

a common misinterpretation of scripture comes from a lack of understanding of the mass array of people 'elohim'(oft mistranslated as 'god' in english) refers scripturally to.it's actual meaning is mighty one(s).singular or plural like our 'fish'.keep in mind the titles which denote inferiority for yeshua;'prince''annointed''heir''son'''

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser."

"I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me."
this verse does NOT read as trinitarians claim it means;
`i know me, for i come from me, and i sent me`

"even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve..."

"He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name."

why does yeshua still have a 'god'(4x^, 1verse) in revelations? :confused: why is he still serving someone after he's back in heaven?

"but I do as the Father has commanded me..."

how many times is the true 'most high' commanded? :confused: never.

"...I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me...for I always do what is pleasing to him..."

"Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect..."

we are never called the father's bretheren

"When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one."

In the end the son will be subjected? :confused: doesn't sound so 'equal' to me.

"...bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him..."

heirs with 'christ' and not his father?interesting if as you say he is equal with his father.

"Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

he was made lord?but didn't you say he already was?

"having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."

become superior? :confused:




·´sociopathic meanderer`·
just for fun, do you think only the almighty can heal?





Well-Known Member
Luke 1:35 Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High, Both in the same sentence.
Why? Weren't you around to correct Luke. The Holy Ruach/breath/wind is the power of The Most High, This is Hebrew poetry, to say and say again.
El Shaddai shall cause Mary to concieve. The Child (Holy Thing) is the Son of El Shaddai.
Unless you are a trinitarian, basically, we are on the same side.


·´sociopathic meanderer`·
Ronald said:
Unless you are a trinitarian, basically, we are on the same side.

yeah i believe we are, it's just that the words 'el shaddai' do not mean the same thing as the set-apart Ruach/breath/wind/presense.

el-mighty one
shaddai-many breasted or all sufficient.

but yea, i think we're on the same side



·´sociopathic meanderer`·
were you talking to me?

Jn4:24Elohim is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

we are all given spirit for life.ECC12:7"..the spirit returneth unto Elohim who gave it..."



Well-Known Member
The question on Jn. 5:24 was for trinitarians. Making the power/etc. a separate person/personal name. How can the Spirit, have A spirit?

HaShem, means in Hebrew "The Name" it is used to not make the name of God mundane or common. An Euphimisim to identify God, same as Yeshua/Jesus says Kingdom of Heaven/HaShem/God.


·´sociopathic meanderer`·
HaShem means the name yes.

where in scripture does yeshua say 'kingdom of the name'?

is not making his name common(which i do not think would make it mundane, imo) a scriptural practice?or do you follow the torah?

in scripture, i can find no reason not to use yhwh/yahuweh/yahoweh/yahweh/ect..just curious.



Well-Known Member
Kingdom of Heaven! Euphimisim for Y-H-V-H the Holy One Blessed is He.

Have you read the Third Commandment in the Decalogue? How do you gaurd against doing this? Or are you eternally forgiven and are free to break God's Law.

In Judism this is a fence, like the parapet on your roof, to keep someone from falling.

You do know that God is not His name! Yes?


·´sociopathic meanderer`·
i don't know about 'holy' but 'set-apart', yes.

euphinism=an inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive
?i believe you're using this in the opposite way?replacing an innoffensive expression with an offensive one...

the third commandment forbids bringing His name to naught

i believe this would include replacing it with a title, especially ones of pagan origin?

(hypothetical, since i got it from someone else)When several years ago I at some occasions visited Asia I heard many people refer to their 'god' and 'lord'. But it turned out to be their idols. THESE PEOPLE USED THE SAME TITLES FOR THEIR PAGAN IDOLS, as Jews and Christians do.Paul said there are gods many and lords many. Titles do not define specific individuals.

Exodus 20:2 begin, "I am Yahweh your Elohim which brought you out of the Land of Egypt. You shall have no other mighty ones before me."
would anything really make it ok to remove yhwh?btw, adding vowels between to specify an individuals interpretation of the pronunciation is not likened to replacing it with a title by any stretch.




That’s one of my fav topics and I don’t care that it’s 12 years old. I’m resurrecting it :D

Hey people, Let's have a discussion on John 1:1, shall we?

Yes, please! :clapping:

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

...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

BTW, let us keep in mind that the biblical god is YHVH which literally means “I Am Who I Am”. I think this is an important detail.

Also, let us keep in mind that the Word here is from the Greek Logos and doesn’t mean talking word.

Well, I think it's pretty black and white. This verse clearly says that Jesus was god made flesh...what are the alternative interpretations?

Because not everyone perceives god the same way.

Shares? What do you mean shares? Isn't it true that God performed all those miracles through Christ?

Who/what is Christ anyway…?

In that case what about John 10:30? John 10:30 - I and My Father are one

Interesting :)

Jesus, is God in human form after he emptied HIMSELF. Christ is the visible manifestation of an invisible GOD.

In that case, what did Jesus mean all the times he said “My Father in Heavens”? Does god have a multi-personality disorder?

I KNOW that many (if not all) of the members in that thread are probably no longer around here.
That’s OK. If anyone wishes to pick up from where they left off, it would be nice :)



Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hey people,

Let's have a discussion on John 1:1, shall we? I know this verse(and lots others) is quoted to prove that Christ is God. Let's have a debate on those who believe that Christ is God and those who believe Christ is not God using John 1:1. You can use other verses as well but let's try to stick to John 1:1 as best we can. I know it's only decent if I break the ice first, but I'd like someone to do the head start instead.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
According to other translations, John 1:1 reads differently:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" or was divine. (NWT) This makes sense, since the next verse (2) says "This one was in the beginning with God." Clearly, the Word was with God, not God himself.
To add to the evidence Jesus (the Word) is not God, verse 18 adds: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." Obviously, people did see Jesus during his earthly ministry. In contrast, no man has seen God at any time.


According to other translations, John 1:1 reads differently:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" or was divine.

Directly from the original:

Εν αρχή ήτο ο Λόγος, και ο Λόγος ήτο παρά τω Θεώ, και Θεός ήτο ο Λόγος.

Which translates to:

“In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was towards God, and God was the Word”

(NWT) This makes sense, since the next verse (2) says "This one was in the beginning with God." Clearly, the Word was with God, not God himself.

Directly from the original:

Αυτός ήταν στην αρχή προς τον Θεό

Which translates to:

“This one was in the beginning towards God”

To add to the evidence Jesus (the Word) is not God

1) Jesus is not the Word. He is nothing other than just a man. The Christ is the Word. And, yes, there is a huge difference.

2) The Word comes from God and is God. Read 1:1 again.

verse 18 adds: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." Obviously, people did see Jesus during his earthly ministry. In contrast, no man has seen God at any time.

Directly from the original:

Κανένας δεν είδε ποτέ τον Θεό· ο Μονογενής Υιός, που είναι στην αγκαλιά τού Πατέρα, εκείνος τον φανέρωσε.

Which translates to:

“No one has seen God ever; the only-begotten son, who is in the Father’s embrace, is the one who has revealed Him”

“Revealing” doesn’t necessarily mean showing something that is visible to the natural eye. Example: I’m revealing the truth now… is it possible for anyone to see it with his/her physical eyes? Nope.

And, again: Jesus is just a man. The Christ is the issue.

BTW, what do you -or anyone else- think that “the Word” is, anyway?


Και ο Λόγος έγινε σάρκα, και κατοίκησε ανάμεσά μας, (και είδαμε τη δόξα του, δόξαν ως μονογενή από τον Πατέρα), γεμάτος χάρη και αλήθεια.

That’s John 1:14, Which translates to:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw it’s glory, glory as only-begotten from the Father) filled with grace and truth”

But, it’s much more interesting if you read the whole paragraph:

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
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.