The Gospel of John Claims that Jesus is God

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

REGARDING JOHN 17:5
“And now, glorify me Father with thine own self, with the Glory which I had with the before the world was.”


Clear said to Muffled : “I like the point that you made that the Messiah Jesus, (who, in early Judeo-Christian worldview, pre-existed with the Father as "the Word" (John 1:1), also received and deserved some degree of glory even before his incarnation. I feel as though there are many roles the messiah played both before and after his birth for which we owe him our deepest gratitude, but which we, typically, do not consider.” (post #770)

Muffled replied : “I believe that view is in error. It is God who has always existed as the "Word" and only becomes Jesus as God inhabits flesh. John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father…I believe the only role before His birth is that of the prophecy of Messiah. (post #791)

Clear replied : My reference (in post #770) regarding the glory of the Messiah (Jesus) before his birth was in reference to early Christianitys' belief in the various roles of the Messiah before his incarnation at birth. In this case, I was referring to the role of the Messiah (Jesus) who was with the father in the beginning, before creation, and who was the one who was directed by his father to create the world.

Muffled replied : I believe that is impossible. There was no Jesus until His birth. (post #807)



Hi @Muffled
I was not referring to your Christian religion, rather I was referring to early Christian religion. These two religions are not the same on this belief.

The early Christian worldview was that Jesus existed prior to creation and had Glory with his Father and part of the honor the pre-mortal Jesus was due, was partly because he administrated the creation of the earth under the direction of his Father.

For example, though New Testament Hebrews makes the innocuous statement that “God…hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (kjv Heb 1:1-2). While your religion does not believe Jesus existed prior to his birth, early Christianity describes their belief that the Son/messiah/word of God existed prior to his birth and that he had glory as the one who was the creator of the earth (and he was directed by God to do so).

This verse in Hebrews traditionally referred to the time before creation when the Messiah was “…made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Vs 4

For example, the prophet enoch spoke of this same tradition and time period, when, before creation, “ At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the head of days. This time period was “… even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits.” And he became the Chosen One... (c.f.1st Enoch 48:1-7)

The tradition of the Son of Man becoming chosen by God as the savior (i.e. the lamb slain before the foundation of the world” and his special servant) is woven into early textual histories just as his role as “the Word of God” (i.e. the “Logos”).

Thus many of the early Hellenistic synagogal prayers reflect God the Father, having create the world through Jesus.

For example, one eucharistic prayer reads : We give thanks to you, O God and Father of Jesus our Savior...on behalf of the knowledge and faith and love and immortality which you gave to us through Jesus your Son. 4 O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him, and you planted deeply in our souls a law; and you prepared for men the things (necessary) for communion; " (aposCon 7.26. 1-3) , Other synagogal prayers relate this same belief. Barnabas also does. Ezra, phillip, odes of Solomon, Jewish Haggadah, secret John and many other early Judeo-Christian texts describe this same early Christian doctrine.

Clement, the colleague of the apostle Peter taught the early Christian saints this same doctrine, referring to God the Father as “ ... the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ…“.

Clement still realized that the Father is the “primal source” since all is done by direction of and in in accordance with the Fathers plan. The Father commands, and the Word or Logos, Jesus, obeys. 1 Clement 59:2-3;

The were many reasons why the Messiah, as the word of God was worthy of honor, but in this specific case, I am referring to his role as creator of world under the direction of God, his Father, whom he was with. Thus he asked in John 17:5 for his Father to “..glorify me Father with thine own self, with the Glory which I had with the before the world was.”

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful, especially if you ever become interested in early Christian history and their beliefs.

Clear
εινεακακακω

I believe that early belief still survives in teaching. It amounts to a form of idolatry in that it is a three god concept.

Muffled replied : “I believe that early belief still survives in teaching. It amounts to a form of idolatry in that it is a three god concept.” (post #818)



Hi @Muffled

Muffled, If the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was not the same as his father, yet somehow had characteristics of a divine being, how is this idolatry?


MONOTHEISM VERSUS POLYTHEISM VERSUS HENOTHEISM

Among the historians, early Judao-Christian religious worldviews continues to be re-contextualized due to the many wonderful sacred textual discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, early period historians interested in creation council histories (e.g. Ηeiser, Tigay, F.M. Cross, T. Mullen, Morgenstern, Cyrus Gordon, Prinsloo, C. Seitz, MacDonald, E. Ulrich, Sanders, M. Van Ruiten, Gerald Cook, and others, etc) are trying to generate NEW historical terms to accurately reflect the changing models of early Israels belief (since “mono-theism” no longer accurately reflects current historical models). As I read their various papers on Israel’s henotheism which is the recognition of multiple lower divinities while worshiping ONLY ONE Diety at the head of all others.

This this is not the same as polytheism.

It was Budge, the Great Egyptologist who first pointed out the principle that Egypt (who had many divine beings the translators called “Gods” – it was the best word we had at the time) was essentially monotheism for most of its history since they had a LORD GOD who was always over all other beings that were called “gods”. He directed others and had no director himself. This distinction is important. This concept underlies the ancient Judao-Christian texts that speak so often about “Gods” and the “Godlike” and yet still remain essentially monotheistic in their context.

For example, in the Jewish-Christian Apocalypse of Abraham, when Abraham discovers the true God, he hears the voice of God : Quote: “Abraham, Abraham!” And I said, “Here I am.” And he said, “You are searching for the God of gods, the creator, in the understanding of your heart. I am he. (Apoc of Abr 8:1-4

This principle and language is virtually woven into the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For examples : Quote: “You are chief of the gods and king of the Glorious, Lord of every spirit and Ruler of every creature. Apart from you nothing is done, nor is there any knowing without your will. There is no one beside you and no one approaches you in strength. No one can compare to your glory.”

Quote: “You have humbled the gods from the foundation” - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432

Quote: “He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of the majestic angel of the authority of Michael…to exalt the authority of Michael among the Gods and the dominion of Israel among all flesh. 1QM, 4Q491-496 )

Such texts speak of men as the “righteous ones among the gods of…in the holy habitation.” ( 1QM, 4Q491-496)

The Henotheism of early Judao-Christianity involved the tradition where many divine beings existed that were like the Lord God despite never equaling the LORD God, who was over all other beings. It is in such a context that the writer of Exodus is able to exclaim : “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? Ex 15:11". The doctrinal language that reflects this belief of God as a “LORD among the gods” is woven throughout much of the early literature. This is an important historical context underlying early Judao-Christian thought which allows ancient texts and principles to make wonderful sense. If I could quote from other Christian and Jewish texts the point becomes more obvious.

For example : Quote: “.... he will magnify the God of all the divine beings who are appointed for righteousness seven times with seven worlds of wondrous exaltation.” (4Q403 frag ` Col.1)

Quote: “Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic praise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all the godlike…Lift his exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine beings -His glorious divinity above all the highest heavens. Surely He is the utterly divine over all the exalted princes, King of kings over all the eternal councils.” (, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

It is important that you understand that these "god like" individuals are NOT "GOD" any more than Moses was a real "God" to pharoah in Old Textament Exodus despite being similarly called a "God". “And he shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be as your mouth, while you shall be to him as God” (Exod.4:16).

Instead, these are "like God" or "God-like" individuals.

Quote: “…, you godlike beings of utter holiness; rejoice in his divine kingdom. For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, He has engraven his precepts to govern all spiritual works and his glorious laws for all the wise divine beings, that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge….eternal, and from the font of holiness to the temple of utter holiness…priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King…His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies…They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council…the Holy of Holies, priests of …these are the princes of …who take their stand in the temples of the king… (4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

“The song for the second Sabbath, contains a similar description of Godlike beings worshiping the “King of the godlike beings”, that is, the Lord God. : priestly angels and compare the poor quality of human worship in comparison of that of the angels”) –

Quote: “wonderfully to praise Your glory among the wise divine beings, extolling Your kingdom among the utterly holy. They are honored in all the camps of the godlike beings and feared by those who direct human affairs, wondrous beyond other divine beings and humans alike….They sing wonderful psalms according to their insights throughout the highest heaven, and declare the surpassing glory of the King of the godlike beings in the stations of their habitation….

Quote: “the king of the godlike beings…when they come with the godlike beings of …together for all of their assemblies…their might for all the powerful warriors…for all the rebellious councils.” (, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

It is apparent from these doctrines that, though multiple beings are "like God" (i.e. “God- like” or "divine"), they are never equals to the Lord God and are always subordinate to him.

For example : Quote: “Surely the weapons of warfare belong to the God of divine beings…the armies of heaven and the wonder of all the divine spirits shall run at His command… But the victory shall belong to the God of divine beings. To the King of the wise godlike beings belong all matters of knowledge; indeed the God of knowledge causes all that happens forever. ..None of the divine beings understand what he has designed. (, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment )

Paul reminds us of this same principle of subordinance : "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (Corinthians 8:5-6). Whether there are many Gods or not, the position of LORD God, the Father of all, is singular. Regarding the “wise divine beings” it is said that “They neither run from the ‘Way nor reverence any thing not a part of it; they consider themselves neither too exalted for his realm nor too humble for his commissions." ( 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment). Despite their divinity bestowed upon them and the wisdom they have gained, they are still all subject to the Lord God. He commissions them, they do not commission him.

Still, they are honored to the extent that they are Godlike in morals and knowledge and dishonored to the extent that they are like Lucifer.

Quote: “ Bless the God of the godlike beings, you who inhabit the highest heaven…knowledge of the eternal godlike beings“ (, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

Remember, these were orthodox teachings to the ancients who wrote and used such texts (though the moderns have abandoned such teachings). If the Copper Scroll discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls is authentic, it placed these texts in the very mainstream of Judaic doctrines and underlie the ancient temple orthodoxy.

The divine “God-like” beings were not all simply arch-angels, but according to these ancient doctrines, some of them were the spirits of men. The discourse on the Soul of Man in the Haggadah describes the circumstances of placing the pre-existent spirit of man (or woman) into the embryo (according to their doctrinal understanding). When the spirit is told to enter the sperm or embryo the spirit is reluctant (perhaps scared to continue...) And the pre-mortal spirit then asks : Quote: “Why do you now desire to have me enter this impure sperm, I who am holy and pure, and a part of your glory?” God consoles her : “The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.” ( The Haggadah -The Soul of Man)

When the soul finally enters against her will (wisdom and souls are expressed as female anciently), “the angel carries her back to the womb of the mother.” where her body is nurtured. However, the pre-birth spirit is shown many things which prepare her for her life. Quote: “In the morning an angel carries her to Paradise, and shows her the righteous, who sit there in their glory, with crowns upon their heads. The angel then says to the soul, “Do you know who these are?” She replies in the negative, and the angel goes on: “These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God’s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy.....

It is important to note that the spirit is shown those who were, like her, introduced from a pre-mortal sphere into mortality and who were to learn to live gain moral knowledge, learn to live moral law and good lives and then, if successful, returned to live in bliss, having gained knowledge and characteristics they did not have when they left. THESE men and women became “pious ones” who return to God more like him (more God-like) than when they left. Each soul is given the same promise that they are able to become worthy to become one of the "pious ones" themselves.

Quote: “ .... “These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God’s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy. Know, also, you will one day depart from the world below, and if you will observe God’s Torah, then will you be found worthy of sitting with these pious ones. But if not, you will be doomed to the other place.” (The Haggadah - The Soul of Man)

Thus, if they are successful, they take their place with other pious and Godlike ones. Quote:“At their wondrous stations are spirits, clothed with embroidery, a sort of woven handiwork, engraven with splendid figures. In the midst of what looks like glorious scarlet and colors of utter holy spiritual light, the spirits take up their holy stand in the presence of the King – splendidly colored spirits surrounded by the appearance of whiteness. This latter glorious spiritual substance is like golden handiwork, shimmering in the light.” (, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

It is by this process within mortality that “that “He brings some of the sons of the world near, to be reckoned with him in the council of the gods as a holy congregation, stationed for eternal life and in the lot with His holy ones...” ( 4Q180-181). The ancient doctrine was that man was not destined to simply surround god as cattle, singing praises, but to achieve to a celestial knowledge and character. This is what the psalm-writer also testifies : Quote: “That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. That he might take his position before you with the eternal hosts and spirits of truth to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together with those who know.” ( - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

The thoroughly Christian Abbaton history uses language specific to this context. Jesus tells the apostles : Quote: “He put breath into him in this way; He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life three times, saying, “Live! Live! Live! According to the type of My Divinity.” And the man lived straightway, and became a living soul, according to the image and likeness of God. And when Adam had risen up he cast himself down before [My] father, saying, “My Lord and my God! Thou hast made me to come into being [from a state in which] I did not exist.” (Abbaton)

Adam was not given God’s divinity, but his TYPE of divinity. Adam doesn’t ever expect to become THE God, but rather if he obeys the torah, then he becomes God-Like. In this manner, it was taught that man was “created from the dust for the eternal council…- and for man, you have allotted an eternal destiny with the spirits of knowledge…” ( 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE

This doctrinal context underlies early texts.For example, in the early christian text, Testament of Adam, Eve tells her children : Quote: “He spoke to me about this in Paradise after I picked some of the fruit in which death was hiding: ‘Adam, Adam do not fear. You wanted to be a god; I will make you a god, not right now, but after a space of many years. I am consigning you to death, and the maggot and the worm will eat your body.’3...But after a short time there will be mercy on you because you were created in my image, and I will not leave you to waste away in Sheol. For your sake I will be born of the Virgin Mary. For your sake I will taste death and enter the house of the dead....4'And after three days, while I am in the tomb, I will raise up the body I received from you. And I will set you at the right hand of my divinity, and I will make you a god just like you wanted. And I will receive favor from God, and I will restore to you and to your posterity that which is the justice of heaven.” (TESTAMENT OF ADAM 3:2-4)

It is inside this ancient context that Jesus was speaking when he said “ Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (Jn 10:34)

Similarly to Old Testament Exodus 4:16, In the DDS DISCOURSE ON THE EXODUS AND CONQUEST 4q374 , the ancient Jewish writer refers to Moses as “a god over the mighty” by saying “He planted His chosen in a land desirable above all others, in …He made him as a god over the mighty; as a compass for pharaoh”. The description of Moses as a God, did not make him THE God, but, for the ancient commentarist, it was NOT an inappropriate doctrinal statement. It may have been the most descriptive and most applicable term to use.

This concept of learning to learn moral characteristics which will allow men to become more like god confers upon mortality the purpose of education and testing. This is (I think) why Ignatius tells the Ephesians : “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience.” Ig-eph 3:1. He knows he will become more like God through a process of Imitation. Thus he taught the saints of ephesus : “Ye are imitators of God, once you took on new life” I-eph 1:1

This was the same theme the angels proclaimed in the Rechabite ascension text : Quote: “To us the holy angels of God announce (both) the incarnation of the Word of God, who (is) from the holy virgin, the mother of God, and all those things which (he) provides and perfects and endures for the sake of the salvation of mortals.....9f Have regard to us in your hidden thoughts, be imitators of our way of life, pursue peace, cherish the love (that is) unchangeable, and love purity and holiness. (HISTORY OF THE RECHABITES 12:9a and 9f)

@Muffled,

The early Judeo-Christian literature describes beings who were in someway “like” God, or “God like” in certain characteristics. For example, Jesus is described as being "full of grace and truth". Other characteristics might include love, kindness, patience, etc. Jehovah was however was the God who was to be worshiped above all other God like beings. If these other beings were not worshiped as Jehovah was worshiped, then how is non-worship of such beings idolatry?

Also, Why would your personal beliefs and interpretations of Christian religion take precedence and priority over the beliefs and interpretations of the earliest Christians surrounding the apostolic era?


Clear
τωτζσεφιειω

 

[TrueBeliever37]

God is everywhere.. why would you even think I think that? But what does it mean that God is everywhere? God's spirit is everywhere. God is heaven, He doesnt come down to earth. Angels do and they represent our Heavenly Father. God can also manifest Himself in people and of course He does that in angels too. Is that what you mean?

For behold, YHWH cometh forth out of his place, and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. Micah 1:3

and what are the high places of Judah? are they not Jerusalem? Micah 1:5

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of YHWH, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Isaiah 40:3
...say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Isaiah 40:9

 

[Twilight Hue]

I should have stated that Paul 'considered' himself an apostle equal to the others due to his encounter with the risen Christ.

According to the Bible narrative, Jesus warned people if somebody says he is Christ , believe him not.

If I still was a Christian, I would have considered Pauline Christianity as counterfeit theology.

 

[pearl]

According to the Bible narrative, Jesus warned people if somebody says he is Christ , believe him not.

And according to biblical narrative, both Paul and Luke, whose account is no doubt embellished, Paul experienced the Christ in such a way that he sought baptism in a community which he had previously considered an enemy. Paul never claimed to be Christ but only to hand on what had been given to him.

 

[metis]

IMO.Jesus is most likely of the "essence"* of God but is not God the Father, much like the bread & wine during the Eucharist is the "essence"* of Jesus' body & blood.


*essence
/ˈesəns/
noun
the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

IMO.Jesus is most likely of the "essence"* of God but is not God the Father, much like the bread & wine during the Eucharist is the "essence"* of Jesus' body & blood.


*essence
/ˈesəns/
noun
the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.

Hi metis,
God the Father is the eternal Spirit. The Son is the fleshly body. The Father was dwelling in the Son - God had made himself a body to dwell in and sacrifice. That was why the Messiah said I and my Father are one, and if you have seen me you have seen the Father. It is not 2 persons that are both God. It is just a difference between flesh and Spirit.

 

[74x12]

According to the Bible narrative, Jesus warned people if somebody says he is Christ , believe him not.

If I still was a Christian, I would have considered Pauline Christianity as counterfeit theology.

Wouldn't that be an ironic belief for a "Christian"?

 

[metis]

Hi metis,
God the Father is the eternal Spirit. The Son is the fleshly body. The Father was dwelling in the Son - God had made himself a body to dwell in and sacrifice. That was why the Messiah said I and my Father are one, and if you have seen me you have seen the Father. It is not 2 persons that are both God. It is just a difference between flesh and Spirit.

That really doesn't work too well because, when asked when the end-of-times would be, Jesus said he didn't know but only the Father did. Therefore, Jesus could not literally be both physically and mentally God. Thus, "essence" better fits this, imo.

 

[dfnj]

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

The way I see it if Jesus is God, and you can't kill God, then Jesus did not die for our sins. No harm, no foul.

Life was suffering before Jesus. Life is suffering after Jesus. The Buddha was right.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That really doesn't work too well because, when asked when the end-of-times would be, Jesus said he didn't know but only the Father did. Therefore, Jesus could not literally be both physically and mentally God. Thus, "essence" better fits this, imo.

I think they tampered with the verse you are referring to. I don't think it has that in the original. I have a footnote that says some manuscripts do not have "nor the Son". You have got to remember that the translators were Trinitarians. When there were alternate ways to translate things they skewed it to what they believed. Sometimes they even added things in, such as 1 John 5:7 (KJV) which is widely known not to be in the original.

Even you as a Trinitarian, since you believe the Son is God - are you going to say you don't think he knows everything?

 

[74x12]

The way I see it if Jesus is God, and you can't kill God, then Jesus did not die for our sins. No harm, no foul.

Life was suffering before Jesus. Life is suffering after Jesus. The Buddha was right.

The body of Jesus was created for that very reason. Because God can't die. So He needed a human body. (see Hebrews 10:5)

 

[metis]

I think they tampered with the verse you are referring to.

I think this is likely, but the reality is that we don't know that with certainty. We know some things were added because they don't show up in the oldest manuscripts, but whether they negated to original message is not clear-- only speculative.

Even you as a Trinitarian, since you believe the Son is God - are you going to say you don't think he knows everything?

I've repeatedly posted that the concept of "essence" simply does not posit Jesus and God as being exactly the same. Plus, it's really quite clear in the NT that Jesus and God are not exactly the same, especially since Jesus at numerous times asks questions, thus not being omniscient.

Remember what "essence" means, namely this:
es·sence

noun

the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.

IOW, it appears likely that Jesus is of God but not literally God.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I think this is likely, but the reality is that we don't know that with certainty. We know some things were added because they don't show up in the oldest manuscripts, but whether they negated to original message is not clear-- only speculative.

I've repeatedly posted that the concept of "essence" simply does not posit Jesus and God as being exactly the same. Plus, it's really quite clear in the NT that Jesus and God are not exactly the same, especially since Jesus at numerous times asks questions, thus not being omniscient.

Remember what "essence" means, namely this:
es·sence

noun

the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.

IOW, it appears likely that Jesus is of God but not literally God.

Metis,
It is the Spirit dwelling in the body that was God. He took on the body to have blood to shed.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

All I'll say on the matter is that like with most things Christian, it begins with assuming conclusions about what the text says before even reading the text itself.
Somebody who hasn't had hammered into them the concept of the Trinity, would never come up with such an idiotic idea just reading the New Testament by itself.
And somebody that is familiar with the Jewish Torah and Mishna, would recognize that the things Jesus is attributed to teach in the New Testament are fundamentally of a Jewish nature and he constantly evokes the Shema (Deuteronomy/Devarim 6:4) in his worldview which is basically a form of 1st century esoteric Judaism.

And also anyone that has read the Tanakh ("Old Testament") would instantly recognize that the concept of "Jesus as God" is in direct contradiction to the entire Tanakh ("Old Testament") and must be categorically false; WITH EXCEPTION to if you were a Marcionite (aka, someone who rejected the Tanakh entirely and believed that Jesus followed or was the incarnation of another "god")

 

[Clear]

Hi @74x12

The O.P. indicates that John claimed that Jesus was God. While my point doesn't relate to the grammar of the first verse which can be either "and the Word was God" OR "and the Word was "A God" depending upon the author context,. I do have a question as to how your own religious model handles verse 18.

Verse 18 in greek can either create a bit of a problem or provide confirming insight (depending upon the belief of the reader).

John 1 vs 18 in greek reads : "θεον ουδεισ εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενησ θεοσ ο ων εισ τον κολπον του πατροσ εκεινοσ εξηγησατο" which reads in english "No one has ever seen God, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

The problem (or confirmation / insight depending upon personal belief) this verse provides is that IF John is speaking of God the Father in vs 18, then this verse refers to God the Father is an "only begotten God". However, most trinitarian descriptions assume that God the Father was NOT a begotten God. Does your theory about the trinity assume that Jesus is God the Father and that he is a begotten God or does your religious theory make a different sort of sense out of verse 18?

Thanks in advance for any additional information.

Clear
τωειφυφιτωω

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

"that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
(John 17:21-23)

'Nuff said. We are God too.


As the famous early Christian saying goes "God became man so that we can become God".

I have gradually come to think that the entirety of Christian doctrine is simply just allegory towards understanding the depth of Genesis 2:7.
It has nothing to do with the historical Jesus or worshiping a man, it has with understanding how everything is God.

Adam is humanity, the son of God, just as Israel is the 'firstborn son' of God (Exodus 4:22). All of this is poetical allegory for Genesis 2:7.

"God in us" is holy spirit, "The son" is the Universe and all in it (Genesis 1:1). Christianity is just a half-assed and roundabout way of explaining the Shema of Judaism and Tawhid of Islam.
Exact same thing as the Brahman/Atman relation in the Upanishads (Hinduism).

The true meaning of Christianity (and the Abrahamic religions), when really pulled back, is "There is no God but Man". Incredible stuff!

 

[moorea944]

Hi @74x12

The O.P. indicates that John claimed that Jesus was God. While my point doesn't relate to the grammar of the first verse which can be either "and the Word was God" OR "and the Word was "A God" depending upon the author context,. I do have a question as to how your own religious model handles verse 18.

Verse 18 in greek can either create a bit of a problem or provide confirming insight (depending upon the belief of the reader).

John 1 vs 18 in greek reads : "θεον ουδεισ εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενησ θεοσ ο ων εισ τον κολπον του πατροσ εκεινοσ εξηγησατο" which reads in english "No one has ever seen God, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

The problem (or confirmation / insight depending upon personal belief) this verse provides is that IF John is speaking of God the Father in vs 18, then this verse refers to God the Father is an "only begotten God". However, most trinitarian descriptions assume that God the Father was NOT a begotten God. Does your theory about the trinity assume that Jesus is God the Father and that he is a begotten God or does your religious theory make a different sort of sense out of verse 18?

Thanks in advance for any additional information.

Clear
τωειφυφιτωω

Verse 18 is talking about God and Jesus. It's not saying that Jesus is God or that God is the "only begotten God". It's saying that no one has ever seen God. Which is true, no one has... Then it continues saying..... the only begotten God (Elohim) (Jesus) John 10, who is in the bosom (or care of) the father, he has make him known. Jesus has made his father known to the world by his preaching. Jesus always declares the righteousness of the father in all things. Jesus also..... comes in his father's name.. That's very important to remember too.

But to believe that Jesus is God himself or God changed into a man is false doctrine.

 

[Clear]

Clear asked 74X12 : " John 1 vs 18 in greek reads : "θεον ουδεισ εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενησ θεοσ ο ων εισ τον κολπον του πατροσ εκεινοσ εξηγησατο" which reads in english "No one has ever seen God, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

The problem (or confirmation / insight depending upon personal belief) this verse provides is that IF John is speaking of God the Father in vs 18, then this verse refers to God the Father is an "only begotten God". However, most trinitarian descriptions assume that God the Father was NOT a begotten God. Does your theory about the trinity assume that Jesus is God the Father and that he is a begotten God or does your religious theory make a different sort of sense out of verse 18?

Moorea944 said : "Verse 18 is talking about God and Jesus. It's not saying that Jesus is God or that God is the "only begotten God". It's saying that no one has ever seen God. Which is true, no one has... Then it continues saying..... the only begotten God (Elohim) (Jesus) John 10, who is in the bosom (or care of) the father, he has make him known. Jesus has made his father known to the world by his preaching. Jesus always declares the righteousness of the father in all things. Jesus also..... comes in his father's name.. That's very important to remember too.


Hi @moorea944

The second phrase of john 1:18 refers to an individual John called “the only begotten God”.

In your religious theory, does “the only begotten God” refer to Jesus, or does the phrase refer to God the Father, or does this phrase refer to another individual in your religious worldview?

Clear
τωεισινεακω