Word of God (John 1:1) invalid...

[Faithful Witness]

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

This is the main scripture that mainstream Christianity uses to back up their claim that Jesus is Almighty God. The second person of a Trinity. However based on much research reading the Bible and the Early Church Fathers the great scientist Sir Isaac Newton came to a conclusion that the doctrine was false. I too am very convinced that this doctrine is false, and even dangerous. I believe that it invalidates the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and makes it of no value.

At Mark 7:13, Jesus told the religious leaders that they had made the [written] word of God void because of their traditions. I believe that the Catholic Church has made the incarnate Word of God invalid due to their traditions of using worldly philosophy to understand the relationship between God and Christ.

I am going to explain below why I come to this conclusion. First I will explain what I believe to be the correct understanding of this scripture.

The Bible makes it clear that there is only one God. (See Deuteronomy 6:4.)

Is it possible in any way that Jesus could be called God, not be a second God, and at the same time not be God Almighty?

Take a look at Exodus 7:1. There it says that Moses was made like God to Pharoh. A similar expression is found at Exodus 4:16 where he is acting as God to Aaron.

A very interesting scripture to bear in mind is found at Psalm 45:6,7- speaking of the King of ancient Israel it states:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

If the King of Israel can be called God here, could it be possible that it is in this sense that Jesus is referred to as God at John 1:1? The fact that this passage from psalms is quoted and applied to the son of God at Hebrews 1:6 strongly indicates that this is true. If an imperfect human King in ancient Israel could be referred to as God, how much more so does this title apply to God’s only begotten son, through whom he created all things. An only begotten son who perfectly represented God, his father on earth. The mediator between God and man.

This is what I understand to be the correct explaination of John 1:1.

—————————————————————————

I will now explain why I believe that the Trinitarian understanding of this scripture is dangerous.

Most people if they were asked, “Why did Jesus Christ come to the earth?” They would reply: “to save mankind.”

Romans 5:19 reiterates this where it states: “So by the one mans DISOBEDIENCE the many were made sinners, so by the one mans’s OBEDIENCE the many will be made righteous.

This scripture clearly shows that it’s by Christ’s obedience to his Father by undergoing a horrendous death on a cross that God bought back sinful alienated mankind to himself. Mankind that were sold into sin and death by Adam’s act of disobedience in the garden of Eden.

Jesus obedience is clearly shown by his willingness to do his Fathers will instead of his own will even under the harshest of circumstances. (See John 6:38 ; Matthew 26:39)

According to Christendoms Trinity doctrine, Jesus is not just the only begotten son of God who himself said “the father is greater than I.” NO! They claim that he is “GOD THE SON” second person of the Blessed Trinity, CO-EQUAL with the Father.

Christendom teaches that if the son is “Truly God!” and “Truly Man” he must also have two natures. A human nature and a divine nature. The formulation of this doctrine has led to the belief that he has two wills. A human will and a divine will.

If this is the case Jesus was Almighty God DOING HIS OWN DIVINE WILL on the cross. THAT IS NOT OBEDIENCE. God cannot be OBEDIENT TO HIMSELF! Somebody else has to PROVE their obedience to God. In this case God’s only begotten son. A perfect man without inherited imperfection from Adam. Somebody had to balance the scales. The obedience of the perfect man Jesus bought back what was lost by the disobedience of the first perfect man Adam.

Jesus said the following words as recorded at John 6:38: “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Even on the night before he died under extreme duress he prayed: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)

Jesus was doing his FATHERS will on the cross, not HIS OWN divine will.

Clearly the doctrine of the trinity is nothing but a load of philosophical poppycock. The Church leaders resorted to the human philosophy and empty deception of men in an effort to understand the mysteries of God rather than stick to gods word. By doing so they have made the sacrifice of the Incarnate Word invalid by means of their tradition.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Hello and welcome. I too have trouble with the Trinitarian doctrine. You mention Newton and his anti-Trinitarian position; I just wanted to plug this new book on Newton that discusses this in some detail:

Priest of Nature


Fascinating!

 

[Faithful Witness]

I might check that book out, thanks.


Just in short, the point I wanted to make above....

They make Jesus into Almighty God... Who became man... they say he possessed a human and a divine will.

That’s Almighty God doing his own divine will on the cross.
God can’t be obedient to himself.

From what I gather, Jesus was God’s only begotten son.. a lesser being.

He was doing his FATHERS will at all times. Not his OWN divine will.

The definition of obedience is to subject yourself to the authority or will of another.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I might check that book out, thanks.


Just in short, the point I wanted to make above....

They make Jesus into Almighty God... Who became man... they say he possessed a human and a divine will.

That’s Almighty God doing his own divine will on the cross.
God can’t be obedient to himself.

From what I gather, Jesus was God’s only begotten son.. a lesser being.

He was doing his FATHERS will at all times. Not his OWN divine will.

The definition of obedience is to subject yourself to the authority or will of another.

Yes and on this I think the Johovah Winesses have a good point. For example,

John 14:28

 

[Windwalker]

I asked this in a very similar thread that is going on right now. Let's see if I have any better luck getting an answer here in light of this context.

While this may sound all "logical", to think of God in dualistic terms like this and show inherent contradictions, the exact same dilema can be seen in the claims of believers that God is Omnipresent, meaning everywhere at the same time. They say this as a matter of doctrine, but then speak of God as outside of themselves, as other to his creation. How can God be everywhere, yet not "in you"? Is God swiss cheese?

That issue there, is no different than someone saying Jesus was both fully God and fully human at the same time. It is a "mystery" in the sense that dualistic language cannot capture nondualistic realizations. If the above critique of John 1 is to be taken literally, then you have to do the same with the Omnipresent God who doesn't exist everywhere at the same time. God is either omnipresent, or God is a creature outside of us, like a Big Foot, or something.

You cannot apply logic arguments to divine reality. If you do, then God becomes like a Yeti hiding up in the Himalayas somewhere outside of our homes, and Jesus becomes "a god", which is similar to this. If anything, this shows the absurdity of using logic to understand God.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I asked this in a very similar thread that is going on right now. Let's see if I have any better luck getting an answer here in light of this context.

While this may sound all "logical", to think of God in dualistic terms like this and show inherent contradictions, the exact same dilema can be seen in the claims of believers that God is Omnipresent, meaning everywhere at the same time. They say this as a matter of doctrine, but then speak of God as outside of themselves, as other to his creation. How can God be everywhere, yet not "in you"? Is God swiss cheese?

That issue there, is no different than someone saying Jesus was both fully God and fully human at the same time. It is a "mystery" in the sense that dualistic language cannot capture nondualistic realizations. If the above critique of John 1 is to be taken literally, then you have to do the same with the Omnipresent God who doesn't exist everywhere at the same time. God is either omnipresent, or God is a creature outside of us, like a Big Foot, or something.

You cannot apply logic arguments to divine reality. If you do, then God becomes like a Yeti hiding up in the Himalayas somewhere outside of our homes, and Jesus becomes "a god", which is similar to this.

Hello. God everywhere and outside of us. Panentheism?

 

[74x12]

I agree the fact that Jesus was doing the Father's will rather than "God the Son's" will disproves the trinity doctrine. However, this has no bearing whatsoever on those of us who believe Oneness. We believe Jesus is indeed God but that God is only One single person. Not "three in one".

Jesus is God the Father. He did only the Father's will because He was in the flesh. It was the flesh submitting to the Spirit. It was the flesh of Jesus that had to set aside it's own will and submit to God's will.

 

[DPMartin]

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

This is the main scripture that mainstream Christianity uses to back up their claim that Jesus is Almighty God. The second person of a Trinity. However based on much research reading the Bible and the Early Church Fathers the great scientist Sir Isaac Newton came to a conclusion that the doctrine was false. I too am very convinced that this doctrine is false, and even dangerous. I believe that it invalidates the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and makes it of no value.

At Mark 7:13, Jesus told the religious leaders that they had made the [written] word of God void because of their traditions. I believe that the Catholic Church has made the incarnate Word of God invalid due to their traditions of using worldly philosophy to understand the relationship between God and Christ.

I am going to explain below why I come to this conclusion. First I will explain what I believe to be the correct understanding of this scripture.

The Bible makes it clear that there is only one God. (See Deuteronomy 6:4.)

Is it possible in any way that Jesus could be called God, not be a second God, and at the same time not be God Almighty?

Take a look at Exodus 7:1. There it says that Moses was made like God to Pharoh. A similar expression is found at Exodus 4:16 where he is acting as God to Aaron.

A very interesting scripture to bear in mind is found at Psalm 45:6,7- speaking of the King of ancient Israel it states:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

If the King of Israel can be called God here, could it be possible that it is in this sense that Jesus is referred to as God at John 1:1? The fact that this passage from psalms is quoted and applied to the son of God at Hebrews 1:6 strongly indicates that this is true. If an imperfect human King in ancient Israel could be referred to as God, how much more so does this title apply to God’s only begotten son, through whom he created all things. An only begotten son who perfectly represented God, his father on earth. The mediator between God and man.

This is what I understand to be the correct explaination of John 1:1.

—————————————————————————

I will now explain why I believe that the Trinitarian understanding of this scripture is dangerous.

Most people if they were asked, “Why did Jesus Christ come to the earth?” They would reply: “to save mankind.”

Romans 5:19 reiterates this where it states: “So by the one mans DISOBEDIENCE the many were made sinners, so by the one mans’s OBEDIENCE the many will be made righteous.

This scripture clearly shows that it’s by Christ’s obedience to his Father by undergoing a horrendous death on a cross that God bought back sinful alienated mankind to himself. Mankind that were sold into sin and death by Adam’s act of disobedience in the garden of Eden.

Jesus obedience is clearly shown by his willingness to do his Fathers will instead of his own will even under the harshest of circumstances. (See John 6:38 ; Matthew 26:39)

According to Christendoms Trinity doctrine, Jesus is not just the only begotten son of God who himself said “the father is greater than I.” NO! They claim that he is “GOD THE SON” second person of the Blessed Trinity, CO-EQUAL with the Father.

Christendom teaches that if the son is “Truly God!” and “Truly Man” he must also have two natures. A human nature and a divine nature. The formulation of this doctrine has led to the belief that he has two wills. A human will and a divine will.

If this is the case Jesus was Almighty God DOING HIS OWN DIVINE WILL on the cross. THAT IS NOT OBEDIENCE. God cannot be OBEDIENT TO HIMSELF! Somebody else has to PROVE their obedience to God. In this case God’s only begotten son. A perfect man without inherited imperfection from Adam. Somebody had to balance the scales. The obedience of the perfect man Jesus bought back what was lost by the disobedience of the first perfect man Adam.

Jesus said the following words as recorded at John 6:38: “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Even on the night before he died under extreme duress he prayed: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)

Jesus was doing his FATHERS will on the cross, not HIS OWN divine will.

Clearly the doctrine of the trinity is nothing but a load of philosophical poppycock. The Church leaders resorted to the human philosophy and empty deception of men in an effort to understand the mysteries of God rather than stick to gods word. By doing so they have made the sacrifice of the Incarnate Word invalid by means of their tradition.

nope

Read creation Gen:1

God said God made God saw that it was good (hence being the Judge of what is good), God made all that is made through His Word therefore all knows its Creator through God's Word the only way to know God, therefore the Word of God is God to all that is not God.


What God says in His Presence is the essence of Three are One is God. there is God, the Word of God and the Presence of God (Holy Spirit) that are one.

He is God, His Word is God and His Presence is God period.


so John is only reiterating what the OT says.

 

[Faithful Witness]

Yes and on this I think the Johovah Winesses have a good point. For example,

John 14:28

Yes I think they do actually. They believe Jesus is a completely separate being to God. He is the only begotten son. He proves his integrity to God.

I not too sure if “the word was ‘a’ god” in John 1:1c is correct though.. I think “God” is a better translation. But it’s God in a “representational” sense, not the “absolute” sense. He represents God as a master worker (proverbs 8:30) through which God creates... and he came to earth and reavealed what God is like in a perfect way through his life on earthas a perfect man. He is also the mediator through which we approach God. It’s similar to the way that the King of Israel and Moses were called God. They were the ones that were representing God to the people at the time. But Jesus Jesus Christ is a perfect example of what God is. He was God’s only begotten son, he was beside the Father from before creation. So only he could know the father in an absolute way, and reveal the father to us.

 

[Faithful Witness]

@74x12

The Bible teaches that the Father sent his only begotten son to the earth, not that the father came to the earth. John 3:16

@Windwalker
There are things about God that are hard to understand but we must be careful not use worldly philosophies to understand scripture. That’s what the Church leaders did and they ended up with the Trinity doctrine.

@DPMartin
I said “let’s make a Snowman! I made a Snowman! I saw that it was Good!” ——- that doesn’t make me three persons in one man.

I like your thought though that “the Word of God to all that is not God” in that he has a special relationship with the father. He is preimenent over all creation in the sense that He was the Fathers only begotten through which God made all things.

 

[74x12]

The Bible teaches that the Father sent his only begotten son to the earth, not that the father came to the earth. John 3:16

It does teach that the Father came to earth. First of all who was it that Abraham had supper with along with two angels in Genesis chapter 18?

Secondly, why does 1 John 3:1-6 make it out that God Himself was on earth? Why does it never change from talking about God to talk about the Son of God instead? It constantly literally says that God was on earth.

Thirdly, who is John 1:10 speaking of?

Finally, although we obviously know that the Father sent His only begotten Son into the world; yet that doesn't mean God Himself wasn't in the world.

Tell me this: when was Jesus begotten? Do you know? See Luke 1:35.

 

[Windwalker]

Hello. God everywhere and outside of us. Panentheism?

I find Panentheism to be the better way to express the paradoxical truth of nonduality, using dualistic language. Yes. And actually, the Trinity formulation is very panentheism, when understood mystically, not as some flat, literal definition of God.

Also, yes, everywhere, experienced both outside, and inside. No gaps. No holes. No boundaries. Fully transcendent. Fully immanent.

 

[The Anointed]

I agree the fact that Jesus was doing the Father's will rather than "God the Son's" will disproves the trinity doctrine. However, this has no bearing whatsoever on those of us who believe Oneness. We believe Jesus is indeed God but that God is only One single person. Not "three in one".

Jesus is God the Father. He did only the Father's will because He was in the flesh. It was the flesh submitting to the Spirit. It was the flesh of Jesus that had to set aside it's own will and submit to God's will.

Deuteronomy 18: 18; The Lord [THE SON OF MAN, THE MOST HIGH IN THE CREATION] The God chosen by Abraham, said to Moses, "I will raise up for them a prophet just like you from among their brethren: and I will put MY WORDS into his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to MY WORDS that he shall speak in MY name, I will punish.

In Acts 3: 22; Peter confirms that prophet to be the man Jesus, Saying; For Moses said, "The Lord your God will send you a prophet just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people, etc"

The people of his day knew that he was the prophet that the Lord promised that he would raise up from among the Israelites and send to speak in his name, when on the day of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, they spread palm branches before him, crying out; "Blessed is He who comes in 'THE NAME OF THE LORD.'

So many today believe that Jesus was a God who became a man and not a man who was given divine glory by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, See Acts 3: 13; and who is now incontestably divine and sits in the Throne of OUR Father, where he invites all his brethren, who, like himself are able to win the victory over the ruler of this world to sit beside him in our Fathers throne of Godhead where they shall judge even the angels. See Rev 3: 21.

What a pity that those poor people have been deceived by the worthless shepherd that the Lord promised through Zechariah 11: 12-17; he would raise up in the land after he had abandoned the Jews.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe that you're getting a bit esoteric here. The reason why it could be, God, in any form[the divinity form, and, still be a man, is because Jesus, according to Scripture, literally incarnated as a man.
You don't need any theories for that, it's Jesus, on a cross. The divine nature is still there, they work together.


The argument that Jesus cannot be God, is the best argument, that Jesus is God.
Jesus said He would raise Himself. Now, if the text says, the Abba raised Him, and Jesus says, He is going to raise Himself...
Which specificity are you going to believe literally?

Jesus...or another way of saying it...? [Godhood, in other words, both working together.

Jesus tells us that He will raise Himself, and it Happens.
So, what religion, are you practicing?
Jesus's religion, or, 'some other religion'?

Praise Jesus the Most High, blessed be His name.
Amen.

 

[The Anointed]

I believe that you're getting a bit esoteric here. The reason why it could be, God, in any form[the divinity form, and, still be a man, is because Jesus, according to Scripture, literally incarnated as a man.
You don't need any theories for that, it's Jesus, on a cross. The divine nature is still there, they work together.


The argument that Jesus cannot be God, is the best argument, that Jesus is God.
Jesus said He would raise Himself. Now, if the text says, the Abba raised Him, and Jesus says, He is going to raise Himself...
Which specificity are you going to believe literally?

Jesus...or another way of saying it...? [Godhood, in other words, both working together.

Jesus tells us that He will raise Himself, and it Happens.
So, what religion, are you practicing?
Jesus's religion, or, 'some other religion'?

Praise Jesus the Most High, blessed be His name.
Amen.

Disciple of Jesus wrote...….. The argument that Jesus cannot be God, is the best argument, that Jesus is God.

Jesus said He would raise Himself. Now, if the text says, the Abba raised Him, and Jesus says, He is going to raise Himself...
Which specificity are you going to believe literally?

The Anointed responds...… Deuteronomy 18: 18; The Lord God chosen by Abraham, [The Son of Man] said to Moses, "I will raise up for them a prophet just like you from among their brethren: and I will put MY WORDS into his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to MY WORDS that he shall speak in MY name, I will punish.

Do you honestly believe that they were the actual words of the prophet Jesus who spoke not one word on his own authority, but only that which he was commanded to say by the Lord who had filled him with his Spirit on the day of his baptism, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my Son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee."​

 

[Faithful Witness]

@Disciple of Jesus

(Read)John 10: 17,18 - Jesus recieved authority to die and rise from the dead from his Father.

 

[The Anointed]

@Disciple of Jesus

(Read)John 10: 17,18 - Jesus recieved authority to die and rise from the dead from his Father.

Just as mankind had developed within the body of our animal ancestors, the SON OF MAN, who exists in our future is the spirit that according to our concept of one directional linear time is currently developing within the pregnant androgynous body of Eve.

And Just as we must pay the blood price for the sins of our flesh, so too must the Son of Man, who is the only one who can pay the penalty for the sins of the body in which he developed.

Psalms 51: 5; "Behold! I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me."

It was He who was anointed as the heir and successor to the throne of the Most High in the creation, and translated in order that he should never experience death, who , when he was about to come into the World said to THE Father, "Sacrifices and offerings you did not ask for, but a body you have prepared for me."

Jesus was that man, who was chosen as the earthly Temple that was filled with the spirit of the Lord God our savior, and it was he, through his obedient servant Jesus in John 10: 17-18; said; "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have the power to lay it dawn, and I have the power to take it up again: this charge I have received from my Father."

Jesus, was the prophet who our Lord chose from among the Israelites and put his words into that prophets mouth and sent him to speak in his name, and it was HE who said through the mouth of his earthly Temple; "Destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in three days.

Jesus did not and could not raise himself from the grave.

Acts 5: 30; The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13: 30; But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee, etc.

1st Corinthians 6: 14; And God has both raised up the Lord and will also raise up us by his own power.

2nd Corinthians 1: 9; But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.

2nd Corinthians 4: 14; knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

Acts 17:20-31; “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by means of the MAN he has CHOSEN. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that MAN from the dead."

_________________________It was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who put ‘HIS WORDS’ into the mouth of his obedient servant Jesus, who said; “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.”

It was HE, who could not die, but who ceased to be an individual entity, after he abandoned his chosen heir and successor on the cross, by releasing all the spirits of the righteous on who he had evolved, whose graves were opened and three days later, those resurrected spirits entered the city and showed themselves as the risen body of "CHRIST" the Anointed one.

 

[Thief]

they have made the sacrifice of the Incarnate Word invalid by means of their tradition.

I think the tradition referred to is the practice dealt by Moses

Moses would lay hand upon the sinner and then upon an animal
the sin passes from one to the other

the animal is then taken to the wilderness and staked to the ground and left to die
the sin dies with the animal

I for one hesitate to affirm this can happen

I have posted on previous occasion .....
He did not die for our sins
He died because of them

 

[Faithful Witness]

@Disciple of Jesus

So how could the King of Israel be called God?

 

[Desert Snake]

Psalms 45:6
Is saying, "your throne is Elohim".
That means, your allegiance, your religious adherence, so forth, is God.

It isn't calling the man God.