Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy 156 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hairdog1937

  aa:

  Good morning, sir. In a subsequent post, you asked what happened to me? I apologize for not getting right back to you. I had other things that needed my attention. This morning, coffee in hand, I’m able to respond. Let me begin by referring to your following comments, and I quote:

  AA: “.....the words ‘in the beginning’ also refer to the creation on the heavens and the earth in the bible, so this verse certainly implies jesus was present and in existance during initial creation. but.....it does not however support jesus being "always" in existance as god is known to be from various other versus ("alpha and omega", etc.). so........

  My response: Several points are made in your statement and are mentioned and responded to below:

  AA: “the words ‘in the beginning’ also refer to the creation on the heavens and the earth in the bible.”

  Me: Yes, AA, you are correct. There can be only one beginning. The “beginning” in Gen. 1:1 and the one mentioned here in John 1:1 are the same: the beginning of God’s creation.

  AA: “…this verse certainly implies jesus was present and in existance during initial creation.”

  Me: A couple of points are worthy of mention here:

  a. Although we know that Jesus Christ is the Word, other verses must be considered to see that He is so identified. So this verse, by itself, does not imply anything about any “Jesus.” John 1:1 serves to point out attributes of “the Word,” whoever that might be.

  b. There is a verb used three times in this verse to point out the “state” of the Word. He “was.” The tense of this verb is the imperfect tense. It refers to action in the past of a durative nature: the subject continually “was” whatever the sentence says that He was (examined below). Contrary to the creation, it had a “beginning.” The Word did not; He eternally “was.” He eternally existed.

  AA: “…it…” (John 1:1) “…does not however support jesus being ‘always’ in existance as god is known to be from various other versus (‘alpha and omega’, etc.). so........”

  Me: As I said above, “was” appears three times in this verse, each being explained below:

  “In the beginning was the Word:” In the beginning of the creation, the Word continually existed.

  “And the Word was with God:” The English translation does not bring out the full force of the Greek meaning. It literally means that, by being “with God,” the Word was face-to-face with God, which refers, in the Greek, to a level of equality. Therefore, this phrase indicates that the Word continually was equal to God; and by it, “enjoyed” the exclusive prerogative of being in His presence.

  “And the Word was God:” The Word continually was God.

  To study a subject (in this case, the deity of Jesus Christ), the content of one verse at a time should be considered to see what it contributes to the teaching. This is referred to as “exegesis” (objective reasoning: analysis of the verse that results in arriving at conclusions as to what it is conveying). The other passages of Scripture that you mentioned may be worthy of subsequent examination, but through exegesis, we should first see, and agree, what this verse says before moving on to the next. Otherwise, we run into the problem of prematurely building too many conclusions. Many times, these numerous conclusions are the result of “eisegesis” (subjective reasoning: conclusions that are based upon preconceived opinions). So let us build the house one block at a time.

  So, the intent of verse 1 is to show that whoever the Word would be identified to be (later on in this chapter), He was, continually, God.

  Hope this helps,
  Hairdog
• 

  logical

  Pom,

  I have to say, nice post.

  These "God is 2/3-in-one" types irritate me, where is the logic?
• 

  Hairdog1937

  Mark:

  I understand your concerns, but you should possibly keep this in mind. The message of the Gospel needs to be spread to all mankind. To withhold it simply because you don't know much about the other person might be unfair. I don't think I want to stand before Almighty God and have to explain to Him that I refused to discuss His Word with someone because he wouldn't tell me anything about himself. I think that all we need to know about someone is (1) whether he knows for sure that he has eternal life and (2) if he understands that eternal life is a free gift from God and (3) if he does not possess it, is he willing to hear how he, too, might receive this gracious gift from God.

  What do you think?

  Hairdog
• 

  dubla

  hairdog-

  i appreciate you tyring to be so thorough in your explanation of 'the word', but i think starting out i was already conceding that jesus is 'the word' (as most bible readers would agree) without going into cross references. im not sure why you needed to point that out, maybe just to sound more learned and researched? regardless, a couple more thoughts.....

  first off, your explanation of the verb 'was', though very interesting, adds just a little less than zero to this discussion. to say jesus 'was' in existance, proves not that he ETERNALLY 'was'. as im sure you know, almost every major bible topic and verse lends itself to multiple interpretations (unless you claim to have a direct line to god with full explanations), so if you want to use this one verse "in the beginning the word was," to absolutely PROVE jesus' eternal existance, i think youre standing on a very weak leg (especially since we already know from previous verses, john 3:16 that he was begotten, which ive already shown indicates 'created'). so in that way, i dont think we can agree that this text (with your exegesis, which btw means nothing more than critical analysis), before first agreeing on john 3:16, which apears BEFORE 1 john, and gives us insight on jesus creation (that way you dont use your preconceived opinions that jesus is eternal when reading further into the bible, i.e. 1 john).

  just to quote you real quick here, one more thought:

  hairdog: “In the beginning was the Word:” In the beginning of the creation, the Word continually existed.

  im glad you reiterated this arguement, even though i had already AGREED with you that yes, throughout creation jesus continually existed.

  hope this helps,

  aa
• 

  accuracy

  Any number of wannabe grammarians have tried to say that the "was" of John 1:1 (Greek, HN, "en," in the indicative imperfect active tense) implies the Word's "eternal" existence, but it doesn't wash. If HN means "eternal" existence at John 1:1, it has to mean the same thing everywhere else it is used, which makes for monstrosities. For example, when John 1:10 states that, after becoming a man, Jesus "was [Greek, HN] in the world...but the world did not know him," does it mean that Jesus "was eternally" in the world? Of course not! He was "in the world" for only 33 1/2 years! Verbs in the imperfect indicative active tense simply represent "an action as going on in past time...this action may be simultaneous, prolonged, descriptive, repeated, customary, interrupted, attempted, or BEGUN." (William Davis, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 41, my emphasis) The verb HN, in and of itself, does not indicate how long the Word existed, nor does it say that he existed forever.

  And this is just one instance of the tortured exegesis and misuse of grammar that must be employed in order to support the trinity. It would be far better to just let the Greek text speak for itself, rather than trying to force out of it what is not there.
• 

  accuracy

  Additionally, if John had wanted to say that Jesus was the same as the God he was "with," (John 1:1a), he would not have said , as he did, KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. Rather, he would have to say (as he did not), KAI hO QEOS HN hO LOGOS. (Dr. William Barclay, "Many Witnesses, One Lord," page 23) By leaving the second QEOS ("Theos") anarthrous, John was saying either that the Logos was a divine being or "god," or that the Logos has the character and attributes of God or, as Dr. Barclay puts it, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God." (op. cit., page 23)

  Just a note, the late Dr. Barclay was a New Testament expositor well recognized in Evangelical and conservative circles, and not one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  pomegranate

  If Adam and Eve themselves are truly in the image and likeness of God, then we should be able to transpose one nature for the other in John 1:1 and be able to see if it is a truth in both natures.

  The nature of God:
  John 1:1-2
  1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

  The nature of man:
  In the beginning was the Woman, and the Woman was with Man, and the Woman was Man. She was with Man in the beginning.

  Gen 5:1-2
  When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

  If the female can be called "man" regarding her very nature of existence, then in the image and likeness of God, the Son can be called God regarding His very nature of existence.

  He called them (Male and Female) Man.
  I call them (Father and Son) God.

  In the image and likeness of God.
  As in heaven, so on earth.
• 

  dubla

  BIBLEBOY-

  just another quick note to bibleboy. i find it interesting reading back over this entire thread that you now suggest the reason you do not respond to everyone is due to the fact they/we havent provided you with the information you first requested (age, location, beliefs).......BUT, you DID NOT have any problems with responding very promptly to the very first person that replied to your original post, dreamer, who gave no such information whatsoever. interesting. (is this because there are too many strong arguements in here for you to keep up with? are you doing research, looking for ammo?). i too find it interesting that the one person you DID reply to after that was hairdog, who also HAPPENS to be the only other person on this whole thread that is pro-trinity. very interesting. you tried to qualify that by saying he was the only one who gave you what you initially asked for info wise, but as ive shown above that is entirely not the case (and i too have also given you the 'required' information, and to me you have yet to reply).

  aa
• 

  Hairdog1937

  aa:

  You said: “first off, your explanation of the verb 'was', though very interesting, adds just a little less than zero to this discussion. to say jesus 'was' in existance, proves not that he ETERNALLY 'was'. as im sure you know, almost every major bible topic and verse lends itself to multiple interpretations (unless you claim to have a direct line to god with full explanations), so if you want to use this one verse "in the beginning the word was," to absolutely PROVE jesus' eternal existance, i think youre standing on a very weak leg…”

  Me: I am glad that my discussion of “was” interested you. However, you misunderstood me. I never intended to say that the verb, “was,” proved the eternal existence of the Word (Jesus). If you took that as what I meant, I apologize. I meant it to simply be a starting point. No single verse should be sufficient “proof” of any doctrine. The use of “was” in this verse simply lends information that points out that anything that existed before the beginning had no beginning. The heavens, earth, animals, angels and satan all are created beings. Therefore, they had a beginning. And since there is only one beginning of the creation, all of these were created “:in the beginning.” Upon initial examination, this verse does not include the Word as being created since He already “was.”

  All words have basic meanings. A word doesn’t always have all of its meanings applied wherever it appears. Its context is a big help in determining its meaning. It may even be used figuratively instead of literally. Its usage may be subject to culture, history, etc. Here in John 1:1, we (at least I and many others) find the meaning of “was” to be qualified by, in the first phrase, “in the beginning.” It is contrasted with all that had a beginning. It did not.

  Your comments on the word, “begotten,” and John 3:16 have merit, but that is for a future discussion. If one can’t agree with the evidence (not “proof”) presented here in John 1:1, there is no sense in moving on.

  aa, if you were to write John 1:1 according to your understanding of the meaning of the first phrase, “in the beginning was the Word,” what word would you choose instead of “was” to make your point more clear?

  God’s blessings,
  Hairdog
• 

  biblexaminer

  Can't find bibleboy? I guess we have seen the last of him, and we can now say "bye bull-boy"