i have a question (page 9)

JosephMalik

Humanity is explicitly introduced as a further focus in v. 4b with anthrôpôn (also v. 9).

Narkissos,

So you say but is it really further focus and is that statement proof? The focus goes only from mankind in general in verse 9 to the Nation of Israel in verse 11 where it says: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Unscriptural and uninspired grammatical explanations and applications like this that fail to include such texts are not evidence. The real context of John’s message is being ignored by such grammarians. Trinitarians must ignore it because their doctrine is heavily dependent on how “all things” in this text is interpreted. They must make the Word more than He is. Where is something other than humanity being discussed by John? I have asked for scriptural evidence repeatedly and no one including you has provided it. I take it that you ignore it and try to deflect the question because you cannot show it scripturally.

Joseph

truth about the last days

Its funny that everyone can have arguements about John 1:1. The NWT supports that there is no trinity, whereas translations such as the KJV seems to give support that there is a trinity. However, if we read the rest of chapter 1 of John, there are scriptures there, even in the KJV, that signifies that there is no trinity. Like , for ,example, verse 34 which says "And i saw, and bare record that this is the son of God." And on the other hand, it was totally wrong for the WTBTS to change John 1:1- as this is wrong to change ANY of the Holy Writings. So, what is the answer? The answer is simple. First, there was great invisable being (the Father)which he called himself "The Word". Then "the Word" created his "only beggotten son". Seeing that the "only begotten son" had no reference (e.g. a name), The Word called his only begotten son also "the Word". So, the great invisable being, the Father, named his son after himself. Even today some fathers here on earth name their sons after themselves.Seeing now that there are now TWO "the Word"s, the Father decided to call himself "God"to stop confusion. So, now , we have God and his "only begotten son"-the Word. God had allways been called this as this title, until the Isrealites demanded a name from God, which is now to be belived by experts as Yahwah. (YHWH)(Jehovah is an incorrect name, and Freemasons use this as part of their trinty.) When the word came to this earth in the flesh, he was not called "the Word", but was also given a name. In fact, since the scriptures, he has been given several names- Jesus as being one of them. So, the explanation of John 1:1 is this. "In the begining was the Word"(The Father) "And the Word was with God" (Jesus was with the Father) "and the word WAS (past tence) God" (speaking about the Father). By this explaination, the WHOLE chapter 1 of John is not contridicting itself. Seeing that it was emperer Constintine that decided to mix true worship with false pagen worship, the concept of a trinity may have been implanted within true worship in his time. And this was perhaps an oppertunity to use John 1:1 to support a trinity belief. As there was a LOT of concentration of ONLY using John 1:1, we should not disregard the rest of the scriptures- such as the rest of John 1. (see also John 1:18)

JosephMalik

It is times like this when you just throw up your hands and give up.

Joseph

Narkissos

Exit uninspired grammar

Deputy Dog

Joe

Trinitarians must ignore it because their doctrine is heavily dependent on how “all things” in this text is interpreted.

This just isn't true. John 20:28

Where is something other than humanity being discussed by John?

How about where he says "all things"? It is you that wants to make "all things" mean something other than "all things"! We are still waiting to see your "proof"

What you seem to be missing is the fact that the "Logos" is the focus, not mankind.

D Dog

JosephMalik

DD,

It is true. The Lord and God that Thomas touched was after all human. Jesus raised his body as promised and that is what Thomas touched, the human Jesus raised from the dead. "All things," does not mean everything and we are back to that again. The burden of proof is in your court not mine. I already demonstated what the context of John 1 was. And words like Lord and God are similar. They have their own definitions. They apply just as well to a viceregent and people other than a Supreme Being. Context once again determines who and what is meant. The trinity is not the truth, it is that simple

Joseph

Deputy Dog

Joe

Where is something other than humanity being discussed by John?

From my last post,

What you seem to be missing is the fact that the "Logos" is the focus, not mankind.

I'm waiting for your comment.

The trinity is not the truth, it is that simple

I never said anything about the trinity, you did.

D Dog

JosephMalik

What you seem to be missing is the fact that the "Logos" is the focus, not mankind.

DD,

So the Logos is one of the "all things" we are talking about Eh? Have it your way DD.

Joseph

brandon_the many

Some what interesting......

What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe About Jesus?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand the nature of Jesus being the Son of God and God at the same time, in which they come to the conclusion that Christians are stating Jesus is literally the Father, which is not what Christians believe. To them Jesus cannot be God if He is the Son of God, therefore it is necessary to briefly share on the identity of Jesus Christ when He was here on earth. John 1:1-3 & John 1:14-18 make it clear that Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons, and it is very important to share that with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Within those verses the Father is identified as being God, and was in the beginning before anything was created. Jesus is identified as being in the beginning with the Father before anything was created, and was Himself God. When Jesus came to the earth He took on flesh, and dwelt among us, and revealed the message of salvation, hope, truth, who the Father is, who He is, and the Holy Spirit, thus showing the distinction of persons. (John 1:1-3 & John 1:14-18 & John14:16-17 & John 15:26 & John 16:7-15) According to the Apostle Paul Jesus is by nature God, and He humbled Himself for mankind and took on flesh so that He could give His life to reconcile us from our sins. (Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:13-22 & Colossians 2:1-15) When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God the Jews understood Him to be claiming equality with God and wanted to kill Him. (John 5:17-23) The term 'Son of God' was a Messianic claim as well: "Our rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days), 'Ask of Me anything, and I will give to Thee,' as it is said (Psalm 2:7,8): 'I will tell of the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, 'Thou art My son; this day I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me and I will give the nations for Thine inheritance.'" (Talmud, Sukkah 52a) This is a Jewish Commentary giving the understanding of the Messiah, the Son of God, and it gives clear reference to how the Jews of that day would of understood what Jesus claimed. Finally when Jesus made statements such as "the Father is greater than all" or "the Father is greater than I",
these statements do not teach Jesus was not God or less than the Father, but that when He came into this world He took on limitations and set aside His glory, and taught people to follow His example. (John 10:29-34 & John 14:28, Romans 8:1-3, Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Peter 2:21-26, 1 John 1:1-4)

http://www.afcministry.com/What_do_Jehovahs_Witnesses_believe.htm

Deputy Dog

Joe

Any 8 year old can read what John is saying here, why can't you? Why do you pretend to be so illiterate? Or why do you think we're so stupid? (I'm throwing my hands up now because I can't see what you are talking about.)

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word (the Logos), and the Word (the Logos) was with God, and the Word (the Logos) was God.

John 1:2

He (the Logos) was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3 All things came into being through Him (the Logos), and without Him (the Logos) not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

MKJV

Help me Joe, please, point out whatever it is, that you think would have me believe that "All things" refers to anything other than all things. Humor me please, or pretend I'm 8 years old. I really don't understand what you think you see. Sorry.

John is writing about the Logos here and what He (the Logos) created, am I right so far? What in the context so far gives me, you, or anyone else any reason to expect that "all things" would only refer to humans? You have lost all of us. Please, keep in mind, I'm trying to read this with no bias, but with an open mind. Why would I need to (or want to) prove that "All things" doesn't mean "simply" all things?

One more thing, could you please show me where in John it says that the Logos was created?

D Dog

i have a question

Share this