added 467 characters in body
Source Link
steveowen
  • 2k
  • 1
  • 2
  • 18

What is the biblical basis for Jesus having one nature only, a human nature? There are many who consider Jesus to be both God and Man - both divine and human. We should not need extra-biblical support to determine the nature of Jesus. An appraisal of the scriptures should suffice to know the true nature of Jesus. For

For this answer, I consider Jesus to be divine as he is without sin and holy. This however does not make Jesus God. To be filled with the fullness of God does not make one God. Is God filled with the fullness of deity? No, He just IS God!

We will inherit a divine nature - this will not make us God, but Godly,

so that through these you might become partakers of the divine nature 2Pet 1:4

As there are so many verses that speak of Jesus having a God - both before AND after his ascension, there is little merit in labouring that fact here. This alone makes him not God to a rational mind intent on maintaining harmony with all scripture.

Before moving on, what IS the nature of God? Briefly, God is eternal – without beginning or end, never changing, absolutely holy and without evil – having one mind and not confused, dependant on no thing or no one, undefeatable in any sense, immortal, ever wise and all knowing, with matchless glory. The only attribute Jesus had was being holy and without evil. The NT testifies to that truth and the lack of all the others mentioned.

The test of Jesus makeup is critical to understanding if the spirit of God teaches or otherevil spirits do. How do we know the difference? That Jesus only has one nature – this is explicit in him being flesh and only flesh.

To say Jesus is somehow more than flesh, or has a divine and human nature is contrary to what we are told. Made like us in every way Heb 2:17. Either he is or he isn’t – being 100% God means he isn’t like us at all. Having a God nature is not like us at all!

If Jesus has a God, he cannot be God and must only have one human nature - a human nature. Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, Rom 1:7, 15:6, 1 Pet 1:3 2Cor 11:31 to list just a few.

There are no verses anywhere saying Jesus IS God – only alleged and biased verses that may be inclined toward supporting that hypothesis. To deny our bible versions have errors that favour a tri-part God is to be quite mistaken. Those versions that use a ‘dynamic equivalence’ are especially prone to exaggerationimaginative and interpretive bias.

What about John 1? Much is made of the logos being the ‘pre-existing Jesus’. This ismight seem a complex issue, but it is made so by the errant teaching that has clouded this topic. There is no biblical reason to make this ‘logos’ a person who thinks, acts, speaks etc. It is with God. We can see much more about this ‘logos’ in 1John 1.

No person here – just the expression of God in this logos – which was revealed, made manifest, into Jesus – NOW we have a person. Only Jesus could be tempted, die, resurrected, exalted above the angels, made heir to all God’s creation. The ‘logos’ could never accomplish any of this. It is the power of life – that is now in Jesus – the ‘logos’ become flesh. Does this ‘logos’ from which Jesus is derived – being born ~4BC, give Jesus another nature? Some insist that as the son of God, he must be God or eternal. The son of man = human, the son of God = God. This

This is not borne out by scripture, so it must be an artificial construct. Why? Because we are not told this anywhere! It is simply a supposition without biblical support and only tradition for support. What is 'tradition'? The ideas decreed by the church fathers 100's of years after the Apostles - who never taught anything these 'fathers' have proposed.

  • He claims to have existed before Abraham, a claim normally interpreted as implying his eternality. (John 8:58) ‘Normally interpreted’ – is certainly not conclusive. Esp. when Paul defines what ‘before’ means in Gal 3:16- explaining Jesus as the seed of Abraham – how is a seed before the seed giver? Manipulating ‘before’ with a pre-determined meaning to fit a dogma. David too in Ps 110 speaks of his descendant as the Lord, but not Yahweh who was speaking and reigning. Some bibles add 'existing' which is not in the Greek so using this interpretation is poor exegesis.

  • He willingly receives the worship of humans This is also poor form as the Greek for worship has a wide variety of meanings and is equally applied to humans with position over others – certainly never the exclusive domain of God. Even when God calls others to rightly worship His son, some still object to this claiming he ‘must be God’, even though Jesus has a God from his birth through to his place at “God’s right hand”. God can call us to worship Jesus if He deems it so, which He has. Jesus is the glory of God - when we worship His son, we worship God.

  • we still have people claiming Jesus is the logos of John 1. The inability to read ‘logos’ and not ‘Jesus’ in this context is baffling. John explains when Jesus became flesh – it was not, ‘in the beginning’. Having no mention of him prior to this requires a ‘reading in’ of such pre-existent concepts which are wholly unsupported by scripture. Jesus is NOT the logos of John 1:1-3

  • 1 Timothy 3:16 was misquoted to say; “God was manifest in the flesh" - there is no ‘God’ in the Gr. text. We must again, rely on a few biased translations which include ‘God’ for support. The passage is about Jesus – no question. At least the ‘manifested’ bit was correct - being the 'logos' manifested, not God (1John 1).

  • and the old favourite, "I and the Father are one", gets paraded also, again ignoring the scripture’s plain self-revelation of anything ambiguous in John 17:11,21.

Without the person of the ‘logos’, there can be no ‘God nature’. Leaving Jesus with his human nature, yes, unburdened by sin, but fully only human. Jesus cannot have a ‘God nature’ because he comes from a simple word that means story or report or message - but it is God's word, His reason. More on Jesus being the logos.

The image of the beast is not the beast either. Jesus was, and mankind is, being drawn into the imageimage of their creator God. That’s why he had to learn obedience through suffering.

Although He was a Son, Hehe learned obedience from the things which Hehe suffered. And having been perfected, Hehe became the source of eternal salvation Heb 5:8

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to himHim who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Heb 5:7

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Col. 2:8

Perhaps it is self-revelatory – the complexity is self-imposed by unbiblical ideas that have no biblical basis. The bible teaches a quite plain but marvellous story about a plan God had from the foundation of the world. Sin was a given, but He would send one to deal with it – His son would live as we do, fight evil as we do, as the first Adam did, but he would winsucceed. Not by being God, but by NOT being God. By being a man alone with doubts, anxiousness, fears and only by total reliance on God, which Adam had failed at, would Jesus defeat evil and sin and death for all.

What is the biblical basis for Jesus having one nature only, a human nature? There are many who consider Jesus to be both God and Man - both divine and human. We should not need extra-biblical support to determine the nature of Jesus. An appraisal of the scriptures should suffice to know the true nature of Jesus. For this answer, I consider Jesus to be divine as he is without sin and holy. This however does not make Jesus God. To be filled with the fullness of God does not make one God. Is God filled with the fullness of deity? No, He just IS God!

As there are so many verses that speak of Jesus having a God - both before AND after his ascension, there is little merit in labouring that fact here. This alone makes him not God to a rational mind.

Before moving on, what IS the nature of God? Briefly, God is eternal – without beginning or end, never changing, absolutely holy and without evil – having one mind and not confused, dependant on no thing or no one, undefeatable in any sense, ever wise and all knowing, with matchless glory. The only attribute Jesus had was being holy and without evil. The NT testifies to that truth and the lack of all the others mentioned.

The test of Jesus makeup is critical to understanding if the spirit of God teaches or other spirits do. How do we know the difference? That Jesus only has one nature – this is explicit in him being flesh and only flesh.

To say Jesus is somehow more than flesh is contrary to what we are told. Made like us in every way Heb 2:17. Either he is or he isn’t – being 100% God means he isn’t like us at all.

If Jesus has a God, he cannot be God and must only have one human nature. Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, Rom 1:7, 15:6, 1 Pet 1:3 2Cor 11:31 to list just a few.

There are no verses anywhere saying Jesus IS God – only alleged and biased verses that may be inclined toward supporting that hypothesis. To deny our bible versions have errors that favour a tri-part God is to be quite mistaken. Those versions that use a ‘dynamic equivalence’ are especially prone to exaggeration and interpretive bias.

What about John 1? Much is made of the logos being the ‘pre-existing Jesus’. This is a complex issue, but it is made so by the errant teaching that has clouded this topic. There is no biblical reason to make this ‘logos’ a person who thinks, acts, speaks etc. It is with God. We can see much more about this ‘logos’ in 1John 1.

No person here – just the expression of God in this logos – which was revealed, made manifest, into Jesus – NOW we have a person. Only Jesus could be tempted, die, resurrected, exalted above the angels, made heir to all God’s creation. The ‘logos’ could never accomplish any of this. It is the power of life – that is now in Jesus – the ‘logos’ become flesh. Does this ‘logos’ from which Jesus is derived – being born ~4BC, give Jesus another nature? Some insist that as the son of God, he must be God or eternal. The son of man = human, the son of God = God. This is not borne out by scripture, so it must be an artificial construct. Why? Because we are not told this anywhere! It is simply a supposition without biblical support and only tradition for support. What is 'tradition'? The ideas decreed by the church fathers 100's of years after the Apostles - who never taught anything these 'fathers' have proposed.

  • He claims to have existed before Abraham, a claim normally interpreted as implying his eternality. (John 8:58) ‘Normally interpreted’ – is certainly not conclusive. Esp. when Paul defines what ‘before’ means in Gal 3:16- explaining Jesus as the seed of Abraham – how is a seed before the seed giver? Manipulating ‘before’ with a pre-determined meaning to fit a dogma. David too in Ps 110 speaks of his descendant as the Lord, but not Yahweh who was speaking and reigning.

  • He willingly receives the worship of humans This is poor form as the Greek for worship has a wide variety of meanings and is equally applied to humans with position over others – certainly never the exclusive domain of God. Even when God calls others to rightly worship His son, some still object to this claiming he ‘must be God’, even though Jesus has a God from his birth through to his place at “God’s right hand”. God can call us to worship Jesus if He deems it so, which He has. Jesus is the glory of God - when we worship His son, we worship God.

  • we still have people claiming Jesus is the logos of John 1. The inability to read ‘logos’ and not ‘Jesus’ in this context is baffling. John explains when Jesus became flesh – it was not, ‘in the beginning’. Having no mention of him prior to this requires a ‘reading in’ of such pre-existent concepts which are wholly unsupported by scripture. Jesus is NOT the logos of John 1:1-3

  • 1 Timothy 3:16 was misquoted to say; “God was manifest in the flesh" - there is no ‘God’ in the Gr. text. We must rely on a few biased translations which include ‘God’ for support. The passage is about Jesus – no question. At least the ‘manifested’ bit was correct - being the 'logos' manifested, not God (1John 1).

  • and the old favourite, "I and the Father are one", gets paraded also, again ignoring the scripture’s plain self-revelation of anything ambiguous in John 17:11,21.

Without the person of the ‘logos’, there can be no ‘God nature’. Leaving Jesus with his human nature, yes, unburdened by sin, but fully only human. Jesus cannot have a ‘God nature’ because he comes from a simple word that means story or report or message. More on Jesus being the logos.

The image of the beast is not the beast either. Jesus was, and mankind is, being drawn into the image of their creator God. That’s why he had to learn obedience through suffering.

Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the source of eternal salvation Heb 5:8

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Heb 5:7

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Col. 2:8

Perhaps it is self-revelatory – the complexity is self-imposed by unbiblical ideas that have no biblical basis. The bible teaches a quite plain but marvellous story about a plan God had from the foundation of the world. Sin was a given, but He would send one to deal with it – His son would live as we do, fight evil as we do, as the first Adam did, but he would win. Not by being God, but by NOT being God. By being a man alone with doubts, anxiousness, fears and only by total reliance on God, which Adam had failed at, would Jesus defeat evil and sin and death for all.

What is the biblical basis for Jesus having one nature only, a human nature? There are many who consider Jesus to be both God and Man - both divine and human. We should not need extra-biblical support to determine the nature of Jesus. An appraisal of the scriptures should suffice to know the true nature of Jesus.

For this answer, I consider Jesus to be divine as he is without sin and holy. This however does not make Jesus God. To be filled with the fullness of God does not make one God. Is God filled with the fullness of deity? No, He just IS God!

We will inherit a divine nature - this will not make us God, but Godly,

so that through these you might become partakers of the divine nature 2Pet 1:4

As there are so many verses that speak of Jesus having a God - both before AND after his ascension, there is little merit in labouring that fact here. This alone makes him not God to a rational mind intent on maintaining harmony with all scripture.

Before moving on, what IS the nature of God? Briefly, God is eternal – without beginning or end, never changing, absolutely holy and without evil – having one mind and not confused, dependant on no thing or no one, undefeatable in any sense, immortal, ever wise and all knowing, with matchless glory. The only attribute Jesus had was being holy and without evil. The NT testifies to that truth and the lack of all the others mentioned.

The test of Jesus makeup is critical to understanding if the spirit of God teaches or evil spirits do. How do we know the difference? That Jesus only has one nature – this is explicit in him being flesh and only flesh.

To say Jesus is somehow more than flesh, or has a divine and human nature is contrary to what we are told. Made like us in every way Heb 2:17. Either he is or he isn’t – being 100% God means he isn’t like us at all. Having a God nature is not like us at all!

If Jesus has a God, he cannot be God and must only have one nature - a human nature. Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, Rom 1:7, 15:6, 1 Pet 1:3 2Cor 11:31 to list just a few.

There are no verses anywhere saying Jesus IS God – only alleged and biased verses that may be inclined toward supporting that hypothesis. To deny our bible versions have errors that favour a tri-part God is to be quite mistaken. Those versions that use a ‘dynamic equivalence’ are especially prone to imaginative and interpretive bias.

What about John 1? Much is made of the logos being the ‘pre-existing Jesus’. This might seem a complex issue, but it is made so by the errant teaching that has clouded this topic. There is no biblical reason to make this ‘logos’ a person who thinks, acts, speaks etc. It is with God. We can see much more about this ‘logos’ in 1John 1.

No person here – just the expression of God in this logos – which was revealed, made manifest, into Jesus – NOW we have a person. Only Jesus could be tempted, die, resurrected, exalted above the angels, made heir to all God’s creation. The ‘logos’ could never accomplish any of this. It is the power of life – that is now in Jesus – the ‘logos’ become flesh. Does this ‘logos’ from which Jesus is derived – being born ~4BC, give Jesus another nature? Some insist that as the son of God, he must be God or eternal. The son of man = human, the son of God = God.

This is not borne out by scripture, so it must be an artificial construct. Why? Because we are not told this anywhere! It is simply a supposition without biblical support and only tradition for support. What is 'tradition'? The ideas decreed by the church fathers 100's of years after the Apostles - who never taught anything these 'fathers' have proposed.

  • He claims to have existed before Abraham, a claim normally interpreted as implying his eternality. (John 8:58) ‘Normally interpreted’ – is certainly not conclusive. Esp. when Paul defines what ‘before’ means in Gal 3:16- explaining Jesus as the seed of Abraham – how is a seed before the seed giver? Manipulating ‘before’ with a pre-determined meaning to fit a dogma. David too in Ps 110 speaks of his descendant as the Lord, but not Yahweh who was speaking and reigning. Some bibles add 'existing' which is not in the Greek so using this interpretation is poor exegesis.

  • He willingly receives the worship of humans This is also poor form as the Greek for worship has a wide variety of meanings and is equally applied to humans with position over others – certainly never the exclusive domain of God. Even when God calls others to rightly worship His son, some still object to this claiming he ‘must be God’, even though Jesus has a God from his birth through to his place at “God’s right hand”. God can call us to worship Jesus if He deems it so, which He has. Jesus is the glory of God - when we worship His son, we worship God.

  • we still have people claiming Jesus is the logos of John 1. The inability to read ‘logos’ and not ‘Jesus’ in this context is baffling. John explains when Jesus became flesh – it was not, ‘in the beginning’. Having no mention of him prior to this requires a ‘reading in’ of such pre-existent concepts which are wholly unsupported by scripture. Jesus is NOT the logos of John 1:1-3

  • 1 Timothy 3:16 was misquoted to say; “God was manifest in the flesh" - there is no ‘God’ in the Gr. text. We must again, rely on a few biased translations which include ‘God’ for support. The passage is about Jesus – no question. At least the ‘manifested’ bit was correct - being the 'logos' manifested, not God (1John 1).

  • and the old favourite, "I and the Father are one", gets paraded also, again ignoring the scripture’s plain self-revelation of anything ambiguous in John 17:11,21.

Without the person of the ‘logos’, there can be no ‘God nature’. Leaving Jesus with his human nature, yes, unburdened by sin, but only human. Jesus cannot have a ‘God nature’ because he comes from a simple word that means story or report or message - but it is God's word, His reason. More on Jesus being the logos.

The image of the beast is not the beast either. Jesus was, and mankind is, being drawn into the image of their creator God. That’s why he had to learn obedience through suffering.

Although He was a Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered. And having been perfected, he became the source of eternal salvation Heb 5:8

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Heb 5:7

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Col 2:8

Perhaps it is self-revelatory – the complexity is self-imposed by unbiblical ideas that have no biblical basis. The bible teaches a quite plain but marvellous story about a plan God had from the foundation of the world. Sin was a given, but He would send one to deal with it – His son would live as we do, fight evil as we do, as the first Adam did, but he would succeed. Not by being God, but by NOT being God. By being a man alone with doubts, anxiousness, fears and only by total reliance on God, which Adam had failed at, would Jesus defeat evil and sin and death for all.

added 268 characters in body
Source Link
steveowen
  • 2k
  • 1
  • 2
  • 18
  • we still have people claiming Jesus is the logos of John 1. The inability to read ‘logos’ and not ‘Jesus’ in this context is baffling. John explains when Jesus became flesh – it was not, ‘in the beginning’. Having no mention of him prior to this requires a ‘reading in’ of such pre-existent concepts which are wholly unsupported by scripture. Jesus is NOT the logos of John 1:1-3

  • 1 Timothy 3:16 was misquoted to say; “God was manifest in the flesh" - there is no ‘God’ in the Gr. text. We must rely on a few biased translations which include ‘God’ for support. The passage is about Jesus – no question. At least the ‘manifested’ bit was correct - being the 'logos' manifested, not God (1John 1).

  • and the old favourite, "I and the Father are one", gets paraded also, again ignoring the scripture’s plain self-revelation of anything ambiguous in John 17:11,21.

Trotting these ones out these traditional favourites is comparable to quoting 1 John 5:7 – everyone knows it’s an addition, yet it still gets used to defend a traditionalan unbiblical teaching.

  • an ‘eternal begetting’ apparently is evidence of Jesus having two natures. NoZero biblical support for this odd concept. Jesus IS the manifestation of the ‘life eternal’ expressed in 1 John – the life that was a ‘which’ describing the logos of God. So, Jesus hasn’t come from another entity, a ‘person’, but a ‘which’, an inanimate expression OF God, and nothing of itself, but for God uttering something. The logos doesdoes nothing of itself, it is what God creates through – His word, His plan, His reason and His wisdom and power of life. This is not a nature that Jesus was given to make him God. It is a ‘which’! Not a who. Biased translations have enforced a ‘who’, no wonder so many are confused. The widespread use of ‘logos’ in the NT as other than ‘word’ attest to its generic basis and not its personhood. (statement, story, message, reason, to say, report, speech, news, account, utterance, assertion)

Without the personperson of the ‘logos’, there can be no ‘God nature’. Leaving Jesus with his human nature, yes, unburdened by sin, but fully only human alone. Jesus cannot have a ‘God nature’ because he comes from a simple word that means story or report or message. More on Jesus being the logos.

The disrespect of some translations to offer, “Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.” CEV and they are not alone - this is not remotely what the Gr. provides! To rewrite the word of God with such disregard is to grasp at being God themselvesonly explained by deception or arrogance. Jesus is the ‘form’ and ‘image’ of God. Other uses of these words clarify again that they do not mean Jesus was God. WE are the image of God, just as Jesus was (though we are only such in Jesus). Jesus is the form of God and of a servant concurrently.

There is no scripture that supports Jesus stopping being God. ‘Emptying himself’, is wide open for all kinds of conjecture and is usually read in line with tradition and not in concert with any other support. Emptying of what?Emptying of what? Grasping or not grasping at what? The practise of using an ambiguous verse to explain a doctrine is totally unsound. We can only understand these when we use the easy, plain and clear ones to explain the difficult ones.

Perhaps it is self-revelatory – the complexity is self-imposed by unbiblical ideas that have littleno biblical basis in scripture. The bible teaches a quite plain but marvellous story about a plan God had from the foundation of the world. Sin was a given, but He would send one to deal with it – His son would live as we do, fight evil as we do, as the first Adam did, but he would win. Not by being God, but by NOT being God. By being a man alone with doubts, anxiousness, fears and only by total reliance on God, which Adam had failed at, would Jesus defeat evil and sin and death for all.

  • we still have people claiming Jesus is the logos of John 1. The inability to read ‘logos’ and not ‘Jesus’ in this context is baffling. John explains when Jesus became flesh – it was not, ‘in the beginning’. Having no mention of him prior to this requires a ‘reading in’ of such pre-existent concepts which are wholly unsupported by scripture. Jesus is NOT the logos of John 1:1-3

  • 1 Timothy 3:16 was misquoted to say; “God was manifest in the flesh" - there is no ‘God’ in the Gr. text. We must rely on a few biased translations which include ‘God’ for support. The passage is about Jesus – no question. At least the ‘manifested’ bit was correct.

  • and the old favourite, "I and the Father are one", gets paraded also, again ignoring the scripture’s plain self-revelation of anything ambiguous in John 17:11,21.

Trotting these ones out is comparable to quoting 1 John 5:7 – everyone knows it’s an addition, yet it still gets used to defend a traditional teaching.

  • an ‘eternal begetting’ apparently is evidence of Jesus having two natures. No biblical support for this odd concept. Jesus IS the manifestation of the ‘life eternal’ expressed in 1 John – the life that was a ‘which’ describing the logos of God. So, Jesus hasn’t come from another entity, a ‘person’, but a ‘which’, an inanimate expression OF God, and nothing of itself, but for God uttering something. The logos does nothing of itself, it is what God creates through – His word, His plan, His reason and His wisdom and power of life. This is not a nature that Jesus was given to make him God. It is a ‘which’! Not a who. Biased translations have enforced a ‘who’, no wonder so many are confused. The widespread use of ‘logos’ in the NT as other than ‘word’ attest to its generic basis and not its personhood. (statement, story, message, reason, to say, report, speech, news, account, utterance, assertion)

Without the person of the ‘logos’, there can be no ‘God nature’. Leaving Jesus with his human nature, yes, unburdened by sin, but fully human alone. Jesus cannot have a ‘God nature’ because he comes from a simple word that means story or report or message. More on Jesus being the logos.

The disrespect of some translations to offer, “Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.” CEV and they are not alone - this is not remotely what the Gr. provides! To rewrite the word of God with such disregard is to grasp at being God themselves. Jesus is the ‘form’ and ‘image’ of God. Other uses of these words clarify again that they do not mean Jesus was God. WE are the image of God, just as Jesus was (though we are only such in Jesus).

There is no scripture that supports Jesus stopping being God. ‘Emptying himself’, is wide open for all kinds of conjecture and is usually read in line with tradition and not in concert with any other support. Emptying of what? Grasping or not grasping at what? The practise of using an ambiguous verse to explain a doctrine is totally unsound. We can only understand these when we use the easy, plain and clear ones to explain the difficult ones.

Perhaps it is self-revelatory – the complexity is self-imposed by unbiblical ideas that have little basis in scripture. The bible teaches a quite plain but marvellous story about a plan God had from the foundation of the world. Sin was a given, but He would send one to deal with it – His son would live as we do, fight evil as we do, as the first Adam did, but he would win. Not by being God, but by NOT being God. By being a man alone with doubts, anxiousness, fears and only by total reliance on God, which Adam had failed at, would Jesus defeat evil and sin and death for all.

  • we still have people claiming Jesus is the logos of John 1. The inability to read ‘logos’ and not ‘Jesus’ in this context is baffling. John explains when Jesus became flesh – it was not, ‘in the beginning’. Having no mention of him prior to this requires a ‘reading in’ of such pre-existent concepts which are wholly unsupported by scripture. Jesus is NOT the logos of John 1:1-3

  • 1 Timothy 3:16 was misquoted to say; “God was manifest in the flesh" - there is no ‘God’ in the Gr. text. We must rely on a few biased translations which include ‘God’ for support. The passage is about Jesus – no question. At least the ‘manifested’ bit was correct - being the 'logos' manifested, not God (1John 1).

  • and the old favourite, "I and the Father are one", gets paraded also, again ignoring the scripture’s plain self-revelation of anything ambiguous in John 17:11,21.

Trotting out these traditional favourites is comparable to quoting 1 John 5:7 – everyone knows it’s an addition, yet it still gets used to defend an unbiblical teaching.

  • an ‘eternal begetting’ apparently is evidence of Jesus having two natures. Zero biblical support for this odd concept. Jesus IS the manifestation of the ‘life eternal’ expressed in 1 John – the life that was a ‘which’ describing the logos of God. So, Jesus hasn’t come from another entity, a ‘person’, but a ‘which’, an inanimate expression OF God, and nothing of itself, but for God uttering something. The logos does nothing of itself, it is what God creates through – His word, His plan, His reason and His wisdom and power of life. This is not a nature that Jesus was given to make him God. It is a ‘which’! Not a who. Biased translations have enforced a ‘who’, no wonder so many are confused. The widespread use of ‘logos’ in the NT as other than ‘word’ attest to its generic basis and not its personhood. (statement, story, message, reason, to say, report, speech, news, account, utterance, assertion)

Without the person of the ‘logos’, there can be no ‘God nature’. Leaving Jesus with his human nature, yes, unburdened by sin, but fully only human. Jesus cannot have a ‘God nature’ because he comes from a simple word that means story or report or message. More on Jesus being the logos.

The disrespect of some translations to offer, “Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God.” CEV and they are not alone - this is not remotely what the Gr. provides! To rewrite the word of God with such disregard is only explained by deception or arrogance. Jesus is the ‘form’ and ‘image’ of God. Other uses of these words clarify again that they do not mean Jesus was God. WE are the image of God, just as Jesus was (though we are only such in Jesus). Jesus is the form of God and of a servant concurrently.

There is no scripture that supports Jesus stopping being God. ‘Emptying himself’, is wide open for all kinds of conjecture and is usually read in line with tradition and not in concert with any other support. Emptying of what? Grasping or not grasping at what? The practise of using an ambiguous verse to explain a doctrine is totally unsound. We can only understand these when we use the easy, plain and clear ones to explain the difficult ones.

Perhaps it is self-revelatory – the complexity is self-imposed by unbiblical ideas that have no biblical basis. The bible teaches a quite plain but marvellous story about a plan God had from the foundation of the world. Sin was a given, but He would send one to deal with it – His son would live as we do, fight evil as we do, as the first Adam did, but he would win. Not by being God, but by NOT being God. By being a man alone with doubts, anxiousness, fears and only by total reliance on God, which Adam had failed at, would Jesus defeat evil and sin and death for all.

minor format and added link
Source Link
steveowen
  • 2k
  • 1
  • 2
  • 18

We know that Jesus 'came in the flesh'. This means we cannot then read in that he was also God, for God is not flesh but spirit. Jesus said, he was not spritspirit, but flesh!

There are no verses anywhere saying Jesus IS God – only alleged and biased verses that may be inclined toward supporting that hypothesis. To deny our bible versions have errors that favour a triparttri-part God is to be quite mistaken. Those versions that use a ‘dynamic equivalence’ are especially prone to exaggeration and interpretive bias.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes,** which**which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen itit and testified to itit, and we proclaim to you the eternal life thatthat was with the Father and was revealed to us.

No person here – just the expression of God in this logos – which was revealed, made manifest, into Jesus – NOW we have a person. Only Jesus could be tempted, die, resurrected, exalted above the angels, made heir to all God’s creation. The ‘logos’ could never accomplish any of this. It is the power of life – that is now in Jesus – the ‘logos’ become flesh. Does this ‘logos’ from which Jesus is derived – being born ~4BC, give Jesus another nature? Some insist that as the son of God, he must be God or eternal. The son of man = human, the son of God = God. This is not borne out by scripture, so it must be an artificial construct. Why? Because we are not told this anywhere! It is simply a supposition without biblical support and only tradition for support. What is 'tradition'? The ideas decreed by the church fathers 100's of years after the Apostles - who never taught anything these 'fathers' have proposed.

There is no mention anywhere of any Jesus, or ‘holy son of God’ before heJesus was conceived and born. All we might do is clutch at a few proof-texts that might angle God’s word toward a pre-existing Jesus. They are all readily dismissed – either by context, logic, or a parade of other verses that contradict the proposed hypothesis. There is on mention of God becoming a man and thus a two-natured man could exist. John mentions a ‘revealing’, a ’manifesting’ of the logos of God – not an incarnation – another unbiblical construct based on tradition alone.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross. Therefore, God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names. More on 'form' here.

We know that Jesus 'came in the flesh'. This means we cannot then read in that he was also God, for God is not flesh but spirit. Jesus said, he was not sprit, but flesh!

There are no verses anywhere saying Jesus IS God – only alleged and biased verses that may be inclined toward supporting that hypothesis. To deny our bible versions have errors that favour a tripart God is to be quite mistaken. Those versions that use a ‘dynamic equivalence’ are especially prone to exaggeration and interpretive bias.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes,** which** we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

No person here – just the expression of God in this logos – which was revealed, made manifest, into Jesus – NOW we have a person. Only Jesus could be tempted, die, resurrected, exalted above the angels, made heir to all God’s creation. The ‘logos’ could never accomplish any of this. It is the power of life – that is now in Jesus – the ‘logos’ become flesh. Does this ‘logos’ from which Jesus is derived – being born ~4BC, give Jesus another nature? Some insist that as the son of God, he must be God or eternal. The son of man = human, the son of God = God. This is not borne out by scripture, so it must be an artificial construct. Why? Because we are not told this anywhere! It is simply a supposition without biblical support and only tradition for support.

There is no mention anywhere of any Jesus, or ‘holy son of God’ before he was conceived and born. All we might do is clutch at a few proof-texts that might angle God’s word toward a pre-existing Jesus. They are all readily dismissed – either by context, logic, or a parade of other verses that contradict the proposed hypothesis. There is on mention of God becoming a man and thus a two-natured man could exist. John mentions a ‘revealing’, a ’manifesting’ of the logos of God – not an incarnation – another unbiblical construct based on tradition alone.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross. Therefore, God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names.

We know that Jesus 'came in the flesh'. This means we cannot then read in that he was also God, for God is not flesh but spirit. Jesus said, he was not spirit, but flesh!

There are no verses anywhere saying Jesus IS God – only alleged and biased verses that may be inclined toward supporting that hypothesis. To deny our bible versions have errors that favour a tri-part God is to be quite mistaken. Those versions that use a ‘dynamic equivalence’ are especially prone to exaggeration and interpretive bias.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes,which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

No person here – just the expression of God in this logos – which was revealed, made manifest, into Jesus – NOW we have a person. Only Jesus could be tempted, die, resurrected, exalted above the angels, made heir to all God’s creation. The ‘logos’ could never accomplish any of this. It is the power of life – that is now in Jesus – the ‘logos’ become flesh. Does this ‘logos’ from which Jesus is derived – being born ~4BC, give Jesus another nature? Some insist that as the son of God, he must be God or eternal. The son of man = human, the son of God = God. This is not borne out by scripture, so it must be an artificial construct. Why? Because we are not told this anywhere! It is simply a supposition without biblical support and only tradition for support. What is 'tradition'? The ideas decreed by the church fathers 100's of years after the Apostles - who never taught anything these 'fathers' have proposed.

There is no mention anywhere of any Jesus, or ‘holy son of God’ before Jesus was conceived and born. All we might do is clutch at a few proof-texts that might angle God’s word toward a pre-existing Jesus. They are all readily dismissed – either by context, logic, or a parade of other verses that contradict the proposed hypothesis. There is on mention of God becoming a man and thus a two-natured man could exist. John mentions a ‘revealing’, a ’manifesting’ of the logos of God – not an incarnation – another unbiblical construct based on tradition alone.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross. Therefore, God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names. More on 'form' here.

added 126 characters in body
Source Link
steveowen
  • 2k
  • 1
  • 2
  • 18
Loading
Source Link
steveowen
  • 2k
  • 1
  • 2
  • 18
Loading