SVRP said:
3. Why does John the apostle state that Jesus was the Word which was God that became flesh (John 1:1,14)?
It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.
The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:
The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos. 2
It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:
There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos, as used here [in John 1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos, in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. The logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God (p. 307).
Norton postulates that perhaps “the power of God” would be a good translation for logos (p. 323). Buzzard sets forth “plan,” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations. Broughton and Southgate say “thoughts, plan or purpose of God, particularly in action.” Many scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason.
The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, you call revelation “a word from God” and the Bible “the Word of God.”
Shall we look at other translations of the same verse.
in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as
"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt
Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.
Greek word "HO THEOS" which means "Divine God" was used for satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4. The NIV Bible Author wrote "god" for Satan instead of "God", which the word itself literally means The God. So why did they change the meaning?
Now your second part is about John 1:14.
God had a plan (the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived. Thus, Jesus became “the Word in the flesh.”
And BTW this is being bias in a way. Moses (pbuh)had the Word of God. David (pbuh) had the Word of God, and many others. Weren't they all flesh? Does that make them all God? Jesus (pbuh) is no different.
Another example which I can give you is in Genesis. Do you recall when God says "Let there be light..." So God's Words were just words, but they materialized as light was then created. So the Word of God is like his plan which materialized in the prophets, not only just Jesus (pbuh).
4. Why is the phrase "Call upon the name of the LORD" (Hebrew, YHWH, i.e., Psalm 116:4) used only of God on the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX as "Call upon the name of the LORD (greek, KURIOS)," applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not God in flesh?
This is just playing word games. I can ask you a similar question.
When Jews were doubtful about the identity of a particular blind
beggar who had been healed by Jesus, the blind beggar - who was no
more blind, kept saying; "I am (he)" (John 9:9, K.J.V.). Does that
make the blind beggar, God!
Really now tell me God said "I AM" the beggar said "I am" both God right?
Please stop playing word games.
And anyways if you look at the verse in context then you can see the distinction between God and Jesus (pbuh)
1Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ--their Lord and ours:
3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
So God is Father, and Jesus (pbuh) is Lord. Why differentiate?
5. Why does the apostle John say that Jesus was , "...calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God," (John 5:18)?
The peoples in the time and culture of the Bible knew that children often carried the authority of the family. For example, the son of a king had authority. When Christ said that God was his Father, the Pharisees correctly interpreted that to mean that he had God’s authority on earth, something that Jesus was in fact saying (cp. John 5:17ff).
It accurately records that Jesus was saying that God was his father, not that he was himself God, or that he was “God the Son.” It is clear that Jesus’ authority came from the fact that he was the Son of God, not God Himself.
The concept of people being “equal” is found in several places in the Bible. For example, when Joseph was ruling Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him, “You are equal to Pharaoh himself” (Gen. 44:18). Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered “equal with us” (2 Cor. 11:12). No Christian believes that Joseph and Pharaoh or Paul and his opponents are “of one substance,” and make up “one being” simply because they are called “equal.” John 5:18 should be handled like the other verses that mention equality. Jesus was using God’s power and authority on earth, and was thus “equal” to God in the same way Joseph, who was using Pharaoh’s authority and power, was equal to Pharaoh.
6. What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to claim that Jesus was making Himself out to be God.
Maybe John 10:30-33 should be of some help.
7. How was it possible for Jesus to know all things (John 21:17)?
Oh really. Please explain the following.
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, NEITHER THE SON, but the Father " MARK 13:32
8. How can Jesus know all men (John 16:30)?
Must I tell you that God knows everyone and God can tell Jesus (pbuh) anything.
9. How can Jesus be everywhere (Matt. 28:20)?
Bottom is quoted from the NIV.
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
There is no sense of Jesus being everywhere. But Jesus says to the apostles "I am with you always" that doesn't has to mean he will physically be with the apostles. Jesus could be with the apostles spiruatly.
10. How can Jesus, the Christ, dwell in you (Col. 1:27)?
Spritualy!
12. How can Jesus be eternal (Micah 5:1-2)?
I quoted NIV.
1 Marshal your troops, O city of troops, [1]
for a siege is laid against us.
They will strike Israel's ruler
on the cheek with a rod.
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans [2] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins [3] are from of old,
from ancient times. [4] "
Uhh. Where does it talk about Jesus's eternity?
13. How can Jesus be the one who gives eternal life (John 10:27-28)?
First lets know what "eternal life" is:
8. "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." John 17:3
According to Jesus (pbuh) eternal life is to know "Thee the ONLY TRUE GOD".
How do you know God? You know God by the Word of God. Jesus (pbuh) had the Word, which he gave to the people.
So yes Jesus gave eternal life to people, by giving the Word of God. Doesn't prove he is God.
14. How can He be our only Lord and Master (Jude 4)?
Did you read it yourself? There is a clear distinction between Jesus (pbuh) and God.
15. How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) if there is only one God in existence (Isaiah 44:6-8; 45:5)?
16. How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and "God" also be called the Mighty God in Isaiah 10:21?
Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated “everlasting” is actually “age,” and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called “father of the [coming] age.”
In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.” For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using “father” in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. “Father” was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”
The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles.
A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God”) with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler”). If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.
The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor. That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one “mighty leader” just as when used in the plural it can refer to many “mighty leaders.”
17. How was Jesus able to raise Himself from the dead (John 2:19-21)?
First of all. Many verses plainly state that it was the Father who raised Jesus.
It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.
I will answer the rest later.
Peace be upon you
