I wrote this post because an argument was raised by one of our visitors saying that the proof that Christ is a God is the pronouncement of John in John 1:1, “And the Word was God.”
Let’s qoute John 1:1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (New King James Version)
Now, here’s my points (Note: This points are my personal points. It doesn’t stand for the doctrines of the Church where I’m in.) :
(1) The verse said: “In the beginning was the Word…” Now, the fact that the subject of this verse has beginning and his beginning was the Word, then it is already the proof that the subject is not a God because God has no beginning.
(2) The verse said: “… and the Word was with God …” Okay, if you really believe that the Word is really a God, it was said that the Word was with God, does it mean that there are two Gods, the Word and the other God?
Remember that there is only one God. When the Bible say, there is only one God, it means that there is no other God besides Him, nor there is like Him, and no other God formed before Him nor there will be formed after Him.
(3) The verse said: “… and the Word was God …” Most of the Bible readers mistakenly thought that just because it was said that the “Word was God” then the Word is really a God. Take note that the term “God” is used here as Adjective not as Noun and you should also take note that the statement is in figurative language, “Metaphor”.
The verse doesn’t say: … and the Word was a God. Nor it say: … and the Word was the God. What has been written is, “… and the Word was God…”
I will give you an example. If you’ll say, “Time is Gold”. Does it mean that literally, time is the Gold? Of course not! You are only describing the Time as precious as gold.
CONCLUSSION:
In other words, John 1:1 couldn’t be used as proof that Christ is a God. The truth remains that there is only one God and He is the Father.
| 2.8 |
SELaplana, 3 May 2007 at 
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Dear friend in Christ,
That is patently absurd and you may be in danger of twisting the words of scripture to your own destruction.
1)You take it as literal that the verse means what it appears to when it says “in the beginning was the Word.” So far we are in agreement. However, what “was” in the beginning? Before God created all that is, there was nothing but God- the one, eternal uncreated Being, the Source of all creation. The passage doesn’t say “in the beginning God created the Word”, the Word already WAS. Therefore, the Word must be God, because nothing had yet been created “in the beginning.”
2)No, it certainly doesn’t mean that there were two Gods. Again, in our literal interpretation, the verse says “the word was with God”, not “God created the Word”. The Word is already with God “In the beginning”. There is only one God, but He is in three co-eternal persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We know that there is only one God, yet scripture clearly states that all three persons are God, and since scripture cannot contradict itself, we must accept the mystery of the Trinity.
3)Here you are obviously trying to force scripture to suit your own pre-concieved notion of theolgy. You accept that the phrases “…was the Word”, and “was with God” are literal, yet suddenly in the very next line the meaning switches to metaphor with the phrase “was God”? What is your basis and justification for this interpretation? I’m sorry but that just doesn’t fly with me. If the first two statements are meant to be taken literally, then it follows that the third statement in the same passage would also be intended to be taken literally. God did not give us the Bible to confuse us.
The postion you are espousing here on the non divinity of Christ is an old heresy called Aryanism, and has been rejected and disproven since the third century. Perhaps in your study of early Christians you should read up on it.
The Truth is that there is only One God, and He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Dear Friend,
You have written a long respond on my my post and give me time to write mine on yours.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
i’m sorry for the late reply friend.. anyway, i have a challenge for you and you will win $20 from it. visit here.
by the way, i forgot to prepare a response to your comment. however, i will answer it quickly:
(1) you misunderstood my stand. i was not saying that the verse said, God in the beginning created the Word. On my post I said, that the beginning of the subject was the Word. What i mean is that prior to his existence there was only a Word of God.
(2)Okay, let’s analyze by consider your point but not to concede… If the Word is a God. Then The Word is with God, therefore, there are two Gods… the Word and The God. ….. give me the verses of the bible saying “co-eternal persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ” Don’t follow what your priests did. Don’t invent things which are not in the bible.
(3)well, i expect that you will never agree with me because if you’ll agree what I presented then your belief will be ruined….
Well, the Catholics called this doctrine heresy, but the Bible calls the Catholic doctrine heresy. Choose which stance are you… Catholic stance or Biblical stance.
May 5th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Quick response:
1) What do you mean “prior to his existence”? There is no prior to God’s existence. That’s what eternal means. Jesus is the Word. The word that “was with God”, “was God”, and “became flesh and made his dwelling among us”, “the Father’s only son”. He is one with the Father the Holy Spirit, and co-eternal. One God, three persons.
2) I gave you many passages attesting to this on your other page. I’ll let you search through them and think about it. By the way, I’m not telling you this because my priest said it’s so. I spent most of my life as an atheist, and came to the Catholic Church because I realised it held the truth.
3) If someone could persuade me that the Church was wrong in her teaching on faith and morals, I’d leave in a heartbeat. I want the truth. That’s why I’m Catholic.
Again- where does the Bible call Catholic doctrine heresy. That’s just a ridiculous statement. It was the Catholic Church that determined, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what the Bible would contain. If not for the Catholic Church, you’d have no Bible to accuse the Church of not following.
May 5th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Dear friend:
(1) I think if you say something, can you please include a verse? for example, “One God, three person”. John 1:1 is so clear that in the beginning it was only the word of God. The Word was with God of course because it is His own Word. Now, my question is, Is it written that Christ is God in John 1:1?
(2) well, I will also tell you that I spent my 22 years in the Catholic and grew at the Convent of St. Augustine Parish, San Agustin, Surigao Del sur, Philippines. The truth written on the Bible guides me to leave that Christianized Pagan religion.
(3) Only those who remain blind do remain Catholic. You need the Holy Spirit to guide you and to know the ONLY TRUE GOD, THE FATHER (John 17:1-3)
And my last words, just want to remind you that it is not the Roman Catholic Church who wrote the Bible… the old testament books are written by God’s prophets during the times of Israel. The new testament books were written by the Apostles of Christ in the true Church of Christ. Take note that no books in the Bible that were being written by Catholic Priests nor Popes….
May 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
“What About John 1:1?”
~~~~~~~~~~~
Today, an important part Bible study is the comparison of translations. Regarding their comparative value, Miles Coverdale (b.1488-d.1568), who produced the first complete printed translation of the Bible into English, wrote: “one translation declareth, openeth and illustrateth another, and … in many cases one is a plain commentary unto another.”
The King James Version translators had also appreciated the work of early translators, for even upon their cover page they explained that their own work had been, “Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised.”
Interestingly, even the KJV translators had further advised within their own, original, “Preface”: “Therefore as St Augustine saith, ‘a variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of scriptures.’”
For many, John 1:1 plainly declares Jesus (the Word) is God. And yet, few are aware of the number of other ways in which hundreds of Biblical Theologians, Scholars and Translators alike have, down thru the centuries, chosen to render this verse - as something other than, “and the Word was God.”
John 1:1 may be the most discussed, explained and/or debated scripture of any in the Bible. After 15 years study, there is soon to be released an Extensive Annotated Bibliography, providing the dedicated student of the Bible a sampling of what has been offered by many, well respected Bible scholars, that is, as to the many appropriate, alternative renditions of this most controversial scripture, John 1:1.
Agape: john1one@earthlink.net
~~~~~~~~~~~
Please visit:
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
“Good Companion Books” is dedicated to publishing well researched, informative books, on certain key Biblical subjects.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Something to ponder: In view of the fact that, within Acts 20:27 (NWT), Paul tells us that he had “…not held back from telling [us] all the counsel of God,” when examining the full content of Paul’s preaching and teaching, nowhere can it be found that he had ever expounded upon the Trinity doctrine.
May 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I’m trying to be charitable here, but I’m rapidly losing patience. You haven’t answered any of my questions, you just dance around them. I’m quickly approaching the stage that you reached when you were debating your “Catholic Defender”. I don’t want to reach that stage.
1) John is writing about Our Lord Jesus Christ. All four Gospels are about Jesus Christ. When he says “In the beginning was the Word”, “the Word was with God”, “the Word was God”, and “the Word became flesh”, who do you suppose he’s writing about? Again, if you want to make the claim that John is not writing about Christ, then you must produce ANOTHER son of God who IS NOT CHRIST and who IS GOD. That’s what the verse says. Either that or you must produce evidence that John didn’t mean what the words clearly state.
2) I’m sorry that you had bad experiences in the Church. I am not familiar with that particular institution. I have met many bad Catholics. The Church is full of sinners. One of Christ’s own apostles betrayed him, and Peter, the Rock on which Christ founded His Church, denied him prior to the Crucifixion. However, none of this invalidates the Church’s teachings or disproves the fact that it is the Church established by Christ. Nowhere does scripture say the Church would be sinless. Anyway, that response has nothing to do with the many scripture verses I cited for you that point to the doctrine of the Trinity. Please do your research and respond to the issue at hand, rather than name-calling Christ’s Bride.
3) Well, if that’s the truth then apparently you don’t care if I remain blind, for you’ve given me ZERO evidence for why the Church is wrong. All you’ve done is deny the Divinity of Christ and deny the Trinity, which seems to me to be more of an issue of reading comprehension on your part than error on the part of the Church. Again, please ask questions that I can respond to and provide reasoned and substantiated claims for your position. I’m not going to tolerate the name calling of me or the Church, and I’d like to point out that it’s not very Christian of you.
And to your last words: The Catholic Church was born at Pentecost, when Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to his desciples, though a strong case could be made that the Church came into existence prior to that, when Christ began his ministry on earth. All New Testament scripture was written by Catholics, as all Christians (includind the heretical sects) were members of the Catholic Church. The first significant split came with the schism between east and west in the 11th century. Then all Christians were either Catholic or Orthodox until the Protestant Reformation on the 16th century. The canon of scripture was determined in the 4th century by the Catholic Church. Prior to that there was NO COMPLETE UNIVERSAL BIBLE, just collections of writings that varied to a greater or lesser degree from place to place. In the early 2nd century we have St. Ignatius using the term Catholic Church in his writings- not coining a new phrase, but using it in such a way that his readers obviously must be aware of it. This is over 200 years before the cononization of scripture. By the way, Peter and Paul were both Catholic Priests, as were all the other “writers” (some was written by assistant of Catholic Priests).
Again, you’ve given me no challenge to the fact that scripture is inherently Catholic.
May 5th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Okay…
(1) I know that the subject here is Christ. And it is clear that it was written that “in the beginning was the word” and my point also is clear… the beginning of the subject was the Word….. When the Word became flesh (john 1:14) there came the existence of Christ… but before his existence what was existed was the Word of God (”in the beginning was the word” John 1:1)
(2) I know that what the members did can’t invalidate the genuineness of the true Church. But since the Catholic Church is not the true Church then even how the members strive to become good still in the eyes of God they’re not because in the first place the Church where they belong teaches doctrines that go against the teaching of God, Christ and the Apostles.
(3) Well, divinity of Christ is just the teaching that originated in the Catholic Church not in the true Church of Christ. My belief to Christ’s teachings and that of the Apostles remain firm….
For my last words:
The Catholic Church started when the true Church of Christ was devoured by Wolves and held by False Prophets. Did you know who the false prophets are? Well they wear Christ’s clothing, act like God (sit and called Himself Holy Father), allow and teach the members to worship graven images, and allow the members to Christianize pagan rituals and teachings.
When you said that Peter and Paul are both Catholic Priests… really made me laugh. The Peter and Paul in the Bible are not priests they are Apostles. Peter the Apostle assigned to the Jews and Paul is the Apostle assigned to Gentiles. Can you please site the verse where you found the truth about the priesthood of Peter and Paul?
Well, you’re not challenge at all because you’re even talking anything that are not in the Bible… and not only not in the Bible but is also against the truth in the Bible.
May 10th, 2007 at 4:51 am
SELapalana-
“Well, you’re not challenge at all because you’re even talking anything that are not in the Bible… and not only not in the Bible but is also against the truth in the Bible.”
I’m afraid your triumphalism and conceit is both premature and notably un-Christian. And shameful. I will continue to pray for you.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that “when the Word became flesh there came the existence of Christ… but before his existence what was existed was the Word of God.”
Are you suggesting that the infinite and perfect God changed? If the “Word was God”, as is clearly stated, then the Word existed as God prior to Christ’s incarnation into flesh. Nor does the passage say that the Word ceased to be God when it became flesh.
John 1:2-3 also says “He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.” In the beginning is prior to creation. How could the Word be with God prior to creation if God is the Creator, and how could “all things came to be… and without him nothing” unless the Word is God?
Jn1:1-14 does not say that God made the Word, that the Word ceased to be divine when it became flesh, or that there are two gods being spoken of. Those are all your assumptions based upon your fallible interpretation of scripture. Please read Revelations 19:13 “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called the Word of God.”
I have already cited for you nomerous scripture passages attesting to the divinity of Christ, but you’ve conveniently chosen not to respond to them. I therefore offer you the following for your kind consideration:
In Isaiah 9:5, speaking of the coming Messiah, “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.”
Or, if you prefer the King James version (yes, I have a Protestant Bible):
Is9:6 (in the NAB Is9:1 is Is8:23) “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government will be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
Also from Isaiah, read Is41:4 “…I the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he.”, Is44:6 “…I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”, and Is48:12 “…I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.”
Now please turn to Revelations: Rv1:11 “…I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last…”, Rv1:17-18 “…Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore…”, Rv2:8 “…These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive…”, Rv22:12-13 “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” These obviously, from the “…that liveth…was dead..and…am alive evermore…” refer to Jesus Christ.
Now read Revelations 1:6 ” And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father…”, and Rv1:8 “I am the Alpha amd Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”
In John 20:28, after Jesus invites Thomas to examine the wounds, Thomas says “My Lord and my God.” The Greek is “Ho Kourios mo kai ho Theos mou”, which literally means “The Lord of me and the God of me.”
In John 5:18 “…the Jews sought to kill him, because he… said also that God was his Father, making himself equal to God.”, and in Jn5:23 Jesus himself says “…all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.”
In John8:56-59 Jesus says “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it and was glad… verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.” The word I AM Jesus uses here is the same word used by the Father to Moses in Ex3:14 “…say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”
I am more than willing to discuss other issues of theology and Catholicism, but I prefer to deal with one issue at a time, as it provides for better understanding and clarification for all involved. I have asked you twice to present specific teachings of the Catholic Church that you disagree with and why. I ask as well as that you cite the Magisterial documents that proclaim these teachings. People frequently make accusations against Catholics for things that the Church DOESN’T TEACH. Three times now you have made disparaging remarks against the Catholic Church, but you have yet to make a significant charge against the Catholic Church, the One Church established by Christ, or to point to one single instance in which the Church is wrong in her theology.
I could go on, but I think that’s enough for now. I humbly await your response.
As for Alan’s comment:
I would never make the case that there is anything wrong with, or lacking in, any of Paul’s writings, or any of the other books of scripture. I believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant word of God. However, as such it must be taken as a whole. To consider only one book, or one writer is to risk taking the word of God out of context.
Right now we’re working on the divinity of Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity. In light of this, let me present you with the following, regarding St. Paul, for your consideration:
1 Timothy 3:16 (King James) “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
June 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am
guyz,, thanks sa mga idea nnu.. Naging malinaw sa akin ang pagpapahayag ninyo sa scripture ni John.. Salamat talaga.. nung una naguguluhan din kasi ako at ngayon ko lang naiintindihan.. very nyc explanations… salamat