Arianism.

[daqq]

I therefore said to you, that you shall die in your sins:
For if you believe not that I am — — — — —, you will die in your sins.

When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall you know that I am — — — — —, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father has taught me, these things I speak.

Amen-amen, I say to you, Before Abraham is done, I am — — — — —!

And Abraham called the name of that place, "Yah was seen", that they might say to this day, In the mountain Yah was seen.

I suppose not everyone can learn this song, ("In the mountain Yah shall be seen"). O little rams and arnia-lambkins, You are the light of the kosmos, a city stretched out upon the mountain of Elohim cannot be hidden! :chuckle:

 

[Zeke]

Adam was created to live forever and was participant of the creation even...co creator

Yahushua said He calls us gods...which is akin to judges...knowing good from evil....and well, that was learned in the garden of Eden when it was said of us Humans "they have become like one of Usknowing good from evil and now lest they reach out and also take of the tree of life and live forever-"

So we were merely forbidden to live forever...

God can make gods...and His Son called us brothers...just not immortal ones...

No big deal...He also made a donkey talk...His Son made a fish deposit money...lol

You have to grasped by revelation Galatians 1:12 that you are immortal Philippians 2:5 before you can overcome the illusion of deaths victory over you, the role of the deceiver is to keep you in a state of divine amnesia/dream state wearing the elemental veil/mortality that keeps you in a slave master motif taught through traditions of men for to you to be lie eve what you posted above Galatians 4:1. No one can ascend before they awake to the fact they first descended/sent from the Father Luke 15:11-32, John 17:5, Philippians 2:7 . So Row row row your boat gently down the stream merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream, Matt 18:3, which is in you Luke 17:20-21, 2Cor 3:16, not of this world that is but a stage for divine schooling John 18:36, its creed is the more excellent way 1Cor 13:1-13 that erases all religious labels that cause all the war and hate on the play ground of carnal minded life which both sides of this argument come from.

 

[freelight]

I am (he) the one being referred to in the 'context' at hand.......

I am (he) the one being referred to in the 'context' at hand.......

Lol, you demand the same as the Jews who sought to kill him in that very same passage; even though you yourself already have the passage written out and expounded right before your very own eyes in whatever translation you prefer, and in addition have had it explained to you multiple times here in various places in this board. The answer remains the same because the truth does not change: he is the same which he told you at the commencement of that passage, exactly as he says in that passage, (John 8:25). But since you claim that the Anointed One is YHWH Almighty in the flesh; why therefore do you neither understand nor believe the very words of the Anointed One? I therefore have no reason to believe your wild and spurious claims. I already know who and what he is according to the understanding of that very passage because the Word and Logos reasoning of the Son of Elohim tells me so. But if you do not have the Logos then you do not have the reasoning of the Son of Elohim. He did not come to glorify himself but the Father; while you seek to elevate him to equality with the Father: you cannot serve two Absolute Masters because you will inevitably choose the one over the other. You have not "rightly divided" because your Evil.Eye. has divided the Father and the Son and then turned and replaced the Father with the Son because you despise and reject the Living Logos-Word of the Father which is written in the Torah.

And we have been thru this before but 'ego eimi' is not the divine Name 'proper' at all, for anyone can use this term which simply identifies the person himself as the one being referered to within the immediate context, and the nuance of it is futher modified by that context,...but 'ego eimi' itself is not the name of God (per se or uniquely), - for that you would have to go to the Hebrew itself in Ex. 3:14 and elsewhere (in its proper context), where God is self identifying, and in that context it is referring to his unique and holy Self-existence, in its generative sense as The ONE-BEING who brings all things into being (existence), that Self-ID-entity as Creator and Creative-Power. It includes the dynamic of both 'Be-ing' (I AM) and 'Be-coming' (I Will Be) that YHWH or 'Ahayah'(Ehyeh) describes. It is actually 'Ehyeh'(Ahayah) itself, which denotes the creative power to bring into existence that ID-entifies the 'God' in this context as DEITY. The Septuagint in Ex. 3:14 says 'ego eimi ho on ' (I am The BEING), It is clear that 'ego eimi' itself is not Gods unique name, since anyone and everyone can say 'ego eimi' in whatever context refers to himself, when it is appropriate in that situation to do so, in at least 2-3 or more examples in scripture. So, there is no justification to even associate or correlate the divine name in Ex. 3:14 with this verse or the commonly associated verse of John 8:58 with YHWH in the OT, besides a prefigured Christology and reading a 'Trinitarian' interpretation into the text. It doesn't hold grammatically, logically or rationally, except for one predispositioned to DEIFY Jesus, looking for any nuance or correlation to identify him as YHWH.

Again, I have yet to see any Trinitarian convince me that an orthodox creedal definition of the Trinity and assumption of Jesus as a 'God' within a Trinity is in any way more rational, correct, logical than a Unitarian view, or even a more pure Arian view specifically as Arius believed it (note there are other nuances and perspectives within Unitarianism). Honoring the Lord Christ as the 'lord' and 'messiah' that God appointed as His Servant-Son is all that is essential, as revealed to Peter of Jesus true Identity, ....for the Father in the heavens revealed to him that he was the Christ, the SON of the Living 'God'. Jesus did not CORRECT him in any way, to say he was specifically 'YHWH' when fully opportuned, but 'confirmed' his revelation from the Spirit was 'orthodox'

Jesus does share and express all that 'God' is and can reveal thru his personhood, in every quality, attribute, dimension and capacity, as the Messiah-Son, the Angel of Great Counsel, the Beginning and the End of his manifest revelation, the fullness of divinity that can be revealed in Man, as the Son of Man & Son of YHWH. A Unitarian view is monotheistically correct, and relationally sound. It would need no further embellishments to make a man into 'God Almighty' which is not only impossible in traditional Unitarian Monotheism, but unnecessary. Only 'God' is 'God', while all else is but an extension, fractal, expression, creation, design, pattern, image or form of 'God'. Its the MIND of God and Spirit of God infusing all creation, upholding it, allowing all forms, images and appearances to arise in space, within the expanse of infinity, worlds without end. All is born out of the original essence, substance and consciousness of 'God'. There is One Unbegotten Father, while all else is begotten, created, imaged, formed, brought forth into existence out of the Unbegotten, APPEARING in form. Basic metaphysics

For heaven's sake, just let 'God' BE

 

[daqq]

And we have been thru this before but 'ego eimi' is not the divine Name 'proper' at all, for anyone can use this term which simply identifies the person himself as the one being referered to within the immediate context, and the nuance of it is futher modified by that context,...but 'ego eimi' itself is not the name of God (per se or uniquely), - for that you would have to go to the Hebrew itself in Ex. 3:14 and elsewhere (in its proper context), where God is self identifying, and in that context it is referring to his unique and holy Self-existence, in its generative sense as The ONE-BEING who brings all things into being (existence), that Self-ID-entity as Creator and Creative-Power. It includes the dynamic of both 'Be-ing' (I AM) and 'Be-coming' (I Will Be) that YHWH or 'Ahayah'(Ehyeh) describes. It is actually 'Ehyeh'(Ahayah) itself, which denotes the creative power to bring into existence that ID-entifies the 'God' in this context as DEITY. The Septuagint in Ex. 3:14 says 'ego eimi ho on ' (I am The BEING), It is clear that 'ego eimi' itself is not Gods unique name, since anyone and everyone can say 'ego eimi' in whatever context refers to himself, when it is appropriate in that situation to do so, in at least 2-3 or more examples in scripture. So, there is no justification to even associate or correlate the divine name in Ex. 3:14 with this verse or the commonly associated verse of John 8:58 with YHWH in the OT, besides a prefigured Christology and reading a 'Trinitarian' interpretation into the text. It doesn't hold grammatically, logically or rationally, except for one predispositioned to DEIFY Jesus, looking for any nuance or correlation to identify him as YHWH.

Again, I have yet to see any Trinitarian convince me that an orthodox creedal definition of the Trinity and assumption of Jesus as a 'God' within a Trinity is in any way more rational, correct, logical than a Unitarian view, or even a more pure Arian view specifically as Arius believed it (note there are other nuances and perspectives within Unitarianism). Honoring the Lord Christ as the 'lord' and 'messiah' that God appointed as His Servant-Son is all that is essential, as revealed to Peter of Jesus true Identity, ....for the Father in the heavens revealed to him that he was the Christ, the SON of the Living 'God'. Jesus did not CORRECT him in any way, to say he was specifically 'YHWH' when fully opportuned, but 'confirmed' his revelation from the Spirit was 'orthodox'

Jesus does share and express all that 'God' is and can reveal thru his personhood, in every quality, attribute, dimension and capacity, as the Messiah-Son, the Angel of Great Counsel, the Beginning and the End of his manifest revelation, the fullness of divinity that can be revealed in Man, as the Son of Man & Son of YHWH. A Unitarian view is monotheistically correct, and relationally sound. It would need no further embellishments to make a man into 'God Almighty' which is not only impossible in traditional Unitarian Monotheism, but unnecessary. Only 'God' is 'God', while all else is but an extension, fractal, expression, creation, design, pattern, image or form of 'God'. Its the MIND of God and Spirit of God infusing all creation, upholding it, allowing all forms, images and appearances to arise in space, within the expanse of infinity, worlds without end. All is born out of the original essence, substance and consciousness of 'God'. There is One Unbegotten Father, while all else is begotten, created, imaged, formed, brought forth into existence out of the Unbegotten, APPEARING in form. Basic metaphysics

For heaven's sake, just let 'God' BE

Yeah, and amen.

In addition the Name of the Father was forbidden to even be spoken in public in those days. People seem to either forget that fact or ignore it for theological reasons. Should we really be expected to believe that the Name of the Father was so sacrosanct and so revered that it was not even allowed to be spoken out loud in those times, (except by the High Priest in one day of the year at Yom Kippur), and yet it was also a common phrase used in every day common vernacular by the common people? a phrase such as ego eimi? That notion is absolutely preposterous and outlandish. It is nothing more than, as you say, stretching or reaching, searching for something that can be used to twist the writings so as to make them fit into a paradigm-mindset which was formulated in creeds of men which cannot actually be substantiated by what is found in the actual scripture writings. But as for what I had said in that post concerning that passage, the Master expounds what I said:

John 8:24-25
24 I therefore said to you, that you shall die in your sins:
For if you believe not that I am — — — — —, you will die in your sins.
25 They said therefore to him, You are who?
(because they understood that he did not complete the "I am" statement)
Yeshua said to them, That which I also spoke to you at the commencement.

And what did the Master say to them at the commencement?

John 8:12
12 Again therefore Yeshua spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world: the one following me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Interesting that this "commencement" of the passage now falls immediately after the controversial "Pericope Adulterae" passage, eh?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

It depends on which aspect of the word "God" is meant when used in reference to Jesus Christ.

Most certainly God uses the word "theos" god in reference to Jesus Christ, but God likewise uses the word "elohim" and "theos" in reference to other human beings as well. Exodus 7:1 KJV God made Moses a god to Pharaoh. Moses was a god to Pharaoh. That does not make him the Creator or the Father of Jesus Christ.

As pointed out in other posts, "elohim" is used of men who represented God.

Moses foretold of a prophet who God would raise up out from the brethren and that prophet would be like Moses.

Since God referred to Moses as a god, most certainly it is reasonable and righteous to expect that a prophet like Moses would be referred to as god by God as well.

By viewing the totality of scriptures we can let the word of God, the logos of God be self evident without private interpretation.

As pointed out by others-

The second use of God in John 1:1 is qualitive.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

LA

 

[CherubRam]

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the Elohim, and the Logos was Elohim.
There really is no way around that plain clear statement from John 1:1.

The question is: Who exactly is the Logos?
Yeshua does not claim to be the Logos.
The Logos is the Son of Elohim.

Christ was with the Father in the beginning of creation. The bible says nothing about Christ being with the Father before then.

 

[Notaclue]

Christ was with the Father in the beginning of creation. The bible says nothing about Christ being with the Father before then.

Gen.1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


What was the earth before God created it?



Peace.

 

[Wick Stick]

Gen.1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What was the earth before God created it?

Peace.

In the beginning, God created everything. But everything was one big mucky ball of chaotic mess. Then, God set to putting order to it, dividing this from that, creating edges - light and dark, land and sea, etc.

Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

Christ was with the Father in the beginning of creation. The bible says nothing about Christ being with the Father before then.

I beg to differ...

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5

 

[CherubRam]

Gen.1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


What was the earth before God created it?
After He created the heavens it was a formless body of water.


Peace.

 

[CherubRam]

I beg to differ...

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5

The heavens are older then this world. To be more specific, was Christ alive before the creation of the heavens? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[freelight]

Various 'beliefs' about Jesus....join the club......

Various 'beliefs' about Jesus....join the club......

I beg to differ...

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5

As noted, that period referred to as 'in the beginning' denotes that particular time-zone when creation 'began', so it appears Christ refers to a time before the creation came into being, but we do not know how long Christ was 'in existence' before manifest creation, and it is held by Arius that there was a time when 'Christ' was not (did not exist) but came forth as a creation (the Firstborn of creation) at a particular point in eternity past. So we can only speculate when Christ was 'created' or 'begotten' before material creation came into being. The big Arian Controversy was all over Christ's existence, his relationship with God and whether he was God or a created Son, god, angel, begotten Agent, etc.

My Christology can include multi-form viewpoints for the 'Creator-Son', from fully divine to fully human and every variation inbetween,...it just seems some get so DOGMATIC over whether Jesus is 'God' or not, however one defines or qualifies the 'terms'. Who cares? beyond however one conceives of the relationship conceptually, since Christology to me does not necessitate a dogma of absolute truth, since it cannot be 'absolute', but only a 'relational concept'...it is something conceived in relativity. Only Deity Itself is Absolute, independent of anything else, Self-existing, prior to any concept or after-thought, the absolute Self-identity and Being (as Pure Essence/Awareness). - all of our thoughts and concepts are but commentary, de-scriptions, symbolic approximations at best,...but never the reality they point to or describe.

Anyways,...I've challenged Trinitarians to show me any spiritual advantage or religious gain in accepting their creedal definition of the Trinity or belief that Jesus is 'God', OVER the Christology that Arius proposed or any other Arian-similar or related school, OR any Unitarian view. That challenge always stands, and I see that its all juxtaposing, posturing and assumptions, over what a person believes is 'orthodox'. So you believe Jesus is God,....some would say "whoop dee doo". It would only appear to concern the believer, and no one knows what subjective benefit that 'belief' has, beyond a mere intellectual assumption or preferred point of view :idunno: - it all depends on what one ASSUMES and HOW They relate to those propositions.

LIFE goes on......:surf:

 

[Wick Stick]

Anyways,...I've challenged Trinitarians to show me any spiritual advantage or religious gain in accepting their creedal definition of the Trinity or belief that Jesus is 'God', OVER the Christology that Arius proposed or any other Arian-similar or related school, OR any Unitarian view. That challenge always stands, and I see that its all juxtaposing, posturing and assumptions, over what a person believes is 'orthodox'. So you believe Jesus is God,....some would say "whoop dee doo". It would only appear to concern the believer, and no one knows what subjective benefit that 'belief' has, beyond a mere intellectual assumption or preferred point of view :idunno: - it all depends on what one ASSUMES and HOW They relate to those propositions.

LIFE goes on......:surf:

Quick disclaimer: Trinitarians generally don't consider me to be Trinitarian. So I don't presume to speak for them.

Having said that, your question deserves an answer... perhaps with slight re-statement: what advantage is there to one view or the other?

A man who understands how it is that the Father and Son are One, also understands the Unity of believers to Christ, and the present nature of the Incarnation, because they are all one and the same thing.

That understanding isn't salvic, per se. But, having once understood, he thus may correctly identify the Way, and how to enter Him.

If you have further interest in my beliefs, I am happy to share with seekers, of which you appear to be one.

Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

The heavens are older then this world. To be more specific, was Christ alive before the creation of the heavens? Maybe, maybe not.

In the beginning, there was the Mind, and the Breath, and the Word, but the Word was yet unspoken, and thus the creation remained in a state of chaos. But the Breath began to agitate the waters, creating divisions and edges between... light and dark... land and water... And then God began to speak, saying,

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21

...and other things as well. And He continues to speak up unto To Day, because He is not dead, nor has he found Himself confined by our canons, or temples, or other rudimentary attempts to put a box around what is Infinite.

But as to that time before Creation, I think we may say with confidence that while the Word was yet Unspoken, it already existed, being identical to the Mind in its contents.

 

[freelight]

All is One anyways....slice, dice or label as you please......

All is One anyways....slice, dice or label as you please......

Quick disclaimer: Trinitarians generally don't consider me to be Trinitarian. So I don't presume to speak for them.

Having said that, your question deserves an answer... perhaps with slight re-statement: what advantage is there to one view or the other?

A man who understands how it is that the Father and Son are One, also understands the Unity of believers to Christ, and the present nature of the Incarnation, because they are all one and the same thing.

That understanding isn't salvic, per se. But, having once understood, he thus may correctly identify the Way, and how to enter Him.

If you have further interest in my beliefs, I am happy to share with seekers, of which you appear to be one.

Jarrod

Hi WS,

My commentary holds, its propositions and inquiries. I've been coming from a purely monotheistic Unitarian view, fundamental to traditional-orthodox Judaism and the very earliest followers of Jesus, including Jesus himself. Of course there is One Infinite Spirit, that is Deity, while all else are but personifications, forms and expressions of the One Spirit. The problem is with those assuming or super-imposing rather a traditional church-created 'orthodox' Trinitarian DOGMA as posing that as 'truth', when it is but a relational construct at best, to help people see the 'relations' between various facets, forms or personalities within the higher powers that BE. Pop these personalities into a 'Godhead' and we're good to go, but enforce the terms and qualifications of 'salvation' or 'eternal damnation' upon the believing of these or 'else' then you've got a 'church' playing 'God' and happily making a 'God' and his 'terms' in their own 'image' (imagination). I'm all for creative imagination, since all is Consciousness anyways, but when you have a religious organization 'posing' as 'Elohim', that's another matter, then making a MAN into 'God Almighty' you have bigger problems, no matter what metaphysical gymnastics you concoct and formalize into 'creeds'.

An 'Arian' or 'Semi-arian' Christology is just as good as an orthodox Trinitarian one, of even a modalist VERSION, if one is recognizing TRUE DEITY in the various forms and personalities that are revealing and expressing God in His relations and relationships with man and with all other beings, its all-inclusive, but we must look at the greater cosmology and divine economy as well, and that's where relational concepts such as a 'trinity' come into place. Just because the political power play of church-state tensions in the 4th century came to a culmination in the Arian Controversy and the Trinitarians eventually won the power play of church-state POLIITICS does not make their dogmatic formulation as 'gospel truth', its just that that version of Christianity was endorsed and then officialized by the powers that be of that era, and that TREND took over and carried on as 'TRADITION' bearing THEIR 'stamp' of 'orthodoxy'.


-----------0

"God is spirit, and they who worship Him must do so in spirit and truth".

"God is One".

"One Deity Being"

 

[freelight]

In the beginning, there was the Mind, and the Breath, and the Word, but the Word was yet unspoken, and thus the creation remained in a state of chaos. But the Breath began to agitate the waters, creating divisions and edges between... light and dark... land and water... And then God began to speak, saying,

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21

...and other things as well. And He continues to speak up unto To Day, because He is not dead, nor has he found Himself confined by our canons, or temples, or other rudimentary attempts to put a box around what is Infinite.

But as to that time before Creation, I think we may say with confidence that while the Word was yet Unspoken, it already existed, being identical to the Mind in its contents.

In the Greek philosophical understanding, adopted by the writer(s) of Johns gospel,,.....the logos of course was always in the divine MIND from eternity, so only in this sense is the logos of Infinite Intelligence already always "one with God" because this divine logic, thought, reason, wisdom, creative principle is inherent in MIND. - how the gospel writer identifies or correlates the 'logos' with Jesus is analogical, symbolic, figurative, in as much as Jesus reveals and expresses the plan, logic, creative and redemptive dispensation of the Father. The logos is always distinct as the creative word-expression of the Infinite Mind, being begotten out of 'Deity', so it is generational. The logos is not 'The God', but because it is born out of and the creative-expression of 'The God', it is 'god' (elohim)...being 'divine' by origination, association, and likeness.

 

[daqq]

In the beginning, there was the Mind, and the Breath, and the Word, but the Word was yet unspoken, and thus the creation remained in a state of chaos. But the Breath began to agitate the waters, creating divisions and edges between... light and dark... land and water... And then God began to speak, saying,

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21

...and other things as well. And He continues to speak up unto To Day, because He is not dead, nor has he found Himself confined by our canons, or temples, or other rudimentary attempts to put a box around what is Infinite.

But as to that time before Creation, I think we may say with confidence that while the Word was yet Unspoken, it already existed, being identical to the Mind in its contents.

Nice.

Or maybe also . . .

In a strong head Elohim cuts down the heavens, (strong mind) and the earth, (man is earth). And the earth is laid wasted-desolation and chaos-ruinous-void, and darkness is upon the face of the abyss, and Ruach Meshiah Elohim is brooding over the face of the waters:

And Elohim says, "Let there be light", and so there is light . . .

For He says, "I kill, (Apocalypse), and I make alive" (Creation) . . .

And no doubt this is toward the good and better ending for the strong-willed adam.

 

[freelight]

An interesting inquiry

An interesting inquiry

~*~*~

I'm still curious as to what good or advantage, besides a state-church political triumph of one doctrinal view over/against another (in the 3rd to 5th centuries), that Trinitarianism WON over Arianism, that a traditional-orthodox dogma of the Trinity has given to the world, that Arianism could not give to it? :idunno: All you have is the 'belief' that Jesus is 'God' and held up to the same status of Identity and divinity as 2 other divine personalities in a 'Godhead',...and that is what you have. Such is only from a historical view, a triumph of a particular dogma or belief, then made into a creed, then defended onwards by 'tradition'.

The teachings of Jesus within each school still holds and the sincerity of worship and good that comes from hearts serving 'God' is one and the same, in the Spirit of God,...who is ONE by nature anyways. So, no dogmatic lordship or apology from a particular Christology necessarily holds as 'absolute', since it is only a relative position, as a relational concept.

And still, Jesus can only be related to, as a personality-figure in consciousness,...and within whatever 'Christology' one favors,...it is but a 'relational-concept' and 'opinion' still.

 

[daqq]

~*~*~

I'm still curious as to what good or advantage, besides a state-church political triumph of one doctrinal view over/against another (in the 3rd to 5th centuries), that Trinitarianism WON over Arianism, that a traditional-orthodox dogma of the Trinity has given to the world, that Arianism could not give to it? :idunno: All you have is the 'belief' that Jesus is 'God' and held up to the same status of Identity and divinity as 2 other divine personalities in a 'Godhead',...and that is what you have. Such is only from a historical view, a triumph of a particular dogma or belief, then made into a creed, then defended onwards by 'tradition'.

The teachings of Jesus within each school still holds and the sincerity of worship and good that comes from hearts serving 'God' is one and the same, in the Spirit of God,...who is ONE by nature anyways. So, no dogmatic lordship or apology from a particular Christology necessarily holds as 'absolute', since it is only a relative position, as a relational concept.

And still, Jesus can only be related to, as a personality-figure in consciousness,...and within whatever 'Christology' one favors,...it is but a 'relational-concept' and 'opinion' still.

The reality is that most people do not think realistically because they are far removed from the timing, culture, and context of the Gospel accounts. Most will say that if they had lived and walked with Jesus in the flesh they would not have rejected him; but I say that is fantasy land, especially if they had thought he might have claimed to be God Almighty. The reality is that if they thought he had claimed such a thing in those days they would have done the same as the Pharisees, Scribes, and Jews did, that is, they would have sought to stone him for blasphemy. All of the theology, dogma, and religious trappings that are built up around the Gospel today did not exist in those days. What they had to go by in that culture and time was Torah, Prophets, and Writings. Moreover none of the disciples and apostles themselves thought that the Master was God Almighty; they never thought so and they never wrote any such thing, (which one would think that they would have written if it was so important for everyone to know). If the modern version of Jesus was to come again today in the flesh, appearing as a man; the same people who claim he is God Almighty would excommunicate him, call him a heretic, denounce him as having the doctrines of demons, accuse him of being possessed with devils, and tell him that his father is the Devil and that he is going to spend all eternity in fiery conscious hellfire torment unless he repents and believes what they believe. People do not wake up because they do not want to; it takes work to have understanding, one must be willing to seek the kingdom of Elohim first: but they have lives to live, houses to build, cars to buy, sheep to fleece, and more important stuff to attend to, all things are reconciled by pastor and priest on super-tanker refill spiritual Sundays.

 

[oatmeal]

As pointed out by others-

The second use of God in John 1:1 is qualitive.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

LA

Since the basic meaning of logos means message or communication, referring to the thought or intent of the message not the particular words used, to jump to referring to the conclusion that logos is always a reference to God is ignorant and rash

Clearly God has a message for mankind, He gave that message to holy men of God who spoke it and wrote it. II Peter 1:21...

What is that message about? It is truth about many subjects mainly our lord and redeemer and savior, the man Jesus Christ and the His Father God who instructed him as to how to save and redeem mankind so all those who would choose to believe could receive that redemption and salvation and learn to live it accordingly.

God plan or message of salvation and redemption was not made up on the fly, but was known by God, ie, was with God in the beginning. God has foreknowledge. Time is part of the creation, He occupies eternity. He is as aware of the past and future as much as he is aware of the present. Adam's and Eve's sin was foreknown by God and God already had a plan in mind for redeeming mankind. That plan was the eventual birth life ministry of His future son, Jesus Christ.

As it states in Romans, God calls those things which be not as though they were. God can do that because of His foreknowledge as well as His integrity and power. If He says it shall be, it shall be. For him the future is in a sense a foregone conclusion.

Therefore it is simple logic to see that Jesus Christ being the offspring of the foreknowing God is referred to a being with God in the beginning for in God's thinking, Jesus the anointed one, ( anointed by God, Acts 10:38) and his accomplishments were as good as done as shown in God's statement to the serpent, the Devil, in Genesis 3:15

God foreknew the words in His word in writing and He foreknew the words and actions of his word in the flesh, Jesus Christ.

Ultimately, the purpose of the logos in writing, that is scripture is to know the word in the flesh who is Jesus Christ so that we might learn to know his God and Father and our God and Father, the logos the ultimate message.