Do some of the Scriptural Truths offend you?

[Lon]

John 17:5 ...
Jesus recognizes that the Word became Jesus (John 1:14).
Jesus recognizes that He really is the Word ...
who was in heaven at the very beginning.
It's all quite confusing, isn't it.

No. You made that up to fit your doctrine! You did! It is scripture twisting!

What makes things even worse is when John says:
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2).
The truth is ... the Word has come in the flesh (as Jesus Christ).
Evidently, he means ...
Jesus Christ was a man (flesh) and was in the world.

ἔρχομαι Erckomi means 'come.' I remember it from Greek class because it sounds like "hear come I." Yours a theory, but if it doesn't line with scripture, you need an education. Be a student.

 

[Derf]

John 17:5 ...
Jesus recognizes that the Word became Jesus (John 1:14).
Jesus recognizes that He really is the Word ...
who was in heaven at the very beginning.
It's all quite confusing, isn't it.

What makes things even worse is when John says:
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2).
The truth is ... the Word has come in the flesh (as Jesus Christ).
Evidently, he means ...
Jesus Christ was a man (flesh) and was in the world.

Maybe the answer to the confusion is that it is impossible to draw such a distinct line as you are drawing. And I'm not opposed to your premise, that the name of Jesus is intended to refer to the person who is both God and man. I just don't see where it is necessary. If Jesus is the name applied to the Word once He was incarnate, fine, but His existence is from eternity, not from conception. He was in the beginning with the Father.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that He was not the begotten Son until He was conceived in Mary (i.e., until He was actually begotten). But what point does that require? What difference does it make for you?

 

[Clete]

John 17:5 ...
Jesus recognizes that the Word became Jesus (John 1:14).
Jesus recognizes that He really is the Word ...
who was in heaven at the very beginning.
It's all quite confusing, isn't it.

What makes things even worse is when John says:
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2).
The truth is ... the Word has come in the flesh (as Jesus Christ).
Evidently, he means ...
Jesus Christ was a man (flesh) and was in the world.

Please just tell me what the purpose of this convoluted teaching is?

You completely ignore any argument made against it, including the clearest of Jesus' own words that refute it so clearly and completely that any child could know that you're definitely wrong and yet you aren't moved an inch, going so far as to call such a simply understood verse "quite confusing".

Why? Where's the pay off? What's the motive here? Is there one?