John 1 IS NOT Genesis 1: Eight Evidences, "the Beginning" of John 1 is NOT Genesis 1 beginning

#GospelofJohn, #John1, #nontrinitarian, #deityofchrist, #newcreation, #billschlegel
Eight reasons, yea verily nine, why John 1 is not about the Genesis creation, but about God’s bringing about new life in the man Jesus (time stamps below):
If John 1 is about the redemption, the new beginning that God is bringing about in and through the man Christ Jesus, there is no need to speculate about a second divine figure or second God who was involved in the Genesis creation.
1. 03:19 In the Gospel of John “the beginning” refers to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus (John 8:25, cf. 8:44, 15:27, 16:4). How the very same author uses the phrase “the beginning” in the body of his Gospel is evidence for what he intended by the same phrase in John 1:1.
2. 05:07 “in the beginning” ἐν ἀρχῇ : Needs context
The phrase “in the beginning” must be interpreted in its context. Other places where the exact same phrase, “in the beginning” is used in the NT but in which it does not refer to the Genesis creation:
Acts 11:15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at/in the beginning.”
Phil. 4:15, “in the beginning of the Gospel, when I left Macedonia”.
The phrase “in the beginning” ἐν ἀρχῇ occurse some 31 times in the all of the Bible (LXX and New Testament). The vast majority of occurrences do not refer to the Genesis creation.
3. 08:45 The other Gospels have a “beginning” that is also associated with the beginning of Jesus and his ministry (Mark 1:1, Luke 1:1-2, Matthew 1:1, cf. Acts 1:1, 1:22-23). It makes sense that John as well has a beginning that is parallel to the other Gospels.
4. 10:03 Parallels and agreement with other NT literature of a New Beginning, a New Creation in Messiah Jesus.
Expectation and fulfillment: Isaiah 42:9, 66:7 and Rom. 8:21-23, 2 Peter 3:13, Rev. 21:5
Paul (Col. 3:12-18) and Revelation (1:5, 3:14) describing Jesus as being “the firstborn from the dead, the beginning of God’s creation”.
It makes sense that God is doing something with and in Jesus that has continuity with what God has done in the past, but is “new” with Jesus.
5. 12:17 The subject of John 1 is not the creation of the heavens and the earth, the seas, dry land, plants and animals, but rather about the coming to be of new life through the man Jesus. In John’s Gospel, the man Jesus Christ is the one through whom new life comes to be, through whom new men and women are born. The word "create“ does not appear in John 1. The noun “logos” does not occur anywhere in Genesis creation. Some English translations may have "create/d" in John 1, but the word is not "create" - the word is "came to be". In John 1, "that which came to be in him was life (1:3b-4a). The subject of what came to be is not seas, dry land, plants, animals, planets, stars, sun, etc. But human life, individually and corporately. “corporately” because the word “world” in 1:9-10, is not planet earth. It is a word which means a segment of human society. John 1 is about life for humans, how a person can be “born of God”, and to be part of the family of God (1:12-13).
6. 15:09 “that which came to be in him was life, and the life was the light of men” (1:3b-4a): Although Genesis creation language is being intentionally used, this is not Genesis creation life and light. In Genesis, light comes first and then life. In John 1:4, life comes first, in which is then light for all men. As life came through God's word in Genesis, so new life come through God's Word, the man Messiah Jesus, as described in the Gospel of John.
The life, light and darkness of John 1 are not the life, light and darkness of Genesis 1. Even so, the beginning of John 1 is a different beginning from Genesis 1.
The re-appropriation of some language from Genesis 1 is mistaken by some as an indication of identity, claiming that Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 refer to identical events. But John is re-purposing some of Genesis 1 language for his own purpose, to describe the new beginning that God is working through Jesus.
7. 18:54 Themes introduced in John 1:1-13 are developed in the body of the Gospel of John, evidence that the first 13 verses are about the ministry of the man Jesus, not Genesis creation.
(8.) 21:35 “Consolation Prize” Recognition by commentators that the Gospel of John is introducing a new creation.
Example: F.F Bruce, The Gospel of John: A Verse-by-Verse Exposition:
“It is not by accident that the Gospel begins with the same phrase as the book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1, ‘In the beginning’ introduces the story of the old creation; here it introduces the story of the new creation.”
9. 23:44 John the Baptist has no reason appearing so early (1:6-8) in an account of the Genesis creation. On the other hand, the Baptizer’s presence already in verse 6 fits perfectly with understanding the Prologue as an introduction to the new life coming to be through the man Jesus.
"He was not the light". John is compared to the man Jesus, the light of the world.

[@irenewalther5911]

Thank you for the excellent presentation. I have come to the same conclusion, that the beginning is the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Thank you for the verification.

[@neweyz3396]

Thanks for bringing this to the table Bill , makes a lot of sense , exciting to hear Anthony and Carlos thoughts on this great information and understanding !! God Bless ❤

[@MartinVanRijswijk]

Thank you Bill. This is a logical and coherent explanation for understanding 'the beginning'.

[@ElYeshuatihalleluyah]

Excellent teaching! Praise Yah!

[@reshefshahar2434]

Jesus is also saying to his desciples "You are the light of the world" The true light is the Father. The Father is manifested in his children. He came in to his own is talking about the Father coming to Israel in the man Jesus. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5 KJv Blessings

[@ralphowen3367]

There is also no darkness in the believer

[@richardtarr8145]

I liked this video. The beginning of Jesus's ministry to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (Israel, Act 1:6) at his baptism (Luke 4:18-19). See 1John 2:7,13,14).

[@darinhouston1009]

I can't find the panel discussion with Xavier/Buzzard

[@billschlegel1]

Here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqDMenSAfdp3i6M

[@Mckaule]

If John 1 is talking about Genesis creation then I would expect to see words like "In the beginning was GOD" not the word.

[@scottcatalanotto]

My number one is this The same of the gospel of John in his Epistles speaks about the beginning that he has seen speaking about the word of life being a "it" that was with the father and was made known to us in the beginning of the ministry of Jesus Christ. 1 John 1: 1-2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life- the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-

[@billschlegel1]

Yes, 1 John 1 starts out with a neuter "that which was from the beginning", but then goes on to associate that beginning with a forensic eye-witness testimony of those who experienced the man Jesus (in the first century). 1 John 2:14 is a parallel, but uses the masculine "him", refering to Jesus who "is from the beginning": "I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning." "the beginning" in John's epistles consistently refers to that which started with the man Jesus.

[@ralphowen3367]

In that I Jn. 1 passage, in the beginning refers to both-- the creation and the start of the apostles ministry.

[@ralphowen3367]

TX The word of life in I Jn. 1 can either refer to the word made flesh or eternity past. For example, in Pr. 8 you can find in this eternity past the way, the ,truth, and the life in the wisdom of God which is also His word/logos. There is an entire Ps. chapter dedicated to the voice of God, which is to say, the word of God.

[@billschlegel1]

@@ralphowen3367 I would say that (some) parallel language between Genesis and John is intentional, but that John is describing a new beginning. The parallels shouldn't be mistaken for identity (that the two accounts are identical). There are so many differences between Genesis and John that it becomes clear that John is not describing Genesis. I mention this a bit around 16:35 in the video. Blessings.

[@ralphowen3367]

@@billschlegel1 John 1:1-3 speaks of eternity past, before the foundation of the world. All things were then made by the Word of God, or the voice of God speaking things into existence. And herein is the danger of your diminishing of the Deity of Christ, though he was also fully a man during the days of his flesh. Once you set your course to deny that Jesus upon his ascension was God again, the Lord may also give his voice against you. Are you come from a Unitarian background? No unitarians seem to want to own up to it. Who were all things made by--VS. 3? The Word of God. Granted, verse 4 refers to the earthly life of the Lord. But the Light part of the nature of Jesus the man was the Divine One--vss. 7-9. But there is even divinity in the son of God, since he, unlike us, never sinned. In VS. 10, it says that he as the Word of God inherently--not that he had it placed in him, though at his baptism the Spirit rested upon him--had done the creating. How was he then not God come in the flesh, and with us--Math. 1:23? The value and necessity of rightly dividing this truth is that we will be able to identify the Lord at his coming in power. Please do not avoid answering the question about you coming from a U. background.

[@greglogan7706]

As to the notion of the logos not being a person yes of course one would only think so if they were indoctrinated however the passage would still remain somewhat confusing. However we make freely say the expression of God became a person and ideally it would become many persons each one of of those who are genuinely in Christ.

[@reasonablemind6830]

At best one can argue that John 1.1 is unlikely to be referring to the beginning of the original creation (which entails the pre-existence of the Word/Logos/pre-Jesus). It does not eliminate the possibility that gJohn was referring to the pre-existence of Jesus. But if we take into account of some other factors, the balance of probability may tilt the other way. Some of the some other factors includes: gJohn’s Jesus said: “Before Abraham was, I am”; Paul talked about the pre-existence of Jesus in his letters (eg Philippians and Romans); the pre-existence of Jesus implied in the Synoptic Gospels.

[@billschlegel1]

Hi, thanks for the comment. I don't think Paul talked about the literal pre-incarnate existence of Jesus. Philippians 2 is about the mind/attitude of Christ Jesus. Christ is the title of the human person. Jesus is the name of the human person. The humble obedience unto death that Paul is describes in Philippians 2 he attributes to the man Christ Jesus while that man was on earth. To think otherwise, discredits the man Christ Jesus. If you don't mind my asking, where in Romans does Paul talk about the literal pre-incarnate existence of Jesus? On "before Abraham was", the better translation is "before Abraham comes to be" - something yet future. If you are interested, see here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3aQqnR5fM5pb9U

[@choicegospelnetwork]

Hey Bill , I believe the beginning was the Angel delivering the word to Mary concerning her pregnancy. Then that word became a reality or Flesh .

[@ralphowen3367]

The word was a reality long before Jesus wore our flesh.

[@coreymihailiuk5189]

I don't see how you can disconnect John 1 verse one from the very beginning when verse 2 & 3 announces the actual act of creation. This is echoed again in verse 10 where it states " He was in the world and the world was created by him". As you are well aware this is again confirmed in Colossians 1 - 15 through 17. I am not a trinitarian but I can see clearly that Jesus pre-existed his time on earth and in some way participated in the works of creation.

[@ralphowen3367]

I agree, bro.. I am not a-tri boy either. I do not know what he is trying to prove, but this I know, that God created all things with His voice, which is why it is true that God' voice, speaking all things into existence, is the direct Creator. Also in Gen. 1:3, the Light = the Word and soul of God as well. When someone asserts such a thing as this, I don't even care to hear his father evidence because it is not built on the foundation of truth. Pr. 8 also is what Jn. 1:1 is referencing.

[@coreymihailiuk5189]

@@ralphowen3367 I have heard this line of thought before, that God literally spoke things into existence. I have no problem with this concept. Just exactly how God performed the complex act of creation is likely beyond our finite minds, but I like the language used here and I think this idea can be supported through scripture.

[@ralphowen3367]

@@coreymihailiuk5189 How can it be either a line of thought or a mere concept??? God has an entire chapter in Psalms about what His voice does in either creation or in destruction. If this guy want to come up with such a theory, what matters is is he for God or against Him. Sometimes heresies are neccesary

[@ralphowen3367]

Moreover, one bringing forth a heresy now and then is not necessarily a heretic. Proverbs says a man is a fool if he answers a matter before he has heard it. And I confess I have not heard this guy out enough yet. But I noticed a sense of humor, which is good as long as he does not talk foolishly and jest. I will say this, that in the Bible the believers are commanded to keep the commands ( the 2) that they have heard from the beginning. I think this beginning refers to the N.T. times and when they were converted. But John 1:1-3 cannot be said to only refer to Jesus' days of his flesh, but alludes to Gen. 1 and Pr. 8 primarily.

[@ralphowen3367]

@@riversofeden3929 I think it is merely saying that he was in the world among brethren--VS. 11--and they could not comprehend that he was that Creator who had made all things by himself alone--Is. 44:24. The order of the wording is not a big factor, just like when the book of Acts says of Jesus that he was slain and hung on a tree.

[@johnarthur2112]

Hey Bill. There's another interpretation. At John 17:5 and 24, Jesus claims to exist in some way before the kosmos was created. Could John start his gospel in such a way so that we can understand Jesus's claim later in his gospel which is echoed by John The Baptist's testimony and all the references Jesus makes to being heavenly, being sent, being the only begotten, being before Abraham etc? What if John 1:1 is the very beginning of God's story, before anything was made, when all that existed was YHWH. What if the first creative act of the Father was the conception in his mind of his son Jesus. What if God made a promise to his son and that promise was the inheritance of eternal life. In this interpretation, the logos would be the promise of Christ the redeemer. This would harmonise with 1 Tit 1:2 and 1 Pet 1:19-20. Could such a promise bring light into a dark world? In this view. John 1:1 therefore explains that before anything was made in heaven and earth, all that existed was God's word, a promise from the Father, and this word was essentially God because it was within the mind of God as the thought of God. Vs 3 then explains that God created all things on account of this promise which would harmonise with Col 1:15-17. If this is true, Jesus would be the literal firstborn son of God, and if God declared him to be his son at the very beginning, Jesus would be the only begotten son of God by promise which would mean Jesus has a higher status than the angels who have no inheritance. In fact the angels and indeed all of creation would owe its existence to Jesus. Without Jesus, nothing would have been made. This explains why the blood of the lamb could atone for all the sin of man in the creation because it was more valuable than the creation. No Jesus = No creation. I therefore don't believe that the beginning of John 1 is referring to the new creation or the old creation because it's explaining what happened before the foundation of the kosmos. In the beginning, God conceived his son in his all powerful mind and he made a promise to his son. This is consistent with the whole tone of John's gospel where he is revealing the spiritual reality of Christ. What do you think?

[@JohnCahillChapel]

That's more like it. After all, (verse 3 of the exact passage being analysed, [but v3 not referred to]) "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." That reads like either a comparison - and possibly a contrast - with the material (i.e., merely materialist,) time & space (bound) presentation of Genesis 1:1ff. The question of deity v divinity aside (for the sake of discussion), the passage presents a view that is not time_space_culture_flesh bound, i.e., it contrasts with the inadequate interpretation of being ("existence") as flesh & history and racially discriminate (ref to this conflict as clarified John 8:21 ff). We see and interpret reality and meaning from either the fleshly (material origins Genesis etc) or as eternal, children of God who are in Him and known (the Gospel) before the foundations of the world. A part of the problem seems to me to be the often unspoken requirement to keep that which has/is fading away (2 Cor 3) from fading away, i.e.,. to sustain the the flicker of the old rather than see that it is completely outshone by the Glory of the new (2Cor3:10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!). The Old view of origins and destiny "has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory" of that Gospel that John is presenting. John 1:3 confirms that there is a very strong relationship between John 1:1-4 and Genesis 1, but the painful fact for many interpreters of the Bible is that the very strong relationship between Genesis 1 and the Gospel of John is that it is very much a relationship of contrasts. The contrast is such that even angels wished to see what John wants us to see now, but which they only saw very dimly in the old history, events and metaphors of the OT. We can see, provided we do not opt to stay in the shadows and metaphors of the old insights. We are the new creation.

[@johnarthur2112]

@@JohnCahillChapel thanks for your reply. I’m normally met with silence when I express this view. 2 Cor 3, IMO, is contrasting the old and new covenants and therefore law vs grace. There is nothing wrong with God’s law but grace is a much more glorious concept. I’m trying to understand the story from the highest possible vantage point which would be God’s perspective. When we consider there was a time before our time existed, and we think about it, we can establish some foundations that will help us. There must have been a time when all that existed was YHWH and his thoughts (logos). If we start with that we can then start building our understanding from a straightforward interpretation of scripture where we take the simplest interpretation as the correct one. The problem comes when Christians begin with their preconceived doctrines that they then start reading into the text.

[@JohnCahillChapel]

@@johnarthur2112 If I remember rightly, the original Greek does not use the word “a time”, just the idea that “there was” indicating a non-time dimension to the Word, I.e., eternal! And also … the Word was “toward God”, translated as “with” but meaning “face to face with” which is reflected in John 17 … “… the glory which I had with you (Father) before the foundation of the world” (I.e., before Gen 1.). Obviously, the word “before” is a concession to the limitations of all languages because they cannot exist without the discriminations and boundaries and limitations of things. This is also why we rely on the Spirit for insight and assurance that words (the letter) cannot give in and of themselves… though they can point to the infinite (Eternal) which is well beyond the ability of language to articulate.

[@johnarthur2112]

@@JohnCahillChapel thanks for your thoughts John and it’s good to know there is someone out there that sees the things I am seeing in the scriptures. I’m a little disappointed that Bill has not engaged.

[@billschlegel1]

Hi John, I believe John 17:5 (and 17:24) are expressions of the man Jesus's faith in the promises of God toward him as the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God. Pre-known (or, if you like, pre-destined) things are spoken of in the Bible as if they already exist - because God promised it - it's as good as done. That is, these statements in John 17 are not the declarations of a pre-existent person/being dressed up in human flesh, but of the man Christ Jesus. Here's my article or video presentation: landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/06/if-jesus-pre-existed-he-wasnt-human.html

[@Thewatchman303]

Bill, I am really enjoying this and I can see the utility of many of the points that you make. Have you ever considered that John 1:1 might actually be a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18? I am Convinced now more than ever that one of the primary purposes of the book of John is to demonstrate how and why Jesus is the prophet like Moses that YHVH promised to send the Israelites. I am struck how the key difference between Moses and this new prophet was that YHVH was going to place his word inside him? The john of John is amis with overt and discrete references to how Jesus furfilled the requirements established by YHVH in Deut 18, not least that Jesus said he was the one Moses wrote about in John 5:47. I am also struck how john 1 almost ends with Philip proclaiming he has found the one whom Moses wrote about in the law! ….. If Jesus were that prophet then it would make sense for him to be filled with the word of YHVH in a unique and extraordinary way. I am in the process of writing a paper on my idea which is linked into how the Israelites responded to hearing the audible word / voice of God at my Horeb and how they thought they would die if they continued to hear it, and hence they ask Moses to go and hear in their behalf and then relay what he heard. I also think that this theme is linked to the to the issue that when Moses was first called by God Almighty Moses said he wasn’t a good speaker. As such God shows his brother Arron to be the voice of Moses. As we both know God then declares that Moses will be a God to Aaron and that Aaron will be his prophet, Who will be largely responsible for speaking to the people. Clearly with this prophet that God Almighty was going to raise up this would not be the case. Rather, it would appear that YHVH was going to literally place his word inside that human being. Anyway I just thought I Would present my idea to yourself. I know you love the Scriptures and you do like to think through issues. Maybe as you read the book of John you might start to also pick out many other areas where if the author is trying to demonstrate that Jesus is the prophet like Moses, how the author is demonstrating exactly how Jesus is similar / like Moses But also how are use different/superior.

[@ralphowen3367]

And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us. Thus, Jesus was not filled with the word, he was the word.

[@Thewatchman303]

@@ralphowen3367 do you recognise the passage I am talking about? Do you recognise that In the book of Rev the word of God and the testimony of jesus are two distinct things? Is it really to difficult to conceptualise how an author might have articulated the fact that YHVH placed his word in jesus in a way that was unique and different to the way he communicate to other prophets

[@ralphowen3367]

@@Thewatchman303 Not yet, but God is guiding me into all truth. so that I will recognize it if it is true. Just trying the spirits at this point and wondering if you are coming from a Unitarian background.

[@Thewatchman303]

@@ralphowen3367 basically yes. I call myself a Nazarene Christian. Like paul was in acts 24:5

[@Thewatchman303]

@@ralphowen3367 respect Ralph Jesus said he is the profit like Moses in John chapter 5 and in Deuteronomy 18 God said he would place his word in that prophet. So your statement directly contradicts the clear word of God. Please go and read the passages. These are not my ideas, this is scripture

[@scottcatalanotto]

William Tyndale was martyred and killed because he translated these words into English. "By their fruits you will know them." Jesus is the word of God come to fullfillment in the flesh of a man revealing who God the father is. Jesus was not God but came to show us who God was. Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. Joh 1:3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. Joh 1:4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men Joh 1:5 and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.

[@ickystarsick9403]

You say he wasn't God, but was the word of God, and that the word was God... How does that make sense?

[@ronaldricardo376]

Jesus is God together unity with God Father. Jesus is not low rank or vice versa. Exactly same rank with God Father either Holy Ghost even Holy Ghost is latest known. He ever said that He was before abraham, for me it make sense..

[@billschlegel1]

@@ickystarsick9403 The author of the Gospel of John expands on or explains much of his introduction later in the Gospel. Jesus in this Gospel tells us multiple times that his words and deeds are the words and deeds of the Father. " If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him." "He who has seen me has seen the Father". "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works." "believe me...the Father is in me" John 14:5-11 "and the Word was God" is not an ontological statement about nature or being or essence, as most Western thinkers take it. "the Word was God" is a statement that Jesus was God (the Father) in action. There is no "God the Son" anywhere in the Gospel of John. The only God in the Gospel of John is the Father (John 17:3).

[@scottcatalanotto]

@@ickystarsick9403 God spoke the word in the beginning of creation that a seed word come that seed came as Jesus Christ from the seed of David.

[@scottcatalanotto]

@@riversofeden3929 In the verse below is the Greek word autos they translated to "it"notice it is speaking about a spoken word/logos. Young's Literal Translation John 6:60 many, therefore, of his disciples having heard, said, `This word (logos) is hard; who is able to hear it(autos)?' Use it for him same word in Greek (autos) and you get. John 1:4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light in the darkness did shine, 5 and the darkness did not perceive it.

[@fixedflatfirmament8658]

That was awesome, now I know why nothing anybody ever said made sense

[@vgladysnieves1895]

I disagree with the idea that God the father's word is Jesus. That is the error made and why we are in this mess of the trinity doctrine. John is simply saying that God's divine purpose from the foundation of the world was to give us eternal life through his son, Jesus. That purpose,or logos, was made flesh or fulfilled by Jeses.

[@ralphowen3367]

Jesus Christ was the humanity of the Deity. But when the humanity did signs, miracles and healing, it was the Holy One of the O.T. doing it.

[@ralphowen3367]

@@riversofeden3929 We as believers by the power of God--II Pet. 1:4-- are partakers of the divine nature are not, however immortal until the translation of the church. But we have gone and sinned no more, especially if we have Christ formed in us.--Gal. 4:19.

[@readlesspraymore4686]

John 1 is about the New Creation. Which day did YHWH say "I have begotten you?" and placed His Son on Mount Zion? This is the beginning of John 1. The Logos is a quality of the Father. Similarly as His Spirit is also a quality of Himself. The 1 God and Father of Jesus Shares His 1 Eternal Spirit.... YHWH is ONE. The Logos is Gods eternal Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8 Proverbs 8 22 YHWH possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: To possess all of God’s Logos(Wisdom), would be to know all Truth. The Logos is God’s complete understanding and control of His creation. A Father begets a Son and still is 100% the Father.... No change to Himself. A Son comes forth from the seed of his Father and takes on some of the Fathers roles and functions. The Son is now (HEB 1:1-2) the conduit for the Spirit (Consciousness) of his God and Father. The king of lies, has infiltrated God’s first seed and its corresponding creation. The Father, in all His wisdom, knew immediately the corruption occurred and His plans for the eternal garden to grow and encompass the earth had to be delayed. The Father will not come dwell in a place that is corrupted by His enemy. Instead of destroying this creation and starting completely new, in His mercy He has decided to make the effort and time - His timing, to restore this creation. He loves this creation. We are very important to Him. Jesus is that new seed. Like Adam but better… Adam 2.0. He was begotten by the breath/Spirit/consciousness of life. Whereas Adam was created from the dust and breathed life into - animated. Jesus learned from His Father from his birth as a child. The Father was closer to this child than any other because this child was one of a kind, and there will never be another like him. He literally Fathered him and shared with him all His knowledge his entire life. They were ONE in Spirit Consciousness Jesus’ entire life. At some point, probably very early on, Jesus understood his purpose. Now, the Risen Son, is the first glorified of the New Creation. One that will eventually, in the Father’s timing, completely encompass and restore the corrupted first creation and all its creatures. Everything of the NEW Creation, now comes and will continue to come THROUGH the Risen Son-the True Vine. He is the only way to the Kingdom where the New Creation dwells and The Risen Son is King. We are seeing the end of this age, this world, THIS original creation. There will be many more ages (aiōn Heb1:2) to come through the Risen Son, and many more creations different than this one if its the Will of the One True God…. Jesus’ Father and ours, YHWH.

[@readlesspraymore4686]

@@riversofeden3929 Ha! I suggest Praying MORE than we read.

[@billschlegel1]

The life, light and darkness of John 1 are not the life, light and darkness of Genesis 1. Perhaps "the beginning" of John 1 is not "the beginning" of Genesis 1? John the Baptizer is in verse 6 of an account of the Genesis creation?

[@ralphowen3367]

It can be both. The light of Gen. 1:3 is God manifested in the realm of the earth. This is why He speaks within Himself in 1:26--Heaven to earth, Spirit to Word.

[@ralphowen3367]

@@riversofeden3929 Seeing that Spirited believers have the mind of Christ, they just have to wait on the Lord, be of good courage, and He will strengthen our heart. "Both" in one of John's epistles refers to two of something. The two are the Father and the Son. The Deity) and the humanity of that Deity. What "both" does not mean is multiple people in God. When we see this Oneness of God our own hearts will be united so that we can fear God and keep the 2 main commandments. I am just repeating what the psalms and prophets and apostles have said, and that is what witnessing is.

[@ralphowen3367]

@@riversofeden3929 All that matters to God is that a person does the best he can with what they have been given. Besides, my spirit bears witness with God Spirit that my thoughts are right-'Pr. 12:5.

[@ralphowen3367]

@@riversofeden3929 I understand that. I also know that God pouring out His Spirit on all flesh in these last of the last days makes people think they know something when they do not, as they should. When Paul intended to go to Jerusalem, his friends told him that the Spirit had told them he should not go. But Paul had the same Spirit telling him to go. No contradiction, just Paul being tested.

[@ralphowen3367]

@@riversofeden3929 Things have indeed changed since the first apostles. But God--Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And it is still true that: " These works shall follow them that believe"--Mark 16:17-18. When they follow believers, we do not even know what God might be doing through us "moderns". I would not limit God, for to do so would be to anger and grieve the Spirit.

[@graverobbersministry8939]

I tend to disagree. Proverbs 8:22 has been twisted by people who refuse to accept the word of God for what is said, wisdom was added as a presumption not facts. Jesus was even explaining that he came forth from the Father Jhn 16:27,28. He came to show who the Father is Jhn 17:3, the One True God. Since the son came forth from the Father, he is already born with deity, so your assumption would be incorrect. He came forth from eternal, which means there was no time. The son is known as the morning star Rev 22:16 meaning first light, which confirms Gen 1, also Abraham confirmed in Gen 22:8 that God will provide the Savior. Lucifer was known as the son of the morning, meaning that he was the first created being by Jesus. God is one no matter how you want to see it, there was a time when only He existed, till He foresaw the results of man’s choice, then He decided to bring forth His son who would do all the creation and also be willing to be the savior of his Children. God could have just forsaken this planet and never created it knowing it would fall, but thank God He loved us so much that He was willing to allow us a chance. The son wants us to realize the true love of his Father, by the son coming here, He proved what love looks like. The Word of God explains clearly who He is, Jesus is the spokesperson for his Father, the reason for the title “The Word”, everything is done through the son Jhn 5:19. Jesus constantly referred himself as the light Jhn 12:46 referring back to Genesis. We should read everything in context, this is how God will reveal Himself, not by twisting things to make it work for self. The nation of Israel made that mistake, let’s not repeat it.

[@ralphowen3367]

I do not know yet whether this guy is a Unitarian, which sect has as one of its heresies the denial of the Deity of Christ, but they have very impressive vids on lately, and are very knowledgible. I realize that the humanity or flesh of Jesus is not God--see John 17:3. But what do you do with Math. 1:23 and John 8:58?

[@briandavis164]

To deny the deity of Christ is to affirm the truth of the Bible. There’s only one true God, Yahweh, and he is the God and Father of Jesus.

[@eddieyoung2104]

In regard to the Matt 1:23 passage about Emmanuel, in Luke 7:16 there is something similar when the people after witnessing Jesus raise a dead man, talk about God visiting his people: Lu 7:16 '...and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.' From this we might conclude that the people believed this was literally the case, and that Jesus was in fact God. But, then we have similar words in Ruth which suggest that God visiting his people was not he himself appearing, but rather him providing something: Ru 1:6 '...for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread.' We can think of 'God with us' in the same way. Does it mean God was literally among them as a human being, or does it just mean that God was with his people by providing a saviour, or as the people said, a great prophet, the one like unto Moses? Put another way, Jesus was the evidence that God was looking after his people. If I said to you 'may God be with you', that means I'm wishing for God to take care of you or be involved in your life. I wouldn't mean that God needs to be in your midst as a human being, however his help might involve using another person to help you. In the same way God was with them by being involved in their life, which consisted of raising up a man to be their saviour. Immanuel in the time Isaiah was prophesying was an actual child born in Israel. He wasn't God in a human being, but his name was to show Israel that God was with them in that troubled time. So, every time Immanuel came along he would be greeted by, 'shalom God with us'. Every time anybody referred to him they would have to say 'God with us'. In this way he was a regular reminder and a sign that God was with his people. In those days names were often given to reflect something happening at the time. Two examples are 'Peleg' who was so named because the earth had just been divided, and Ichabod received his name because the glory had departed from Israel. In the same way the name Immanuel was reflecting something in Israel at the time of his birth, namely God being with them. Also, most of the prophets have names showing a different attribute of God, for example 'God strengthens', 'God remembers', 'God comforts' etc. 'God with us' is just another like this.

[@ralphowen3367]

@@eddieyoung2104 I hope that like Paul, you have Jesus Christ revealed to you so that you can uncomplicated your perception of Him. To do this, you will need the Authorized Version of the bible

[@ralphowen3367]

@@eddieyoung2104 Jesus Christ was the One God which had appeared in human form. But he was also wholly a man, having taken on the nature of man. When he thirsted and hunkered etc. It was as a man, but when he did signs and miracles and wonders, it was the Father/Spirit doing it. In the end--upon ascending to heaven, Jesus went back to being the sum of all that Deity is, just like before the incarnation, except he did not get the name Jesus until Bethlehem. This although the equivalent name Yeshuwah in Hebrew means health, wealth, prosperity, wonderful, etc..

[@eddieyoung2104]

@@ralphowen3367 - If you mean a Damascus Road experience, no, but yes Jesus Christ has been revealed to me through the scriptures. I would say my perception of Jesus is particularly uncomplicated because I believe the Bible shows him as one individual and not two merged into one. What is complicated about someone not existing until they are born, then living, dying, being resurrected, ascending to heaven, being glorified, and sitting at God's right hand? Is this not the hope of all saints, that they themselves will follow this same pattern from birth to glorification? Would you say that this is also too complicated to be true? Why then should it be so with Jesus? Why should it be complicated for the Almighty creator to raise up a son from the sons of Adam, born of a woman, and then raise him from death? He is the first fruits of them that slept, so that the saints in like manner will be resurrected. He is the firstborn among many brethren, which makes him like you and me, a man. He is the forerunner to prepare the way for his brothers and sisters. If as you say my perception is complicated, then it should be easy to prove why my interpretation of Matt 1:23 is invalid. So, I'm happy to discuss these things if you have any comments on it.

[@fongka2]

Nope? If that in the beginning is not about creation.. how Paul said the world for and though him? If he is not there the beginning All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Its so simple, the john1’s world is the planet earth..thats why here said world knew him not Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: it doesn’t mean he is god the father

[@fongka2]

@@riversofeden3929 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible... powers: all things were created by him, and for him: The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

[@fongka2]

@@riversofeden3929 you see? He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. if the creation is about NEW, then the world will know him.. and please check : Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

[@andriaswiatek6400]

whats your goal or motive here ? do you believe if someone believes in the trinity they are not saved,? why put so much effort into proving your strong delusion? whats the point here ? are you building up and edifying the body of Christ by bringing up this long standing disagreement ???? or are you puffed up thinking you know something others dont..??

[@greglogan7706]

I have to be honest - the use of "beginning" in this podcast is such a painful stretch and so unnecessary. What is far more awesome is to see the reference describe exactly what it does - that the logos has existed from essentially eternity past and then at the appropriate point was made manifest in/as Jesus of Nazareth - incarnating not a person but the reality of the word of God itself... As a side note this in fact is a rather poetic description of Jesus bringing the word of God John... essentially the Artist's, as it were, rendition. Acts 10.36 provides a more standard didactic form of the same.