John's Logos - IT became flesh

At 1 John 1:1-2, John's uses "IT" language in Greek to refer to the word of life. This is also reflected in major English translations. John's "it" references to the word of life will never ever make any sense in Trinitarianism. In Trinitarian doctrine, "God the Word" is NEVER an "it" and is eternally a "WHO." If John believed what Trinitarians do, it would make absolutely zero sense for him to refer to "God the Word" with "it" language. But he does refer to the logos with "it" language. John obviously did not believe what Trinitarians believe.
However, if the word is an "it" which became flesh, then John's language at 1 John 1:1-2 makes complete sense. Once this word of life, this "it", did become flesh then you could see this "it" and look at this "it" and touch this "it" because "it" became flesh. This word was an "it" the Father gave to him (Jn 17:6-8) and Jesus received "it," the word of life when the Holy Spirit descended upon him at the Jordan river.
There is a very good reason John refers to the word with this "it" kind of language at 1 John 1:1-2. God's word was what Jesus received from God by the Spirit of God. He received it and kept it. He kept the word the Father gave to him and in this way became the fleshly embodiment of the word he was given. It, the word of life, it was his bread to eat, the bread of life, resurrection life. It, the word, came to be flesh because he ate this bread, and IT became his flesh and his flesh became it, because he ate this bread. He kept His Father's word, this bread which the Father gave to him. This bread and his flesh became one and the same thing because he received this bread from the Father and he ate this bread. It, the word of life which the Father gave him, became flesh because he ate this bread. Once "it" became flesh you could see it and look at it and touch it because now it was human flesh. The Father also gives us this same word of life in the Spirit, the same bread of God which Jesus ate, the Father's bread which we must eat for resurrection life.

[@davidpatrick1813]

These have been very helpful and thought provoking ... helping me have a deeper awareness/understanding in becoming more like the Father and his son ... tnx

[@jobybailey1]

I've never been religious until God found me and anointed me beyond belief ❤

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

You don't need to know anything but Jesus himself. Know him and you have everything.

[@TheWanderer2be]

Well said. May our Heavenly Father help each of us to also become the embodiment of the word.

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@jonathanjensen189]

Indeed: a body...

[@RodMartinJr]

Thank you for the continuing lessons of Wisdom. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@JacobSilverdal]

Greatful for the work God does through you brother Kel. Many people need your spoon feeding to be able to stand on there own one day. Shalom 🙌

[@jobybailey1]

You Kel are my mentors and that I have very few of. Thank you

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

God teaches us through His Spirit. Those in His son Jesus have that Spirit. Follow only one man and no other. His name is Jesus. He is the mentor you want. Deny yourself, take up your cross, follow him, have his mind ("the mind of Christ"), be conformed to his image and no other man. The Spirit leads us how to do it all. May God bless you.

[@MazBringsby]

Amen. Your videos have been immensely helpful.

[@lizzard13666]

Thanks Brother Kel! Love your work, it's been really helpful for me understanding Scripture.

[@johndavid3474]

Amen. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and Truth. God Bless You

[@LouiG777]

❤ thank you brother Kel for your great explanation!

[@aldonjarrett5149]

In the Bible, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and the Word of God. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:47-48 I judge him not the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Yes, and he makes this distinction throughout the Gospel. Note the next two verses where he explains where this word came from - not from himself but from his God.

[@christistheway7107]

@@TheTrinityDelusion Are you suggesting that Jesus actually is not God's Word in the flesh and the Judge? Who than? I mean Jesus is God's Word in the flesh, and one and the same, lets read i.e. John 1:14,15; John 5:22. Well, Acts 15:20.

[@Walelign-k7j]

Thank you brother Kel I have benefited a lot from your videos.Please post videos like these within short period.I have seen all your videos at list three times each.I have got a total new perspective to read and understand the bible!!!

[@TimKollat]

Thank you Kel, you are a true warrior in Christ handling the sword of the spirt honorably. The world of “Christianity” is in a mess of confusion.

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@TimKollat]

@@theguyver4934 Jesus wasn’t a vegetarian and neither were his apostles (if they were it wouldn’t matter anyway but they were not) They ate the passover lamb and also ate fish as recorded in scripture. May our Muslim friends come to see the truth Jesus Christ, the man raised from the dead by the Most High God and seated at his right hand in heaven. Muhammed was not. Muslims know the trinity is a lie and know Jesus as a prophet, son of David. But they reject him as being son of God born of his spirit and resurrected into all power and glory. Jesus is alive and King

[@mariabejarano7849]

Thank you for sharing your time and your knowledge

[@Anastasis1.4]

Amen. So simple.

[@stephencobb5044]

John's careful language is once again on display. God is Jesus's father and Jesus is God's son.

[@RoseSharon7777]

Just as everyone who is begotten of the same incorruptible seed are YHWHs Sons. Revelation 21:7, I Peter 1:3, 1:23, James 1:18. "I have said YE are elohim and SONS of the Most High" Psalm 85:6.

[@josephkenefic5086]

@@RoseSharon7777 Yahweh is satan. El Elyon is God Most High, and Jesus's Father.

[@tydy5266]

Psalm 82 is not about an incorruptible seed otherwise it wouldn't state "but you will die like mere men" ​@@RoseSharon7777

[@Mckaule]

To follow Jesus, means we are to do what he did, to walk just as he walked, and to manifest God's word through our flesh. Trinity doctrine is an antichrist doctrine because people don't believe they can walk as Jesus walked because they think that are "humans in human flesh" and not "God in human flesh". They think Jesus heard God's voice differently, they think Jesus could do what he did because he was God incarnate. If we think that Jesus's thinking patterns were somehow different from ours then we will never be able to fully associate with Jesus because this erroneous spirit will always distort our understanding.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Yep. That's on the mark.

[@jkbugout]

Amen, brother.

[@SteveWalton-k4p]

Amen brother kel from England ❤❤

[@SimplyAwesomeOriginal]

Wow! I used to think the bread of life was merely a description of the work on the cross! Now I think I finally understand what it means to eat the bread of life: - when you meditate/study on the "word", you are "eating and digesting" the bread of life! - believing is accepting the ("word" of life of the) gospel (aka good news), and having faith produces good works. (James 2:17:18) - receiving the "word" such that it has deep roots in you as good soil (without weeds, not on rocky ground, not on the pavement) - and bearing much fruit by doing the message in the word! (Mark 4:14-20) Indeed this is how one gets called from above (John 6:45); the word (of the gospel of the Kingdom of God) comes to you!

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

To eat the bread of life you must receive it and DO it. Doing it looks like walking just as Jesus walked. See John 4:34 to see how Jesus ate the Father's bread.

[@davidpatrick1813]

Good point

[@SimplyAwesomeOriginal]

Will do 👍 "...receive the implanted word in meekness, that is able to save your souls; and become doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves..." - James 1:21-22

[@MazBringsby]

@@TheTrinityDelusion Brother Kel, may you please do a video explaining in detail how a disciple of Christ is supposed to appropriate the Cross and *'Die to Self'* and *'Abide in Christ'* ? I have been learning from Watchman Nee books and similar authors in the Keswick Movement which finally made it 'click' for me. Interested in hearing your thoughts on these *discipleship/sanctification/consecration* type topics. You did touch on this in an earlier video *_(cant find the exact one right now)_* , but was hoping for a more detailed explanation from you on *'How to Die'* and really live in Christ's resurrection life daily. A Christian walk in the Spirit through Christ, and not in the Flesh/Self life of fallen Adam.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@MazBringsby Dying to self is denying yourself. Deny everything you want for yourself for what God wants instead. What you want must always defer to what God wants - every time. That's what Jesus did. By His Spirit in us, God lets us know what He wants all the time if we deny ourselves and surrender up ourselves to Him to do whatever He wants with us whenever and however He wants. The Lord is your decider, not you. The Lord always decides everything his servant will do. What a servant wants is irrelevant; only what your Lord wants is relevant. That's what Jesus did with respect to God and we are to surrender up ourselves in the same way and follow in his footsteps. That's what it means to be a living sacrifice to God.

[@DjMakinetor]

(De 4:24) For Jehovah your God is a consuming fire, a God who requires exclusive devotion. (Heb 12:29) For our God is a consuming fire.

[@jameydog8]

Amen !

[@spiritoftruth888]

FACT. Amen.

[@cherebyahwatson5727]

😉

[@johnb5964]

Yes Kel the word ( or to logo ) of God is God’s word, given to Jesus. Jesus is not the word, he lived God’s word as we should … How Trinity World believe Jesus to be God is the big lie… God bless you Kel John Australia

[@34jayy]

It's so simple when you have ears to hear. The word became flesh....Jesus was one with the father....To see Jesus is to see the father...Why? Because like John says, the word is God. Simple. And non of this is for head knowledge alone. Satan and his unclean minions know this. You need to understand who Jesus truly is in order to understand he is the blueprint for life. He is our risen king in whom we surrender to and follow. To follow him is to surrender to and believe in the Father. The man Jesus did it and we are to do it too. If Jesus is God almighty how are you supposed to live the life of YHWH? You can't...but the MAN Christ Jesus' life you can. As he said be one with the Father as he is. Thank you for your work brother Kel . God bless you my friend.

[@Lovingkindness.]

Logos, the full expression of who God IS that fills all things, IT, the expression, became the flesh (being) of Jesus. It’s interesting that in scripture the logos is not related to something written down as most Christian’s believe. The word is not the Bible. It is the very light that filled the universe when God spoke “LIGHT BE”.

[@riversofeden3929]

The problem with your explanation is that an abstract "word" is not audible, visible, or tangible (as "the Word of Life" is described in 1-John 1:1-2). Words are spoken by a person. Magic words don't create anything out of thin air either. Genesis 1:3ff was referring to commands that were given to carry out the "work" that took six days (Genesis 2:1-4).

[@Lovingkindness.]

@@riversofeden3929 Hello RIVER, My beliefs are based on the word theopneustos, meaning "God breathed". It is the spirit given us, not magic words, that enlighten our souls. The word of God is the logos/spirit. It is man that converts the "hearing" into writing, and that is fallible. When we hear God breathed words and they are confirmed by spirit in our inner man, we know we are following the truth. We hear the voice of the spirit/shephard and do not follow the "strangers" voice. Grace! Lawrence

[@riversofeden3929]

@@Lovingkindness. ... ok, but we don't have QEOPNEUSTOS in the language of the Prologue or the 4th Gospel so it doesn't help us interpret the material at hand. It's a different concept. We need to pay closest attention to what the writer of the 4th Gospel was trying to say using his own words.

[@Lovingkindness.]

@@riversofeden3929 I disagree. If you are not hearing what the spirit says, you are only using your mind (the carnal flesh nature) to "figure out" the bible. That is why there are thousands of sects of Christianity, all in disagreement with each other. Do you believe what Jesus said in John 16:7? "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Parakletos, Helper, Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor-Counselor, Strengthener, Standby, will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him/the Spirit to you Parakletos 3875 paráklētos (from 3844 /pará, "from close-beside" and 2564 /kaléō, "make a call") - properly, a legal advocate who makes the right judgment-call because close enough to the situation. 3875 /paráklētos ("advocate, advisor-helper") is the regular term in NT times of an attorney (lawyer) - i.e. someone giving evidence that stands up in court. Grace and thanks for corresponding. Lawrence

[@TimKollat]

The Geneva 1560 bible has John 1:3 translated correctly referring to the word as "it". The KJV came along later and retranslated all the references to Gods word as a "he/him"

[@RoseSharon7777]

"The logos I speak THEY are Spirit and THEY are the life". The gospels use of 1st and 3rd person narrative is part of what led the church into the Apostasy we were warned about. Discerning the voice of Jesus vs the Spirit speaking thru him takes wisdom and understanding.

[@birdseyeview2801]

Thank you for the work you do, sir. I would like to ask, to whom/what do the pronoun "we beheld HIS glory.." belong, to the word or to the man who embodied the word? If to the word, we beheld it's glory AS the glory of the man?

[@terryfarley3316]

Base on some of comments raise regarding the video is ultimately lead to this question. IS JESUS GOD? Therefore, I have some comments and questions. Does the lord Jesus Christ have a God? Who did the Israelites recognized as they God? The Israelites recognized the Father alone as they God this seen in the Shema where it says the lord is one also take careful note in the discourse with Jesus and the scribes in the book of John where Jesus say, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom YOU say, 'HE is OUR GOD.' ... "Were I to glorify myself," ... If trinitarians are going to agree with the scribes and the Pharisees, then they must agree here where Jesus says that they the pharisees acknowledged the father alone as they God. Jesus says that he ascends to MY father and YOUR father and my God and YOUR God this statement of Jesus shows that his disciples recognized the father as their God. Jesus also tells the Samaritan woman that we Jews know what we worship, and salvation is from the Jews. That would also mean that each time in the Old Testament where God is quoted or speaking through his prophets it was the Father alone. The fact that those religious leaders through generation after generations equating to thousands of years of Israelites history up until Jesus’ time believe that the father ALONE was GOD. Couple with the facts that God refers to himself thousands on times in the Bible as one person but suddenly we are to believe that the disciple John was TRINITARIAN. Honestly TRINITARIANS what would that make God out to be ……………………...? GOD forbid. CAN GOD LIE? Why asked his people to write the words of the SHEMA in the hearts so it could be perpetuated from GENERATION TO GENERATIONS then the GREEK PHILOSOPHERS come along, who were never given the oracles of GOD Nor did salvation come through them but were immersed in a culture steep in false GODS who would within less than four hundred years rewrite history of the JEWS GOD and make him a TRINITY. . SOMETHING IS SADLY WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE.

[@tmcge3325]

Where does scripture say "write the words of SHEMA in the hearts so it could be perpetuated from GENERATION TO GENERATIONS" Next, all scripture was first written in Hebrew.....do you really think Jewish Prophets and/or Scribes would write in a foreign language? What language is the Torah? the Tanakh? What language did Abraham, David and our Lord Yehoshua speak? Hebrew! Translated into many foreign languages but first, Hebrew!

[@terryfarley3316]

@@tmcge3325 Thanks for your comments I agree with you that the old testemont was written in the hebrew language . The New Testament was written in Greek. What did Jesus say the greatest commandment was?

[@tmcge3325]

@@terryfarley3316 translated into greek.

[@tmcge3325]

@@terryfarley3316 they are Hebrew....not greek. It would be a sin not to communicate the word in Hebrew.

[@terryfarley3316]

@@tmcge3325 Was the New Testament written in Greek before it was translated into other languages yes or no?

[@acerimmeh]

This seems to tie into Jesus teaching in john 14, to see and hear Jesus, is to see and hear the Father.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Yes it does. It is probably the main theme of John's Gospel. That flesh named Jesus makes the Father Himself known to the world. John 17:3 tells us why that is a good thing.

[@riversofeden3929]

What Jesus said in John 14:9-10 was only referring to God the Father in a figurative sense. The disciples were hearing the words actually spoken by the mouth of Jesus himself and seeing the signs that were being done by Jesus himself. Attributing those words and works to God the Father after-the-fact doesn't make God the Father literally either the speaker or the worker. For example, when Jesus prayed to the Father and used the same kind of language for his disciples (e.g. "being one with Jesus and the Father" and being "in Jesus and the Father") nobody construes this to mean that seeing one of the disciples constituted seeing Jesus or the Father (or vice versa). It's just common sense that this is merely figurative language.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@riversofeden3929 You are just contriving up ways to deny what Jesus said, "the words I am saying to you I DO NOT SPEAK FROM MYSELF but the Father abiding in me DOES THE WORKS." Nullifying Jesus' words is not a good idea. The words he spoke were not his own but the Father's, "and the word you hear is NOT MINE but the Father's who sent me."

[@riversofeden3929]

@@TheTrinityDelusion ... it was always Jesus himself doing the speaking and performing the signs. This is evident throughout the 4th Gospel. Thus, it's just common sense that when he attributes those things to God the Father after-the-fact, it's only in a figurative sense. Jesus believed that God the Father was in heaven and that he would be going there (John 13:1-3; John 14:2-3). The Father was never said to have "come into the world" to do anything in the 4th Gospel. Abstract words don't turn into a person or come into the world either.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@riversofeden3929 YOU SAID: "it was always Jesus himself doing the speaking and performing the signs." Jesus stated otherwise. First that he was not able to do these miracles from himself. He said so. Moreover, you Bible tells you that his God did them, "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs WHICH GOD DID through him in your midst." Acts 2:22 YOU SAID - "Jesus believed that God the Father was in heaven and that he would be going there." The Father abiding IN ME does the works. John 14:10 God the Father IS spirit and He abides in all His children because He IS that Spirit in them. The Father makes His home in them by His Spirit which He is and which He gives to His children. You seem to have a desire to deny what God Himself does through men.

[@steventhompson8130]

The Logos who became flesh was always a personage with God as John states: *John 1:10-12* 10 *He was in the world,* and the *world was made through him,* and the *world didn’t recognize him.* 11 *He came to his own,* and those who *were his own* didn’t receive him. 12 But as many as *received him,* to them *he gave the right* to become God’s children, to those *who believe in his name*

[@Davis_Carlton]

This whole argument is based upon the non-gendered pronouns used in English translations of the Greek in 1 John 1:1-2. It's beyond weak. Masculine pronouns are used for the Word in John 1. Non-gendered nouns like "the child" can be rendered with non-gendered pronouns in English, like in Revelation 12:4, "And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it." The "it" refers to "her child" but it would be utterly moronic to think that the child in Revelation 12 (which refers to Jesus) is non-personal just because of the use of the pronoun "it." This is a very stupid argument Kel. The reason that word isn't capitalized in Luke 1 is because it is being used differently than in John's writings, and this is clear from the context. You don't seem to understand the very basic principle that words can have different meanings in different contexts. In Luke's gospel it is referring to the fact that eyewitnesses had seen and could verify the things that Luke was recording. You also assert, but do not prove or even give evidence for, the idea that the word that came to Zechariah is a non-personal message. The word of the Lord or the word of God often does personal things in the Old Testament. The "word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: 'Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.'” (Genesis 15:1). Abram identifies the word as God. It doesn't say God merely spoke to Abram in a vision, but that the word of the Lord came to Abram. Likewise, in Zechariah as in the other prophets it is the word that speaks. "In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, SAYING" (Zechariah 1:1). It is the word that speaks to Zechariah, not an abstract message given to Zechariah. Everyone should check out Anthony Rogers' videos on the subject of the deity of Christ in the Old Testament. He points out that the pre-Christian Rabbinical Targums teach that the word (memra) of God is distinct from the Father while also being God. I hope you repent of your errors Kel. I'll pray for you.

[@euston2216]

The IT which "was made flesh" is eternal. You don't believe the truth that the eternal IT "was made flesh". You believe the falsehood that flesh was created for the eternal IT. The eternal IT which was WITH God IS God HIM-self. _In the beginning was IT,_ _and IT was with God,_ *_and IT WAS GOD._* God is a *unipersonal **_Spirit,_* and HIS Word - "IT" - is that selfsame *unipersonal **_Spirit,_* whose name is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*

[@tmcge3325]

The "it" which "was made flesh" is the Word.....The word entered it's most Holy Tabernacle, a Tabernacle NOT built by stones but by Flesh, understanding that God was in Yehoshua! 1 Corinthians 5:19, Hebrews 9:11, Ephesians 2:19-22 and John 2:19 kjv. Understanding who is talking is key as in John 7:16-17 and 14:24 kjv. Peace!

[@kamilfrompoland7]

And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. 1 Peter 3:14‭-‬15 NASB1995 And you are not to fear what they fear or be in dread of it. It is the Lord of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, And He shall be your dread. Isaiah 8:12‭-‬13 NASB1995

[@Nbovfm22]

This message gets completely lost, if someone reads those verses, while being busy to read trinity in it. Distracted by building a trinity idol, instead of eating the bread.

[@riversofeden3929]

I think there's a critical problem with the "it" explanation offered in this video. The Greek grammar in John 1:14 shows that the Masculine pronoun "his (AUTOU) glory" points back to the Masculine subject noun "the Word" (O LOGOS) and not "flesh" (which is a Feminine noun). Thus, it is correctly translated "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" with the capital letter signifying that "the Word" already refers to the person who "dwelt among us" and who's glory "we gazed upon" and who is "the only-begotten from the Father." In 1-John 1:1-2, the writer uses the "what" pronouns because he's referring to the concept of "eternal life" that was manifested to the disciples as a person (who was "heard, seen, gazed upon, and touched with hands"). There is no spoken "word" or "eternal life" without the person himself (otherwise, it wouldn't be audible, visible, or tangible). That's why the language in 1-John 2:13-14 shows it is "him" who was known "from the beginning" (referring to Jesus himself) and 1-John 1:5 indicates that a message was "heard" from "him" (referring to Jesus Christ). An abstract "word" or "eternal life" has no reality apart from a person. Also, we can see in 1-John 2:1 that it is Jesus himself who is "an advocate WITH THE FATHER." This is the same Greek phrase PROS TON PATERA found in 1-John 1:2.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

If you are aware that masculine pronouns in Greek do not by themselves signify a person is in view, it's hard to make sense of your comment.

[@riversofeden3929]

@@TheTrinityDelusion ... it's the context that assures us a person is in view. Nobody denies that John 1:14 is referring to a person who "dwelt among us" and "we saw his glory" and was "only-begotten from the Father." John the baptizer testified about "him" (John 1:15). The Greek grammar supports this because the Masculine gender pronoun (AUTOU) modifies the antecedent Masculine subject noun (O LOGOS) in the same verse. Keep in mind, the pronoun points to the noun with the same gender. It doesn't point back to the Feminine object noun ("flesh"). The writer is indicating that something "happened" (became) of the one called "the Word" (person) which pertained to "flesh" (substance). Thus, you can't have an "it" turning into "flesh" (person) and make sense of the Greek grammar. This is why all the reputable translations capitalize "the Word" at the beginning of the verse. O LOGOS was already referring to the person before he "became flesh." This is what we have to be able to account for when interpreting the passage. In Luke 1:2, it isn't necessary to capitalize "word" because there isn't a personal pronoun related to it. However, it could still be interpreted to refer to a person known to the "eyewitnesses" from whom the message was heard.

[@robertbusuttil7848]

Unitarianism is a fake heresy of demons. A blasphemy against the true God and his son our lord jesus christ. If one believes in the heresy of unitarianism and denies the eternality of the logos, then that person is not a christian. From young Robert in Australia.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@riversofeden3929 YOUR COMMENT: "The Greek grammar supports this because the Masculine gender pronoun (AUTOU) modifies the antecedent Masculine subject noun (O LOGOS) in the same verse." In Greek, logos is masculine in gender whether the logos a person or not. So why do you keep rambling on about masculine gender? And yes John does explain an IT became flesh. That particular IT is the word of God which is the bread of God which the Father gives. It is the reason Jesus lived because of the Father. John 6:57

[@riversofeden3929]

@@TheTrinityDelusion ... respectfully, I don't think you understand that the relationship between the masculine pronoun and the masculine subject in John 1:14 indicates that the subject ("the Word") is already a person before "became flesh." I understand that you are trying to make "the word" refer to an abstraction ("it") that mysteriously turns into a person but the exegesis doesn't support it. Trying to force the "bread" analogy from John 6 into the Prologue is taking the language in John 1:14 out of its context. There also isn't any "embodiment" concept language in scripture. There are better explanations available to unitarians that don't require doing injustice to the Greek grammar. We shouldn't be afraid to concede that Trinitarians have accurately translated the Prologue. It's better to get started on the right foot.

[@esperanzaestrada1157]

Can you please explain Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image! My question is why did God say in Our image, who is Our! Trinity world claim that Our mean the God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit!

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Resorting to our imaginations isn't a good idea is it? How about the context? If you see the image of "US," do you think you can figure out who the US are? "...in the image of God he created THEM, MALE AND FEMALE he created THEM." Does it not occur to you that "THEM" is the image of "US"?

[@sunfilms5089]

@@TheTrinityDelusion The issue seems to be the definition of the word "IMAGE". If God has no body or face, then what is the IMAGE that the HOLY SPIRIT is referring to ? At least we all agree that God the Father has no body and no "image" in terms of "image" being Face or body.

[@GO_142]

Its probably the royal pronouns research about them

[@Bo__M]

I don't think the 1 John 1-3 passage belongs in a thread that somehow explains (denies/acknowledges) the issue of the Trinitarian controversy. If I were to use 1 John to explain the issue of the Trinitarian controversy, then I would address 1 John 5:20 and the (alleged) grammatical support for the claim that Jesus is true God. This text (1 John 5:20) can of course be explained against(!) Trinitarian dogma, but that is not the subject of your video. Your analysis of 1 John 1-3 does address the correct question of why John used the neuter(!!!) nominative of the signular Greek (subjunctive) relational pronoun "ο" (meaning: referring to something specific), but I don't think you address the answer. Your reference to "it" in 1 John 1:2 "it" was pros the Father (at 9:15 minutes) is even wrong. The Greek text has "ητις" (feminimum indefinite relative pronoun) and since it is a "relational" pronoun, it refers to "eternal life" which is also feminine. So it is not "it" or "he" with God, but literally: she with God. She, because "life eternal" is feminine in the Greek text. The grammatical problem with the passage in 1 John 1-3 is precisely the question of what the "it" refers to, since all the significant "elements" of his statement are either masculine (λογος) Word or feminine (ζωη) life or (αιωνιος) eternal. John's statement in 1 John 1:1a, "that which was in the beginning, which we have seen...", cannot grammatically refer (directly) to "the Word" because it is masculine in the Greek. Nor can it grammatically refer to: the "life" eternal which was with the Father", since "life" and eternal" are in the feminine. The grammarians of the NT also give a possible solution in the form of the so-called constructio ad sensum (cf. BDR §296,3), with the following: the relational pronoun does not correspond to the gender of the referent or the relational pronoun can take the form of a demonstrative pronoun (Hoffmann-Siebenthal §289e). But the question remains? What did they see or touch? It is this notion of "touching" or also "groping with the hands" (as the blind man) see LXX Deu 28:29, showing that the object they saw and heard cannot be some abstract concept of which John indeed writes (word, message, life, eternal life), but it is a "non-material" entity. Conclusion: The explanation is given in v. 5. There the personal pronoun "αυτος" appears for the first time, and it occurs in various forms until the end of chapter 1. John is thus referring to Jesus. The word of life, this "logos", can be understood more as the actual word i.e. the sayings that are heard and brought by Jesus. John "personifies" life rather than the word: for it is of life that he writes that he was with the Father. So John is writing about him (masculine), and he is linked by a relational pronoun which is - of course - in the middle gender. But we don't really find that out until verse 5. The gist of verses 1-4 is the information that life (eternal) came through Jesus, that Jesus himself represents that life (eternal).

[@electriccowboy4747]

Good morning. Hoping, if you have time, you could explain to me how this interpretation is incorrect. John 1:14 - The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. "The Word" is a person (he). We observed his glory. It is referring to Jesus. Revelation 19:13 - He wore a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called the Word of God Same author - John the apostle, using "logos" for Jesus.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

The word is the Father's bread. Jesus received the Father's bread, His word. Jesus ate it. Jn 4:34. That's why he is now the word of God.

[@electriccowboy4747]

@@TheTrinityDelusion Ok. so Jesus is a created person, not co-eternal with the Father. Jesus did the will of his Father, now Jesus is the Word. Jesus became the Word, or the Word is the message Jesus "ate" and then became the Word?

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@electriccowboy4747 Sounds okay if I am understanding you rightly. The word of God is the bread of life which Jesus received and ate for resurrection life.

[@electriccowboy4747]

@@TheTrinityDelusion Ok. So Jesus was a normal man, ate the bread, became divine? He did not exist at all before being a man?

[@tmcge3325]

@@electriccowboy4747 The "it" which "was made flesh" is the Word.....The word entered it's most Holy Tabernacle, a Tabernacle NOT built by stones but by Flesh, understanding that God was in Yehoshua! 1 Corinthians 5:19, Hebrews 9:11, Ephesians 2:19-22 and John 2:19 kjv. Understanding who is talking is key as in John 7:16-17 and 14:24 kjv. Peace!

[@kp8174]

What name did Jesus manifest of Father God? He called Him Father and Abba. According to John 17:6, which name did Jesus call His God?

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

He is not talking about a set of letters from the alphabet.

[@kp8174]

@@TheTrinityDelusion Could you please explain?

[@Doyathinkurfunny]

Hey. Great videos disproving the trinity. Don’t forget about God’s sovereignty!!! “All is of God” 2 Corinthians 5:18 “God gives to all life, and breath, and all” Acts 17:26 “Designated beforehand, operating all in accord with the counsel of His will” Eph. 1:11 “Maker of Good, creator of evil, I Yahweh Elohim, made all these things” Isaiah 45:7

[@Trojas-bp9ej]

Jesus is the Word/Voice of God. Your voice is the same as you. Jesus is God in the flesh. Simply

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

My word is not me but it is begotten of me.

[@bosse641]

Exactly. And God is not an It.

[@GabrielEddy]

John 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και *θεος* ην ο λογος _In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with The God, and the logos was _*_a god._* John 1:18 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε *μονογενης θεος* ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο _No one has ever yet seen (The) God; _*_a unique god,_*_ which is in the bosom of The Father, that one has elucidated._ The opening and closing verses of the Johannine prologue (John 1:1-18) reveal how, according to its author, ο λογος is δευτερος θεος i.e. the logos is a secondary god. This position Origen explicated, which he borrowed from his teacher Clement while still living in Alexandria, in _Contra Celsum,_ Book 5, Chapter 39.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Cherry picking manuscript variants of corrupted manuscripts is not helpful. Adding excuses for doing so doesn't help either.

[@GabrielEddy]

@@TheTrinityDelusion The oldest and best manuscripts (𝔓66 𝔓75 ℵ B C L) support the *μονογενης θεος* reading. All modern critical editions concur with it. Scholarship agrees with my assessment and disagrees with yours. The entire Johannine prologue was written to refute the Gnostic Jew Cerinthus.

[@riversofeden3929]

@@GabrielEddy ... the idea that the 4th Gospel was written to refute Cerinthus or other Gnostics has no exegetical merit. There are no Gnostics or anyone name Certinthus associated with Jesus or the apostles during the NT era. It also requires the unsubstantiated assumptions that the 4th Gospel was written late in the First Century and that pro-Gnosticism existed at all in the First Century.

[@Captain8877]

@@riversofeden3929do you have any other teaching material ?

[@riversofeden3929]

@@Captain8877 ... thank you for asking. I just contribute to the ongoing conversations. I don't publish any teaching material of my own. However, I'm happy to discuss things with others who have similar and/or different perspectives. I'm just trying to understand things for myself. I try to give everyone a fair hearing and offer critical feedback.

[@DoulosTis]

So many years and still disrespecting the text, still producing an againstChrist work, still fighting against Christ None of us will live for ever, and being hit on your faith so badly is not a small but a big tragedy! It ruins and infects the higher attributes of the soul! It hardens the heart to a level of non repentance! Millions of thieves and killers have repented, Arius-like hearts, almost impossible if not impossible to repent! The more time passes the more againstChrist supporters you will find as it is expected in the end days!

[@leecooper3852]

It's just a small point, With big implications, but Luke 4:43 it's not the word of life Jesus is proclaiming.. it's the good news of the Kingdom of God, So the question is what is the Kingdom of God and why is it good news, Because the Kingdom is in the heavens and will rid the Earth of all wickedness when it turns its attention to mankind...Jehovah's Christian Witnesses have been proclaiming this Kingdom for over a 100 years and one of the signs of the last days in Matthew 24 was the good news of the Kingdom would be preached.... I'm not aware of another religious organisation that has done this work, despite all the odds.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

The Gospel IS the word of God. You need to read your Bible more carefully. And the children of God ARE the reality of the kingdom of God here on earth.

[@leecooper3852]

@@TheTrinityDelusion The word gospel means good news and at luke 4:43 Jesus called it the gospel of the Kingdom... That is the good news of the Kingdom of God... The word of God is the Bible or the scriptures whichever you prefer, Without going into who jesus is..and incidentally he said stated he was sent to preach that Gospel of the Kingdom of God and its preaching is a sign of the last days at Matthew 24:14

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@leecooper3852 You are mistaken. The good news of the Kingdom is the word of life he proclaimed. Examine your Bible more carefully.

[@leecooper3852]

​@@TheTrinityDelusion So when he said your Kingdom Come, I'm assuming it wasn't with him at that time, But was coming in the future and was related to "your will being done on earth as it is in heaven", And he promised his disciples a Kingdom, And he said, And said his father had approved of giving them a Kingdom... That Kingdom is not real according to you, it's the word of God... Rather than an actual physical Kingdom established in the heavens with the cornerstone of his disciples and himself, And it actually being given birth to in the heavens at a specific time at the seventh trumpet blast, which occurs in the lords day at rev 1:1... All of that is nothing to do with an actual government?

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@leecooper3852 When he said "your Kingdom come" he is teaching you how to pray and to submit yourself to the Father and His Kingdom now. The Kingdom of God is a reality to the genuine children of God now, those who do the will of the Father.

[@AusBUChurch]

Pros = pertaining to

[@ChristinaFromYoutube]

If anyone wants to know what the Word is they should read Psalm 119. Its not a mystery in any sense of the word. The "Word" is the Law of God. In the beginning was the Law, everything was created through the Law and it is obedience that gives life. We shouldn't look to Greeks to explain what John means. We should look to King David to understand what the Word is.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

The word at Psalm 119:105 has become a person named Jesus. The word became flesh and we are called to be conformed to his image.

[@davidpatrick1813]

Life is in the blood ... not a metaphorical concept

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@davidpatrick1813 The life Jesus gives is resurrection life to our mortal bodies. The word of God is the bread of God and the Father's bread, his word, gives life to our mortal bodies of flesh. Paul has the same idea in mind at Romans 8:11.

[@ChristinaFromYoutube]

@@TheTrinityDelusion but there aren't diverging meanings or aspects. When he says the word is a lamp to his feet it is the same word he says earlier are the righteous laws and precepts. When John said "the word" his audience would have heard what David called the word which is the commandments and every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. When Jesus is tempted in the wilderness he quotes Deuteronomy.

[@ChristinaFromYoutube]

@@davidpatrick1813 correct. The blood of the first covenant was lambs blood Moses threw over the people. The blood of the new covenant is again blood poured out onto the people. The new covenant is that the law of God will be written on our hearts and no one will have to be told to obey.

[@nazorean]

In Tolstoy's The Gospel in Brief the term Logos is rendered as Understanding. Greek λογος means Reason, Cause, Understanding, not the "word". "Word" is is λεξη (lexi)

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

I don't think many people wrongly interpret "word" (logos) to mean a set of letters from the alphabet.

[@riversofeden3929]

Tolstoy didn't write the 4th Gospel and renders LOGOS inaccurately. It's easy to look at all the uses of LOGOS throughout the 4th Gospel and see that the writer was simply referring to something that originated as a verbal utterance. Nobody translates it as "understanding" or "cause" because that is not how the term was used in biblical Greek. Even the one time that LOGOS is translated "reason" in the book of Acts, it refers to an explanation (verbal) and not the connotation given by Tolstoy.

[@nazorean]

​@@riversofeden3929 If everybody does something it does NOT mean they are wright. Hebrew חכמה (Wisdom, Intelligence, Reason, Cause) describes what Logos really is. Also does God have vocal cords to utter "let there be"? You shall not follow the crowd AND should follow the narrow road, Wisdom told us. Intelligence is the light of the mankind, not a verbal utterance or repeating the same old song everybody has been singing for millennia.

[@riversofeden3929]

@@nazorean ... LOGOS wasn't used in scripture for "wisdom" or "intelligence" or "reason" or "cause" and that's why the hundreds of uses of LOGOS aren't translated with the words anywhere in scripture. The definitions you find in lexicons and other sources represent uses beyond the biblical usage. All the matters when interpreting the Bible is the more limited connotation we find translated "word" most of the time.

[@leenieledejo6849]

I asked a secular Israeli to tell me what the modern Hebrew translation of John 1:1 said in English and she used "thing/essence" instead of "word" (she had never previously read the verse in English) 🤔🤷🏻‍♀️

[@fLUKEYdNb]

Trinys: getting their who’s and what’s mixed up again.

[@canadiancontrarian3668]

Our Bible teaches us that the 'Word of God' is a person. John chapter 1 is corroborated by 1 John 1 and further established by John in Rev 19. Does Rev 19 portray an 'it'? or is he a person? Are the armies that follow Him also 'it's'? Or are the angels ALSO persons? Christ sits on a white horse. His eyes were as a flame of fire. On his head many crowns. He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood. His name is called the Word of God. The armies in heaven followed him. They also are on white horses. How much of Rev 19 is an 'it'?

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Nobody is arguing that the word is not a person after John 1:14 had occurred. You are just confusing yourself.

[@canadiancontrarian3668]

@@TheTrinityDelusion Thank you for your reply. Does not your video title say 'It became flesh' ? The verses prior to John 1:14 [ John 1:2- 4 ]describe Christ as a person. Thereby Christ is not an 'it' before he became flesh. The confusion is then in your chronology. Is it not?

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@canadiancontrarian3668 "Does not your video title say 'It became flesh' ?" Yes it does. "The verses prior to John 1:14 [ John 1:2- 4 ]describe Christ as a person. " The verses prior to John 1:14 don't even mention Christ. Jesus Christ is not introduced until verse 17. But I expect you really meant the verses prior to John 1:14 describe the word as a person. No, they do not.

[@canadiancontrarian3668]

@@TheTrinityDelusion So John 1:2 -4 Is not a person? It does say 'he' and 'him' does it not? Even Martha in her exchange with Christ confirms this person was a person before he came to earth. As recorded 'She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.' John 11:27 Jesus does not correct Martha. For Martha is correct. Jesus was the Son BEFORE he came into the world. Christ is not an 'it' before he became flesh. I do not dispute with Martha. Neither does Christ. Martha's doctrine is more correct than mine or yours. Right?

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@canadiancontrarian3668 "So John 1:2 -4 Is not a person? " Nothing in John's grammar says either way. "It does say 'he' and 'him' does it not?" No, it does not. The words John uses are not equivalent to English "he" and "him." "He" and "him" in English do necessarily refer to a person but John's language does not. His words do not say either way. Things have grammatical gender in Greek like French does. See John 6:60 where the same language is used to refer to Jesus' teaching - logos, houtos, autos. As far as your "into the world" interpretation, you should probably read John 17:16,18 about 10 more times. Jesus sent his disciples into the world JUST AS he was sent into the world. You have many mistakes to correct.

[@Zuungie]

A few of things to keep in mind. First, despite this video's attempts to conflate the two passages, if the author of the Gospel of John wanted to refer to the Word as an "it" in chapter 1, he would have done so, irrespective of what is written in 1 John 1. Instead, in John 1.2, the author clearly calls the Word a "he." Secondly, this video ignores the Greek word "peri" in 1 John 1.1, which is usually translated as "concerning", "regarding", "pertaining to", etc. This preposition makes it clear that the "what" being referred to are the things witnessed from & experienced with the Word of Life. The verse does not directly call the Word of Life an "it"." If the text were calling the Word of Life an "it," the text would omit the "peri" preposition and would simply say "...what we have looked at and touched with our hands, the Word of Life." Also, in 1 John 1.2, the Greek text says that "the eternal life" was "pros" the Father; not the Word, as in John 1.1. This is important, because according to John 1.4, the life was "in" the Word -- "the life" was not "the Word" itself, so those two concepts are not interchangeable.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

You plainly don't know what you are talking about. Houtos and autos do not mean "he" and "him." See John 6:60 for the same words - logos, houtos, autos. Secondly, your claim concerning the word "peri" does not even make sense. Thirdly, did you just argue that "the eternal life" is something other than God the Word. Why yes you did and you yourself made "the eternal life" an it. That's hilarious. Maybe you could do the usual Trinitarian thing - change direction and hopscotch to another excuse.

[@Zuungie]

@@TheTrinityDelusion It doesn't matter if you understood the "peri" explanation or not -- you ignored this word in the original text for the sake of your argument. It's easy to simply say an argument "doesn't even make sense" so that you don't have to address it and can keep glossing over the text to have it fit what you want it to say. And yes, I absolutely did say the eternal life is an "it." That is precisely the point -- "the Word of Life" is not an interchangeable phrase with "the eternal life." If we believe that the authors of the Gospel of John and 1 John are the same, then it's clear from John 1 that the author views the entities of "the Word" and "the life" differently.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@Zuungie I didn't ignore "peri" in the text. But I was ignoring your red herring argument. And can we now conclude that according to your reasoning, verse 2 is NOT referring to a person?

[@Zuungie]

@@TheTrinityDelusion Prepositions are not red herrings. They are essential to understanding the text, and you know this because you felt the need to highlight the word "pros" in the video. What you are arguing in this video is: "That which is pertaining to the Word of Life" = "The Word of Life" But these are clearly not equivalent statements in the original Greek, nor are they equivalent in the English translation. I've already told you, the "life" in v2 is not referring to a person. Does "life" = "the Word of Life"? No. That's why they are different phrases.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@Zuungie You didn't answer my question

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@vaughnmadsen7966]

Christianity in a nutshell

[@tmcge3325]

I think it is important to understand, all scripture origin is Hebrew.....not one Hebrew would write Holy Scripture "The Word of God" in a Gentile Language. We know, the Torah, Tanakh, Psalms and Proverbs all in Hebrew, they studied, read the Holy Bible daily, they memorized it and remember, the Lord came but only for the Lost Sheep of Israel. When Paul spoke to Israel, he spoke Hebrew....when the Lord spoke to Paul, he spoke Hebrew. Their names are all Hebrew names! By the word of Nehemiah, it would be a sin not to speak Hebrew....Hebrew is the Language of their Fathers! So, the Hebrew bible was translated into Greek, Aramaic, Latin and many other languages including English. Example: Matthew 27:47 Why did he and others hear this? Answer: Because in Hebrew Mark 15:34/Matthew 27:46 sounds similar to Elijah but the Lord called on the God....Ref - Nehemiah Gordon Clips (youtube channel) "Jesus Spoke Hebrew" Next Acts 21:40 and 22:2 and Acts 26:14 Read Nehemiah 13:23-24

[@kamilfrompoland7]

It's a lie that it's not about someone but something! Do not be deceived by him! *It's about the Son* , they saw and touched the Son, they heard the Son. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever *it falls* , it will scatter him like dust. Matthew 21:44 NASB1995

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

You need to explain why John is using "IT" language to refer to the word.

[@kamilfrompoland7]

​@@TheTrinityDelusion He also used this type of language when referring to the Light. Besides, John wrote elsewhere: All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John 1:3‭-‬5 NASB1995

[@ZeldaVandermerwe-c3b]

Job 32 verses 21 and 22 Anyone who is a person or one with a title will be lead away, which means executed. Now the word person comes from the Greek word kanah which is one with a title especially a surname. Big clue ? Why does it say that ? Well what is a person, I mean we all use that term when referring to someone. All person's are created by legalists not by God. God created Man, Woman or living souls he did not create Humans or person's as mentioned the devil's advocates did, which then perhaps that is why the bible warns us woe to you lawyers because you hide away the keys of knowledge. But what is a surname, what is a title ? Why would a loving creator want to destroy us if we have a title or a surname. Mathew 6 verse 24 says we CANNOT serve God and Mammon. Cannot means it is impossible right, and Mammon also means money or the god of money, money does not grow on trees and therefore it is not of nature and therefore it is not of God. Jesus says be no part of the world just as I am no part of the world, what is the world that we should be no part of? The world is defined in the King James Concordance as " the ornamental world of mankind". It is fake. And never underestimate the spell of Satan, he is in there he is the ruler of the world. So when Augustus Caesar declared himself saviour of the common people of Rome, he was talking about this in a legal sense, you will be my legal subjects under Satan, there power is derived from all those who reject the Messiah. But can this possibly be true To be a person or a human you have to have a surname, according to black's law dictionary 11th edition a surname is a name added to ones real name.So a surname is added to our God given Christian name and that makes a Human and a person , these are created by legalists so that we can operate in the Mammon. Let's look at Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755 which says under surname " A Gentilious name " and we then look in the same dictionary under Gentile " One of a uncovenanted nation one who knows not the true God" . Look under legal it says according to the law of the old compensation ( mmm we deny free grace). We look up the word secular and it says opposite to spiritual. Anyway in the legal we are debtors and the only way to accept free grace it to relinquish all legal title person surname, and we would need to be before kings and magistrates for his name's sake in order to do this. You see when looking up the term humanism it states it is the denying of the Messiah believing that mankind can reach perfection on their own.

[@TheWhyisthatso]

John is saying what Jesus said when John quoted Jesus in John 4:24 . "God is Spirit" ( John 4:24 ) The word "spirit" in scripture means "consciousness" of mind and thought . This is "what God is"......."God" is the Mind and Consciousness that dwells in us . God is not some old man up in the sky somewhere . Jesus was the "Word"......the "Revealed Thought" ( LOGOS ) that is the "Father" the Mind or Consciousness that "GOD IS"......in the flesh . And all of you "carnal minded" Christians cannot understand this ....... it's all "foolishness" to you......as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 .

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

God is spirit, Holy Spirit. When His Spirit comes to dwell in us, He is in us. And once His Spirit is in us, we can walk by the mind of the Spirit, the mind of God - God who is light, life, truth, love.

[@TheWhyisthatso]

@@TheTrinityDelusion ......The term or phrase "holy spirit" simply means a "different spirit" ...... see Numbers 14:24 for example . The word "holy" means "set apart from".....or "different from"......meaning that the "Spirit" or MIND that is God, is "different" from the "carnal mind" or "fallen" mind/consciousness that is in man . When Jesus died on the cross, this was symbolic of Him putting his "carnal mind" to death . He commanded that we "follow him"......to "take up our own cross and follow him " . Jesus had a "sin nature" just as ALL of us do......this is why he was "tempted by the devil" . The words "serpent", and "devil" and "Satan" are all metaphors for the "carnal mind" of man..... there is no "evil fallen angel" out to get us......WE are our own worst "enemy" .

[@TheWhyisthatso]

@@TheTrinityDelusion ......."For as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up " I'm sure you are familiar with this verse, but very few understand what it means . The Israelites were bitching in the wilderness about food and water, and rebelling against Moses ....or against God . So God gave them a taste of their own carnal minds ( "serpents" ) to bite them and kill them for their lack of faith . Moses was told to make an image of a serpent and put it on a pole lifted up so the people could see it and live . This was the imagery of Jesus being crucified......meaning putting his carnal mind to death .....and those who look to Him are to live . Also.....the "seed of the serpent" that "bruised" His heel......as prophesied in Genesis .....were the carnal minded religious leaders and the Romans. This is why Jesus called them "a brood of vipers", and said their "father" was the "devil" .

[@TheWhyisthatso]

@@TheTrinityDelusion ....One more thing Sir, and I will leave you alone . Jesus is NOW the "Spirit of Truth"......as He tells us in John chapter 14 , and he is "IN" those that are His, just as He said He would be.......He did not leave us alone as orphans . This is also the "mystery" of the TRUE "church"......"Which is Christ IN you (saints) the hope of glory" ( Colossians 1:27 ) The "Spirit of Truth" means the "Mind" of truth.......this is how the "elect" (true church) cannot be deceived . And Jesus is coming again "IN" another flesh and blood human that He called the "son of man"......as Jesus was . Jesus tells us this in John chapter 16 verses 5-15 . So....if you are looking for Jesus to come "on the clouds" ...literally, you are looking in the wrong place . The "clouds" means the presence of the Mind (Spirit) of God in spiritual visibility.... or in other words, He will come to be "glorified IN His saints" ( 2 Thessalonians 1:10 )...or the "body of Christ". And this "body" also has a "head".......the coming "son of man" .

[@aldonjarrett5149]

The Word was made FLESH. FLESH does not mean Jesus. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14 The Word, which was God, was made FLESH when God SPOKE/COMMANDED ALL FLESH into existence. AND GOD SAID, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:20-21 AND GOD SAID, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:26-27 For he SPAKE, and it was done; he COMMANDED, and it stood fast. Psalms 33:9 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of ALL FLESH: is there any thing too hard for me? Jeremiah 32:27 All FLESH is not the same FLESH: but there is one kind of FLESH of men, another FLESH of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 1 Corinthians 15:39

[@riversofeden3929]

In case you didn't notice, there is no "word became flesh" language in any of your citations from the OT. It would be better if you could actually explain John 1:14 in the context of the Prologue and the 4th Gospel.

[@Joe-p6t2b]

Jesus is never referred to as "it". When Jesus was born the bible declared that his name would be called Emanuel, "God with us". The blood that was in his veins was Holy Blood, not human but God's and precious. If he was not God then his death would not redeem anyone. If you truly believe that Jesus is not diety then you gave no salvation and you are still in your sins. The Bible declares that the gospel be preached not debates to gain attention or vain glory or to be popular. The Holy Spirit which is also God is the only one who can draw and convict a person so that they can make the decision to call on the name of the Lord to be saved. The Holy Spirit can be grieved and quenched. That cannot happen to a force and it is possible to cross the line with God by plasmpheming and never allowing a person to be saved period. God has a plan and because some of you fo not accept it by your own reasoning and try to influence others by your so called spiritual intelligence you will find out when you die and see the Glory that Jesus has you will k ow how wrong you have been. Jesus will judge the world because he is the creator and redeemer and the King of Kings and you will bow before Him and confess that is his Lord. Get a life and allow God to run the world to save sinners who come to Him by faith. The Bible also says that a person should come as a child. A child does not understand everything but with child like faith he comes to Jesus because He believes he died so that he will forgive him. He doesn't question the truth or resist the Holy Spirit. Enough said.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

"Jesus is never referred to as "it". Of course he isn't. But the word of life is. And he became that bread of God.

[@riversofeden3929]

@@TheTrinityDelusion ... this doesn't make any sense. When you say ... "the word of life (it) is, and (he) became that bread of God." I think it's understandable that the way you are mincing words is confusing. Neither a verbal expression (word) nor the concept of life (eternal) can exist without the person who does the speaking or possesses the immortality. Jesus himself was "with (PROS) the Father" because he had ascended there after the resurrection to advocate (1-John 2:1) just like he said he would be there "with (PROS) the Father" for his people (John 5:45). This is why 1-John 1:1-2 uses the "what" pronouns to speak of "the Word of life" and "the eternal life" in the conceptual sense and yet associates those things with the audible, visual, and tangible experience the disciples had with the person who spoke the message and manifested the immortality. Likewise, in 1-John 2:13-14, the writer refers back to "HIM who was from the beginning" when he speaks about that person. It's a misunderstanding to try to make either the word or the eternal life "impersonal" in these contexts.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@riversofeden3929 You said: ".. this doesn't make any sense. When you say ... "the word of life (it) is, and (he) became that bread of God." I think it's understandable that the way you are mincing words is confusing. Neither a verbal expression (word) nor the concept of life (eternal) can exist without the person who does the speaking or possesses the immortality." Your comment doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what I am talking about.

[@riversofeden3929]

@@TheTrinityDelusion ... I just quoted what you wrote in your previous comment. I understand what you are talking about and it doesn't make sense. You just said that an "it" was also a "he became." Abstractions do not "become" human beings. A "word" is something spoken by a person and "heard" by others. The "flesh" is a characteristic of a person that can be seen and touched by others. Jesus was a person who spoke on behalf of God the Father. He was a man of flesh like the disciples with whom he had fellowship. By definition, a "word" and "flesh" are "things." However, the Greek grammar in the Prologue and in 1-John indicates that the person himself is the subject. For example, if I say ... "my word is true, you can trust IT" and "my flesh is bruised, you can see IT", nobody would construe those statements to be "impersonal."

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@riversofeden3929 "Abstractions do not "become" human beings." The word of God is the Bread of life which does indeed become flesh, food for resurrection life. This bread which the Father gives was Jesus' food for resurrection life and it is our food for resurrection life. God's word was his bread, His food.

[@Mckaule]

Can God become a man ? No, because He is GOD.

[@sunfilms5089]

@mckaule. Can the spirit of god enter into a man? Yes or no?

[@RoseSharon7777]

The light of Gen. 1:3 was PERSONIFIED in much of the NT. The light or glory of Yhwh is made flesh in ALL Sons Begotten of the Fathers incorruptible seed. The only miracle conception in the bible. Giving birth to a new creation. The miracle New Birth.

[@johnarthur2112]

Jesus is the word of God because God the Father made a promise before he created everything (Titus 1:2). That promise was the logos of eternal life (1Jn 1:1-2). That promise was a son begotten of Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35). That promise became flesh in Mary’s womb and the promise was shared with the children of God (1 Jn 2:25). Jesus was the promised son and thus always had the pre-eminence as the only begotten (Col 1:15). Jesus is therefore the word of God from the very beginning, the firstborn of every creature. That explains why his blood is valuable enough to redeem fallen earthy man.

[@riversofeden3929]

There's nothing about a "hope" or a "promise" in either John 1:1-3 or 1-John 1:1-2. Titus is the wrong context. We should be trying to understand the "John" books according to the language that was used by the writer(s) of those books. Abstract promises don't turn into flesh either. Thus that is not a good option for interpreting John 1:14.

[@johnarthur2112]

@@riversofeden3929 do you not believe that the only begotten son was promised glory by the Father as per Jn 17:5? The whole context of the Bible is the question of whether God is a liar. The resurrection was the proof that God keeps his promises, hence Titus 1:2.

[@riversofeden3929]

@@johnarthur2112 ... my point is that the context of the language about "the Word" and "the eternal life" in John 1 and 1-John 1 is not a promise. Those passages are referring to the specific person who manifested eternal life (Jesus Christ, the son of God). In Titus 1:2, Paul is referring to the general promise of eternal life that became the hope for all people. There's a difference between Jesus Christ himself having eternal life, and being the source of eternal life, than a mere promise that pertained to everyone.

[@johnarthur2112]

@@riversofeden3929 if you go to 1 Jn 1:1-2 John puts a bit more meat on the bones of what he means by “the logos” in John 1. It’s the word of life and he clarifies that by life, he means eternal life. Jesus embodied that promise that was given before the foundation of the world as Titus 1:2 confirms. The promise of eternal life was given to the children of God as confirmed at 1 Jn 2:25. The promise of eternal life by grace is the central theme of the Biblical narrative. The resurrection was the proof that this was the Father’s plan from the beginning. Jesus had to be obedient to that plan to be able to share his promised inheritance as the only begotten heir of God.

[@riversofeden3929]

@@johnarthur2112 ... I agree with some of your points. However, keep in mind that a "word" is a verbal expression (which requires a person speaking it) and "eternal life" isn't a reality unless a person possess immorality. Thus, when you see the writer say that "what was concerning the Word of Life" which was "heard" and "seen" and "gazed upon" and "touched with our hands", it's evident that he's referring to the audible and tangible person who "manifested" those things. Moreover, we can see in 1-John 2:13-14 that the writer refers back to "from the beginning" and refers to a "him" (the son of God) who was known to the disciples. Thus, the writer is relating the "what" of the word and the eternal life to the "him" who did the speaking and possessed the immortality. I would suggest that John 1:14 is also referring to when Jesus dwelt among the disciples during the time between the resurrection and his departure before Pentecost. This is when he was manifested alive ("flesh") and spoke to them ("word") from beyond the grave ("life").

[@DjMakinetor]

(De 4:32-36) "Ask, now, about the former days before your time, from the day when GOD created man on the earth; search from one end of the heavens to the other end of the heavens. Has anything so great ever happened or has anything like it ever been heard of? Have any other people heard THE VOICE OF GOD speaking out of the fire the way you have heard it and kept on living? Or has GOD ever attempted to take for himself a nation out of the midst of another nation along with judgments, with signs, with miracles, with war, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with terrifying deeds, as JEHOVAH YOUR GOD did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? You yourselves have been shown these things so you will know that JEHOVAH IS THE TRUE GOD; there is no other besides him. He made you hear his voice from the heavens to correct you, and on the earth he made you see his great fire, and his words you heard from out of the fire."

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

That would be referring to the God of Jesus. He is God and there is no other but Him. Deut 4:35.

[@DjMakinetor]

Hebrew grammarian Wilhelm Gesénius renders [ha-El·o·himʹ] by the words “the one true God”. At Deuteronomy 4:35. Moses says to the Israelites: “You-you have been shown so as to know that Jehovah is the God; there is no other besides him.” This expression “the God” emphasizes that Jehovah is to be distinguished from other gods; hence the fitness of his taking a name to himself.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@DjMakinetor Moses is referring to the God of Jesus.

[@DjMakinetor]

@@TheTrinityDelusion Jesus was a man (John 4:29; 8:40). And His God (John 20:27) is not a man, for it is God who gives wisdom, knowledge and joy to the man who pleases Him. (Ecclesiastes 2:26)

[@ProjectCould]

“‘It’ proves not a person” Say what? ”Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.” ‭‭John‬ ‭4‬:‭22‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Your post is somewhat incomprehensible. Would you like to try again?

[@ProjectCould]

@@TheTrinityDelusion One of the big points in the video is “who” versus “it”. Under that logic, I should be able to expect that scripture wouldn’t ever confuse a “who” (hence a person) versus an “it” (something that’s not a person). You’re essentially saying that God is a “who” versus the word is an “it”. The problem however is that John 4 calls God a “what”. This does not mean that God isn’t a person, because the Bible is full of proofs that God is a person. And since God is also conclusively referred to as a “what” (in addition to many other neuter uses of language), this does demonstrate that being an “it” does not automatically make something a non-person. Apply that now to the word and now we’ve demonstrated that you haven’t truly demonstrated that the word is merely an “it”. Now if one is a King James Bible believer, they’re forced to believe that the Word is both an “it” and a “him”, hence the full revelation of the KJV shows that we’re dealing with an eternal Word person in John 1, for all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made :-) The passage has already identified the Word as God, and God is irrefutably a single person, the Father :-)

[@riversofeden3929]

@@ProjectCould ... good points. Even as a unitarian, I agree that there are a number of exegetical flaws underlying the explanation presented in this video. I think it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the difference between the concept of a "word" and "eternal life" and how it was related to the person ("heard, seen, gazed upon, and touched with hands") who was the one with immortality who spoke to the disciples. The forensic terminology in 1-John 1:1-3 certainly isn't safisfied by an "it" or a "what." This is a common mistake made by unitarians who are trying too hard to make the LOGOS a "what/it" and not paying attention to the context and word usage. We can also see in the 4th Gospel that "with God" (PROS TON QEON) in John 1:1b was used again to refer to Jesus himself (John 13:3) and that "with the Father" (PROS TON PATERA) in 1-John 1:2 was also used where Jesus was after he ascended to "with the Father" (1-John 2:1). It's interesting that none of the other uses of these clauses are even mentioned in the video.

[@ProjectCould]

@@riversofeden3929 I appreciate your feedback. Thank you. And now, friend, if only you could see the beauty of my position. One does not have to give up “single person monotheism” for Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Oneness, or Modalism. Rather, there’s a simpler approach that allows all of scripture to speak plainly. John 1:1 being a great pillar. The Word is a person. The Word has always existed. The Word is Jesus. The Word is the one true God, the Father. And yet the Word was with God. There’s a reason that John 1:1 was so controversial in early centuries of the church. The mainstream views were simply trying their hardest to avoid what the text actually said. But they should have accepted the simplicity of the text and just believed the contradiction of it all: the Word person (Jesus) was both with the Father and was the Father. Interestingly, there’s literature out there that claims Modalism was the original view of the early church, and that they were generally defeating the Arians who believed Jesus was merely created & not eternal. To be clear, John 1:1 is not teaching Modalism, because it naturally is communicating two persons when it says “the Word was with God”, but the Modalists do however tend to correctly conclude that Jesus is the Father from this text.

[@RobertoMedina07]

JESUS IS GOD...

[@Mckaule]

In the same way as we are called gods and the sons of the Most High God.