Did Jesus worship a God?

[RandyPNW]

John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, (the Trinity- 3 Beings)
and the Word was God.(the Trinity- 3 Beings)

How do YOU explain this?
(We all know the Word was in reference to God's son, don't we?)

I'm just speaking for myself, and not in concert with anybody else here. But it is entirely logical to me to know that God is by definition transcendent, such that we cannot know Him as He is without His generating a revelation of Himself in terms that we can understand.

The thing that God uses to generate an understanding of Himself to us is His Word. When He speaks a Word to reveal His own Person it can take the form of a Man, Jesus. This then makes it entirely logical for Jesus, as a form of God's Person, to speak back to God in His infinite, original Personhood.

Having assumed the form of a Man, it is entirely consistent and even necessary to continue to see God as existing *before* His appearing as a man, as well! This also is a product of His Word, which expresses Himself as Father of Jesus.

And so, with this double revelation of God, as existing before Man and as a Man, we have grounds for a relationship between these two persons of God. I see no supposed "absurdity" in this?

It is, as others say here, impossible to get much beyond this, since as I said, God is, by definition, transcendent. How he can communicate as an infinite Being to His finite, human apparition (but concrete appearance) nobody can fathom. But it is logical.

No more can we understand how an infinite Spirit can appear within the finite universe in various places. An infinite omnipresent Being appearing in finite locations? How can we hope to explain it, since we are finite beings ourselves?

Beyond this, you're hung up, as others here have said, on the idea that Trinitarians view God as "3 beings." As they said, this is not true. The formula is "One Divine Being in 3 Persons." One divine substance expressed in 3 personalities. The unity of God is in His Being and in His Substance. He is not 3 separate substances, nor 3 separate beings.

So if you're going to attack Trinitarianism as illogical or inconsistent, you have to first address the real issues, instead of making up a false version of Trinitarianism to attack illegitimately. Okay?

One more thing. This is not just about doctrine--more importantly, it is about salvation. You will not experience genuine Christian salvation if you see Christ as less than God. A divine Christ is required to bring you a lasting experience with God, that produces eternal divine character in your own person. To connect with God on an eternal basis, you must connect through an intermediary who is himself divine!

[theMadJW]

Randy, Jesus said God SENT HIM.
(Not came Themselves!)
And Jesus said that it means Everlasting Life >>>> KNOWING <<<< Him. (John 17:3)

So your thoughts have been tied to church dogma...

[Athanasius]

Randy, Jesus said God SENT HIM.
(Not came Themselves!)
And Jesus said that it means Everlasting Life >>>> KNOWING <<<< Him. (John 17:3)

So your thoughts have been tied to church dogma...

Well, God wouldn't say that God 'came themselves' because this is the misunderstand the relations between the persons of the Godhead. It thus also makes sense for Jesus qua Son of God / Son of Man to talk about being sent, because that person of the Godhead was indeed sent.

I admit it's confusing as heck because we're attempting to describe a being who isn't native to our reality or bound by our idea that one substance must necessarily be expressed in one person. But just because it's confusing doesn't mean we ought not try.

Dogma was a pretty good game, too. Older, but good.

[theMadJW]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
It's confusing because IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE!

The "Holy Ghost" and "God-the-Father" were INDEWLLING in him- according to Churchianity!

That DEFINITLY be "Them">

[Athanasius]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
It's confusing because IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE!

The "Holy Ghost" and "God-the-Father" were INDEWLLING in him- according to Churchianity!

That DEFINITLY be "Them">

Oh, so you're saying there are no teachings in the bible that are confusing? That's odd. Clearly, the JWs think everyone else is confused about John 1, yet we'd not deny that the words of John 1 are indeed in the bible that contains the words of John 1.

It's confusing, even if it's in the Bible, because it's a doctrine that relies on the revelation of a supra-dimensional being who reveals himself to us, mere 3-dimensional creatures. We literally cannot grasp God, even with revelation. Attempts to reduce God to fit neatly into the ontological categories we're familiar with are inappropriate, Jean Luc.

[theMadJW]

EVERY Trinitarian quotes John 1:1- REFUSING to deal the the context, and Jesus' words!

In the begging was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was God!
(Or use the 'Trinity' or one ore two other Gods)

[Athanasius]

EVERY Trinitarian quotes John 1:1- REFUSING to deal the the context, and Jesus' words!

In the begging was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was God!
(Or use the 'Trinity' or one ore two other Gods)

Every Trinitarian would ask:

"Why are you translating λόγος and θεόν/θεὸς both as Jesus?"

[RabbiKnife]

EVERY Trinitarian quotes John 1:1- REFUSING to deal the the context, and Jesus' words!

In the begging was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was God!
(Or use the 'Trinity' or one ore two other Gods)

Careful... you sure don't want to argue "context" when talking about John 1:1, because then you have to deal with the rest of the prologue.

[RandyPNW]

EVERY Trinitarian quotes John 1:1- REFUSING to deal the the context, and Jesus' words!

In the begging was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was God!
(Or use the 'Trinity' or one ore two other Gods)

As I view it, the Word *became* flesh and came to dwell among us as Jesus. That is, when he was with God from eternity he was not yet in the form of Jesus, the man. Rather, he was in the form of God's Word.

And so, when we talk about the eternity and the deity of Jesus, it becomes confusing for you, because you see Jesus, by definition, as limited in time. However, the Trinity explains how Jesus can be both eternal and defined, as a man, within time.

You'll never get past this because you deny the Trinity. It is your presupposition that prevents you from accepting a truth that is clearly laid out in Scriptures, that Jesus is God's Son and divine.

Jesus was the "firstborn" because he was the initial expression of God Himself in the form of man, indicating the image after which all men were created.

Gen 1.26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...

[theMadJW]

"He was with God from eternity"- compared to Micah 5:2- But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. - RSV

[RabbiKnife]

Both are true

Yes

[RandyPNW]

"He was with God from eternity"- compared to Micah 5:2- But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. - RSV

God's Word is as eternal as God Himself. And it was this eternal Word that produced a human being in time named Jesus. As such, Jesus emerged from the eternal Word and presented God in human flesh.

[Athanasius]

Both are true

Yes

It's something of a truism, to boot. Beings in history have history. Jesus qua Son of Man exists/existed in history, meaning His family line can be traced from Joseph and Mary backwards.

[theMadJW]

[Athanasius]

I think you mean "Father was really a Father". Otherwise, "no more that his Father was not really a Father" means that his Father was indeed a father.

By the way, why are there three seats at the front of the car and only two at the back?

Odd fellow you are. Are you even a fellow? Maybe you're a lady. Non-binary?