John 1:1

Originally posted by Suzianne
It might help if you used a real Bible instead of the book your church commissioned to back up the made-up dogma you already had in place.

Did you ever think that maybe your bible is the one that was commissioned to make your bible fit your dogma? Just asking......

Originally posted by galveston75
Did you ever think that maybe your bible is the one that was commissioned to make your bible fit your dogma? Just asking......

That's outrageously stupid.

Our dogma came from our Bible.

Your Bible came from your dogma.

I don't see how anything could be more clear.

Originally posted by roigam
Did you perchance notice the word.....WITH.....God indicating two entities?
That is Jesus, the Word, God's spokesman or representative, and God Himself.
Maybe English is not your mother tongue.
I can understand that.

Also, if you examine the god applied to Jesus in Greek, It means having divine qualities.
It does not translate as The God which refers t ...[text shortened]... you?
Also, John 1:1 has no mention of a Holy Spirit. So it is not speaking of a trinity at all.

When speaking of one God, you would not mention "God and God".

The Word was God describes two facets of the same one God.

Offices. Persons. Whatever flips your switch.

And John 1:1 is not meant to be a "proof of Trinity". There's zero reason to be talking about the Holy Spirit here. It is about the divinity of Jesus.

Originally posted by Suzianne to galveston75
That's outrageously stupid.

Our dogma came from our Bible.

Your Bible came from your dogma.

I don't see how anything could be more clear.

Can you give three pieces of JW dogma and the changes you say were made, aside from the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the NT that was criticized by Jason BeDuhn so scathingly, and caused him to point out that this aspect of the NWT version was not an accurate translation "by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it violated accuracy for the organization's ideological purposes.

Originally posted by roigam
I'm not saying anything about the political influence behind the archaic KJV,
but if we love God and His Son, isn't it proper to show respect by capitalizing
Word to show that respect for God.
That capital does not change Jesus' standing as God's Representative.

It is proper to use a small g when speaking of a god, as in one among many, or something
or someone other than God. So in scripture if you see a god being talked about, know it
isn't God that they were talking about.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That's outrageously stupid.

Our dogma came from our Bible.

Your Bible came from your dogma.

I don't see how anything could be more clear.

Nicely put.

Originally posted by Suzianne
When speaking of one God, you would not mention "God and God".

The Word was God describes two facets of the same one God.

Offices. Persons. Whatever flips your switch.

And John 1:1 is not meant to be a "proof of Trinity". There's zero reason to be talking about the Holy Spirit here. It is about the divinity of Jesus.

Nice.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That's outrageously stupid.

Our dogma came from our Bible.

If you are interested and not closed minded on wanting to learn the truths of the trinity, here is one of many resources you can check out. If you want.....
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

Your Bible came from your dogma.

I don't see how anything could be more clear.

Lol. Your trinity on any level is never spoken of in the bible and all honest religious history shows were it was founded.
So.... It's still amazing how someone like you who I can tell is well educated and probably has a very high IQ can fall for the trinity. But Jesus said many would.....

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

Just another source that are not JW's to show what the trinity is.

Concerning the Word Who was with God and was God in John 1:1, we are told in verse 16 about Him being grace to believers.

"For of His fulness we have all received, and grace upon grace." (John 1:16)

This means layers of grace - "grace upon grace." This means in receiving Jesus Christ grace keeps coming, keeps flowing, keeps being dispensed into God's people.

Because "grace upon grace" signifies a continuous supply of grace it means the Christian can never become proud in himself. He knows all the enjoyment of the power to live unto God is from Christ - from His fulness. That is from the riches of what Jesus Christ is.

God, His Word - the Logos, are imparted and transmitted into those who receive the Person of Christ. And a cascade of grace upon grace upon grace is continually flowing out of the Triune God into man's being.

Originally posted by sonship
Concerning [b]the Word Who was with God and was God in John 1:1, we are told in verse 16 about Him being grace to believers.

"For of His fulness we have all received, and grace upon grace." (John 1:16)

This means layers of grace - "grace upon grace." This means in receiving Jesus Christ grace keeps coming, kee ...[text shortened]... de of grace upon grace upon grace is continually flowing out of the Triune God into man's being.[/b]

There isn't a person on the planet not receiving God's grace, since the world is full of
sinners. As sinners we all could be ended for the things we have done, are doing, and so
on. God's grace giving us room to repent, is something we are all getting now, if we take
Jesus' work for our salvation we receive it in full.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There isn't a person on the planet not receiving God's grace, since the world is full of
sinners. As sinners we all could be ended for the things we have done, are doing, and so
on. God's grace giving us room to repent, is something we are all getting now, if we take
Jesus' work for our salvation we receive it in full.

What you say here is really going on a definition of grace as "unmerited favor." "Unmerited favor" as a definition of grace is not wrong. But it is also not full or complete.

I would propose a fuller definition of grace as the enjoyment of God being everything for us that we need.

The phrase "grace upon grace" really speaks of a deepening enjoyment of having Christ be everything we need. "Grace upon grace" is like a cascading bestowing of more and more Christ to believers as their supply.

All the apostles received grace along with all the believers as disciples. Yet John speaks of "grace upon grace". And Paul says the he labored more extensively than all the other apostles. Yet it was not he but the grace of God with him. He really demonstrated then "grace upon grace".

"But by the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace unto me did not turn out to be in vain, but on the contrary, I labored more abundantly than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Cor. 15:10)

Paul plunged into deeper and deeper levels of Christ being everything to him. And by this grace he surpassed the others. Not him though, but the grace of God, the "grace upon grace" that was with him.

Grace has been said by many to be "unmerited favor." That certainly is true. But on a deeper level grace is the enjoyment of Christ, subjectively also. That is Christ's life indwelling us to enable and empower us to live out Christ.

Compare these two verses:

"But by the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace unto me did not turn out to be in vain, but on the contrary, I labored more abundantly than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Cor. 15:10)

" ... and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me ..." (See Gal. 2:20)

One verse says " Not I but the grace of God. "
The other verse says "Not I who lives but Christ who lives in me."

We can see by this that "the grace of God that is with me" is simply the living Christ that was indwelling Paul. Grace was his enjoyment of Christ. And through Christ he surpassed the other apostles in service and labor for God. He enjoyed Christ to be his all and his everything to the deepest level.

Originally posted by sonship
What you say here is really going on a definition of grace as "unmerited favor." "Unmerited favor" as a definition of grace is not wrong. But it is also not full or complete.

I would propose a fuller definition of grace as the enjoyment of God being everything for us that we need.

The phrase [b]"grace upon grace" really speaks of a deepening en ...[text shortened]... e others. Not him though, but the grace of God, the "grace upon grace" that was with him.[/b]

I think you are over thinking this.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you are over thinking this.

Why do you think I am over thinking that grace is Christ being everything for us ?

You have not experienced Christ being Who and What you need in this and that circumstance ?