Did Jesus Christ really come down from heaven?

[FWI]

And, if he didn't; then he also didn't preexist…

There are basically four views of who Jesus Christ is:

* The first is that Jesus is God and existed eternally. He also came to earth in human form. This is a simple explanation of the Christ, in the Trinity doctrine.

* The second view is that there were two Gods, who existed eternally. Then, one of these Gods agreed to give up its divinity and take the form of a human being. This divine being is considered to be the God of the O.T.

* Thirdly, there are those who believe that Jesus Christ preexisted as a powerful angel. Then, he was born a human being.

* The last view is that the Christ didn't preexist, he isn't God and he didn't come down from heaven (as many believe). But, (now) the Christ is a god or a being having greater power than any being that exists (except his Father) and will eventually be subject to his Father. Where, the Christ was born of a physical woman and received his human nature from this woman. He also received his Godly nature from his Father or God. This is the position that I take…

Therefore, all four of these positions can't be correct! So, what rebuttals (with support) can you present to challenge the positions listed? It would also be helpful, but not necessary, if support for your position is included…

[polonius]

JW posted:
So to answer the question, yes, according to scripture Jesus did indeed have a prehuman existence.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

RESPONSE: "According to scripture" you say?

How do you determine if scripture is correct? If you belief everything you read as long as it's old and claims to be inspired, boy, do I have a list of things you probably believe.

Got any evidence, or only a claim to defend?

"This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith. "

"According to scripture" you say?

[FWI]

Trinitarian or not, I don't see how that conclusion can be avoided. The Logos was preexistent (John 1:1), was divine (1:1-2), and was the creative force (1:3). The Logos was the light and the life (1:4) and John bore witness to it (1:6-7). This same light and life was Jesus (1:15, 29-30). Whether any other part of the Trinity doctrine is satisfied, those elements are the basis for the rest of the Gospel.

The logos is not a personal pronoun, but an "it" or something said or thought. It is not a separate personality, but a part of God's characteristics (John 1:1-2). The human being also has a logos. It is expressed by speech from a voice box, other body parts and brain signals, not from a separate personality…Since, the definition of divine can be expressed as: of, relating to or proceeding directly from God. God's words are divine (1:1-2). Yet, a different characteristic comes into play related to creative force, which is God's powers (1:3). Thus, God expresses or thinks His words and His power makes them come to be, but this is not delegated, it is instance! The words of God are the light of life (1:4). The Christ (begin a spokesperson for God) spoke the words of life as well.

As far as, the other verses you have listed and many more like them, the following is how they came to be…

The first hand-written English language bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe and eventually made public. These first copies were translated from the Vulgate, a late 4th century Latin manuscript.

Therefore, if we review the historical records they inform us that in 325 AD, the First Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed, which described the Christ as God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, and the Holy Ghost as the one by which was incarnate of the virgin Mary. Later, at the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD), the Nicene Creed would be expanded, known as Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, by saying that the Holy Spirit is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son. This was the beginning of the presumed doctrine of the Trinity that is interpreted in some writings of the bible.

Hence, it is clear that those who were Trinitarians had complete control of all available materials, related to the N.T. bible (for about 1000 years)! So, to suggest that the Universal Church or Catholic Church didn't incorporate their beliefs into the writings is really hard to believe. Since, the original writings were Jewish in nature, but the newfound belief system was not. Where, the Trinitarians of the time period were: the Hellenistic Jews and pagan Romans. Which, adhered to the worship of many gods and this is opposite of what God and the Christ taught…Thus, it is ones interpretation that determines what they believed about the verses you supplied, because the N.T. (as a whole) does not include and teach the Trinity!

but I think Mark intended God to be Jesus' adoptive father, rather than biological.

Your opinion is acknowledged, but that doesn't make it truth…However, I will again reject the idea that God was the biological Father of the Christ and the demigod concept presented…Yet, if Mark intended God to be Jesus' adoptive Father, then the gospel would have been rejected altogether and not included in the bible, just like many other writings that were considered heresies…

[Biological parent--One of a child's natural parents, either the male who supplied the sperm or the female who supplied the egg, which interacted (sexually) for the child's conception.]

None of these qualify "father" in any way. I agree that Mark treats Jesus as "Son of God," but he became so during the theophany at the baptism. That's why God has to tell him so ("You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased."). The very fact that it can be read that way (even if it's not what Mark meant) is why Matthew felt the need to change it ("This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.").

The truth is that John the Baptist, already knew who the Christ was before he baptized him. Because, it is stated so in John 1:26-29, they were relatives and he (Baptist) was sent by God. Where, Matthew and Luke allude to this as well. Also, the Christ, John the Baptist and Paul clearly claim/show that water baptism would end after Pentecost. So, water baptism was not the means to have the power of God (Spirit) upon oneself. In the case of the Christ, the event occurred so that there would be witnesses of God's approval of His only begotten Son…

Demigod stories generally explain the details of the conception and at least include the circumstances behind how the hero's mother became impregnated by the god. Both Matthew and Luke include angelic annunciations, Matthew's to Joseph (Mt 1:18-21) and Luke's to Mary (Lk 1:26-35). Mark includes none such, so any argument that Jesus lacked a biological father must come from Matthew or Luke. Mark was written first, though, and so the argument would have to claim that the absence of such detail was legitimately an oversight by Mark. The argument that Mark intended Jesus to lack a biological father has to add something to Mark that simply isn't there.

Sorry, but no one really knows who's gospel was written first! There is only speculations/opinions…Yet, since Mark doesn't record the annunciation. This would be clear evidence against Mark being first. It is only logical to expect the first gospel's writer to explain how the Christ or Messiah came to be.

Not in Greek. The straightforward translation of Mark 1:10 is that the Spirit entered into Jesus:

Well, that's not the way the translators recorded it! The reason for this is because the usage of "into" is understood as a metaphor or analogy in the Greek. There are about 30 bible translations on Biblehub.com and none of them use the English word "into" in Mark 1:10…Where, the same usage is recorded in John 1:32. And, for the most part this contradicts what is preached on a regular basis to most Christians. This is also the reason why other verses were either added or adjusted so as to correct this problem with beliefs. Where, changing one word can completely alter a verse and the intent of a writer.

I don't think that the Gospels need to be harmonized with one another (i.e. each author is allowed to have his own ideas about Jesus, his relationship with God, and historical events), but that fits with Matthew's and Luke's ideas of Jesus being divine from birth.

I'm going to make sure that I remember this one: I don't think that the Gospels need to be harmonized with one another. Because, it seems that you did require harmonization related to the Father and Mark.

None of these qualify "father" in any way. I agree that Mark treats Jesus as "Son of God," but he became so during the theophany at the baptism.

Well, if we review Matthew, Luke and John they do! Also, (again) the baptism of the Christ was not when the Christ was believed to be the Son of God.

As a point of interest, where in the N.T. does it claim that Jesus was divine?

Do you think I missed anything? I'm not necessarily asking if you find it convincing, but do you think I wrote something that I didn't justify?

Yes, I do (the truth according to my perspective). But, this isn't a knock on your words. It seems that you believe what you have wrote. Yet, I don't agree. However, I also don't agree with many of Christianity's points of view, as well…And, it is no secret that my points of view are also rejected, which is just fine with me. It just makes the interactions more interesting for those who want to engage, doesn't it?

[Difflugia]

The logos is not a personal pronoun, but an "it" or something said or thought. It is not a separate personality, but a part of God's characteristics (John 1:1-2).

[...]

So, to suggest that the Universal Church or Catholic Church didn't incorporate their beliefs into the writings is really hard to believe. Since, the original writings were Jewish in nature, but the newfound belief system was not. Where, the Trinitarians of the time period were: the Hellenistic Jews and pagan Romans. Which, adhered to the worship of many gods and this is opposite of what God and the Christ taught…Thus, it is ones interpretation that determines what they believed about the verses you supplied, because the N.T. (as a whole) does not include and teach the Trinity!

This is the statement I made earlier:

This is the theology of John's Gospel. Jesus was embodiment of the Logos, the preexistent, divine creative force.

Are you still arguing against that? If you are, then you haven't made your case. Your argument that the rest of the New Testament isn't trinitarian is fine and I agree with you. That still doesn't make an argument against John's Jesus being the human expression of the Logos. Strictly speaking, I don't think John's trinitarian, either, but that trinitarianism is a compromise between John's ideas about the Logos and statements about the Holy Spirit by Matthew and Luke. That's neither here nor there, though. How the Church chose to harmonize the Synoptics with John at various points in its history has very little to do with what John intended in the first place. John 1 presents the Logos as God's archetypal (literally; the first words of John are �ν ἀ�χῇ, "en arche") creative force and then introduces Jesus as the human embodiment of that Logos.

but I think Mark intended God to be Jesus' adoptive father, rather than biological.

Your opinion is acknowledged, but that doesn't make it truth…However, I will again reject the idea that God was the biological Father of the Christ and the demigod concept presented…Yet, if Mark intended God to be Jesus' adoptive Father, then the gospel would have been rejected altogether and not included in the bible, just like many other writings that were considered heresies…

"Your opinion is acknowledged, but..."

Whether it was accepted had nothing to do with Mark's intentions, but in how it was perceived by readers. Even so, you're right that some Christians didn't actually accept Mark as it was written, but had to change it. A number of Byzantine manuscripts actually changed Mark's wording so that the Holy Spirit came to rest upon Jesus instead of entering into him. If that's what Mark had intended, why would a scribe need to "fix" it?

The truth is that John the Baptist, already knew who the Christ was before he baptized him. Because, it is stated so in John 1:26-29...

You stopped reading too soon. Verse 33 says that John knew that the Christ was coming, but wouldn't know who he was until God gave him a sign. The sign was the Spirit descending upon him, which in the Synoptics happened at the conclusion of his baptism.

...they were relatives...

Only in Luke.

and he (Baptist) was sent by God. Where, Matthew and Luke allude to this as well. Also, the Christ, John the Baptist and Paul clearly claim/show that water baptism would end after Pentecost. So, water baptism was not the means to have the power of God (Spirit) upon oneself. In the case of the Christ, the event occurred so that there would be witnesses of God's approval of His only begotten Son…

John's Gospel might agree with you. If you read John carefully, you'll note that the Baptist doesn't actually baptize Jesus. The Baptist was baptizing others, then Jesus appeared and the Baptist saw the Spirit descending upon him.

Sorry, but no one really knows who's gospel was written first! There is only speculations/opinions…

If an important part of your argument is that the consensus of scholarship is "only speculations/opinions," then I don't think you're going to get very far.

Yet, since Mark doesn't record the annunciation. This would be clear evidence against Mark being first. It is only logical to expect the first gospel's writer to explain how the Christ or Messiah came to be.

Unless Mark's Jesus wasn't the Christ until the baptism. Then by your logic (and if the "speculations/opinions" backed up by decades of research are correct), Mark beginning his Gospel with the baptism would be clear evidence that Mark's Jesus became Christ at the baptism. It's only logical, right?

Not in Greek. The straightforward translation of Mark 1:10 is that the Spirit entered into Jesus:

Well, that's not the way the translators recorded it! The reason for this is because the usage of "into" is understood as a metaphor or analogy in the Greek.

"Your opinion is acknowledged, but..."

"Metaphorical" doesn't change anything. It still primarily means "into," but can mean "to" or "toward." As I said before, with the verb "descending," it's still the same ambiguity between going "to" and going "into" a place. From Thayer's NT Greek lexicon (linked below):

B. Used METAPHORICALLY, εἰς I. retains the force of entering into anything. II. εἰς after words indicating motion or direction or end it denotes motion to something, after verbs of going, coming, leading, calling, etc., and answers to the Latin ad, to.

There are about 30 bible translations on Biblehub.com and none of them use the English word "into" in Mark 1:10…

That's right. I said they don't. Nonetheless, there's nothing in Mark alone to suggest that it doesn't mean "into." Indeed, I think it's far more telling that Matthew and Luke thought Mark's verse needed to be changed. If it would be readily understood to mean "upon," they wouldn't have changed it.

Biblehub has a rather detailed entry from Thayer's Greek Lexicon. As a personal exercise, maybe read through that entry and then look through the verses where it occurs. Unfortunately, the page doesn't list all 1700 or so uses, but it does include all of Matthew. If it's worth the effort to you, you can download PDFs of SBL's reverse interlinear books of the Greek New Testament from the SBL GNT website. The PDFs are searchable, even in Greek. You can copy the word εἰς from this page and paste it into the search box in Acrobat Reader. You can then just browse the contexts of the NT authors and how translators rendered them. In your mind, try replacing "into" and "to" with each other and "upon" to get a feel for what the word might have meant to someone reading Mark in Greek.

Where, the same usage is recorded in John 1:32.

John 1:32 uses the same Greek word as Matthew and Luke, �π’ which properly means "upon."

And, for the most part this contradicts what is preached on a regular basis to most Christians. This is also the reason why other verses were either added or adjusted so as to correct this problem with beliefs. Where, changing one word can completely alter a verse and the intent of a writer.

Yep.

I'm going to make sure that I remember this one: I don't think that the Gospels need to be harmonized with one another. Because, it seems that you did require harmonization related to the Father and Mark.

What conflict do you think I harmonized?

Well, if we review Matthew, Luke and John they do! Also, (again) the baptism of the Christ was not when the Christ was believed to be the Son of God.

You're right about the other Gospels. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus was Son of God at his conception or birth. In John, it was "in the beginning." But unless we're harmonizing, there's no indication that Jesus was Son of God before the baptism.

As a point of interest, where in the N.T. does it claim that Jesus was divine?

The Logos was divine (John 1:1). The Logos became flesh as Jesus Christ (1:14-18).

Do you think I missed anything? I'm not necessarily asking if you find it convincing, but do you think I wrote something that I didn't justify?

Yes, I do (the truth according to my perspective). But, this isn't a knock on your words. It seems that you believe what you have wrote. Yet, I don't agree. However, I also don't agree with many of Christianity's points of view, as well…And, it is no secret that my points of view are also rejected, which is just fine with me. It just makes the interactions more interesting for those who want to engage, doesn't it?

Fair enough.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

No, Jesus' life was transfered into the womb of a woman (Mary) and developed from a ferilized egg as we all do, to be born 100% human. But yes, the same person was born as a flesh and blood human

This is an interesting response…Because, if this Powerful Spirit Creature didn't become housed or enclosed in a fleshly body, then for Mary's egg to become fertilized, this Creature would technically need to become a male sperm with all the required DNA, genes and everything else needed to become 100% human! And, if this was the case, then the Christ wasn't the "Only begotten Son of God." It would also be clear that God wasn't his Father! Thus, the Christ would be his own father…There would also be several other bible statements that can be claimed to be false, if this was the way Jesus came to be in the flesh.

[FWI]

Continued from post 6.

Yes, there is a much deeper meaning to the figurative claim that Jesus came down from heaven…So, to understand the statement more clearly, we need to look at this from God's perspective! To humans, the future is unknown and we can only guess (for the most part) what will happen in the future. But, God knows the future and tomorrow is as real to God as today is to us. That is why bible prophecies will always come true.

In Romans 4:17, Paul claims that God makes statements of things (which did not exist), as though they did. An example of this is Abraham, where God states that He "has made him" a father of many nations. God doesn't say that He "will" make him a father of nations, because God foresaw the future when this would happened! There are several other places in the bible where God has done this:

Jeremiah 1:4-5: Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

1 Peter 1:20: He (Jesus) was destined before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake. Where, the Greek word (G4267) for destined means: to know beforehand or to foresee.

So, it should be clear that the Christ, Jeremiah and others were in the mind of God, before the recreation of the earth and the creation of mankind. Hence, it shouldn't be a surprise that the Christ would say to his Father in heaven: Glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was made (John 17:5).

Hence, God has a plan and this plan was foreseen by God and nothing can stop this plan from being carried out. His plan is for this world…As it is shown, He began to speak as if His plan had already been completed, even before He started the work…

The Old Testament had a name for God's plan. It is referred to as God's wisdom. And, could be expressed as: God's irresistible fulfilment of what He has in His mind. This is a good fit for the plan (wisdom) of God. It fits the following Old Testament passage very well: Does not wisdom cry out and understanding lift up her voice? She takes her stand on the top of the high hill, besides the way, where the paths meet. She cries out by the gates, at the entry of the city, at the entrance of the doors (Proverbs 8:1-3). The Lord possessed me (wisdom) at the beginning of His way, before the works of old (Proverbs 8:22).

In other words, before God started work on this world He drew up His plan (wisdom), as the Israelites of old called it.

The Greeks and Romans, who believed in many gods (but not the God of the bible) gave it a different name. They called it God's "word or logos." Which, is simply understood as: the ways or plan (wisdom) of God! Yes, the Trinitarian perspective was added, but not until way after the fourth century AD…

So, when the proper understanding of John 1:1 is sought, some just can't make any sense out of this passage. Others think they can, but they take the wrong viewpoint from it, because they think the word is a living being. This is why the translators (in this passage) refer to the word as "he" in the English bible. The Greek word for "he" can also mean "it", and that is how it should have been translated. But, the Trinitarian belief system took over in this case.

Now if we think of God's creation as a "plan" instead of a living being and use "it" instead of "he" this is what can be learned from John 1:1-14:

In the beginning was the Plan, and the Plan was with God, and the Plan was God. It was in the beginning with God; all things were made through it and without it was not anything made that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.

And the Plan became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father.

So, Jesus did exist in heaven from the beginning, but not as a God, a separate personality or an angel. He existed as a great idea in God's mind! As the very center of God's Plan. He did not exist as a being until he was born in Bethlehem. Then, the Plan of God, became flesh…

[polonius]

And, if he didn't; then he also didn't preexist…

There are basically four views of who Jesus Christ is:

* The first is that Jesus is God and existed eternally. He also came to earth in human form. This is a simple explanation of the Christ, in the Trinity doctrine.

* The second view is that there were two Gods, who existed eternally. Then, one of these Gods agreed to give up its divinity and take the form of a human being. This divine being is considered to be the God of the O.T.

* Thirdly, there are those who believe that Jesus Christ preexisted as a powerful angel. Then, he was born a human being.

* The last view is that the Christ didn't preexist, he isn't God and he didn't come down from heaven (as many believe). But, (now) the Christ is a god or a being having greater power than any being that exists (except his Father) and will eventually be subject to his Father. Where, the Christ was born of a physical woman and received his human nature from this woman. He also received his Godly nature from his Father or God. This is the position that I take…

Therefore, all four of these positions can't be correct! So, what rebuttals (with support) can you present to challenge the positions listed? It would also be helpful, but not necessary, if support for your position is included…

RESPONSE: Let's go with the history not the legend.

Messiah in Judaism originally meant a divinely appointed king or "anointed one" and included Jewish priests, prophets and kings such as David, Cyrus the Great[1] or Alexander the Great.[2] Later, especially after the failure of the Hasmonean Kingdom (37 BCE) and the Jewish–Roman wars (66–135 CE), the figure of the Jewish messiah was one who would deliver the Jews from oppression and usher in an Olam HaBa ("world to come") or Messianic Age.Jesus of Nazareth was one of a number of Messa
Simon bar Kokhba (also: Bar Kosiba) (?– died c. 135), led a revolt against Rome circa 132–135 CE. Bar Kokhba was hailed as Messiah-king by Rabbi Akiva, who referred to him using Numbers xxiv. 17: "There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite through the corners of Moab," and Hag. ii. 21, 22: "I will shake the heavens and the earth and I will overthrow the thrones of kingdoms...." (Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 97b). His messiahship was doubted by some, but bar Kokhba led a rebellion and founded a short-lived Jewish state. He was killed in the siege of Betar, which was the final battle of the Third Jewish–Roman War that devastated Judea.

Jesus of Nazareth was one of several messiah candidates who appeared around the first century. The messiah was to be a man (not divine) who would drive the foreigners (Romans) out of Isreal. Obviously this was insurrection against Rome.

Following his execution by the Romans his followers returned to being conventional Temple worshipping Jews. About 82 AD his Christian-Jewish followers began to claim that Jesus was divine (contrary to the basic belief "Hear O Israel, the Lord is one." resulting to Christians being expelled from the synagogues.

But later on his legend grew and led to Christianity.

[FWI]

This is the statement I made earlier:

This is the theology of John's Gospel. Jesus was embodiment of the Logos, the preexistent, divine creative force.

Are you still arguing against that?

Yes, I am! Because, it seems that you are expecting me to just accept something that is historically incorrect, even though it is considered theology. Where, the simple definition of theology is: a particular form, system, branch or course of study. This would seem to include just about everyone's position, in one way or another, even yours…Hence, I won't accept one's theology, just because others think I should!

You stopped reading too soon. Verse 33 says that John knew that the Christ was coming, but wouldn't know who he was until God gave him a sign. The sign was the Spirit descending upon him, which in the Synoptics happened at the conclusion of his baptism.

No, I didn't stop reading. I'm quite aware of what's recorded in John. Yet, if the Baptist's faith in the Christ came because of a sign, then why did he question that sign in prison? We also know that the Baptist tried to stop the Christ from being baptized by himself, because he wanted the Christ to baptize him…Not, with water, but with the special blessing from God. The Baptist made it clear that water baptism was fading away and would eventually be replaced (on Pentecost). Yet, the idea that the Christ became the Son of God at water baptism is nowhere supported (then or now) and would negate the usage of: "Son of God" in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Which, denotes one who is greatly loved unconditionally…Where, this love would have occurred even before the Christ was born. So, as I have clearly suggested in other comments: There are issues with the book called John and you seemed to have agreed.

Unless Mark's Jesus wasn't the Christ until the baptism. Then by your logic (and if the "speculations/opinions" backed up by decades of research are correct), Mark beginning his Gospel with the baptism would be clear evidence that Mark's Jesus became Christ at the baptism. It's only logical, right?

No, that's not right…Mark's presentation of Jesus is not any different than the other gospels, where three of the four gospels acknowledge Jesus as God's only begotten Son. Yet, Mark's Jesus is presented as an active and obedient servant. Who, constantly ministers to the physical and spiritual needs of others. Hence, since this is the writings of a servant, Mark omits the ancestry, birth and allots only 4 verses to the Christ's baptism, then moves into the Christ's public ministry. Which, is more proof that Matthew came first! Mark clearly shows the power and authority of this unique servant and identifies him as the Son of God. Where, Matthew presents Jesus as Israel's promised Messianic King. Luke presents the humanity and compassion of Jesus. And, John presents the Godly nature, which the Christ possessed.

That's right. I said they don't. Nonetheless, there's nothing in Mark alone to suggest that it doesn't mean "into." Indeed, I think it's far more telling that Matthew and Luke thought Mark's verse needed to be changed. If it would be readily understood to mean "upon," they wouldn't have changed it.

This comment is completely against the Christian belief system. Where, the indwelling (into) of the spirit is a cornerstone doctrine…Yet, of all the translations available, none of them have "into" in Mark 1:10, only upon! There is no apparent reason why they (Christians) allowed this to stand, if they believed that baptism was when the Christ became the Son of God…So, the fact are that Jesus became the Son of God at his inception of life and not at his baptism!

John 1:32 uses the same Greek word as Matthew and Luke, �π’ which properly means "upon."

Yes, they do. However, the Greek "eis" (G1519) indicates either a point reached or entered. Hence, it is clear that the writer's intent was to agree with Matthew, Luke and John. Even, though he didn't use the same Greek word as the other three. This only shows the writer's expression of individualism, but not division…Or, a translator just wasn't paying attention to the issue he was creating. Because, he wasn't involved in translating the other 3-books.

What conflict do you think I harmonized?

Well, for one example, you seem to be suggesting that my supplied support for the Baptist knowing the Christ before baptism, because they were relatives, isn't enough. The expression: "Only in Luke" surely seems to imply this. Where, if my support was also claimed, in the other gospels, then the support would be much harder to reject, as it seems is the case.

The Logos was divine (John 1:1). The Logos became flesh as Jesus Christ (1:14-18).

Again, the word logos or logon (G3056) in Greek doesn't mean anything more than speech or thoughts. The word divine is not recorded in the above verses and only assumed by those who are Trinitarians and others. John 1:14 clearly states that the word (of God) became flesh through the process of begetting or life being generating by the Father (God), not by the changing of a God or celestial being into flesh. Because, back in the 4th century AD the Trinity didn't mean: one-God with three separate personalities. It meant 3 separate Gods and was the belief for most pagan religions through-out history.

[Difflugia]

Yes, I am! Because, it seems that you are expecting me to just accept something that is historically incorrect, even though it is considered theology.

No. History and John's theology have little to do with each other. John's Gospel says (explicitly, I think) that Jesus was the human embodiment of the preexistent divine Logos. If you're saying that Jesus wasn't and that's why John can't have been saying that, then you're putting the cart before the horse.

Where, the simple definition of theology is: a particular form, system, branch or course of study. This would seem to include just about everyone's position, in one way or another, even yours…Hence, I won't accept one's theology, just because others think I should!

I'm not arguing that you should agree with John's theology, only that I think it's clear what his theology is.

No, I didn't stop reading. I'm quite aware of what's recorded in John. Yet, if the Baptist's faith in the Christ came because of a sign, then why did he question that sign in prison?

He did in Matthew's Gospel, but not John's. Your question is a good one if we're trying to harmonize the two accounts, but right now, we're just discussing (as you put it yourself) "the intent of the fourth gospel."

In the context of John's Gospel, the Baptist already had faith in the coming Christ whoever he was to be, because God told him that the Christ was coming ("...but He that sent me to baptize said to me..."). As soon as the Spirit descended upon Jesus, John the Baptist knew that Jesus was that Christ. I can't see any other way to read 1:33.

We also know that the Baptist tried to stop the Christ from being baptized by himself, because he wanted the Christ to baptize him…Not, with water, but with the special blessing from God. The Baptist made it clear that water baptism was fading away and would eventually be replaced (on Pentecost).

That's only in Matthew. Again, I'm claiming that each evangelist had his own theology, but you're saying that they're united. If you're then going to use the text of Matthew to establish the theology of John, then your argument becomes circular.

Yet, the idea that the Christ became the Son of God at water baptism is nowhere supported (then or now) and would negate the usage of: "Son of God" in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

You're right about Matthew and Luke, but neither of them thought that Jesus became Son of God at the baptism. Only Mark did. Aside from Mark's title (verse 1:1), Mark doesn't call Jesus "Son of God" until after the baptism in 1:10-11.

Which, denotes one who is greatly loved unconditionally…Where, this love would have occurred even before the Christ was born.

That's true in John, where Jesus is preexistent.

So, as I have clearly suggested in other comments: There are issues with the book called John and you seemed to have agreed.

Yes.

No, that's not right…Mark's presentation of Jesus is not any different than the other gospels, where three of the four gospels acknowledge Jesus as God's only begotten Son.

It absolutely is. You said yourself that Mark includes no pre-birth annunciation. Matthew's Gospel begins with a birth narrative that parallels that of Moses. Luke's introduction includes a story that shows that Jesus is absolutely aware of his divine mission and is in control of his own situation. Mark includes none of this. For Mark, the story begins with John the Baptist eagerly awaiting Jesus at the Jordan.

Yet, Mark's Jesus is presented as an active and obedient servant. Who, constantly ministers to the physical and spiritual needs of others.

I agree with this.

Hence, since this is the writings of a servant, Mark omits the ancestry, birth and allots only 4 verses to the Christ's baptism, then moves into the Christ's public ministry.

I don't, though, see how this conclusion follows your premise. Why does the portrayal of Jesus as a servant mean excluding miraculous birth narratives? Especially after quoting the prophecy of Isaiah 40, which is itself an introduction to the liberation of Israel by God? If the story of a miraculous birth would detract from the idea of a servant, how much more would the implication of being the divine instrument of Israel's deliverance?

Which, is more proof that Matthew came first!

I don't follow. Why does that mean Matthew wrote first?

Mark clearly shows the power and authority of this unique servant and identifies him as the Son of God. Where, Matthew presents Jesus as Israel's promised Messianic King. Luke presents the humanity and compassion of Jesus. And, John presents the Godly nature, which the Christ possessed.

I agree with this with only a minor quibble. Matthew and Luke both present Jesus as Messianic King, but Matthew focuses on the Messiah as the instrument of Israel's deliverance as a parallel to Moses of the Exodus. Luke actually puts more emphasis on Jesus as ruler of the kingdom of God than Matthew does.

Nonetheless, there's nothing in Mark alone to suggest that it doesn't mean "into."

This comment is completely against the Christian belief system. Where, the indwelling (into) of the spirit is a cornerstone doctrine…Yet, of all the translations available, none of them have "into" in Mark 1:10, only upon! There is no apparent reason why they (Christians) allowed this to stand, if they believed that baptism was when the Christ became the Son of God…So, the fact are that Jesus became the Son of God at his inception of life and not at his baptism!

I'm not sure what you're arguing. By the time the Synoptics were circulating together, Christians seem to have decided that Mark meant the same thing that Matthew and Luke did, but I don't see how that's an argument for what Mark meant in the first place. As I said before, later Christians actually changed some of the Greek manuscripts of Mark to match Matthew and Luke. If it was already obvious that Mark meant to agree with Matthew and Luke, they wouldn't have bothered to change it.

John 1:32 uses the same Greek word as Matthew and Luke, �π’ which properly means "upon."

Yes, they do. However, the Greek "eis" (G1519) indicates either a point reached or entered. Hence, it is clear that the writer's intent was to agree with Matthew, Luke and John.

How does ambiguity indicate clear agreement?

What conflict do you think I harmonized?

Well, for one example, you seem to be suggesting that my supplied support for the Baptist knowing the Christ before baptism, because they were relatives, isn't enough. The expression: "Only in Luke" surely seems to imply this. Where, if my support was also claimed, in the other gospels, then the support would be much harder to reject, as it seems is the case.

What Luke wrote is not support for John's theology. I disagree with your assertion that it is, but that's hardly a harmonization. If anything, it's the opposite; a "disharmonization," perhaps.

The Logos was divine (John 1:1). The Logos became flesh as Jesus Christ (1:14-18).

Again, the word logos or logon (G3056) in Greek doesn't mean anything more than speech or thoughts. The word divine is not recorded in the above verses and only assumed by those who are Trinitarians and others.

No, but the word "god" is. John 1:1 reads (bold mine):

Ἐν ἀ�χῇ ἦν � Λόγος καὶ � Λόγος ἦν π�ὸς τὸν Θεόν καὶ Θεὸς ἦν � Λόγος

The bold part means "and Θεὸς was the Logos." Θεὸς here is usually translated as "God," but even if we go with Jehovah's Witnesses on this one, it at least means "a god." I used the word "divine" specifically to forestall any trinitarian discussion, but the sentence means that the Logos and Θεὸς are identically equal. Whether the Logos is a god or the God, it's still divine.

John 1:14 clearly states that the word (of God) became flesh through the process of begetting or life being generating by the Father (God), not by the changing of a God or celestial being into flesh.

Which might be definitive if 1:1 didn't also "clearly" state that the Logos was with God and a god in the beginning.

Because, back in the 4th century AD the Trinity didn't mean: one-God with three separate personalities. It meant 3 separate Gods and was the belief for most pagan religions through-out history.

Which is one fine way to harmonize John's theology with those of the Synoptics. The trinity is another. How they are harmonized, however, has no bearing on what John meant when he wrote the words in the first place.

[Yahwehismywitness]

Yahweh has other sons and daughters he says call no man on earth Father there is only one that probably explains why Mark did not mention Joseph. Matthew 23:9

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of Yahweh, even to those who believe in His name, John 1:12

He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. Rev 21:7

I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, Isaiah 43:6

[FWI]

No. History and John's theology have little to do with each other. John's Gospel says (explicitly, I think) that Jesus was the human embodiment of the preexistent divine Logos. If you're saying that Jesus wasn't and that's why John can't have been saying that, then you're putting the cart before the horse.

History is very important in the issue at hand. Because, without it we can't determine what is fact and what isn't! If, we were to review a Greek translation of John's gospel (instead of an English one) there would be more than one option for the Greek words in question. Thus, how do we decide which one is correct? Are we to only accept the opinions of the Trinitarians? If, this is what's being suggested, then the book isn't John's gospel, it is the gospel or opinions of the Trinitarians…Isn't it?

The Christians, during the time of the Christ, were not Trinitarians! They were Israelites (Jews) who believed in only One True God, not a triune of Gods or personalities. This is undeniable…It's also a fact that the Christ wasn't a Trinitarian, either. So, the concepts and beliefs of the Christ's Christians are not Trinitarian, they are from the O.T. Therefore, when did the change occur? Well, history is the only source available to us, so that we can try and figure it out…

Hence, the cart hasn't been put before the horse (at least by myself)!

As far as, the remainder of your comments (mostly), its best that I just state that I disagree and leave it at that.