Through one man, sin entered the world.

[makesends]

What John spoke of before he says “and the Word was made flesh”, seems to be what John was expecting to come. John’s expectation is fulfilled when the unique son of the Father is born of flesh.

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men.“ John 1:4

Whether we say “in him was life” or “through him…” or “by him was life” the idea still seems to be that He is the giver of life. That He gives life to all.

What’s interesting about this is that we are told that the Father who has life in Himself has GIVEN to the son to also have life in himself.

Jhn 5:26 - For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Some translations replace “given” with “granted” but the meaning is the same. The Father GIVES the son to have the same life that the Father has in Himself. It is therefore not something the son has always had.

However, the understanding of John 1:4 is supposed to be that the Word has always had life in him and has given that life to all of creation.

This is why what John speaks of before saying “the Word was made flesh”, is what John was expecting to come. And once the son had been born, he is called the Word which was from the beginning.

Perhaps you don't realize that you have jumped logical steps in your reasoning.

John 5 is a long way from the immediate context of John 1. You have not shown that "life in himself" has to mean the same thing in all circumstance. You haven't even proven that it cannot refer to simply being give the breath of life, such as Adam had in himself, and so do all living creatures in language that is a play on words. No, I did not say Adam had it "in and of himself".

But most relevant, for those who, like you, think the language has to mean the same thing in 5 as in 1, you have not shown that the Son, who "gave up his divine prerogatives to live like the rest of us", could not as that human be given that authority again. He was still, GOD, and as such, that position, function —whatever it is— that he performs as Creator and second person of the Trinity, belongs with him even while on earth. The fact that it does not sound automatically so is irrelevant. God does many, maybe most, things by the earthy, simple and pedantic ways, to include taking eons to accomplish what he spoke into existence, and to include putting his Son through death in our place, during this temporal 'envelope'.

There is a further understanding to what you seem to think is a problem, that negates what you seem to think is implied, that the Son is only divine (or whatever) because the Father created him special, (or words to that effect —I haven't read you enough to know what you believe here, but you seem more and more JW all the time).

We see the Son as subservient to the Father, and the Spirit as subservient to the Son. Where does that imply that they did not always have equal God-hood with the Father —even if they depend on the Father as the source of their divinity? I don't know if you have assumed that the Trinity implies that independence in any way. It does not.

You have not shown good reason to believe that the Son did not always have "life in himself" before coming to earth to live as a man.

 

[LeviR]

Perhaps you don't realize that you have jumped logical steps in your reasoning.

John 5 is a long way from the immediate context of John 1. You have not shown that "life in himself" has to mean the same thing in all circumstance. You haven't even proven that it cannot refer to simply being give the breath of life, such as Adam had in himself, and so do all living creatures in language that is a play on words. No, I did not say Adam had it "in and of himself".

But most relevant, for those who, like you, think the language has to mean the same thing in 5 as in 1, you have not shown that the Son, who "gave up his divine prerogatives to live like the rest of us", could not as that human be given that authority again. He was still, GOD, and as such, that position, function —whatever it is— that he performs as Creator and second person of the Trinity, belongs with him even while on earth. The fact that it does not sound automatically so is irrelevant. God does many, maybe most, things by the earthy, simple and pedantic ways, to include taking eons to accomplish what he spoke into existence, and to include putting his Son through death in our place, during this temporal 'envelope'.

There is a further understanding to what you seem to think is a problem, that negates what you seem to think is implied, that the Son is only divine (or whatever) because the Father created him special, (or words to that effect —I haven't read you enough to know what you believe here, but you seem more and more JW all the time).

We see the Son as subservient to the Father, and the Spirit as subservient to the Son. Where does that imply that they did not always have equal God-hood with the Father —even if they depend on the Father as the source of their divinity? I don't know if you have assumed that the Trinity implies that independence in any way. It does not.

You have not shown good reason to believe that the Son did not always have "life in himself" before coming to earth to live as a man.

I don’t have to prove what it means because it says what it means.

Jhn 5:26 - For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

That verse is not talking about being alive and breathing.

It’s telling us that the Father GIVES the SON to have the same life in himself as the Father has in Himself.
It means that the son can give life to others just as the Father does because NOW the son has that same life in himself.

Twist it to your hearts desire.

 

[LeviR]

@David Lamb
I just PROVED that John 1 is not what they think it is.

 

[LeviR]

@David Lamb
Here’s why. The verse(John 5:26) speaks of THE SON. It speaks of the Father giving the SON to have life within himself.
The same SON they say has always had life within himself to be the Creator of all things from the beginning.
If that were true, it would be false that the Father GAVE to the SON the life that the Father has within Himself.
No one is given something they already have.

I not a JW, I’ve debunked them too.

 

[makesends]

I don’t have to prove what it means because it says what it means.

Do you not know that whole mindset differences accompany different languages. Implications that you never imagine follow certain words, and certain sequences of words, that cannot be translated to another language speaker. This changes even within a language over time. And we have had a long time. It does say what it means. But you do not know what it means.

Jhn 5:26 - For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

That verse is not talking about being alive and breathing.

I didn't say it was. I said you never demonstrated that it was not.

It’s telling us that the Father GIVES the SON to have the same life in himself as the Father has in Himself.
It means that the son can give life to others just as the Father does because NOW the son has that same life in himself.

Twist it to your hearts desire.

You still have not demonstrated your conclusion —that the Son didn't always have life in himself, presumably you mean, before becoming man.

Second, you now enter another complication: Are you saying that the Son gives to whom he wishes, life in and of themselves? Do you not see a contradiction of terms there? One cannot cause something that is consequently uncaused.

 

[LeviR]

Do you not know that whole mindset differences accompany different languages. Implications that you never imagine follow certain words, and certain sequences of words, that cannot be translated to another language speaker. This changes even within a language over time. And we have had a long time. It does say what it means. But you do not know what it means.

I didn't say it was. I said you never demonstrated that it was not.

You still have not demonstrated your conclusion —that the Son didn't always have life in himself, presumably you mean, before becoming man.

Second, you now enter another complication: Are you saying that the Son gives to whom he wishes, life in and of themselves? Do you not see a contradiction of terms there? One cannot cause something that is consequently uncaused.

If the Son always had life within himself, then it could not be said it was given to him. That’s called proving the son has not from all eternity had life within himself.

The son, by being given life within himself as the Father has, can now impart eternal life to those in him. But the Son only can do it.

 

[makesends]

If the Son always had life within himself, then it could not be said it was given to him. That’s called proving the son has not from all eternity had life within himself.

That is a very time-dependent statement. You have a before-and-after discontinuity—but that is all you have. Not a causal discontinuity.

The son, by being given life within himself as the Father has, can now impart eternal life to those in him. But the Son only can do it.

Now you are changing the words, from "life in himself", to "life within himself", minutes after telling me it was not 'the breath of life' that it was referring to. What is 'the breath of life' given to Adam? And how does a mere creature have life in [and of?] themself —what does that even mean? Is not that "breath of life" the same thing as life within himself? And was not Christ alive before being given life 'within himself' as a human?

 

[LeviR]

That is a very time-dependent statement. You have a before-and-after discontinuity—but that is all you have. Not a causal discontinuity.

Now you are changing the words, from "life in himself", to "life within himself", minutes after telling me it was not 'the breath of life' that it was referring to. What is 'the breath of life' given to Adam? And how does a mere creature have life in [and of?] themself —what does that even mean? Is not that "breath of life" the same thing as life within himself? And was not Christ alive before being given life 'within himself' as a human?

Why are you separating the verse from its context?

If the question be asked, “How has the Father have life within Himself?

The answer might be that the life He has within Himself is not dependent on anything else. No one has given it to Him. And therefore, anything that has life must come from the life He has within Himself.

If the son is GIVEN to have life within himself as the Father has, then the life the son is given of the Father, he can give to others. All others would depend on the life the Father has given to the son in order that they be given eternal life.

When did the Father give the son the same life within himself that the Father has within Himself?

 

[JIM]

What John spoke of before he says “and the Word was made flesh”, seems to be what John was expecting to come. John’s expectation is fulfilled when the unique son of the Father is born of flesh.

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men.“ John 1:4

Whether we say “in him was life” or “through him…” or “by him was life” the idea still seems to be that He is the giver of life. That He gives life to all.

What’s interesting about this is that we are told that the Father who has life in Himself has GIVEN to the son to also have life in himself.

Jhn 5:26 - For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Some translations replace “given” with “granted” but the meaning is the same. The Father GIVES the son to have the same life that the Father has in Himself. It is therefore not something the son has always had.

However, the understanding of John 1:4 is supposed to be that the Word has always had life in him and has given that life to all of creation.

This is why what John speaks of before saying “the Word was made flesh”, is what John was expecting to come. And once the son had been born, he is called the Word which was from the beginning.

What do you make of John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

 

[LeviR]

What do you make of John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

1Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He [a]should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3And this is eternal life, that they may know You,the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

The language is in the third person. This is the Spirit Jesus was given by the Father speaking through Jesus. Do you see that?

The Spirit Jesus was given is the same Spirit of the Father. The Spirit, through Jesus, is asking the Father to have the same glory with the son as the Father has.
The glory of the Spirit was veiled by the mortal flesh of Jesus..

Also, John 17 speaks the same as John 5:26 in that Jesus gives eternal life to those whom Tthe Father has given him by the life within himself that Jesus has been given from the Father.

 

[David Lamb]

What John spoke of before he says “and the Word was made flesh”, seems to be what John was expecting to come. John’s expectation is fulfilled when the unique son of the Father is born of flesh.

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men.“ John 1:4

Whether we say “in him was life” or “through him…” or “by him was life” the idea still seems to be that He is the giver of life. That He gives life to all.

What’s interesting about this is that we are told that the Father who has life in Himself has GIVEN to the son to also have life in himself.

Jhn 5:26 - For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Some translations replace “given” with “granted” but the meaning is the same. The Father GIVES the son to have the same life that the Father has in Himself. It is therefore not something the son has always had.

However, the understanding of John 1:4 is supposed to be that the Word has always had life in him and has given that life to all of creation.

This is why what John speaks of before saying “the Word was made flesh”, is what John was expecting to come. And once the son had been born, he is called the Word which was from the beginning.

That seems a very convoluted way of understanding that part of God's word. Also, there are plenty of other places in the bible where Christ is spoken of as eternal. For example:

“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:3 NKJV)

How could all things have been made by Him if He only came into existence when Mary gave birth at Bethlehem?

“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isa 9:6 NKJV)

“"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah, [Yet] out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth [are] from of old, From everlasting."” (Mic 5:2 NKJV)

 

[Ladodgers6]

Yet Jesus Himself said:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."” (Joh 8:58 NKJV)

Also, John's gospel opens with these words about Jesus Christ:

“1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.” (Joh 1:1-2 NKJV)

Such things couldn't be true if the existence of Jesus Christ only began when He was conceived in Mary's womb.

Amen! Christ was begotten not created.

 

[makesends]

Why are you separating the verse from its context?

If the question be asked, “How has the Father have life within Himself?

The answer might be that the life He has within Himself is not dependent on anything else. No one has given it to Him. And therefore, anything that has life must come from the life He has within Himself.

If the son is GIVEN to have life within himself as the Father has, then the life the son is given of the Father, he can give to others. All others would depend on the life the Father has given to the son in order that they be given eternal life.

When did the Father give the son the same life within himself that the Father has within Himself?

You insist on continuing with the word, "within", which is not what it says. Try to construct your argument

You run with a hypothetical, "if". But then you treat it as though it was the word.

Try to make your argument with the right word. Then, when you get to the part where the Son has life in himself, and therefore is able to give it to others, explain why they then are not able to give even more life in themselves.

After you've accomplished that feat, then argue your way out of the contradiction in terms, how the Father is able to make someone self-existent.

 

[LeviR]

You insist on continuing with the word, "within", which is not what it says. Try to construct your argument

You run with a hypothetical, "if". But then you treat it as though it was the word.

Try to make your argument with the right word. Then, when you get to the part where the Son has life in himself, and therefore is able to give it to others, explain why they then are not able to give even more life in themselves.

After you've accomplished that feat, then argue your way out of the contradiction in terms, how the Father is able to make someone self-existent.

It doesn’t matter if you say “in” or “within” it doesn’t change the context.

The Father has life in Himself, and has given the Son also to have life in himself.

The Trinitarians say that no one has given the Son to have life because the Son has always had life and is the one who gave life to all.

That’s incorrect. As proved.

 

[makesends]

It doesn’t matter if you say “in” or “within” it doesn’t change the context.

The Father has life in Himself, and has given the Son also to have life in himself.

The Trinitarians say that no one has given the Son to have life because the Son has always had life and is the one who gave life to all.

That’s incorrect. As proved.

Here you continue to characterize Trinitarians as if they believe in 3 Gods. They do not.

And you still don't explain how, if the Father gave the Son to have life in himself, so that the Son is able to give to others to have life in themselves, how others can't do the same for still others.

 

[LeviR]

Here you continue to characterize Trinitarians as if they believe in 3 Gods. They do not.

And you still don't explain how, if the Father gave the Son to have life in himself, so that the Son is able to give to others to have life in themselves, how others can't do the same for still others.

Jesus is the only way of salvation. The life that the Father gave to the Son, the Son gives to others.

 

[LeviR]

@makesends

That is why what John says up to the point where he says “and the Word was made flesh” he applies to the Son.
IOW, apply what John said to the Son when the Son is made flesh.
It doesn’t apply to the Son before he came. It applies when he came.

 

[makesends]

@makesends

That is why what John says up to the point where he says “and the Word was made flesh” he applies to the Son.
IOW, apply what John said to the Son when the Son is made flesh.
It doesn’t apply to the Son before he came. It applies when he came.

Not that I haven't done the same, but you are using what you believe to prove the very thing you are using.

 

[LeviR]

Not that I haven't done the same, but you are using what you believe to prove the very thing you are using.

It has nothing to do with what I believe. I don’t approach the scripture as a way to prove what I believe. I only seek to understand the scripture for what it teaches.

 

[makesends]

It has nothing to do with what I believe. I don’t approach the scripture as a way to prove what I believe. I only seek to understand the scripture for what it teaches.

sure...