The Truth about John 1:1

To view the Greek letters correctly use IE based browser or IE itself. I could not view them correctly using Firefox.

The Truth about John 1:1

By Ebrahim Saifuddin


This verse is one of the most famous verses quoted by Christians when they want to show that Jesus is God. First we will look at the English translation of the verse as seen in some different versions of the Bible.


Different Translations of John 1:1


King James Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


New International Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Douay-Rheims Bible

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

The above are the different translations of the concerned verse as seen in the different versions of the Bible. When moving from one translation or the other, this verse is generally translated in the same manner in all the versions. However there is a certain level of deception in these translations.


Greek Text of John 1:1

The Greek Text

enarch hn o logoV,kai ologoV hnproV tonqeon, kai qeoVhn ologoV.

Pay close attention to the words in the bold text. I will translate these texts below:

Transliteration,Pronunciation and Translation

· Greek word: o

Transliteration: ho

Pronunciation: ho

Translation: the

· Greek word: logoV

Transliteration: logos

Pronunciation: log’-os

Translation: word

The Mistranslated Word ‘qeoV

In the above example, ‘ho’ is basically an article. In the English language there are 2 articles, ‘the’ which is a definite article and ‘a’ which is an indefinite article. In Greek however there is only 1 article which is definite.

When ‘logos’ is put after ‘ho’ it becomes ‘the word’ and with the absence of ‘ho’, it remains as ‘word’. However this is not where the great deception really is. The part with the great deception will come below.

Greek word: qeoV

Transliterated: theos

Pronounced: theh’-os


This word ‘theos’ does not only mean ‘God’ with a capital ‘G’. According to the “Thayer’s Greek Definitions”, the first meaning of this word ‘theos’ is written to be:


“A god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities.”

One of the meanings of this word as explained by Strong’s Greek Dictionary is:


“A deity.”

As seen above, ‘theos’ also means ‘god’ i.e. any god. Greek has no such law like English where we can differentiate between ‘god’ and ‘God’ by the use of the capital letter or small letter. Hence to indicate whether ‘theos’ is referring to any ‘god’ or ‘God’, the language uses ‘articles’.

Depending on whether a word is the ‘subject’ or the ‘direct object (accusative)’ in a sentence, ‘o’ (ho) or ‘ton’ (ton) is used respectively.


Verifying the English Translation

Do note that when ‘theos’ is the subject, then it is written as ‘qeoV’ (theos) and when it is the direct object (accusative) then it is written as ‘qeon’ (theon). In the Greek text of the verse John 1:1, it can be seen that there is an article before ‘qeon’ and the text is thus written as ‘tonqeon’ which is transliterated to be ‘ton theon’ and should be translated as ‘the God’ or one can even translate it as only ‘God’. The point is that using the definite article, the word refers to God and not to the other meanings of the word ‘theos’ i.e. ‘a god’ or any god or goddess.

In the second instance where we see ‘theos’, it is written as ‘qeoV’ and there is no article before it. If this word would have been referring to ‘God’, then we would have seen the article ‘o’ (ho) before it. The article ‘ho’ is used before the word if it is the subject. However we see that there is an absence of a definite article. Thus it means that in this place, ‘theos’ should be translated as ‘god’ or ‘a god’ and not as ‘God’.


Correct Translation

The correct translation for John 1:1 would then be as such:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

However we find that Christendom tries to put a veil over this problem in the Bible and all of them falsely translate the verses in a way to imply by hook or crook that the Word was also God.


Random Translations by Christendom

Not only does Christendom not translate John 1:1 properly, it is seen that they have been randomly translating the terms ‘ho theos’ and ‘ton theon’. For example lets take a look at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

In that verse ‘ho theos’ is translated as ‘the god’ with a small ‘g’ to refer to Satan. In the same verse ‘ton theon’ is translated as ‘God’. This is a clear ‘pick and choose’ tactic being practiced by Christendom.


Conclusion

The Christian world is trying hard to cover up the correct wordings of this verse. As it is the only verse in the Bible which came closest to the concept of Trinity, 1John 5:7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”), has been detected as a fabrication and a corruption in the Bible by biblical scholars and kept out of the later versions of the Bible. This verse in truth also does not support Jesus’ divinity. So what we find is that as more investigations are made into the Greek texts of the Bible, Jesus is seen to be losing the “divinity factor”. However it is up to the Christian brothers and sister to realize the games that the Churches are playing with them.

It is an undeniable fact that the Bible got corrupted over time, so our brothers should leave the corrupted Old and New Testaments and come towards the uncorrupted Final Testament – Al Quran.

Note (5th March 2006): The “New World Translation” by the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” has also translated this verse as it ought to be translated.

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

About these ads

13 Responses to “The Truth about John 1:1”

  1. Syed A.R. Adil Says:

    Very profound and certainly thought provoking for those who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. May Allah SWT open the hearts of the people to the truth, i.e. the Glorious Quran.

    Jazak Allahu Khairan

    Syed Adil

  2. Alan Says:

    “What About John 1:1?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Today, an important part Bible study is the comparison of translations. Regarding their comparative value, Miles Coverdale (b.1488-d.1568), who produced the first complete printed translation of the Bible into English, wrote: “one translation declareth, openeth and illustrateth another, and … in many cases one is a plain commentary unto another.”

    The King James Version translators had also appreciated the work of early translators, for even upon their cover page they explained that their own work had been, “Translated out of the Original Tongues and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised.”

    For many, John 1:1 plainly declares Jesus (the Word) is God. And yet, few are aware of the number of other ways in which hundreds of Biblical Theologians, Scholars and Translators alike have, down thru the centuries, chosen to render this verse – as something other than, “and the Word was God.”

    John 1:1 may be the most discussed, explained and/or debated scripture of any in the Bible. After 15 years study, there is soon to be released an Extensive Annotated Bibliography, providing the dedicated student of the Bible a sampling of what has been offered by many, well respected Bible scholars, that is, as to the many appropriate, alternative renditions of this most controversial scripture, John 1:1.

    Agape: john1one@earthlink.net

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Please visit: http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

    “Good Companion Books” is dedicated to publishing well researched, informative books, on certain key Biblical subjects.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

  3. justlearningman Says:

    poly kala, efcharisto!

    Thank you for the work you have put into this, but it would appear that popular opinion is immune to truth.

    I also submit that western theology is unable to comprehend semitic thought patterns and construction, even further compounded by early koine greek text.

  4. Brett Says:

    It seems that you have done some study to examine Koine Greek (Biblical Greek) to make your case. However, you fail to mention that both “theos” and “logos” in the final clause of the verse are in the nominative case. This is because “theos” is the predicate nominative (or complement) of “ho logos” (“the word”). When a noun is the complement of the subject it can be written:
    – the subject comes before the complement, or
    – the article is dropped from the complement.

    As such, John 1:1 could have been written as: “ho logos en ho theos” (note the repeat of the definite article), and which would mean exactly the same as “ho theos en logos” (which drops the definite article).

    Your arguement here is flawed because you did a word search on the Greek of the verse without knowing Koine Greek grammar. Your conclusion meets your desired outcome because it is YOU who “cover up the correct wordings of this verse”, either through ignorance (if you do not know of the use of nouns as complements, or predicate nominatives), or through intentional deception if you did!

  5. Brett Says:

    Sorry, I should have added …

    Therefore, the final clause of John 1:1 is CORRECTLY translated:

    “… and The Word was The God.”

    Syed, for those who know not Greek grammar it may be “thought provoking”, but for those who do know Greek grammar it is straightforward.

    Justlearningman, how is your opinion now when shown the truth? Or are you “immune” to it?

    Ebrahim, I hope you don’t just delete my comment so as to avoid the truth. One thing I note is that you say the Qur’an is not corrupted, but the Old and New Testaments are. Interesting that Allah was able to preserve the Qur’an but powerless to preserve the Bible … or is this a doctrine which twists what the Qur’an says about the Bible to justify your faith (rhetorical)? Taqiyya!

  6. Ebrahim Saifuddin Says:

    Dear Brett,

    Comments are not deleted from here unless they are vulgar or plagiarized. Check the ‘uncategorized’ section of the blog and you will see that an anouncement is made for any deletion.

    Coming to John 1:1

    Indeed it is one of the most misunderstood verses of the Bible. If we take the traditional translation of the Bible, then Word was with God and Word was God. That which is with something cannot be the same thing. Thats common sense. However trinitarians will face a hard day on the field to explain that because no matter what one says, logic does not permit the acceptance of something being with another and being the same.

    Koine Greek has, like explained, only 1 article and that is the definite article. It has no indefinite article and thus the place where there is no article used, that can well be understood to be indefinite. You have given no authentic source to your conclusion of Greek grammar. However even if I go by your rules, claiming that it means “The God” is strictly the trinitarian belief. Being predicate nominative does not mean that “theos” is to be only understood as “The God”. Even if theos is taken to mean “god” or “god-like” even then it is the predicate nominative. So the confusion rests in its place in the Biblical text.

    Regarding the latter part of your statements which have nothing to do with the topic being discussed:-

    Each nation has a test given to it. The test for the previous nations was to keep their texts preserved – They failed. Quran being the Last and Final Testament has been kept preserved by Allah (swt) so that it remains as a guide for all mankind till the end of time. Further the previous texts are time bound and not for all mankind till the end of time so their preservation is not important. Moreover the Quran is preserving the actual revelations given to Jesus and Moses by correcting and exposing the falsehood in the Bible.

    Taqiyya again is more of a shi’ite doctrine and it is to be used by them when their lives are in danger giving life more importance over a verbal declaration of faith. I do not follow that school of thought so it was quite weird that you mentioned it here.

    Kindly stick to the topics under discussion. Digression shows a weak foundation.

    Thank you.

  7. Brett Says:

    Ebrahim

    For source information on Nouns as Complements, or Predicate Nominatives, in Koine Greek, see:

    Jeremy Duff, The Elements of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd Edition), p62.

    William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), p31-32, 42.

    David Black, It’s Still Greek to Me (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p46.

    You wrote your original article on the premis of a lack of a definite article in the last clause of John 1:1. As such, your comment, “That which is with something cannot be the same thing. Thats common sense. However trinitarians will face a hard day on the field to explain that because no matter what one says, logic does not permit the acceptance of something being with another and being the same”, is merely distractionary and irrelevant. Nevertheless, as a quick reply, one can quite truly, accurately, logically and correctly say, for example, “The water was with the cloud, and the water was the cloud.” Now, back to John 1:1…

    Yes, I know that Koine Greek only has only one article – the definite article. However, your statement “the place where there is no article used, that can well be understood to be indefinite” is NOT correct in the case of predicate nominatives. The predicate “GOD” is defining what “THE WORD” was.

    You say “the confusion rests in its place in the Biblical text”, but yet you write an article arguing for the so-called correct translation of the Greek. Proper grammatical Koine Greek usage shows that the absense of the definite article in the clause in question – which uses the predicate nominative (a noun as a complement) – does NOT support YOUR inclusion of an indefinite article (as your article on John 1:1 suggests). The absense of the definite article in the predicate nominative identifies the predicate, and the inclusion of the definite article identifies the subject. Your addition of the indefinite article (or implying a requirement for it) is merely a misrepresentation of the facts to purport a corruption where one does not exist.

    Another predicate nominative can be found in Mark 2:28, where Jesus said, “so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath”. The Greek written (in transliterated form): hote kurios estin ho huios tou anthropou kai tou sabatou. The subject in the sentence is “ho huios” (the son) and the predicate being “kurios” (lord) with no definite article. The sentence is NOT trying to say, “so the Son of Man is A lord even of the sabbath”, (or “lord-like”) but rather that he is THE lord of the sabbath.

    Another example is 1 John 1:5, which says, “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.” The clause “God is light”, in the Greek, is written (transliterated), “ho theos phos estin”. “ho theos” (the God) is the subject, and “phos” (light) is the predicate, with NO definite article. The statement being made is “God is light”, not “God is A light” (or “light-like”)

    The above examples give “common sense” illustrations that your statement, “It has no indefinite article and thus the place where there is no article used, that can well be understood to be indefinite” is indeed NOT true of the predicate nominative.

    Regards.

  8. Ebrahim Saifuddin Says:

    Dear Brett,

    It really was not distractionary nor irrelevant. Cloud IS water. Water is not WITH cloud. So your example according to my understanding is a bit flawed. Regarding what is with something cannot be the same thing is not only my idea. In fact even Bruce in “The Gospel of John” on page 31 writes:

    “Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also ‘with God’.”

    So it is not my ‘distractionary’ or ‘irrelevant’ idea but is what people logically say. The Word cannot be The God. The Word was to be understood as “god”. The play is not with the presense of “a” but it is with the usage of “G” and “g”. So the examples which you have given from Mark and first epistle of John are inaccurate. One need not translate it as “a light” or “a lord”. It can well be translated as “light” and “lord” but does that absense of the article leave it to be necessarily translated as “Light” and “Lord”? That is the question.

    What you state regarding the predicate is from Colwell’s rule. A rule which was “discovered”, however you are misrepresenting the rule. The rule is that IF “theos” is definite then it can probably lack the article. However vice versa is not necessarily true. That means, lacking an article does not render “theos” to be necessarily definite. Saying that lacking an article makes it definite without question is like imposing a pre-set belief system on the Greek text.

    Hence I would disagree with your conslusion to John 1:1.

    Do take care of yourself and others around you.

  9. Alan Says:

    Dear Brett,

    Many who take issue with an “a god” render of “theos” in John 1:1c often miss the point that the Grammatical construction there is that this is <>; again, not just that the noun theos (in the third clause) lacks the Greek definite article or because it is simply a predicate nominative.

    For other examples of a similar Greek construction as that of John 1:1c, please examine the few following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether your own translators had inserted either an “a” or “an” there:

    Mark 6:49
    Mark 11:32
    John 4:19
    John 6:70
    John 8:44a
    John 8:44b
    John 9:17
    John 10:1
    John 10:13
    John 10:33
    John 12:6

    At each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual was.

    Therefore, when translating these verses of the very same syntax as that found in John 1:1c, most every translator do render these correctly, that is, by adding an “a” or “an.”

    But now, when it comes to John 1:1c, rather than let God’s Word speak for itself, they seem to forget their own guidelines and allow their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse – thus commonly reading, “and the Word was God,” when, in fact, the Greek doesn’t literally say this.

    Interestingly, when you had stated: “As such, John 1:1 could have been written as: ‘ho logos en ho theos’ (note the repeat of the definite article), and which would mean exactly the same as ‘ho theos en logos’ (which drops the definite article),” the fact is, the Greek doesn’t actually read this way. Instead it read’s, “kai theos en ho logos.”

    First, it is important to keep in mind that if “ho theos” is, indeed, the term used to designate “the entire Godhead” (which many a Trinitarian scholar regularly testifies to), the mere fact that “the Word” was just said to be ‘with ho theos’ would, in and of itself, mean that “the Word” was with “the entire Godhead,” and, therefore, cannot also be “ho theos” or “God.” (Interestingly, this is most often the explanation Trinitarian scholars give for the reason why they believe John did not use the definite article there).

    Furthermore, if it is true that “ho theos” cannot be used of “the Word,” that is, because this would ‘assert that the entire Godhead was embodied in the Word,’ then the same arguement should be used of “the Father,” and yet, He is quite regularly so designated.

    For this, please ccompare: John 8:26, 27 with John 8:40; John 8:41 with John 8:54; John 16:27, 28 with John 16:30 and John 17:8; John 17:1, 11, 25 with John 17:3 and John 6:27.

    See also: Matthew 6:8; Acts 13:32, 33, 37; Romans 1:7; 15:6; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 15:24; 2 Corinthians 1:2f; 11:31; Galatians 1:3, 4; Ephesians 1:2; 1:17; 5:20; 6:23; Philippians 1:2; 2:11; Colossians 1:2f; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 2:16; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 3; 1 Peter 1:2f; Hebrews 12:7, 9; James 1:27; 2 John 3 and Revelation 1:1, 6.

    I believe the evidence will show that, within each of the above scriptures, “the Father” is regularly identified as “ho theos.”

    Therefore, this no-use of the Greek definite article, coupled with the fact that “theos” there preceeds the verb and subject noun, would indicate something quite different than what “the Word was God” conveys – little know to some, many a Trinitarian scholar also agree.

    Taken literally (and as stated above), “the Word was a god” is the more natural rendering of this clause.

    Agape.
    john1one@earthlink.net

    http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

  10. Alan Says:

    [Sorry, I've reposted this only because, as it had been initially submitted, some parts of it did not come thru.]

    Dear Brett,

    Many who take issue with an “a god” render of “theos” in John 1:1c often miss the point that the Grammatical construction there is that this is *a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, and subject noun (implied or stated)*; again, not just that the noun theos (in the third clause) lacks the Greek definite article or because it is simply a predicate nominative.

    For other examples of a similar Greek construction as that of John 1:1c, please examine the few following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether your own translators had inserted either an “a” or “an” there:

    Mark 6:49
    Mark 11:32
    John 4:19
    John 6:70
    John 8:44a
    John 8:44b
    John 9:17
    John 10:1
    John 10:13
    John 10:33
    John 12:6

    At each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual was.

    Therefore, when translating these verses of the very same syntax as that found in John 1:1c, most every translator do render these correctly, that is, by adding an “a” or “an.”

    But now, when it comes to John 1:1c, rather than let God’s Word speak for itself, they seem to forget their own guidelines and allow their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse – thus commonly reading, “and the Word was God,” when, in fact, the Greek doesn’t literally say this.

    Interestingly, when you had stated: “As such, John 1:1 could have been written as: ‘ho logos en ho theos’ (note the repeat of the definite article), and which would mean exactly the same as ‘ho theos en logos’ (which drops the definite article),” the fact is, the Greek doesn’t actually read this way. Instead it read’s, “kai theos en ho logos.”

    First, it is important to keep in mind that if “ho theos” is, indeed, the term used to designate “the entire Godhead” (which many a Trinitarian scholar regularly testifies to), the mere fact that “the Word” was just said to be ‘with ho theos’ would, in and of itself, mean that “the Word” was with “the entire Godhead,” and, therefore, cannot also be “ho theos” or “God.” (Interestingly, this is most often the explanation Trinitarian scholars give for the reason why they believe John did not use the definite article there).

    Furthermore, if it is true that “ho theos” cannot be used of “the Word,” that is, because this would ‘assert that the entire Godhead was embodied in the Word,’ then the same arguement should be used of “the Father,” and yet, He is quite regularly so designated.

    For this, please ccompare: John 8:26, 27 with John 8:40; John 8:41 with John 8:54; John 16:27, 28 with John 16:30 and John 17:8; John 17:1, 11, 25 with John 17:3 and John 6:27.

    See also: Matthew 6:8; Acts 13:32, 33, 37; Romans 1:7; 15:6; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 15:24; 2 Corinthians 1:2f; 11:31; Galatians 1:3, 4; Ephesians 1:2; 1:17; 5:20; 6:23; Philippians 1:2; 2:11; Colossians 1:2f; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 2:16; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 3; 1 Peter 1:2f; Hebrews 12:7, 9; James 1:27; 2 John 3 and Revelation 1:1, 6.

    I believe the evidence will show that, within each of the above scriptures, “the Father” is regularly identified as “ho theos.”

    Therefore, this no-use of the Greek definite article, coupled with the fact that “theos” there preceeds the verb and subject noun, would indicate something quite different than what “the Word was God” conveys – little know to some, many a Trinitarian scholar also agree.

    Taken literally (and as stated above), “the Word was a god” is the more natural rendering of this clause.

    Agape, Alan.
    john1one@earthlink.net

    http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

  11. James Apperson Says:

    Statement:

    “That which is with something cannot be the same thing. ”

    —————-

    Challenge:

    one can … accurately say,..:

    “The water was with the cloud, and the water was the cloud.”

    —————-
    Correction:

    In your example,…

    You use the terms “the water” and “the cloud”,…
    and pretend that you are holding them up side-by-side (with)
    each other, for consideration.

    But how can that be done?

    “The water” is “whatever” water the cloud is made of.
    Thus, “the water” becomes another way of saying “the cloud”.

    Thus, there is only one subject there.
    The single noun of the cloud; and another way of looking at
    the same thing; what the cloud is made of.

    Sure .. “water” is a noun too .. but it doesn’t stand there
    WITH the cloud; it stands there AS the cloud.

    And so when you continue with “and the water was the cloud”


    all you do is clarify what you meant in the first phrase; making it redundant.

    In contrast …

    John 1:1 presents two subjects; And considers the latter

    subject separately from the first.

    At some point in time (in the beginning)…
    Jesus acted in place of God (was the word)…
    And Jesus was there with The God
    And his Father is the God he was with.
    (and the word was with The God)
    (cooperatively; regardless of literal proximity)…
    And finally …
    Jesus was … what?

    We can’t say “the God”; Because John already reserved that as
    a sole (the) consideration for the Father.
    The father is “the” God.
    That person is, then, “the whole and only” of whatever it
    means to be “God” in that phrase.

    So in oder for the latter subject to be referred to as the
    same type of thing,
    that latter subject cannot be that …in the exact same sense
    that the first subject is.

    So it has to mean something different there.

    No wonder, then,
    that John saw fit to treat both examples of theos differently.
    -where one is “THE” of that …
    and the other is an expression of it.

    —————

    Statement:
    “the place where there is no article used, that can well be

    understood to be indefinite” is NOT correct.

    I actually agree with you on that. It’s incorrect to say that

    the absence of an article always means the subject is

    indefinite.

    There are times when it can still be definite; even without the article.

    But John 1:1c is not one of those times.
    -Since the definite article has already been reserved for the other subject.

    One is either:
    Part of “the” (God).
    Or is the whole of “the” (God).
    Or is some other “the”(God).

    And since the Father is the whole of “the” Theos,
    there is none of that left for Jesus to lay claim to.

    After that, he can either be an indefinite expression of God.
    (a god; like God)

    -Or –

    Jesus can be some other “theos” entirely.
    -Which would be fine if we define that occurrence of theos in
    a way that does not mean exactly what the first one does ..
    or if we want to consider polytheism.

  12. Peter Says:

    Dear Alan,

    Why would a deeply monotheistically-minded NT writer try to confuse us about other gods? Sure, there are false gods, but obviously, in nominating Christ, he’s not speaking of a false god but of the Truth.

    Whether John 1:1 ought to be read ‘God’ or ‘a god’, ought to be decided by the context of Scripture where it would evidentally be a blasphemy to say there is more than one true God, which ‘a god’ would denote.

    Peace

  13. John Says:

    Yahushua [Jesus to the Greeks] said: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”–which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” [Matt 27:14]

    Yahushua also said: “Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'” [John 20:17]

    QUESTION 1: Why would the Saviour call His heavenly Father “my God” if He is himself God?

    QUESTION 2: Why would the Saviour who was “a man approved of God among you” [Acts 2;22] need God’s approval if he was himself “GOD” ?

    QUESTION 3: Why does the writer of Acts 2;22 say “wonders and signs, which God did by him”? “Him” being the Saviour? If this ”approved man” is in fact GOD then why does the writer not plainly say “Jesus of Nazareth, was God among you performing miracles and wonders and signs”?

    QUESTION 4: Why does the Lamb in Revelations chapter 5 and 7 and 22 standing in the midst of the throne of God not have a throne of his own? Why are there not three thrones, one for each person of the so-called trinity? :


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers

%d bloggers like this: