John 1:1 and John 1:14 explained from a Biblical U..

8 w ·Youtube

John 1:1 and John 1:14 explained from a Biblical Unitarian perspective.

Comment

again, the base here is an assumption that the Father of the NT is YHWH of the OT.

i read and understand like this -
who speaks in the OT? who is the Word of the OT?
YHWH.
who is distinguished from YHWH in the OT?
the Most High. (yeah, deut 32:8-9)

to think Yeshua was then in existence is to not understand.
look, the Word was not 'begotten', the Word was SPOKEN, and existence itself came to be.
but the Most High is Spirit, and as such does not emanate in our realm. His Word, although Spirit too, can...
until existence is rid of its impurity, the presence of the Most High would simply destroy it. look at what even the presence of the Word brought about.
Yeshua was, as the vid points out, of HER seed in genesis. not HIS.
and the living being Yeshua was begotten of the Holy Spirit as Father, in fact, at that time and only then, the 'only-begotten' human of the Father. so now we have flesh.

and then, by the jordan, the Spirit of YHWH descended and remained in the flesh that was Yeshua, and the Word was manifested in the flesh. as YHWH prophesied, He would come dwell with His people.

in a similar way that we are to understand death as an entity, not a (non)state of being, so we are to understand the Word as an entity, not a concept.
when scripture states something is an entity, we do wrong to insist it's a concept.
and i'm just identifying that entity that is the Word with YHWH.
and this is the amazing thing, that very 'entity' that says we are to worship Him and Him only, is the One who came and dwelt with us. and now, dwelling with us, points out Who is actually Most High. yet again, as was done continuously through the OT, refining our understanding.wow!
It always was correct to worship the Word of the Father, but the time has come to understand that the Word, while always in agreement with the Father, being the very Word of the Father, is yet not the Father Himself. Lordship to the Word, worship to the Father. and the Word now having become flesh, Lordship to Yeshua.

to my mind i am giving a direct explanation of what i'm reading, i'm not deciding this or that is not really meaning what it's saying, i'm just thinking, if this is saying that, how must i understand it without 'conceptualising'?
it is exactly the fact that the NT was written in greek that caused this to not be seen. the connect between who's who in the OT and NT have kept this confusion going long enough.
time for 'those days' to come about.

thanks for the vid mark, and , oef, i hope it's not you who's making them...for i'm speaking rather directly.

again, the base here is an assumption that the Father of the NT is YHWH of the OT. 
 
i read and understand like this -  
who speaks in the OT? who is the Word of the OT? 
YHWH. 
who is distinguished from YHWH in the OT?  
the Most High. (yeah, deut 32:8-9) 
 
to think Yeshua was then in existence is to not understand. 
look, the Word was not 'begotten', the Word was SPOKEN, and existence itself came to be. 
but the Most High is Spirit, and as such does not emanate in our realm. His Word, although Spirit too, can... 
until existence is rid of its impurity, the presence of the Most High would simply destroy it. look at what even the presence of the Word brought about. 
Yeshua was, as the vid points out, of HER seed in genesis. not HIS. 
and the living being Yeshua was begotten of the Holy Spirit as Father, in fact, at that time and only then, the 'only-begotten' human of the Father. so now we have flesh. 
 
and then, by the jordan, the Spirit of YHWH descended and remained in the flesh that was Yeshua, and the Word was manifested in the flesh. as YHWH prophesied, He would come dwell with His people. 
 
in a similar way that we are to understand death as an entity, not a (non)state of being, so we are to understand the Word as an entity, not a concept. 
when scripture states something is an entity, we do wrong to insist it's a concept. 
and i'm just identifying that entity that is the Word with YHWH. 
and this is the amazing thing, that very 'entity' that says we are to worship Him and Him only, is the One who came and dwelt with us. and now, dwelling with us, points out Who is actually Most High. yet again, as was done continuously through the OT, refining our understanding.wow! 
It always was correct to worship the Word of the Father, but the time has come to understand that the Word, while always in agreement with the Father, being the very Word of the Father, is yet not the Father Himself. Lordship to the Word, worship to the Father. and the Word now having become flesh, Lordship to Yeshua. 
 
to my mind i am giving a direct explanation of what i'm reading, i'm not deciding this or that is not really meaning what it's saying, i'm just thinking, if this is saying that, how must i understand it without 'conceptualising'? 
it is exactly the fact that the NT was written in greek that caused this to not be seen. the connect between who's who in the OT and NT have kept this confusion going long enough. 
time for 'those days' to come about. 
 
thanks for the vid mark, and , oef, i hope it's not you who's making them...for i'm speaking rather directly.

· Reply · 1753437166

1 Reply

Henk Wouters

Frankincense - Hojary Superior (Boswellia sacra)

Exodus, fine art print

Day One, fine art print

Garden of Emunah, fine art print

Eyes of Grace

Bookmark - Num 6:24-26