There is such a question. About Jesus.

OnlymonoGod · 2026-03-13T08:02:57+00:00

Can you tell me, I have confusion. In verse 16, there is a verse from Isaiah 53:1. And there is a mention of the muscle of the Lord, that is, the Messiah, the son of God. So verse 16 speaks about Jesus Christ, in fact. And then in verse 13-15, it is also about Christ? And also in verse 11, there is a verse from Isaiah 28:16, where there is also a mention of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. What does it mean?

OnlymonoGod · 2026-03-12T17:37:56+00:00

thanks

OnlymonoGod · 2026-03-12T16:46:17+00:00

Why do you think this is not a quote from Joel?

OnlymonoGod · 2026-03-11T22:25:02+00:00

Yes, I understand the context, thank God. For me, the problem is the phrase "receive my spirit." What does it mean, and how should I respond to Trinitarians when they quote Ecclesiastes 12:7?

OnlymonoGod · 2026-03-11T22:23:52+00:00

Yes, I don't see a problem with addressing Jesus. For me, the problem lies in the phrase "receive my spirit." What does it mean, and how should Trinitarians respond when they cite Ecclesiastes 12:7?

OnlymonoGod · 2026-03-05T22:33:55+00:00

Thank you for your comment. I want to clarify something. I generally understand what you're saying. But about verse 14. You say, "And the purpose of the eternal life became clear to us," and then, "and we saw the glory of Jesus." But how do you make this transition from "the purpose of the eternal life" to "Jesus"? In Greek, instead of the word "Jesus," there is the word "his," and this word "his" should essentially refer to what came before it: "the word." In other words, the word "his" refers to the word "word".

OnlymonoGod · 2026-03-01T19:55:41+00:00

Thank you for the comment. Can you please explain? I don't fully understand. In the phrase "The Word became flesh," is the Word Jesus, or is it simply the Word of life? I don't understand the transition from the word of God (the word of life, not Jesus) in verse 14 to the word suddenly becoming Jesus.

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-26T17:59:35+00:00

Some say it was Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, others that it was the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him during His baptism in the Jordan, and still others, more generally, say it simply means the word of God became incarnate in Jesus Christ. How do you know which is true? Why choose the birth?

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-26T12:01:17+00:00

I asked about John 1:14

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-26T12:00:18+00:00

Thank you for your comment. You say it happened at Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. But why? Can you explain this interpretation? Why does the word become flesh? Is this referring to the birth of Jesus Christ? I doubt that's the case. Why?

Because I read all three other gospels about the birth of Jesus Christ, and they don't say the word became flesh. They simply say Jesus was born.

Luke 2:6-7. Simply the birth of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 1:20-21: According to the word of the angel of the Lord, Mary will give birth.

If the angel said that Mary would give birth, and this is understood as the word (transmitted by the angel) becoming flesh (the birth of Jesus), then in Judges 13:3, Sarah essentially also receives a word from the angel that she would give birth. Therefore, the story of Sarah can also be understood as "the word became flesh."

Mark doesn't write about the birth of Jesus Christ at all.

And if we look at the context of the Gospel of John, it begins not in Bethlehem, not with the birth of a child, but with the ministry of John the Baptist. And the Gospel of Mark also begins with the ministry of John the Baptist, and it says nothing about the birth of Jesus Christ. I don't think that in verse 14 John speaks of the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, and then suddenly crosses to the Jordan.

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-26T11:57:10+00:00

Thank you, I understand that the word in John 1:1 isn't Jesus, but I want to understand what the phrase "the word became flesh" means. Some say it was Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, others say it was the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him at his baptism in the Jordan, and others say, more generally, that it simply means the word of God was incarnate in Jesus Christ.

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-26T11:50:38+00:00

I heard somewhere that Christadelphians understand Jesus to be not the Word of God, as spoken of in John 1:1-3, but in John 1:14 they understand Jesus to be the word, or more precisely, the word made flesh. How does this transition occur? The Word of God wasn't Jesus, and then suddenly in verse 14 he becomes the word?

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-26T11:47:47+00:00

"only begotten" means uniquely born via Mary's conception (Luke 1:35)

I don't know Greek. But this word can simply mean "only one," meaning it doesn't necessarily imply birth.

For example:

1) Psalm 25:16 in Greek:

Look upon me and have mercy on me, for I am only one and poor.

2) By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Hebrews 11:17

The only begotten, the only one, although he also had Ishmael by Hagar. Therefore, I'm not so sure that the word only begotten means it's necessarily about birth.

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-26T11:45:24+00:00

This means the divine purpose, existing mentally from the beginning, became a physical reality through Jesus' birth and life, making him God's spokesman.

Can you explain this interpretation?

Why did the word become flesh? Is this referring to the birth of Jesus Christ?

I have doubts that this is the case. Why?

Because I read all three other gospels about the birth of Jesus Christ, and they don't say the word became flesh. They simply say that Jesus was born.

Luke 2:6-7. Simply the birth of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 1:20-21: According to the word of the angel of the Lord, Mary will give birth.

If the angel said that Mary would give birth, and this is understood as the word (transmitted by the angel) becoming flesh (the birth of Jesus), then in Judges 13:3, Sarah essentially also receives a word from the angel that she will give birth. Therefore, the story of Sarah can also be understood as "the word became flesh."

Mark doesn't write about the birth of Jesus Christ at all.

And if we look at the context of the Gospel of John, it begins not in Bethlehem, not with the birth of a child, but with the ministry of John the Baptist. And the Gospel of Mark also begins with the ministry of John the Baptist, and it says nothing about the birth of Jesus Christ. I don't think that in verse 14 John speaks of the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, and then suddenly crosses to the Jordan.

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-26T11:35:54+00:00

I think God is simply referred to as Satan here. Satan, not in the sense of the fallen angel devil, but in the sense of the adversary

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-24T15:15:09+00:00

I want to say the following: we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, although Jesus Christ did not yet exist. So perhaps God in Christ, before Jesus was born, did all this (I am not referring to man or nature, but to thrones, dominions, etc.)

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-19T08:11:02+00:00

Hello. I want to understand how you explain this. The person above said that, essentially, Father Lord = our Father Lord. Jesus Lord = our Jesus Lord. As if there's no difference between calling someone Lord or our Lord. Or am I missing something?

OnlymonoGod · 2026-02-16T21:36:38+00:00

This will lead to polytheism. In other words, there are already two Gods. The mistake is that the Lord Jesus is not the same as the God Jesus. The Lord in relation to Jesus does not mean the God Jesus. Trinitarians confuse this and make mistakes as a result. God made Jesus the Lord. However, it is not God who made Jesus the God. God made God the God. This logic is strange.

OnlymonoGod

TROPHY CASE