The Hiddenness of God “Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence”

The Hiddenness of God is one of the most argued themes for the” insufficient evidence of God's existence”.

Someone asked me a question about this the other day. She said, “If God is so big, why is it that we can’t see Him?” The same is for others, while people still argue about the existence of God and the many evidences. The only thing God wants is a truly genuine relationship with people.

The more we think, the more we doubt. This is what keeps unbelievers away from knowing that there is a God. They argue and think they a have “smart thinking” ability and bring it into action when it comes to face the existence of God, not knowing that this “smart thinking” syndrome is causing them to doubt and conclude in the inexistence of God and use this an excuse to say “I can do whatever I want”.

To have a truly and genuine relationship with God, faith is needed. To believe that God is your savior, faith is needed for “we are saved by grace, through faith…” (Ephesians 2:8)

Several answers can be given to those who say that the hiddenness of God is insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God, to which one of those was expressed in the previous paragraph. Regardless, there is another fact that contradicts those who oppose to believe in God because of His hiddenness. Jason Dulle said, “Freedom of choice is not eliminated by evidence, but rather directed by the evidence” the freedom of choice and the human will is an absolute that God gave to men. God created men not to be robots and control them to do whatever God wanted them to do. But God created man to have a freedom of choice to serve Him out of his own will.

Some say that the amount of evidence would make them believe in the existence of God, thus stating that the hiddenness of God is not much evidence for them to believe. This argument is wrong, since it would be wrong to think that God would give people “sufficient” evidence for His existence. This would of course rob human will and freedom of choice. And again, “Freedom of choice is not eliminated by evidence, but rather directed by the evidence”.

To say that the Hiddenness of God is insufficient evidence to believe in Him is to say that the hiddenness of love is insufficient evidence to believe in it. I believe that love exists, if you don’t, then ask yourself, “do I love my mother or father or myself?” you may deny your lack of love towards your mom or dad or even yourself, but you cannot deny that love exists, or at least it is very hard to accept that love is a myth or simply something from your mind. Some say, “If God exists, why can’t I see Him?” my question would be, can you see the air? If you cannot, then how do you know it exists?

Simply because we cannot see something does not mean it doesn’t exist.

The same can be applied in this example; if there is a painting we would assume that someone painted it, thus calling him a painter in the sense of a creative artist in the medium of painting. If there is a building we would assume that there was someone that constructed it, thus calling him a constructor. If there’s a wooden chair we would assume that someone created it, thus calling him a carpenter. The same is when we see the world and its unexplainable complexity of form and creation; we would assume that someone had to create it, thus calling Him or it a creator. Even though we cannot see the painter, constructor, carpenter, and creator it is by logic to recognize that they had to exist for nothing can be created out of nothing, and we have seen the creation. An amount of evidence is not needed to believe in the existence of the painter or carpenter, but rather a direction of will to accept or not that when you see the paint, and wooden chair choose to believe in their creators.

The same Jason Dulle said this, “Perhaps God has provided metaphysical rather than physical evidence for His existence (given the fact that He is an immaterial being)” the Apostle Paul said it like this:

(Rom 1:20)  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

After all, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Why if We Have the Truth We Have the Smallest Churches and Less Financial Income?

This question was asked to me, and I will try my best to answer this in my own perspective.

Why is it that if we have the truth, we have the smallest churches and less financial income in our churches? 

This question was made in regards of the Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus. And first of all, I want to state that the truth is not defined by money or riches. Having the truth doesn't define our financial status, but our foundation in which we stand for our salvation. 

So, why if we have the truth, we have the smallest churches and less financial income in our churches?

I believe this is more spiritual than any other secular issue, and having money is a carnal thing. We do not need money to satisfy our spirit. 

The words of Jesus wrapped all of these financial questions simply in three verses;

(Mat 6:19) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

(Mat 6:20) But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

(Mat 6:21) For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

We are more concerned about our treasure in heaven, evangelize to the world and disciple the new converts.

Let us understand that our truth is our doctrine, our beliefs, and our foundations, and this is what distinguishes us from other movements. They may have money, mega churches, and all that but they do not have what we have; the Truth.

To best explain what I'm trying to say, I would like to share a thought.

The tabernacle of David

The tabernacle of David was a special place for the presence of God. In contrast, we also have the tabernacle of Moses. In the tabernacle of Moses, sacrifices of animals and blood were given, and it was a sacred place.

But the tabernacle of David was different and special for God. It didn't consist of great walls and so many stations. The tabernacle of David was simply a tent, and instead the sacrifices were sacrifices of praise, worship, and thanksgiving (Psalm 95:2,100:4, 141:2). 

This little tent was simply the house of the Ark of the Covenant, which represented the glory of God. In other words; the tabernacle of Moses was a mega church, and the tabernacle of David was one of our little Apostolic Church. Now my question is why is it that God seemed to like David's tabernacle more?

The tabernacle of David being simply a tent covering the Ark of the Covenant.

One of the reasons why God seemed to like more the tabernacle of David, though it was just a tent, was because the sacrifices weren't blood or animals, but praise and worship.

Psalms 51:17 says:

(Psa. 51:17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Here are two pictures comparing the tabernacle of David, with the tabernacle of Moses:

Tabernacle of David:

Tabernacle of Moses:

What a difference!

And yet we know that God emphasized his presence more in the tabernacle of David, and whatever the reason was God emphasized more of His glory in the tabernacle of David. Now we know that it is not about the money, big mega churches, or financial income that define our richness, but the glory that is in our midst.

Ask This to Trinitarians

For those of you who like to defend the Word of God and His truth like me. Ask this question to Trinitarians:

What is the name of God?

This question sounds so simple, yet it's hard for them to answer it.

Look at what the bible says;

(Exo 9:16) And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

God is a personal God, therefore He has a name.

So now the question is what is God's name? This question intended to Trinitarians is a key point to understand the roots of the Trinitarian doctrine.

(The proper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity will lead to the better understanding of these arguments)

Let's suppose that their answer is the Father. The Father is the name of God? Now upon what basis they support this answer?

First of "Father" is not a name, it's just a title. Suppose that I'm a father. Just because I'm a father doesn't mean that's my name. My name is Guillermo, though I'm a father, my name is not father, but Guillermo.

Now let's say that the name of God is indeed "father" then how do you explain John 1:1 where it says:

(Joh 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If the name of God is "Father" then this verse would say:

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

The "Word" is Jesus, and at the end you would end up calling Jesus the Father. (Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Father)

And if the name of God is the Father, then where do you leave the Son and the Holy Spirit? The doctrine of the Trinity states that within God there are three persons, and that those three persons have the same power and authority.

Calling the name of God, the Father, you automatically degrade the name of Jesus and Holy Spirit.

Now what is the name of God?

Let's suppose they say is the Holy Spirit. Here we can apply the same arguments previously mention; where do you leave the name of the Father and Jesus? Aren't they supposed to have the same authority and power and everything? They're supposed to share the same name. What is the name of God?

Let's suppose that their answer is Jesus. Is this correct? Well where do you leave the name of the Father? Or the Holy Spirit? Then if the name of God is Jesus, I suppose that Jesus is the only God since there could not be any other God within Jesus. (The proper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity will lead to the better understanding of these arguments)

I don't think Trinitarians will agree with this, they do not call the name of God Jesus.

Trinitarians have a name for all the persons within God. But throughout all the pages of the bible, God declares that He has a name. Then what is the name of God?

Well this is where the controversy comes, the trinity is a made up term. Now what if they call the name of God the "trinity"? Is this correct? I don't think so!

If the name of God is the trinity, then why is it that the bible never mentions it?

Or if the name of God is the trinity, then how do you explain 1 Timothy 3:16 where it says:

(1Ti 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Were the trinity manifested in the flesh? Were the three persons in the Godhead manifested?

Or what about John 1:1? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the trinity, and the Word was the trinity?

This is absurd, this is totally anti-biblical, and it is not correct.

So now, I ask; what is the name of God?

Walk in the Spirit

Galatians 5:16-25 says:


Gal 5:16-25

(16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
(17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
(18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
(24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
(25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.



Church of Galatia - confused Law and Justification
The whole context of this is that Paul was talking to the Galatians. They were having problems with the brethren. The church of Galatia was struggling in their doctrinal beliefs. They thought that the law was still in action and that faith and grace was to be combined with the law. They thought that the law was going to justify them.



That's the problem that many of us are still living under the law
I believe that to live under the law now a days is to live in the same o' same o'
Those who live under the law live in the same praise they've always been, in the same prayer, in the same warmness, their neither cold nor hot, but they're warm, just hanging their, and all they say is "anyways I'm already saved" "I'm already baptized" "I already have the Holy ghost". To live under the law is to live like the Pharisees, Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof , and not impacting the world.


The law was nailed to the cross, and now free from the law
Colossians 2:14


And instead of the law, the apostle Paul commands us to "Walk in the Spirit"

There was also some fights between the people in Galatia, and Paul tells them to "Walk in the Spirit"
But that is not the only reason why Paul tells the Galatians to walk in the Spirit for, not only to love one another. There is a bigger purpose in walking in the Spirit.


2 verses coughed my attention. Acts 16:6, and Acts 18:23

(Act 18:23) And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.

(Act 16:6) Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

We see Paul working in both of them, and in both verses we see the city of Galatia. In Acts 16:6 the Holy Ghost commanded them to the work and disciple in Asia as well as he had already done in Galatia. So we see that the church of Galatia was already thought under the influence of the Holy Ghost. And in Acts 18:23 we see Paul strengthening all the disciples in Galatia, through the Holy Ghost according to Acts 16:6.

So when Paul said in the book of Galatians to walk in the Spirit, it wasn’t only to address the issue of the fights between the brethren, and to address confusion. But it was also to remind them not to only live in the Spirit, but to walk in the Spirit, and to destroy all the possibilities of them living under the law.


So in other words, it is not sufficient to receive the Spirit. But we need to walk in the Spirit.

When Paul told them to walk in the Spirit, he went over the issue of the fights and confusion, and probably said; the problem is not that they're fighting and having confusion, but it is that they're in a "stick" mode, they don't move and aren't accomplishing what I thought them; which was to walk in the Holy Ghost and strengthening the church.




The last bible study I gave was; not to seek the ministry, but to seek the empowerment.

And after you seek the empowerment, you don’t stop there, but you walk in the empowerment

And let me tell you that... To walk in the empowerment is to walk in the Spirit.



To walk in the Spirit is to walk in fire. Without the fire we can't distinguish the day from the night

(Gen 1:14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:




Let us go back to our main text, now starting from verse 22.

(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

The fruit of the Spirit
Love being the First One. This is significant because the apostle Paul always puts love in the first place

1 Corinthians 13:4 it talks about love, and what love does.

1) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
2) It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
3) Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
4) It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.



Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs….


Put your name instead of "Love" and see if you actually fulfill this fruit of the Spirit








Joy
When was the last time you had joy?
Better said…
When was the last time you had joy in the middle of the storm?

Though the fig tree may not blossom...yet I will rejoice in the Lord Habakkuk

(Hab 1:2) O Jehovah, until when shall I cry and You will not hear? I cry out to You of violence, and You do not save!

Habakkuk started out complaining and ended with a song of Praise






Peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith… et cetera

And look at how this little portion ends… "Against such there is no law"





(24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh
Are you having problems with your flesh? Everyone does, but are you overcoming them?



And the apostle Paul ends like this:
(25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.




What are you lacking? What part of these fruits are you missing? Or are you still living under the law?

If you do so, if you're indeed missing some of the fruits, or all of them, or if you are still living under the law. And even though you have the Spirit, you may want to start considering to Walk in the Spirit.

I believe that to Walk in the Spirit is to start the process of fulfilling your calling.

Elohim "Gods" - Apostolic answer in Hebraic concepts

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1)

The bible starts off with this verse. Even in the first verse of the bible a name to God is given. The translation "God" in this verse is the word "Elohim" which literally means "Gods". That is right; the translation of Elohim is "Gods", plural.

This is quite controversial. Many people like to bring this verse up in defense of their doctrine; such is the case of Trinitarians.

Now, before going any further in explaining, and refuting the doctrine of the trinity, and how they see this verse. I would like to mention that God's name in the first place is not "God".

God's name is not God. The term "God" in a secular definition means; a supreme Being, creator and master of all, any being consider as divine.

And the biblical definition of the term "God" is similar. The term "God" is use for the true God, as well as is used for pagan gods. In the Old Testament, the term God is Elohim in the Hebrew language. Elohim is used for the true God, as well as is used for pagan gods, humans, and even angels (Gn. 35:2, Psalms 82:6, and Psalms 97:7).

In the New Testament the term "God" is "Theos" and it is also used for the true God, as well as for pagan gods (1 Col. 8:5).

Elohim, or Theos, is our same English word "God" and it is not always in reference to the true God. So the name of God is not "God" since it is applied to manmade gods as well.

This is one of the reasons why this verse does not support the doctrine of the Trinity. If the name of God "for Trinitarians" is Elohim, then this same term would not have been given to pagan gods, people, or angels. This verse is not trying to say that in the beginning Gods created heavens and earth because there is only one God. When the bible speaks of Elohim in reference to pagan gods, it is always referring to one god, though is pagan, but always talking about one god.

This tells us that Elohim in Genesis 1:1 is not talking about several gods, but it is in reference to one God, and the true God.

Another reason why this verse doesn't talk about "Gods" is because of the original Hebrew. The word Elohim is our English translation of the actual transliteration of Elohiym. This word like I said before, it literally means "Gods" and this is because "Elohiym" is composed of a word and a suffix.

The singular word for the term "God" is Eloah, which means "God" in singular form. This word Eloah ends with a suffix in Genesis 1:1 which is "ym". This suffix is what defines the plurality of verbs or words.

For instance, the word "Malak" which means messenger versus "Malakiym" which means messengers. The suffix "ym" is what distinguishes the two words, and it is also the one that emphasizes plurality in the later one.

The same is for the word Eloah, meaning God versus the word Elohiym meaning Gods. The later one used in Genesis 1:1

You still may be thinking that anyhow the word in Genesis 1:1 is the plural word for God, meaning that there is a trinity or several gods.

This may be the argument, but the argument is wrong, the reason being is because of the bad interpretation of the Hebrew language.

Let us take this example:

The sheep walked

In this example we don't know if it was one sheep that walked or if it was many sheep that walked. This is English, and whether this example means if many sheep walked or one sheep walked the verb (which is walked) does not change. This is not the same in Hebrew.

Taking the same example, but now in Hebrew language, this would not be correct. In the Hebrew you have to specify in context the plurality or singularity of the verb. For instance if we want to say that many sheep walked, in Hebrew we would say:

The sheep, (they) walked

Or if we want to say that it was only one sheep that walked, we would say:

The sheep, (he) walked

So in Hebrew you always have to specify either a plurality or singularity to a verb, or help the verb to emphasize its text and context meaning.

Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning Elohiym created…

"Created" being the verb. The Hebrew word for created is "bara", but this word is accompanied with the Hebrew word "eth" which demonstrates a sense of entity, and generally used to point out the definition of a verb. And the literal translation of this is; Elohiym (He) created…

So, in Genesis 1:1 there is only one creating the heavens and the earth.

I would like to give an example; in 1 Samuel 28:13-14 it says:

13. And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (Elohiym) ascending out of the earth.

14. And he said unto her, what form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.

The context of this example, we have King Saul going with the women that had a spirit of python or divination, which was conversed with the devil, and with this tried to bring up a dead person. King Saul asked her to bring up Samuel. The woman saw then the vision of what we see in verse 13; and the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

The letter in bold is gods which translated to the original Hebrew is the same word we have been dealing with; Elohiym.

And the King James translator, translated this the correct way, he translated it literally gods. For Elohiym literally means gods. But we see the difference between the translations in Genesis 1:1 and 1 Samuel 28:13, for in Gen 1:1 the translation to the English is simply God in singular form, because it's in reference to the true God, and in Samuel 28:13 is gods since it is not in reference to the true God.

The amazing thing is that in the next verse King Saul asks her; and he said unto her, what form is he of?

So we have the women telling the King that she saw gods (Elohiym) and Saul asks her of what form was HE? Singular.

And after the King's singular question, the woman replies accurately with another singular answer; an old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle.

This shows that Elohiym doesn't always refer to a plurality of gods, and such is the case of Genesis 1:1.

Then, why the suffix that emphasizes plurality in the word Elohiym, in Genesis 1:1?

Well, we know that the word Elohiym is the word Eloah with the suffix ym and the suffix ym is what makes the word Eloah be plural.

The suffix ym in Hebrew is יםwhich is called the "majestic plural" which means:

"The majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis in Latin) is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, pope, or university rector"

The New American Webster Dictionary fourth edition defines "majestic" like this:

"Possessing majesty, grand, sublime"

So when the bible speaks of a term with the suffix ym which is the majestic plural, it is actually talking about the attributes or what they possess.

Let us remember that the bible often times gives us definitions and terms that are plural in form but not in its meaning.

For example; in Proverbs 1:20 the bible says:

"Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets"

The word Wisdom is the Hebrew word chokmôth and it is plural. The last suffix oth is the feminine plural suffix, in contrast with the suffix ym which is the masculine plural suffix.

So the word Wisdom is plural in this verse, and yet it says that she (singular) uttereth?Rather than; they uttered.

The bible is full of these types of examples using plural words with a singular meaning and this is an example of how the Hebrew grammar works; it often times gives us terms that are plural in form but not in its meaning. And this is called the majestic plural. In the case of Elohim, the majestic plural is used, and it is to mean the only God possessing majesty, or attributes. And since God has a lot of attributes, therefore a majestic plural is used.

Most scholars actually agree that the plural word Elohim indicates the greatness of God or His multiple attributes; it does not imply a plurality of persons or personalities.

Also "the Hebrews pluralized nouns to express greatness or majesty" - Cresson and Flanders

Another fact is that the Hebrews could have not written this to mean that there's several gods or to point to a supposed trinity, or a plurality of persons in the Godhead. The Hebrews strongly belief in monotheism, in fact their most valuable belief is " Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" Deut. 6:4. They did not had any idea of a separation of persons or plurality of them within one God.

The word Elohim in genesis 1:1 simply means in a way, God with His majesty and attributes.

That's my King

One of my favorite videos :)

God Bless you all...

The Thought of God (John 1:1)

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

What an amazing statement. This is one of the most quoted verses of all time throughout history. This is how the apostle John starts off his writings. With this deep revelation of who Jesus really is; God.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because of their parallel writings (similarity). But the gospel according to John is different since it is the one that contains more Christology. It is the one that describes the incarnation in a higher quantity. And it does so in its opening statement; John 1:1:

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

This article will try to explain the "withins'" of this verse. In contrast with some other doctrinal beliefs, I would like to state that the doctrine of the oneness of God is the one that best explains what this verse really means. And it does so with solid truth of the bible, giving us a better understanding of who God really is, and His purpose.

Many people believe that this verse actually shows another person in the Godhead separate from God and yet still being God (Trinitarian doctrine). Others believe that this verse shows that there is "a God" for they translate this verse in the last clause as "and the Word was a God". The latter believing that this other God is merely a prophet, or another separate person from God. And many other beliefs.

These arguments are incorrect, and it isn't a lack of knowledge but a lack of revelation. For in every one of the previous mentioned arguments a second person or being is presented, calling Him or it "God" thus creating a second God from the God mentioned in the second clause of John 1:1. Thus rejecting and contradicting the whole message of the bible, and that is "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD"

This is where the doctrine of the oneness of God comes into action by revealing what this verse is all about. The incarnation is at the very center of this article. Christology is the study of the relationship between the two natures of Jesus; Deity, and humanity. And it is to notice and remember that this is what actually answers what this verse means, and the problems of different aspects or beliefs people have about the Godhead. The proper way of placing the distinction between Father and Son is the key for the answer in John 1:1

In the Beginning was the Word...

Let's divide John 1:1 into three clauses:

1. "In the beginning was the Word…"

2. "...and the Word was with God…"

3. "… and the Word was God."

In the beginning…

In the Greek is:

en ar-khay'

This "beginning" is connected with the account in Genesis 1:1, where the bible says that "in the beginning God created..."

So the "beginning" in John 1:1 is the same "beginning" in Genesis 1:1. It echoes the beginning in Genesis 1:1. In fact the Greek translation of the old testament in Genesis 1:1 starts with "en ar-khay'" which is the same original scripture of the Greek in the new testament, in John 1:1.

So, the beginning being mention in John 1:1 is the echo of the beginning in Genesis 1:1.

And before I go any further, I have to introduce what is next in this section of this clause.

Was the Word…

en ho Logos (Gk)

In the beginning was the Word (en ar-khay' en ho Logos). The word "Word" here is translated in English from the original word "Logos" which means a thought or a plan.

In other words, John 1:1 says in the first clause; in the beginning was the thought… or, in the beginning was the plan.

We know this beginning to be in the days before creation, or at least at the beginning of creation, according to Genesis 1:1.

Back then, when God was creating or about to create, God thought a plan. "in the beginning was the plan/thought"

Let's keep in mind this "Word" "Plan" or "Thought", which is in John 1:1

Before I go any further, I would like to bring this scripture into the scene. This verse is in the same book, in the same chapter, in verse 14 of the gospel of John. A couple more verses from John 1:1 in John 1:14 it says:

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

The word "Word" here is the same "Word" in John 1:1. And in verse 14 it says that this Word became flesh, or was made flesh.

This is where we know that the thought or plan that existed in the mind of God, was not another person of the Godhead, or someone else with God.

The thought became flesh. The apostle Paul gives us a better understanding of this in 1Timothy 3:16:

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

God was manifested in the flesh.

So, in the beginning was the thought. What was the thought? The thought was God, we see this in the 3rd clause; "…and the Word was God."

The thought or plan, was God Himself. In other words, God was thinking about Himself in human form, coming into existence as human, manifesting himself in the flesh (John 1:14), God was manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). For instance, "I have a plan that tomorrow I'm going to be in Canada". What am I thinking? That someday in the future I'm going to be somewhere else. I have a thought that I'm going to be in Canada, and what am I thinking? I am thinking about myself in Canada. That doesn't mean that my thought is another me next to me, or face to face to me. My thought is abstract, is simply a thought, a plan, my thought is with me, is in my mind.

So, God was thinking of Himself in the world as a human being, not as a Spirit.

And the human form of God was Jesus. Let us not get confuse that just because I say "Jesus" I'm talking about someone else, no. Jesus is just the name of the same God that has always existed, but now taking this name in His humanity. In fact the name "Jesus" literally means Jehovah Savior. So we can conclude that when the "Word" became flesh, or came into exist as human, He took upon the name of Jesus. So the Word is Jesus.

… and the Word was with God…

This is where people get confuse. We now know that the Word was God, with the newly name of Jesus, but the same uni-personal God.

This second clause states that the thought was with God. I do not know why so many people state that this Word was with God as in separation of persons. The doctrine of the trinity stated this. They say that this actually shows that the Word was separate from God and at the same time He was God.

By doing this, they state that Jesus have always existed in eternity with God and the Holy Ghost. Thus creating the belief that there is one God (being) that co-equally exists within three persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost).

This is quite contradictory. They say that there is only one God, but that, that God is formed of three persons, calling each and every one of them, God (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit). In reality, or terminologically speaking this is not right. I understand that they believe in one God, but the fact of the matter is that if they call every single one of the three persons God, there actually stating that there are three Gods (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit). This Trinitarian doctrine was invented. Calling each of the three persons "God" is actually a form of tritheism.

The Word was with God is not to be understood as "God the Son was with God the Father" like Trinitarians like to express it. But we have to understand that the Word was with God as if the Thought was with God. The Thought of God was the one that was eternal, not the manifestation of it, or a person.

To support their claim, Trinitarians like to translate this into the original Greek, which is:

kai ho logos en pros ton theon

This pros (with), they like to say that means a "face to face relationship".

Pros can mean "face to face relationship" but this is only if the verse is actually talking about another person separate from God.

In other words, if the text would of say "and Jesus was with God" then we can say that this means "a face to face relationship" of Jesus with God the Father.

But that is not what the text says, the scripture tells us that the Logos was with God the thought of God or the plan, was with God. This Logos was not Jesus until it was manifested in the flesh, therefore in the beginning was not another person, but simply the plan that God was going to manifest Himself in the flesh one day. Why? Because God knows everything. He knew that one day He had to manifest Himself in the flesh.

So with this we cannot conclude that pros means "face to face relationship" but it simply means "with" in this verse. For example, if I say, "My hand is with me". I do not mean that my hand is separate and face to face with me, but that is simply with me, attached to me.

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

… and the Word was God.

In other words; and the thought was God himself. God was thinking about Himself in human form, for what we see in John 1:14 that the thought or the Word was made flesh. And if we connect this with what Paul said in 1 Timothy 3:16; God was manifested in the flesh… then we can now we know that the Word was made flesh, and Paul tells us that that Word was actually God that was made flesh or manifested in the flesh. That is why in the 3rd clause of John 1:1 it is said that the Word was God, because He was thinking of Himself.

Paul understood this, and instead of saying that the Logos was manifested in the flesh, he said that God was manifested in the flesh, why? Because Paul understood what John tried to say, that the thought was God manifesting himself in the flesh.

Let me put this example to better understand that this verse is not talking of another person separate from God. Trinitarians say that the Word was Jesus existing as a separate person from God in eternity, which of course deny the real translation of the word Word which is Logos which is a thought or plan, and instead they just say that the Word is simply the person of Jesus and not a thought or plan. Let's see if what they say is true by replacing the terms in John 1:1 with the terms they would like use:

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

In a Trinitarian prospective this verse would read:

In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God the Father, and the Son was God the Father.

Trinitarians would not even admit this, since they say that the Son cannot be the Father, so let's change the terms.

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father, and Jesus was the Father

This is clearly the same scenario, and no matter how you call Jesus, and try to replace the terms. It will always come out with the fact that Jesus is in fact the same as the Father, not as a separate person, but as the same God, simply existing in human form, and still existing as a Spirit like He has always existed.

Let us see how the oneness puts this.

In the beginning was the Logos (Thought), and the Logos, was with God, and the Logos was God.

This Logos being simply the thought or plan, like I said before. It is clearly shown that this plan was God himself manifesting Himself in human form, as we see in John 1:14 and 1 Timothy 3:16

This Logos came to be God in human form with the name of Jesus. So the Logos is Jesus, let us replace now the terms.

In the beginning was Jesus (as a thought, not a person), and Jesus was with the Father, and Jesus was the Father.

This is what the oneness is all about. Jesus is the Son and at the same time He is the Father, for He is the root and He is the Branch. In other words, He is the Father of David, and the Son of David, at the same time.

But if the Son is the Father how is it that Jesus repeatedly claimed a distinction between Him and the Father?

This is simple. Because God has always existed as a Spirit (Which by the way, this is the reason why God is the Holy Spirit as well). So what God did was that He prepared Himself a body (Hebrews 10:5) and manifested all His deity (everything that God is) in that flesh, for in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). God came to exist not as He has always existed (a Spirit) but now in a different manner of existence (a human existence) and still existing beyond the incarnation, since He is still omnipresent, but only as a Spirit can He be omnipresent. There is a distinction, but not a separation.

So now, we have the same uni-personal God existing as human and still existing beyond the incarnation at the same time. Thus calling his human existence the Son of God, and His existence beyond the incarnation the Father, since His existence beyond the incarnation is pure deity, and His existence as a human is the same pure deity (Col. 2:9) with humanity. And the Name of Jesus is simply the new name of God. This is why the bible talks about Jesus creating the world and creating everything that it was, simply because the name of God is now Jesus. It was not that another person separate from God, who's name was Jesus created everything and the Father did not created anything. But it is that the Father created everything, but since in the new testament the name of the Father is Jesus, the bible states that it was because of Jesus that this creation came to be, simply because the name of the Father is now Jesus (Isaiah 9:6) (John 5:43)

When the Father was creating everything, He already had the thought that one day He was going to manifest Himself in flesh and His name was going to be Jesus, therefore calling the creator Jesus, who is the same Father existing in human form. So the Father created everything, but it is expressed in the bible that Jesus created everything because Jesus is the Father, it is just that in creation the Father was creating everything, as if the Jesus was creating it, because God calleth those things which be not as though they were (Romans 4:17).

And just as God called Abraham the father of many nations, and he did not even had a son yet, and his wife was barren. The same happened with Jesus, when God calls Him the creator of everything even though He was not born yet, or God had not manifested Himself as Him yet, but God was calling the things were not as though they were.

The reason why I bring all this up, is because many people argue that Jesus is eternal, co-existing in eternity with God the Father. They argue that the doctrine of the eternal son is correct because of scriptures like Colossians 1:15, John 1:1, Colossians 1, etc. Where we see Jesus creating the world and "existing in eternity" as mentioned above. But this is incorrect, the answers for this is in the above paragraphs.

Conclusion

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

(En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos)

God is a God of plans, but the truth of the matter is that God Himself is the plan.

Dr. Jeffers puts it this way:

"… God is the plan… the Logos means the thought, the plan, or the discourse of God. So in the beginning was the plan, and the plan was with God, because the plan was God.

Now the Greeks who believe in "Arete" which means Excellence, they say that in order to have a plan you must have a thought. So:

In the beginning was a thought, the thought was with God, because the thought was God; because God was thinking about Himself.

But the Hebrew says you cannot have a thought without having a thinker, so:

In the beginning was a thinker, and the thinker thought a thought, because the thinker was thinking about Himself."

Empowerment for Ministry (notes)

These are the notes I used for a bible study I gave in my local church (Christian Tabernacle – Santa Ana CA)
Note.
These are just notes, the writing is not in an article form, or very explainable, since there just notes I use to remember what I have to say. This does not follows a certain pattern of terminologies or writing rules, but this is what I use and what helps me to give my bible studies. I pray that it may be a blessing for someone. All glory goes to my Lord Jesus Christ, my Savior and God.

.
.
.
.

Empowerment:

The empowerment is the Holy Spirit, Acts 1:8 "you shall receive power, after the Holy Ghost comes upon you"

Empowerment is always related with power, in other words, "empowerment" always has to do with "Power"
So when Acts 1:8 says "you shall receive power" is actually talking about empowering the people of God.

So the question now is; empowered with what? With power, the power of God, the power of the most high.

It only takes the Holy Ghost to be empowered. But that is not it!


Thesis:

Don’t seek ministry, seek the empowerment, and let God give you the ministry by Himself.

Empowerment comes first, and then ministry. That's how it goes; empowerment first, then ministry. (Jesus' baptism, reason of getting baptized was for Him to start His ministry, when the Holy Ghost descended upon Him like a dove and illuminating Jesus)

Empowerment first, then ministry.

The reason I say this is because, often times we want to right away jump into the field without being yet empowered (not just receive the empowerment, but walking in the empowerment). Example for this is what happened to timothy, 2 Timothy 1:6-8



2 Timothy 1:6-8

When we read the letters to timothy, we right away see that there's some type of empowerment, and most of all ministry.

Verse 6 says; "wherefore I put thee in remembrance"
We all have to be reminded of who we really are! Often times we forget who we really are! We go through so many troubles and tribulations and ups and downs and afflictions, that sometimes we forget of who we really are, of the power that is in us!
Note. This is important to remember for later on in this lesson. (be partaker of the afflictions)

"That thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee"
Paul commands timothy to stir up the gift of God that is in thee. We see this gift of God to be the ministerial gift of timothy given to him by God (1 Timothy 4:14) in 1 timothy it shows that the gift of God is his ministerial gift, and then it says that it was given to him by the putting of the hands of the presbytery (altar) (ordained ministers) which leads us to what 2 timothy says

"By the putting on of my hands"
This goes back to 1 timothy 4:14 where we see when timothy was really empowered, probably receiving there the Holy Ghost.

This also shows us that we have to be under authority

Verse 7 says; "for God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power"
The word here "power" indicates and is the same "power of what Jesus spoke in (Luke 24:49) which is the power from on high. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Power (Acts 1:8)
The difference here is that many of us just receive the Holy Ghost and that's it! But that's not the only purpose of the Holy Spirit, it's not just to speak in tongues and jump and run on around the isles. But the bible says that we have to "walk in the Spirit"
It is different to receive the Spirit than to walk in the Spirit.
To walk under the influence of the Spirit, be guided by the Spirit. When was the last time you asked God to guide you with His Spirit?
Walking in the Spirit is walking in Power! You can do great things!

"And of love"
Really important! Better explained later in this lesson.
The spirit of love is important, is key in empowerment for ministry

Verse 8 says; "be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord.
We see the same thing in (Romans 1:16) and we see the same word "power" in this scripture again.
Some people believe that it is the "dynamite of God" because the Greek translation of power in all these scriptures is "duvnamis" from where we get the word dynamite in our English language. But this is not true since dynamite was not invented until the year 1866, Paul did not had any knowledge of dynamite at all.
The best translation of this power is to be said "dynamic" the "dynamic power of God" working for salvation! Dynamically working to save
If you have this power, if you are empower with this, don’t get surprise if you witness someone getting saved through your message! Or through your walk in the Spirit.

"But be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God"
Afflictions = love (that's how Paul puts it)

And this verse keeps on going by saying "according to the power of God".
Love through the power of God
Be empower with the power of God

This is where we see the difference. Paul was talking about being partaker of the afflictions (which is love) according to the power of God (by walking in the Spirit)

Love:

Something is going on in the life of Timothy. The whole context here is that Paul was writing to young Timothy to come back to him, and not to be discourage. Why? Because it was hard. Timothy was having so much trouble, that Paul had to tell him not to be discourage.

Did we ever see this happening to the Paul, Peter, John, or the other apostles? Not really! Why?

The only thing I see, the only conclusion I have for why this did not happened to the apostles was Because of love, the love they had for the Lord.
Not to say that they never had afflictions, or persecutions, or ups and downs, but that they could stand up, with the power of God, through the love they had for the Lord. Or not to say that Timothy did not loved the Lord, but that he probably wasn’t as much in love with God as the apostle Paul.


Someone put love into four stages:

1. Physical love
2. Mental love
3. Emotional love
4. Spiritual love



Let's look at the fruits of the Spirit (the fruits of empowerment) (the fruits of when you are empowered)


(Gal 5:22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

(Gal 5:23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

(Gal 5:24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

(Gal 5:25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.


The fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-25) the first one here is "Love"
This same chapter of Galatians keeps on telling us in verse 25 to walk in the Spirit.

In other words, the fruit of empowerment (Spirit) is Love, joy, peace, etc.
Love being the first fruit mention gives us an understanding that love if not the most, is one of the most important fruits.
But it doesn’t stop there, it doesn’t stops in just by knowing this or receiving the Spirit and knowing that Love is the fruit of it, and that we live in it, but the bible tells us that we have to walk in the Spirit. In other words, be in love with God, fell in love with Him.

Allow the Holy Ghost, (which is the empowerment) to move you to guide you to make you fell in love with God, so that you can grow roots.



Don’t seek ministry, seek the empowerment, and let God give you the ministry by Himself. Empowerment comes first, and then ministry.
The reason I say this is because, often times we want to right away jump into the field without being yet empowered (not just receive the empowerment, but walking in the empowerment).



Do you want ministry? Do you want to be empowered?
Fell in love with God first and you right away will start the process of walking in the Spirit

Many of us think we love Him, when we really don’t.


Do you want to be empowered for ministry?
Fell in love with God first

Don’t seek ministry, seek the empowerment first, and let God give you the ministry.

A Oneness View of "Son of God" and "Son of Man"

Jesus

The bible calls Him "Son of God" as well as He is called the "Son of Man"

"Son of God" and "Son of Man" is what best describes the identity of Jesus. Taking the last word of each of the two phrases, "God" and "Man" is one of the clearest description of Jesus. He is "God"-"Man".

In the next few paragraphs I will try to take you to the definition or why is it that Jesus was called the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man". Why is it that Jesus of Nazareth was God-Man. I believe this is an important principle to understand who Jesus really was.


I will only deal with the definitions of the terms given above; "Son of God" and "Son of Man". Not to say that other theological aspects will be mention in a brief manner simply to explain and to support the efficiency and clearness of this topic.



Son of Man

"Son of Man" is found in the bible more than 80 times, and most of the times (specially in the new testament) refers to Jesus.
Jesus is called the "Son of Man" for two reasons. Prophecy and who Jesus really was, a man.

Daniel 7:13-14 says:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed"

In this prophecy we clearly see Jesus being describe as the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven. This prophecy is fulfilled in the new testament when we see Jesus being born of a women as the scripture says in Galatians 4:4.

The next verse in the scripture mentioned above gives us a clearer example and more information of who this Son of Man was:
14" And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed"

This verse gives us a great example of this Son of Man, that unto Him was given dominion, and glory and kingdom, etc. And we see this being fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

In Daniel 7:14 the Son of Man is given dominion
And the fulfillment of it we see it In Matthew 28:18 Jesus is given dominion
And the rest of the other are also fulfilled in Jesus, in passages such as
John 13:31, Philippians 2:9-11, and more.

So now we see that Daniel 7:13-14 is a reference of Jesus, being called the Son of Man.
The term "Son of Man" is a fulfillment of a prophecy.

"Son of Man" is also a term use to describe Jesus' humanity.

Galatians 4:4 says:

"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law"

The Son was made of woman. Jesus was actually born of a human being, a woman. This is a simple concept to grasp, Jesus was born of a woman, a human being.
The bible often times speaks of humans as "man" for instance in Genesis 1:27 the bible says:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them"

Here we clearly see the example that this verse is giving the term "man" to both "male and female" and then the verse goes on by saying "created he them"
In other words, the verse says that God created "man", who were these?
The same verse says "male and female, created he THEM"
This shows that the bible often times speaks of both male and female as "man", or when we see the term "man" we can also say that it is sometimes given to humanity or humans, all depending in the context. This is why Jesus is called the Son of MAN because he was the Son of a woman, a human. For this reason Jesus was also a human, for her mother.

With this we can understand now that Jesus was born of a woman, meaning that he was born of a human, therefore this Jesus was a human! One hundred percent human.

Another example is that the bible also calls normal people "Son of man"
Psalms 8:4 says:

"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

This verse is talking about humans, regular people, normal people. The original translation of this in the Greek where we see the same verse (psalms) quoted in the book of Hebrews 2:6 is:

uihos anthrōpos

Keep in mind that this verse is only talking about regular people like you and me.
The original translation in the Greek of a verse that talks about the Son of Man being Jesus is Matthew 9:6 is:

Uihos anthrōpos

We clearly see the exact same translation of both terms given to humans and Jesus.
Jesus was a man, one hundred percent human. Everything that we have Jesus had. Everything that we go through as humans, Jesus also did, for instance temptation.

Son of Man is simply to describe Jesus' human nature.




Son of God

Let us not forget that Jesus was also called Son of God. This is where most of the people fail to understand who Jesus really was. They do not understand that Jesus was a man but He was also God. Jesus was God-Man.

There are some people that argue that Jesus was the Son of God as if it was a second person or someone separate. Some people argue that Jesus is actually a second person of a suppose trinity, and that He is the Son of the Father. The second person being the Son of the first person.
This argument is wrong, this is never what the message of the bible says. In the first place the bible never speaks of a trinity, it never mentions the word trinity, nor its doctrine. Not going too much into detail in this doctrine I want to state that this doctrine is not biblical, and if there is a trinity then it is not the God of the bible. The bible only speaks of one God indivisible (can not be divided). There is a distinction between natures (for the lack of better terminology this term is used), but not a separation of persons.

The reason why Jesus was called the Son of God is because of what we see in the gospel according to Luke chapter 1 verse 35:

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God"

What this verse is actually saying is that because of the Holy Ghost coming upon Mary she was going to conceive, and therefore that Holy thing was going to be called the Son of God. In other words, in consequence of the Holy Ghost coming upon her she was going to conceive and that was going to be called the Son of God, simply because it was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not had an earthly father, His Father was God, the Spirit that has always existed. Jesus did had an earthly mother, His mother was Mary. And instead of the fertilization and implementation of a sperm, the power of the Highest overshadowed her. Both were needed for the two natures of Jesus and for Jesus to be God and at the same time human. The Holy Ghost conceiving Jesus and Mary giving birth to Jesus, making Jesus be both, human and God at the same time.

The Holy Spirit is God Himself, that is why that was going to be called the Son of God.
The Holy Spirit is not the third person of a suppose trinity, or simply a power. The Holy Spirit is God Himself, The Father is the Holy Spirit.

The bible says in John 4:24:

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth"

The bible clearly says that God is a Spirit, and also other passages support this. But God is not just a Spirit, but God is also Holy! Isaiah 6:3 says:

"And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory"

God is Holy and He is also a Spirit, God is the Holy Spirit.


God came to exist in a new form of existence (a human existence). Thus calling Himself "Son of God" to define (with this terminology) His identity in the incarnation. Son of God is to be understood as God existing in human form. Jesus was God, the Spirit that has always existed, the Father, but now existing in human form, still being God but with human nature, and still existing as a the omnipresent Spirit beyond the incarnation.


The term Son of God refers to God existing in a human form. The distinction is not a separation. God existed as human with the name of Jesus which means Yahweh is Salvation, and still He existed beyond the incarnation since God is omnipresent.

We see that the term "Son of God" is just a name given to Jesus simply because it was conceived by the Holy Spirit, with the help of the human Mary. And it is used to describe God as a human form.

The term "Son of God" is given to Jesus in reference of God existing in the incarnation and when you see the term Father it refers to God existing beyond the incarnation. This is where many people get confuse, they say that if Jesus was God then what happens with the Father? Are there two Gods? No, when the bible speaks of the Son it is in reference to God existing as human, in the incarnation, and when the bible speaks of the Father it is to say that God exists beyond the incarnation, since God is omnipresent. All in the same uni-personal God. Not as a separation of gods or that there is more than one God but God existing in human form and as the Father at the same time.

There is only one God, who manifested Himself as Jesus (1 Timothy 3:16)
And the term "Son of God" is only given to Jesus because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and the term Son of Man because He was born of a woman.