Jesus and His God

Some who do not believe that Jesus existed before his birth on earth have claimed that Jesus is not the Logos, but rather that Jesus was born of the Logos. In some vague manner, the usage of "born" in John 1:12 is evidently thought to support the idea that the Logos gave birth to Jesus. Does John 1:13,14 mean that the man Jesus was born “of the Logos” of verse 1? John 1:12 But as many as received him [The Logos of verse 1], to them he [the Logos of verse 1] gave the right to become God’s children [Psalm 82:7; John 10:34,35], to those who believe in his name [the name of the Logos of verse 1]: John 1:13 who [those who believe in the Logos of verse 1] were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [by means of God’s Holy Spirit] John 1:14 The Word [the Logos of verse 1] became flesh, and [the Logos of verse 1] lived among us. We saw his glory [the terrestrial glory (1 Corinthians 15:39-41) of the Logos of verse 1 in the flesh], s...

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name. -- John 1:12 . The above scripture is sometimes presented to prove that the Logos is God, evidently because he gave those who received him the right to become God's children. We have not found a clear explanation of how his verse is thought to be proof of the triune God philosophy. We surmise that the thought is that the Almighty could not give to his Son this authority, except that the Son of God is God Himself. They, then, would claim only God can give others the right to become God's children. If Jesus is not God Almighty, by what authority could he give others the right to become children of God?  In reality, all power and authority that Jesus has is that which has been given to him by the Source of All Power and Might, that is, his God and Father.  Jesus, however, did not have to be God Most High in order to give others the right to be sons of G...

The following is an excerpt from James White’s dissertation on “ John 1:1 - Meaning and Translation ”. While we are not associated with the JWs, we have had this quote from James Whtie presented to us: Some refer the “beginning” here to that of Genesis 1.1, and this may be so, but the verb “was” (Gr: en, imperfect of eimi) takes us before whatever “beginning” we may wish to choose. The continuous action in the past of the imperfect tense of the verb indicates to us that whenever the “beginning” was, the Word was already in existence. In other words, the Word is eternal – timeless – without a “beginning.” James White claims the Greek word transliterated as EN (Strong's #2258:  Imperfect Indicative Active , a form of Strong's #1510), in effect, would mean eternity, at least in John 1:1. It is evidently being assumed that “beginning” refers to absolutely everything in the created universe, and thus, since the Word “was” before such, then the Word was never created, and thus, ...