For many people who believe in the “deity of Christ”, a few words from John 1:1 combined with a few words from John 1:14 forms the #1 evidence that Jesus is God, and that therefor somehow God is a Trinity.

In this podcast we focus on the problems with the “deity of Christ” and Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:14, the claim that “God became man.”

There is no Trinity in John 1:1 or John 1:14 or anywhere else in John’s Gospel.

The incarnation, or “God became man” interpretation plucks a few words from the Gospel of John and creates its most important, essential, seminal doctrine, while ignoring nearly the entirety of the rest of the Gospel of John, and the Bible as a whole. Jesus’ own words in the Gospel of John, and the author’s own purpose statement are ignored.

Does the Greek word (egeneto) translated in most English Bibles in John 1:14 as “became” mean that one member of a multi-person godhead transformed into flesh? Did one member a godhead “become” man like the fairy tale prince became frog? Many “diety of Christ” believers seem to believe that one member of a godhead inhabited a human body like the human prince inhabited a frog body.

If God became man by taking on another nature, human nature (flesh), then why has the Trinitarian god been defined for hundreds of years as having only one nature?

Deity of Christ interpreters are like magicians who claim one moment that there God has one nature, but then the next moment insist that their god has two natures.

Why is the conception and birth of Jesus the Messiah not described at all in the Gospel of John, if the author wanted to communicate that God becameman? We call the incarnation “the Greatest Story Never Told”.

We explain why “deity of Christ” belief in a “trans-nature” god is similar to, and in some ways even worse, than the modern trans-gender claims. Christians who believe in a trans-natured god and condemn transgenders and homosexuals are being hypocritical.

We note how history is against the “God became man” interpretation of John 1:14, and see how the interpretation was developed in Greco-Roman-Byzantine philosophical speculation in lands outside of Israel. The Gospel of John must be understood from a 1st century Hebraic background, not from a 2-5thcentury Gentile viewpoint.

The worst aspect of the “God became man” interpretation is that it denies that Jesus of Nazareth is a human person. In the end, it tends to eliminate even the abstract “human nature” from Jesus.

There is a better way to interpret John 1:14 which does not deny that Jesus is a human person. We plan to make a suggestion in a podcast to come.

https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-word-became-flesh-why-john-114-does.html

Links for other sources mentioned in the podcast:

Evolution of the Trinity, Interview with Dr. Dale Tuggy (part 1)

https://anchor.fm/onegodreport-podcast/episodes/10-Evolution-of-the-Trinity--Interview-with-Dr--Dale-Tuggy--part-1-ebro54

“Jesus is Not a Human Person”