No man has seen God at any time

[Stewardofthemystery]

It is written in John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

And Jesus said in John 14:6-7
King James Version
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.”

So if no man has seen God at any time, how do we reconcile what seems to be a contradiction? When you understand the identity of the Son of God being the very Word of God, then you will understand there is no contradiction.

It is the Word OF God that was made flesh in the man Jesus. And it is BY God’s Word and words that we get to know and see what God the Father is really like, His likes and dislikes. It is by God’s Word and words we get to see and know the will of God the Father.

In this way, by looking at the words and actions of Jesus Christ we get to see and know what The invisible God is really like.

We don’t see the outward image of God in Christ, but rather we see the inward image of God in Jesus Christ, as God was in Christ.

Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

When you understand this mystery then there is a harmony to the text without contradiction.

Peace and God bless

[JehovahsWitness]

If it refers to God as such, or to the word "true" it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be ...

Are you in the habit of re-writing holy scripture ? Do you think your rendering the bible differently improves on the work of the inspired writers? I am not interested in what you think the writers SHOULD have said, only in what the bible canon actually does said. You can take your "improvements" up with The Almighty.

[Capbook]

If it refers to God as such, or to the word "true" it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be ...

Are you in the habit of re-writing holy scripture ? Do you think your rendering the bible differently improves on the work of the inspired writers? I am not interested in what you think the writers SHOULD have said, only in what the bible canon actually does said. You can take your "improvements" up with The Almighty.

It is just to make a point, that Jesus has already twice testified that the true God is He who has been made known to us in Christ, why should He again add, This is the true God? It would be most suitably applies to Christ then.

[JehovahsWitness]

It is just to make a point, that Jesus has already twice testified that the true God is He who has been made known to us in Christ, why should He again add, This is the true God? It would be most suitably applies to Christ then.

So in your opinion scripture can talk about Jesus too much? Is there a limit to his role in the bible, if not why set such a limit ?

[onewithhim]

If it refers to God as such, or to the word "true" it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be ...

Are you in the habit of re-writing holy scripture ? Do you think your rendering the bible differently improves on the work of the inspired writers? I am not interested in what you think the writers SHOULD have said, only in what the bible canon actually does said. You can take your "improvements" up with The Almighty.

It is just to make a point, that Jesus has already twice testified that the true God is He who has been made known to us in Christ, why should He again add, This is the true God? It would be most suitably applies to Christ then.

Not at all. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? What you are saying is unclear.

[Capbook]

If it refers to God as such, or to the word "true" it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be ...

Are you in the habit of re-writing holy scripture ? Do you think your rendering the bible differently improves on the work of the inspired writers? I am not interested in what you think the writers SHOULD have said, only in what the bible canon actually does said. You can take your "improvements" up with The Almighty.

It is just to make a point, that Jesus has already twice testified that the true God is He who has been made known to us in Christ, why should He again add, This is the true God? It would be most suitably applies to Christ then.

Not at all. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? What you are saying is unclear.

1. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true,(The Son of God gives us understanding to know the true God, the Father).
2. and we are in Him that is true, ( Jesus want us to know that we are in Him who is true God, the Father).
Twice Jesus testified about the Father as true God, then why add "This is the true God?

1 John 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
KJV

[onewithhim]

If it refers to God as such, or to the word "true" it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be ...

Are you in the habit of re-writing holy scripture ? Do you think your rendering the bible differently improves on the work of the inspired writers? I am not interested in what you think the writers SHOULD have said, only in what the bible canon actually does said. You can take your "improvements" up with The Almighty.

It is just to make a point, that Jesus has already twice testified that the true God is He who has been made known to us in Christ, why should He again add, This is the true God? It would be most suitably applies to Christ then.

Not at all. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? What you are saying is unclear.

1. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true,(The Son of God gives us understanding to know the true God, the Father).
2. and we are in Him that is true, ( Jesus want us to know that we are in Him who is true God, the Father).
Twice Jesus testified about the Father as true God, then why add "This is the true God?

1 John 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
KJV

Both of those verses testify to the fact that the Father is God, as Jesus himself clearly said.

[Capbook]

If it refers to God as such, or to the word "true" it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be ...

Are you in the habit of re-writing holy scripture ? Do you think your rendering the bible differently improves on the work of the inspired writers? I am not interested in what you think the writers SHOULD have said, only in what the bible canon actually does said. You can take your "improvements" up with The Almighty.

It is just to make a point, that Jesus has already twice testified that the true God is He who has been made known to us in Christ, why should He again add, This is the true God? It would be most suitably applies to Christ then.

Not at all. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? What you are saying is unclear.

1. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true,(The Son of God gives us understanding to know the true God, the Father).
2. and we are in Him that is true, ( Jesus want us to know that we are in Him who is true God, the Father).
Twice Jesus testified about the Father as true God, then why add "This is the true God?

1 John 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
KJV

Both of those verses testify to the fact that the Father is God, as Jesus himself clearly said.

Yes, twice Jesus testified that the Father is true God. I numbered it above. And who is the nearest antecedent to the phrase " This is the true God" then? If we follow this contextual and grammatical principle, the nearest antecedent is “Jesus Christ.” Jesus God is “the true God.”

[Capbook]

It is just to make a point, that Jesus has already twice testified that the true God is He who has been made known to us in Christ, why should He again add, This is the true God? It would be most suitably applies to Christ then.

So in your opinion scripture can talk about Jesus too much? Is there a limit to his role in the bible, if not why set such a limit ?

Twice Jesus testified about God as the true God. Grammatical exegesis, who is the nearest antecedent of the phrase "This is the true God?"

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Capbook in post #77]

No, Jesus is saying to the Father that the Father is the true God. Jesus said "YOU are the one true God." Was Jesus talking to himself? I think it's clear that he was addressing the Father, Jehovah.

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #77]

No, Jesus is saying to the Father that the Father is the true God. Jesus said "YOU are the one true God." Was Jesus talking to himself? I think it's clear that he was addressing the Father, Jehovah.

You did not answer my question colored blue,

Twice Jesus testified about God as the true God. Grammatical exegesis, who is the nearest antecedent of the phrase "This is the true God?"