The interpretation offered by some to try and convince us that "Jesus is God in the flesh," is well known to me. I was raised Southern Baptist, and was a vocal public professor of the "Trinity" and the Oneness of God and Christ (as the same person). I was so much so, that I joined the "Pentecostal" movement in 1977. I then attended Oneness churches. (Who indeed teach the Trinity is wrong, but they teach it's wrong because there aren't "three persons" of God, only one, and that person is Jesus!)

I spent almost 30 years teaching and attempting to refute the doctrines of those who deny the Deity of Christ. I've heard and read ALL the arguments.

I do not fault people for believing this concept. It is ingrained into the mind of most Christians from birth. It is like an "optical" illusion, in which, a suggestion is made to you as to what the picture is, and you can no longer look at the picture any other way (even though you might have seen something else entirely when you first looked).

The Gospel of John, first Chapter has been translated with this sort of "suggestion" in mind, and indeed, Christian teachers take great pains to diasect this chapter on a FREQUENT basis, going line by line verse by verse, to ensure that their followers get the right "picture." I ask you now to do two simple things.

First off, is to shed your mind of the picture that has been painted by religion, and read the verses again, scrutinizing them, asking yourself "did it really mean that?" "Did it really say that?" My road to the truth began on one simple word from the text. The "light."

If you read verse 7 it says that John the Baptist came to bear witness of that "light."

A clear reference to Messiah!

Not necessarily!

Why do I say that?

It is clever the way religion has distorted the text. I tell you now, beware of how the verses are broken up. You can change any sentence's meaning, simply by chopping half of it off and making a new sentence out of it.

I'll try to give you an example.

"Bill Smith could take his father only on a frequent basis because of his drinking. Today was one of those days when the drinking had started early. He sat down with his scotch in hand and got uglier with every drink."

Now what happens when I break the paragraph up?

Bill Smith could take his father only on a frequent basis because of his drinking.

Today was one of those days when the drinking had started early.

He sat down with his scotch in hand and got uglier with every drink."

Let's see what translators did to the verses in the Gospel of John (by cleverly breaking them in verses in just the right way to make it more mirror their beliefs).

"1 John 1: 6-9
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world."

Several key words and phrases were actually ADDED to this text in order for it to make sense broken up the way it was in verse. Those words are "was," "that was" "men" and "That." We know they were added by translators because King James was honest enough to make the tranlators place their additions in italics! Let's read these verses without the added words and phrases.

"1 John 1: 6-9 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name, John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but to bear witness of that Light.
9 Was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world."

We see that it's much harder to make sense of these three sentences without the added words and phrases. Yet, consider if you will the awesome power of Yahweh to preserve his word, despite all tampering! Of course it's hard to understand the passages without the added words, because they have broken sentences completely in half and made NEW sentences. Keep in mind, the punctuation marks of periods and comma's did not exist in the original texts! So let's read these passages without the verse breaks (added by the translators) and without the punctuation (also added by the translators), and without the added words that did not come from Yahweh but came from men.

"1 John 1: 6-9
There was a man sent from God whose name John the same came for a witness to bear witness of the Light that all through him might believe he was not that Light but to bear witness of that Light was the true Light which lights every man that comes into the world."

There's one more trick that translators used to make a text say anything. The word OF. It was not in any of the original passages, not in Greek and not in aramaic for that matter. Of, is strictly an ENGLISH convection, mostly. Few languages have a word like that.

So, could the "ofs" also added by translators affect the meaning? Of course they can. Let's get rid of them for a moment.

"1 John 1: 6-9
There was a man sent from God whose name John the same came for a witness to bear witness the Light that all through him might believe he was not that Light but to bear witness that Light was the true Light which lights every man that comes into the world."

It makes even less sense doesn't it?

The subject of the sentence is not John, it is "the light" and that John came to bear witness of it. Therefore, the first ambiguity is cleared up by context. So, context demands that the first sentence be read in this way.

There was a man sent from God named John, the same (John) came for a witness to bear witness (of) the Light that all through him (through John's testimony of the light) might believe.

The second ambiguity existed when you take away the first period.

"all through him might believe he was not that Light. "

This sounds like John bore witness so that all through his testimony would NOT believe something. That is illogical. You don't bear witness to get someone to "NOT" believe something. Therefore, the translators were correct in beginning a new sentence at He.

He was not that Light but to bear witness that Light was the true Light which lights every man that comes into the world."

Here's where I and the translators part company however. For they also ended a sentence, added the word That, and started a new sentence. There is no logical explanation for what they did, for the second sentence makes perfect sense without breaking it up. The only conclusion we can draw was they deliberately broke this perfect sentence up into two separate version to give the "illusion" of the text backing up their doctrine. The original texts did not say "He was not that light but was sent to bear witness of that light." It also did not say "That Light was the true light."

It says simply that He was not that Light, but to bear witness, that Light was the true light which lights every man that comes into the world."

Now the translators say that the "He" in that statement is "John." In other words, "He, (John) was not that Light, but came to bear witness that Light was the true light."

It very easily could have been speaking of Messiah here though,

"He (Messiah) was not that Light, but came to bear witness that Light was the true light."

Yet, I believe that context demands that it was speaking still of John and his testimony. Which means I agree that "He (John) was not that light." Where I and the translators part is their adding the word "of" there in the sentence to make it sound like the person of whom John bore witness was Himself "the Light!" Without the added phrase "was sent" and the added words "of" and the breaking of the sentence into two verses with the addition of "That," the verse does not say what they contend it to mean! Not even close!

The Light of which John bore witness became the light, in order to bear witness of the truth! It does not say "was sent" to bear witness, it says John bore witness, and the light itself bore witness! (Two Witnesses).

John did not come to bear witness that Messiah Himself was that light (in person), but to bear witness of the True Light that came through Messiah's ministry!

A better translation of this text is as follows:

He (john) was not that Light. But to bear witness, that Light (became) the true Light which lights every man that comes into the world."

Here is where you should become convinced that these verses in no way say that Messiah was the "Person" of God come in the flesh! Verse 9 says the Light of which he speaks is "the true light that shines on all men." In other words, this Light existed from the very beginning of man! There is only one way for a Light to shine on "all" men, (all men who ever existed or will exist), and that is for the light to precede man! Yet, we know that Messiah was born of man, some 6000 years after Genesis. Messiah Himself, the person, did not "shine on all men." If he had, all men would have beheld his glory and been converted and saved! The Light spoken of here is not Messiah, for Messiah himself made it clear that he himself was sent to "bear witness of the Light," and that he became "a light" shining in a dark place!

First, we must understand that he who "comes to the light," according to Messiah, becomes the light.

John 12: 36
35: Then Yahoshua said to them, yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you; for he that walks in darnkess does not know where he is going. 36 While you have light, believe in the light, that you may be the children of light."

This is one of the most important messages of the Gospel, that those who receive the light and walk in the light, become "the light" themselves, shining into a world of darkness! Which is why Messiah warned us not to "hide your light under a bushel." We become the light of the world, in the same way Messiah was "the light of the world."

Matthew 5: 14
14 You are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hidden.
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a Menorah: and it gives light to all that are in the house."

There we have it all in these several passages out of John! John became the LIGHT to those who believed him. Also demonstrated in here was the Two Witnesses. Finally, Messiah points out, yet again, that they had "not seen the father!" Yet Christianity wants us to believe that this is not true, that Messiah was God in the flesh, and everyone that was looking at Him, was looking at God Himself! We can clearly see from reading the Bible ourselves that this is simply not the case.

Messiah called John the Baptist, the light, yet, John the Apostle begins his Gospel by saying that John the Baptist was not the Light! Of course he wasn't literally the Light, (in person) he bore witness of the Light, and thus became the Light! The same can be said of all who preach truth. Yet, Messiah also showed us the Light, and John bore witness that the Light of Messiah was his light! Logic dictates that if it can be said of John "he was not that light," even though John showed us the Messiah and thus became the Light to us, it can be said of Messiah "he was not that light," not in person even though Messiah showed us the Father!

The logical question one must ask is this, if Messiah was the Light from the very beginning, why would he "become" the light?

John 1: 6-9 is clearly a reference to "the Light" that was created at the Beginning in Genesis when God said "let there be light," and He saw that the light was good. Yet, if Messiah was the word, and the word was the light, and the light and the word were God himself, how could the light be "created?" Seeing that it was always with God from the very beginning, God would not have to say "let there be light," for it's the same as him saying "let there be God."

Don't you see that?

The Light was created! How can the Light be the creator?

The creature that is created cannot create itself! Furthermore, if God is the Word, and the Word is the Light, then then God created himself in Genesis! Now we have God as a created being too, he becomes both "created" and "creator." Thus, we see the Gnostic influences upon the teachings of the Bible, for, it is the Gnostics who introduced the notion of different "levels" to God, and that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a "created being."

Clearly, when Christians admit that Messiah is "the Light that shines on all men," they are admitting openly that Messiah is NOT God, but was created in Genesis, just before the world was created! There is absolutely no way to escape this conclusion!

Now, let's look at something else!

In verses 9 and 10 it appears to say that this Light was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not, he (the light) came unto his own, and his own receved him not. Christian's deduce that first "the Light" is Jesus, and that the world was "made by him," (Jesus/the Light) and the world knew him not. However, go to Genesis and see if the world was created by the light. You will see that the world existed before the Light. It says "the world became without form or void and darkness was on the face of the deep."

The world would have had to exist first, in some form or another, in order to become without form or void! Something that has never had form, cannot become "without form." Now, this is all preceding the creation of the "Light." Show me in Genesis where the Light has anything at all to do with the creation. You can't, because it was GOD who created the world, and NOT the Light! Furthermore, you can't even say that God and The Light are one in the same, for if that were so, God would not have to say "let there be light," for there would already be Light (God). Logic dictates, therefore that something is wrong with the way they are reading verses 9 and 10. The problem, again, is in their breaking the sentences up in verses!

When it says "He was in the world," in verse 10 is it talking about the Light? It can't be, for it says "the world was created by him," and we know the Light had nothing to do with the creation of the World. Is it talking about "the Word?" It can't be either. Why not? Because it says in verse 14 "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Therefore, we know that the Word was not "in the world" from the beginning, but was manifest at some point after. If the Word had to be "made flesh" to dwell among us, then how can it be said of the Word "he was in the world and the world knew him not," before Messiah was even born?

There is only one person who fits the "He was in the world," in these verses, and that is God! The problem with Christianity, the real heartbreaking, frustrating, destructive mentality is revealed in the way they read verses 10 and 11 of this chapter. They approach the subject of God from a humanistic and quite gnostic approach, in which God is somewhere far off, somewhere off in the distance looking down on us! Like the Bette Midler song "...from a distance God is watching us." Therefore, to them, when they read "he was in the world and the world knew him not," they automatically assume it can't be talking about God here, because God was not "in the world." Thus, they conconct this notion that God somehow had to come and be made a fleshly man in order to "dwell among his people." This is an heresy of heresies! God has been in the world from the beginning! He walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden! He walked with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. He walked with Moses, and King David, and King Solomon!

When Christianity dismisses the notion that God was in the world and the world knew Him, and therefore, they reason that God had to become a manin order to dwell among us, they completely destroy the entire notion that God has been with his people from the days of Abraham!

They also reveal their inherant unbelief, in that they can't believe that GOD dwells in His people (the temple).

While they say "Jesus lives in me," they don't really believe this, for they clearly believe it was necessary for God to come and become a fleshly man in order for God to dwell among us, and logic dictates if God has to become a man in order to dwell among us, then Messiah, God's Son, also cannot truly dwell among us unless he is here in the world "in the flesh."

That is why there exists now, and will continue to be false Messiah's who arise and say they are the return of Messiah, capitalizing on the basic inability of the unbeliever to believe that Messiah dwells in them! People need a God they can touch and feel, a fleshly God! A true believer does not need this, for they know that God walks with them, and is in the world through them!

If you understand that the "HE" in verses 10 through 18 are God himself, you then begin to understand that by those verses Messiah was not God, could not be God. Messiah "was made in the likeness of God," but this does not make him the "person" of God anymore than we shall be "God" when we are remade into His likeness!

10 He( God) came unto his own (Israel) and his own receved him (God) not.
12 But as many as received Him (God) gave he power to become the sons of God, to them that believe on His name (Yahweh, God). 13 Which were born (those who believed) not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was MADE flesh....

It says that they beheld the Word through the flesh of Messiah, though his living example of the Word! That's all this means. It does not mean that Messiah was the person of "God in the flesh." If Messiah was the "Word" from the moment he was born, then no one would have had to bear testimony of him! John the Baptist would not have had to tell us who he is, and God would not have had to send the spirit down upon him in the form of a Dove declaring "this is my son in whom I am well pleased." We're talking about God becoming flesh here!

If Messiah was God in the flesh, this is the God of all creation we are talking about! The one that Moses said no man could look upon without dropping dead! If Moses is to be believed, (and I believe) and if Messiah was actually God incarnate, everyone who looked upon Messiah from the minute he was born, would have immediately dropped dead, having beheld the Glory of the Most High God, in all fulness personafied.

Clearly, the Christian's teaching that Messiah was the "fulness of the Godhead Bodily" is the greatest evidence of all they do not believe Moses, who said that he could not look upon the face of God and live!

Either Moses was lying, or Christianity is lying! If, all God had to do was be made "flesh" in order for Moses to "look upon him," has not God the power to make himself a man? If God making Himself into a man neutralizes his Glory, so that we can look upon Him and not die, then why did not God simply make himself a man when he was dealing with Moses? Why did God have to be born from a woman to become a man? Is he not all powerfull? Cannot he just transform Himself into flesh at will? Yet, the Tanakh tells us that "Heaven and Earth cannot contain Him." Evidently the Older Testament is ALL wrong. No wonder Christians disregard it!

People tell me I'm "limiting God." No, I'm just acknowledging the physical limitations of this world in which we live! This world cannot contain the full glory and presence of the Creator, and man, in flesh, cannot look upon the form of God, without being completely obliterated by that Glory! This is what Moses said of the Great I Am, and I believe Moses, for Moses testified of Messiah, and Messiah testified of Moses!

Christians do not understand that when they say Messiah possessed the "fulness of the Godhead" from birth, they are actually saying that we are God in the Flesh as well, for we have been given Messiah's fulness! Everything that he had, is now offered to them that believe!

We see John 1: 16:

"And of his fulness have all we received and grace from grace."

In verse 17 and 18 we find the most stark evidence of all that Messiah was not God in the flesh!