Every single thought, emotion, action that flies around in your head is known. Every single one! Those will either convict you or free you. Goats 🐐 to the left, sheep 🐑 to the right and they will be separated forever.

But don’t be afraid of those who threaten you. For the time is coming when everything that is covered will be revealed, and all that is secret will be made known to all.(Matthew 10:26)

Sarai (Sarah) laughed within herself at Genesis 18:12 and then she lied to the Angel (she really lied to God) and denied she laughed within herself to the Angel and YHWH reminded her (through the messenger) that she did laugh even though she laughed within herself.

For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light. (Luke 8:17)

Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.” But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.” (Genesis 18:15)

Every thought in your head is known, every single one, it makes no difference if you hear a voice and are talking to yourself, it is all known!

That is why proper prayer stops all that and why you must love YHWH will all your strength, with all your body, heart and the mind (of God), since you only have a brain and mind is of God!

A short discussion (from a longer video) with Dale Allison, considered one of the top scholars in New Testament studies, often referred to as "North America's most complete New Testament scholar" and "the premier Matthew specialist of his generation."

SO the question:

Did the story of the dead rising out of their graves in Jerusalem not really happen?
Did the writer of gMatthew think it happened?
OR
Was it a literary creation by the writer?

Nothing can be eternal and be begotten, it is impossible! When Yeshua says “I was born” at John 18:37, indeed he was, of Mary who gave birth to him!

What does Yeshua tell you? I tell you, everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty (or careless) word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matthew 24:36-37)

Faith without works is dead, if you think all that is needed is faith, you are greatly mistaken!

The term “God the Son” does not appear in scripture anywhere and yet this inverted, perverted term is used moreso than the term “Son of God” which appears about 50 times in scripture. Who would use this inverted term “God the Son” which does not appear in scripture anywhere rather than the term “Son of God” which appears about 50 times in Scripture?

The Son never calls himself “God the Son” but properly calls himself “Son of God” at John 10:36 and more dramatically has a discussion with Kefa about who he is at Matthew 16:16-17 (Son of God) and even tells Kefa that Kefa’s answer comes from the Father. The Son is truly a Son of God and never is called “God the Son” in scripture!

Colossians 2:9:

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

John 8:12:

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

Why do so many of you use these Bible passages to support the trinity doctrine?

Who was dead in a tomb for three days? Yeshua was!

Who cried to YHWH to raise him from death? Yeshua did!(Hebrews 5:7)

Does flesh die for your sins? No, Yeshua did! “I was dead” (Revelation 1:18)

YHWH does not die, ever!

Flesh cannot die, the person to whom the flesh belongs dies, not flesh. If flesh died only, how did the same pre-resurrected flesh attach itself to the post resurrected flesh of Yeshua, hmmmmmmmm?

Yeshua died, not flesh! Flesh profits nothing!

Certain events occurred at a later date, what were they?

Sorry, you imagine that the term “Spirit of Christ” means what you want it to mean as if Christ was living when he wasn’t born yet. The term itself “The Spirit of Christ” never appears in the OT just like your term “God the Son” doesn’t appear in scripture anywhere either. But the term “Son of God” appears over 50 times, now why would those invert and pervert the term “Son of God”, how odd to pervert and invert which comes from below. The term “Spirit of the Lord” and “the Spirit of God” appears over and over but never the term “Spirit of Christ”.

There are many terms used to define this, YHWH gives it different names as a function, if it is wisdom:

1. ⁠It is called the “Spirit of Wisdom” (Exodus 28:3; Deuteronomy 34:9; Ephesians 1:17)

2. ⁠When functioning as Grace, it is the “Spirit of Grace” (Zechariah 12:10; Hebrews 10:29)

3. ⁠When functioning as glory, it is the “Spirit of Glory” (1 Peter 4:14)

4. ⁠When functioning as adoption, or eternal life, it is the “Spirit of Adoption” (Romans 8:15) Also listed in some bibles as “Spirit of Sonship”.

5. ⁠When functioning as truth, it is called “The Spirit of Truth” (John 14:17, John 16:13)

6. ⁠When is was brought to Elijah, it was the “Spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15)

There aren’t many spirits, those are demons. There is only one spirit, the holy spirit, which has never been a third “person” of the trinity nonsense, it has no throne in Heaven and the holy spirit is the power and force of the Father alone, YHWH, the Shema shall prevail forever. Imagination is not law.

There is one spirit and that is the Father’s gift of the holy spirit (Ephesians 4:4).

When Kefa mentions the “Spirit of Christ” was upon prophets as they predicted the sufferings of Yeshua and the glory that would follow, Kefa mentions the “Spirit of Christ” because it is associated with Christ and foretold of Christ, NOT because Christ is actually alive during the OT, imagination is not law.

You see and look but you are blind, you imagine that no response was given initially about 1 Peter 11,12 so you just imagine it means what it means in the thoughts of your head to conform to a doctrine associated with HaSatan. Here now is the response to 1 Peter 1:11 of the King James Version, written by trinitarians but you don’t care, you will just move into something else and live in constant imagination.

Yeshua never pre-existed his existence and instead of seeing this, you look to Bible passages that you imagine says that Yeshua pre-existed his existence. Yeshua never pre-existed his existence. Imagine away to below!

Here is a blessed man, listen to what he says and don’t get caught with him, rather, listen to his words!

Where is the evidence that Yeshua or his disciples believed in the trinity? If they did believe it, where is the evidence they taught it? If the trinity is so sacrosanct, why it is so elusive?

View Poll

Those who believe in the trinity, which is 90% of all Christian churches in the world, don’t believe Yeshua died even though he told you he was dead (Revelation 1:18). You decide all on your own, with your imagination, how Yeshua died. You redefine his death and falsely claim and lie that only his flesh died. You don’t know what you are texting about. Yeshua died! “I was dead” (Revelation 1:18). You redefining his death is you committing evil. 😈 You don’t get to decide differently than Yeshua how he died.

He was dead. He said it himself “I was dead” (Revelation 1:18) flesh does not die for anybody’s sin, Yeshua did! That flesh you claim died, how did it miraculously reattach itself to Yeshua after he was resurrected? You practice evil and don’t notice because at the moment, you feel no pain. You practice evil and today you must stop 🛑 doing that!

Titus 2:13: "awaiting the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

The common Trinitarian claim regarding this verse is that it identifies Jesus Christ as "the great God and Saviour." This verse being one of the few that they argue calls Jesus "God."

In order for this to work, they must insist that the phrase "our great God and Saviour" is one phrase and both nouns apply to one individual, "Jesus Christ." This is simply a matter of punctuation. Remember that the original copies and our earliest manuscripts of the NT did not include punctuation at all. These are up to translators, commentators, and interpreters to place in as it seems fit or as they are grammatically consistent. If we compare the following two translations:

• Our great God and saviour, Jesus Christ.
• Our great God, and saviour Jesus Christ.

We see that the first seems to indicate Jesus is God and Saviour, while the second translation reads as if there are two. One is the great God, the other is the Saviour Jesus. Resting an argument for Jesus to be called "God" on the placing of an ambiguous comma seems like a very weak foundation to build an argument.

Another problem we see is that this same language is used earlier in this letter. Titus 1:4 reads: "To Titus, my true child according to our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." In this case, God is the Father, Jesus is the Saviour. This verse is unambiguous in this matter. One of the basic fundamental rules of hermeneutics is that we let the light interpret the dark. In other words, we rely on and plant out stake on the more clear passages of scripture, and we use these to shine light on the more obscure passages of scripture. If Paul has set a theme here of God being the Father and Jesus being the saviour, then it tells us how we ought to read Titus 2:13. Giving further contextual evidence, there are no other trinitarian arguments given from the letter to Titus. Nowhere else in this short letter do we find anything stated that seems to imply that Jesus is God or that God is the Trinity. Given that there is only one verse that might say this, we are building again on a weak foundation to say that this passage teaches that Jesus is our great God.

This alone should be sufficient enough to disregard the Trinitarian claim. However, they insist upon this being "the only way to read and translation this verse." They do so by appealing to the Granville Sharp Rule, and say that it must grammatically and necessarily refer to Jesus as both "God and Saviour," it can not be applied to two persons as is the case in Titus 1:4.

I have already discussed the Granville Sharp Rule at length before and outlined some articles on it to explain it in detail. It is not just one rule, but several rules. These rules have been modified and updated in recent years in an effort to make this a hard and fast rule of Greek grammar, and yet, scholars are about 50/50 on the issue. Straightforwardly, appealing to a very strange rule of Greek grammar no one knew about for over 1,800 years to make at most 3 verses in the Bible say that Jesus is God, seems to be a stretch and a dishonest platform to begin with. I do not buy that this was a grammatical rule that everyone consistently followed in a time where there were not even set rules on how to spell words. It is not uncommon to find a Greek word spelled phonetically, and the same word spelled different ways in the span of one page. To say that everyone always followed this one rule of grammar in all of ancient antiquity doesn't sound plausible to me.

But let us assume for the sake of argument that they are correct in saying that the Granville Sharp Rule(s) do insist that both titles are applied to one person. Why do Trinitarians insist they must both be applied to Jesus? Reading this passage again, notice: "the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." It does not say we are awaiting the appearing of our God and Saviour Jesus. It says we are awaiting the appearing of "the glory of God." The glory of God is Jesus. The "God and Saviour" is the Father. Many people do not consider this because every time they see the word "saviour" in the NT, they assume it must be Jesus. However, a word search on this word shows that the Father is called our saviour almost as many times as Jesus is. It isn't untrue to call God our Saviour and Jesus our saviour. In the OT, God says that "there is no saviour apart from me" (Isaiah 43:11). Yet, many of the Judges were called the saviours of Israel (Judges 3:9, 15, 31, 6:14, 36-37, 8:22, 13:5, 2 Kings 13:4-5, Nehemiah 9:27). "Then the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them... Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge (Judges 2:16, 18). Jesus is the saviour that God raised up for the world, and God was with him, just as God was with the judges by whom we saved Israel. God the Father is our saviour, and it is not inappropriate to call him such. "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47). "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus, according to the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope" (1 Timothy 1:1). Paul is not opposed to calling God our Saviour, even in this same letter. "and in His own seasons revealed in His word, in the proclamation with which I have been entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior" (Titus 1:3).

Yes, the Father is our great God, and yes, the Father is our saviour. Both titles apply to one subject, following Sharp's rule. But what about this phrase, "the appearing of the glory of?" Is Jesus appearing in the glory of the Father? Yes.

Look at 1 John 2:28-29. It says: "And now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears we might have boldness and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know also that everyone practicing righteousness has been begotten of Him."

It's talking about "his coming." People generally assume this must be Jesus because they think the Father doesn't come during the advent. But look at the next verse. "We are begotten of him." We aren't begotten of Jesus. We are talking about the appearing of the Father.

1 Thessalonians 4:14, the famous rapture passage, says: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with Him those having fallen asleep." 1 Timothy 6:14-15 says something very similar.

Note what Jesus said at his trial about his coming: "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels." (Matthew 16:24). Jesus comes in the glory of his father. Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus radiates the glory of God, that is, the Father. So, is Jesus the appearance of God's glory? Yeah. So, who is the "God and Saviour" in Titus? Very clearly the Father. Jesus is the appearance of his glory.

Titus 2:13: Awaiting the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of [the Father] our great God and Savior, [that appearing of his glory is] Jesus Christ.

Even when we apply the shady Granville Sharp Rule, we still see that Paul is not calling Jesus our "God" in this passage. Jesus returns with the Father, and in the Father's glory, this is what the passage is talking about. Do not let Trinitarians flash this passage, or 2 Peter 1:1 (my article on this)

to confuse you into thinking that Jesus may be called "God" here.

The Trinitarian Problems

Trinitarians believe that this verse is the "cure all" to Christology. Often, they read John 1:1 and 14 as if verses 2-13 do not matter at all. If John wished for verse 14 to be verse 2, there was nothing stopping him (not that he had verse divisions anyway). Trinitarians often fail to see how much they are reading into the words: "the word was God... and the word became flesh." From these words, they extrapolate that Jesus was and is this word, he is God, and he became flesh, but in this incarnation he did not cease to be God. As I have already explained in detail in another post , John 1:1 uses an imperfect tense verb, which signifies a continuous past action which has stopped. The word "was" God. There was a change in the word from what it was to what it is. But according to Trinitarians, God cannot change and the Word, the divine Logos, the second person of the Trinity, did not change in the hypostatic union, he added a second nature to his first, they did not mix or mingle but they were distinct, and the Word never ceased to be God. The verb tense here tells you this can't be true.

The word is not a person. We have covered the problem of modern translations using the incorrect pronouns in John 1:2-4 . We have covered the explanation of the logos as well, but we will repeat some aspects of it here. We have discussed that "in the beginning" is not a statement of what happened in Genesis creation, but is a reference to it, to compare it to the new creation. And yes, we have dealt with the assumption that John 1:3 must be a statement of Genesis creation, because it is not. We discussed that "the word was God" does not mean that the word was the second person of the Trinity, but is, uncontroversially, a qualitative statement meaning that the word was in quality, God.

For the Trinitarian assumption of the Incarnation to be true, all of these facts must be ignored. "In the beginning" must refer to a time before the conception of Jesus, the word must be a title for the prehuman Son, the word "was God" must not imply a change to the word being God, it must not assume that the word ever ceased to be God in the same way that it was before, and it must be some statement by which we can assert that the word is God as the Father is, but yet, not the Father, and the phrase "the word became flesh" must mean that this person became flesh, and yet, it must mean that this word still retained its deity by means of a hypostatic union.

A Trinitarian will not be put off by all of this eisegetical presuppositionalism, they imagine that they can justify it by a scrapbooking of various verses and early church fathers who attest to their views. However, even an honest trinitarian will admit that the Incarnation is only ever directly mentioned in scripture two times. Once here, and once in Philippians 2:6-8, which is by far, the most currently debated passage in all of the NT. It has a verb tense which causes difficulty, there are words used which are rarely used in the Bible, never used, or only used in different forms. It has a double article (articular infinitive) that can't be expressed in translation, and scholars debate on why it is even there. There's a question on one of the words and how it is being used, and it can have opposite usages. There are questions on how it relates to the context by particular readings. And even in this passage, it never says Jesus was flesh. It simply says that he was in "appearance" and in "likeness" as a man. It does not say Jesus was God. It says he was "in the form of God." It also uses a present tense participle, "who is in the form of God." If we only have two verses that directly refer to the Incarnation, neither seem to really be talking about the same thing, one is extremely debated and controversial, and the other consists of only 4 words to make the point, we are admittedly off to a very rocky start in proving the Incarnation.

The number 1 rule of Biblical hermeneutics is to let light interpret dark. We don't start with the difficult passages and use them to interpret the easier passages. We let the clear, help us to understand the obscure. Yet, Trinitarians have grounded their Christology in two of the most controversial passages of the NT. They will often suppose that these passages are only debated because, "the people who can't accept the deity of Christ have tried to make them difficult." But this objection is easily refuted by anyone who has taken 5 minutes to do their homework, as we can very easily see that even Trinitarian scholars are debating amongst themselves on both of these passages. John's gospel is difficult for many, because John tells us in his gospel that there is spiritual language in which the Spirit is needed to understand him. John expects his readers to be familiar with certain concepts as well, which he references. John shows familiarity with the synoptics, Paul, and the letter to the Hebrews. His concepts are not so different, though many read him as if he is completely revolutionary, giving us a new piece of the puzzle. Is it not strange that the ones who wrote the gospels which speak of the conception and birth of Jesus (Matthew and Luke) just so happened to forget to mention the Incarnation of God?

The word came to God's prophets by the Spirit

Why is it that when we read Luke 3:2, "the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness," we know exactly what it means, but when we read "the word became flesh," we suddenly think it means something so completely different? Of course there are differences. But just how many? Trinitarians know that the word of God which came to John the Baptist was not Jesus. Jesus was a man in his 20's, presumably, when this occurs. We know what the word of God is. It's that which made John a prophet. He received his ministry, he is told what to do, and he listens to the voice of God. He speaks that which he hears from God and by speaking these words, he is a prophet. We also know that this is not something exclusive to John.

Ezekiel 1:3: the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest... and the hand of the LORD was upon him there.

Hosea 1:1: The word of the LORD that came to Hosea.

Joel 1:1: The word of the LORD that came to Joel

Jonah 1:1: Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah

Micah 1:1: The word of the LORD that came to Micah

Zephaniah 1:1: The word of the LORD that came to Zephaniah

Haggai 1:1: the word of the LORD came by the hand of Haggai

Zechariah 1:1: the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah

Malachi 1:1: The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi

Why is it that we understand exactly what this means in all of these places and yet struggle to understand the true meaning of John 1:14? When the word of God comes to John, it is his revelation as a prophet which he receives, does, and speaks. When the word becomes flesh, the word is a preexistent person who incarnated into human flesh in the womb of a virgin? Jesus was a prophet, he says so himself (Deuteronomy 18:18, compare Acts 3:22, Matthew 21:11, Luke 4:24, 7:16, 24:19, John 4:19, 6:14, 7:40, 9:17). Jesus, just like every other prophet, received the word of God to become a prophet and begin his ministry. He received this word at the beginning of his ministry, not at birth. Every prophet must speak the words of God to be a prophet. Jesus tells us repeatedly the the words he speaks are not his, but the Father's (John 14:24).

The OT prophets received the word of God by the Spirit of God. 2 Samuel 23:2, "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; His word was on my tongue." Note the synonymous parallelism (a common hebraism, or literary device). The second half of the verse repeats the first half. The Spirit of God speaking through him, is the same as God's word being on his tongue. Psalm 33:6 makes a similar parallel: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host." The "word of the LORD" and "the breath of his mouth" are synonymous. Remember that breath and Spirit are the same word in Hebrew. The Spirit of his mouth. Breath and spirit are very similar concepts in Hebrew thought. You will see the breath of man going out, or the spirit of man going out, meaning the same thing (see Psalm 146:4). Jesus himself says: "It is the Spirit giving life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are Spirit and they are life" (John 6:63). The words are Spirit. The Spirit that gives life. 2 Peter 1:21 says: "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Prophecy was spoken as the prophets were carried by Holy Spirit. Mark 12:36 says: David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “’The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."’ Here, David is speaking "by the Holy Spirit." Compare this to Acts 2:29-35, in which Peter repeats this same prophecy (quoting Psalm 110:1) and says, "concerning the Patriarch David... being therefore a prophet..." Peter is confirming that David stated these words about a future prophecy, speaking as a prophet. Jesus confirms that David spoke these words by the Spirit. It should be very clear to us that prophets received the word of God by the Spirit of prophecy.

Notice the context of John 1:14. "There came a man having been sent from God. His name was John" (verse 6). "John witnesses concerning Him, and he cried out, saying, “'This was He of whom I was saying, ‘The One coming after me has precedence over me, because He was before me’” (verse 15). The context is the ministry of John the Baptist, both before and after this verse. "He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to his own, and his own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to be children of God—to those believing in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of will of flesh, nor of will of man, but of God" (verses 10-13). He was in the world. He came to his own. As many as received him. He gave them authority to be children of God. When did all of these things happen? At the birth of Jesus? At his conception and Incarnation? No. This is the ministry of Christ. John does not bother to give us a birth narrative. He does not even mention a virgin birth, Mary, Joseph, or a miraculous conception in this prologue, or even when he begins his gospel in verse 19. He begins with the ministry of John, leading into the ministry of Christ. The context of "the word became flesh" has nothing to do with an Incarnation into the womb of a woman, or a birth narrative at all. Does it not seem strange that John would begin his gospel with new creation concepts, the ministry of John and Jesus, and then go back into a narrative about the ontological change of the Logos into Jesus at his conception? "He was in the world.... and the word became flesh?" Think about what the Trinitarian must assume.

The word became flesh at the baptism of Jesus, by John the Baptist. This is why the ministry is the central theme of the context (another basic hermeneutic principle that Trinitarians ignore for the sake of their doctrine here). As we have seen, the word of God comes by the Spirit of God. Jesus received the Spirit of God at his baptism. “I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and it remained upon him" (John 1:32). Remained on him. The Spirit did not just fly about as a dove to prove the modalists wrong, by showing the Spirit is over here flying around and the Father is speaking from heaven and Jesus is coming up out of the water. It isn't flying to just be seen by men. It descended to be upon Jesus for the rest of his ministry. This is why immediately after his baptism, the Spirit led him into the wilderness to be tested (Luke 4:1). And his final words of his ministry, when "it was finished" at his death on the cross, were: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). He gave up his spirit. Jesus' entire ministry was the result of the Spirit of God in him, moving him to speak and do the words of God. When the Spirit descended on him at the Jordan, so also did God's word through the Spirit. "The words I speak are Spirit."

He tabernacled among us

John 1:14a: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Some commentators have rightly pointed out that this can be understood to mean, "and he pitched his tent among us," or, "he tabernacled among us" (compare Revelation 7:15). The tabernacle in the OT was the dwelling place of God. His presence resided in the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34). Curiously enough, God's Holy Spirit is stated to be synonymous to his presence as well. Psalm 51:11, in a Psalm of David when he is grieving over his sin with Bathsheba, says: "Cast me not away from Your presence; take not Your Holy Spirit from me." Note again the synonymous parallelism. Being in God's presence is to have his Spirit. Compare this to what Jesus says, when speaking to his disciples about receiving the Spirit in John 14, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." How will he and the Father 'make their home' in them? By giving of their Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit. "The word became flesh and tabernacled among us." Is this not the presence of God, the Holy Spirit, making its home in the body of Jesus? That is precisely what it is. The tabernacle essentially became the temple. The tabernacle was moble in ancient Israel in the wilderness before they entered the promised land. The temple became the result of David's desire to "build a house for God." While God denied David this request, he granted it to his son Solomon. The temple of God is where God's presence then began to dwell. Notice how Jesus speaks of his body in John 2: "'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days...' But the temple he had spoken of was his body." His body was the temple of God because this is where God's Spirit now dwells. In John 4, Jesus has a conversation with a Samaritan woman at the well. They begin to talk about the place of worship, referring to the temple. Listen to what Jesus says in response: "A time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... A time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” What is Jesus saying in response to her? That the worship place is no longer in temples built with human hands, but the temple is now the body of true believers, because the presence of God is within them. We worship in Spirit, not in the temple. "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" (1 Corinthians 6:19, see also 1 Corinthians 3:16, and 2 Corinthians 6:16) This is the temple we now worship in. This is now where the Spirit of God lives. God's house is not what Solomon built, but our bodies.

"The word was God... and dwelt among us." Was God in Christ? Absolutely. Jesus says so himself (John 10:38, 14:9-11, 20). God was in Christ by his Spirit. This shouldn't be a surprise to a born again child of God. That Spirit should be in you, and God should be your own Father. You should know how this works. God was dwelling among us in Jesus Christ. "He was in the world... the world was made by him... but they did not know him... He came to his own... but they did not receive him..." That is the Father. He came to his own nation of Israel in his Son, and they rejected him. They declared that the works were of demons. They said that the words of God were the words of a madman. They put God to death. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (Colossians 1:20) and the world killed him by nailing him to a cross. They hated Jesus, not for who Jesus was, but for what God did in him (Acts 2:22). The nation of Israel rejected their God and broke their covenant with him. As a result, the law was nullified. But a new covenant was made in Christ through his resurrection. God was dwelling in Christ. Jesus was the tabernacle in Israel, the tent of meeting.

This explains how the word of God comes by the Spirit of God, and how God was in Christ by his Spirit. The word of God was in the flesh, the flesh is Jesus. But we still need to answer the question of why the text says, "the word became flesh."

The word became flesh

The word of God is that which came to the prophets and Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of every prophecy. Jonah was a prophet who was going to Nineveh to warn them of God's coming judgement on them. This seems to have nothing to do with Jesus on the surface, but yet, did not Jesus warn us of the coming wrath of God? Is Jesus not telling us that we need to be his followers to flee the coming judgement of the Father? "No sign will be given to them but the sign of Jonah" (Matthew 12:39). Jonah went under the sea in the belly of a fish, and came out three days later. Jesus was buried under the earth to come out three days later. The sign of Jonah. The point is about fulfillment. Jesus is the word God spoke of in the OT whether we realize it or not. In John 3:14 Jesus says: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up." Jesus is making a not so subtle reference to his being the fulfillment, or antitype, of the bronze serpent that Israel lifted up and looked to for salvation from the pains of their sins. The word became flesh because the words of the prophets and the OT writers, are all fulfilled in Christ. He is the scarlet cord of Rahab which saved her, by his red blood which poured from the cross. He is Joseph, who was betrayed by his own brothers and handed over to his enemies. Who was the lowest prisoner, but came to be seated on the throne of the ruler. Jesus is the second Adam, who succeeded where the first Adam failed. He is the flood of Noah, which washed away sin and evil from the earth through baptism, and preserved the righteous. He is Isaac, who was not born of natural union, but by a miracle of God's opening the closed womb of his mother. He is Jacob who wrestled with an angel, through his temptations in the wilderness. He is the ram that was sacrificed in replacement of Isaac on the mountain. He is Isaac who carried the wood of his own sacrificial alter. He is the angel of the lord who stopped Abraham from paying the price. He is Moses who preached the commandments of God from the mountain top, Sinai, and the sermon on the mount. He is the one who leads us in our wanderings outside of the promised land. He is Joshua who leads us into the land of promise and restores the land. He is David, king of Israel and anointed by God. He is the wisdom of Solomon. He is the sign to Ahaz that God had not abandoned his people. He is the seed promised to Eve, to Abraham, and to David, who would crush the serpent and bless all nations. He is the temple of Solomon. He is the ark of the covenant. He is the staff of Aaron, the high priest. He is the commandments written in stone. He is the bread from above, the mana. He is the light of the world when God begins his new creation. Jesus is the entirety of the OT in the flesh. He is the true fulfillment of everything written. "Do not think I came to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them." The law and the prophets are a way of speaking of the OT books.

Jesus is the embodiment of the commandments of God. Everything he said and did is just what the heart of the law was about. "Man must not live on bread alone but on every word from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). James tells us "do not be hearers of the word only, but doers" (James 1:22). Jesus did not just hear the words of God. The word of God is what he did. When God commanded that he go to the cross he said "not my will be done, but yours Father" (Luke 22:42). When God said "you must love your neighbour," Jesus is the embodiment of this love. "Greater love has no one than this, that one should lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). When the command of God is to "love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength," this is exactly what Jesus did. When you read the law of the covenant, and you look at Jesus, he is that law in the flesh in what he did in his ministry. He is the flesh of everything God commanded.

The word of God is the gospel message. Luke 8:11 says "the seed is the word (logos) of God." This is the seed of the parable he's just told. The seeds will land on a hardened heart, be eaten up by demons, take root and be choked out by the worries of life, or it will grow. The word of God is the gospel message which is with us (Galatians 2:5, note the same word used for the gospel being with us [pros], is the same word in John 1:1b for the word which was pros ton theon, with God). The word is that which Jesus proclaimed. "The words I speak are not mine, but his who sent me" (John 7:16, 8:28, 12:49, 14:10, 24). When Jesus begins his ministry, he says: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because of which He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to send forth in deliverance the oppressed" (Luke 4:18). Notice that he begins with the Spirit of the Lord being upon him, and in verse 24, he calls himself "a prophet." He has "been anointed to preach the good news." Gospel literally means good news, and Jesus says he was anointed to preach this gospel. The gospel came by the Spirit of God. Jesus did not just preach the gospel, he did it. He demonstrated it. The good news of the kingdom is that God will be reconciled to man, we can be his children, we partake in his spirit, the dead are raised, the hungry are fed, all are taught by God, and mankind will have love for each other. Jesus demonstrated forgiveness for sins, commanded that we become born again of God, breathed the Spirit onto his apostles, raised Lazarus and the daughter of the Centurion among others, fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and small fish, taught as one having authority and gave us a new commandment, and demonstrated unconditional love for those of us not even yet born, by dying for us. Jesus was showing us a sample of the future kingdom which he preached. The kingdom that will be "as it is in heaven, also upon the earth." Jesus is the gospel of the kingdom in the flesh. Some have said, "if everyone did as Jesus did, the kingdom would already be here." This is precisely the point. Jesus was the word, the seed of God, in the flesh.

The word that became from was something, not someone

"The word became flesh" is not the language of a (capital I) "Incarnation" of someone in one form to someone in another form. The "becoming flesh" is the incarnation of what God has spoken becoming more than just commandments, but a person. Something becomes someone. Many Trinitarians will read about "the word" in John 1:1, and assume that it must be Jesus. When you ask them, "how do you know the word here is Jesus before the word becomes flesh?" They will give you one of two responses:

"The word must be Jesus because the word became flesh, and we know the flesh is Jesus."

Yes, we know the flesh is a person, but this doesn't tell us the word was a person before it became a person. Michael Servetus said, "if the word was a person before becoming a person, then the word must also have flesh before becoming flesh." His point is simple and clear; it is an anachronistic fallacy to read that the word becomes a person, and therefore, it was a person. The second response you will get is similar:

"Jesus is called the word of God in Revelation 19:13."

No one denies that he is. But this doesn't mean that this was always his name. If Jesus is a man of flesh, and the word becomes flesh, then, why can't this be when he received that name? Why do we assume he must have had that name before? Revelation 19:13 doesn't say that the prehuman Jesus was the word. Specifically, it says that the man standing with a robe of blood is named the word of God. That is, the resurrected Jesus. We know that Jesus receives new names at resurrection (Acts 2:36, Philippians 2:8-11, Hebrews 1:4). For more info on Revelation 19:13, see this post

For the objection that "pros ton theon" must mean the word was a person, or, "a face to face relationship," see this post

There's no evidence for the assertion that the word must have been Jesus before becoming Jesus. Jesus is what the word of God became. The seed of the woman, became Jesus. The promise to Abraham, became Jesus. The law and the prophets, became Jesus. The commandments of God, became Jesus. Someone will inevitably ask, "well how can a mere man be all of these things?" As we have seen, these are the works of God through Christ by his Spirit. With man, this would be impossible, but with God, all things are possible (Mark 10:27). There should be no question as to how God can do this with a man. If you believe that God can become a man and die while being immortal, why is it so strange to believe that God can use a man to accomplish his work? This was God's plan for the very first man. To subdue the whole earth and all of that which is on and over it. God will make us the judges of even the angels (1 Corinthians 6:3). How should we doubt what God can do with his own creation? What are the limits of God with what he can do with a man?

Summary

John 1:14 is the embodiment of God's word in a flesh and blood man, Jesus, at his baptism, when he receives the word through the Spirit of God. This man of flesh was the dwelling place of God, and he humbled himself and allowed God to do whatever he wished with his flesh, by means of his Spirit. The word of God is that which God has commanded for every man, and Jesus did everything God told him to do. The flesh was the word that God spoke. The word of God was in him, as he said, his word is not his own. Jesus was not just a hearer of the word, but a doer, and he did the words of God. The word of God was not a person before it became embodied by a person. It was that which God had been speaking from the beginning of creation, his plan for mankind to be united to him, fulfilled. This man of flesh became the fulfillment of God's prophetic words through the ages when he was baptized, and through his ministry until his death on the cross. God's tabernacle was the flesh, his glory was in him. "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father." Begotten by the Spirit of the Father at his baptism.