Did john say god became flesh? or was it satan at

[KangarooJack]

Nick said:

Quote

Hi BD, If you were one with the vine you would know he was your Lord. he is the mediator with our father, and his father, God. 1 Cor 8

Nick,
This is one of those rare occasions we agree.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
So as mediator he cannot also be part of the God he mediates for us with.
There is no trinity.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (thethinker @ June 17 2009,06:28)

Quote (bodhitharta @ June 16 2009,16:58) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 16 2009,16:24) Hi BD, Read Acts 2.39 . This promise is to all who repent. Isaiah 59 1Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: Who is it that saves Nick? You are starting to sound like a trinitarian “You shall call His name Jesus for HE SHALL SAVE His people from their sins” (Luke 1:31). No explanation needed. thinker

He did save his people Israel from their sins

[NickHassan]

Hi BD,
There is no longer Jew nor Gentile as all in Christ are one in Christ

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2009,09:38)

Hi BD, There is no longer Jew nor Gentile as all in Christ are one in Christ

all that are one in Christ are one in God.

But all those that are one in God accept all the messengers of God

[NickHassan]

Hi BD,
Indeed.
You must be reborn into Christ
And they that are do not listen to stranger's voices.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2009,09:43)

Hi BD, Indeed. You must be reborn into Christ And they that are do not listen to stranger's voices.

No one is reborn into Christ, what does that even mean?

Jesus never said you must be reborn into him, did he?

1 Peter 1:23

23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

John 3:6-8 (King James Version)

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

These are the only born again references in the entire bible and they say a lot. Love is of God if you do not Love you are not of God but Dead.

I love you!

God Bless you Always!

[NickHassan]

Hi BD,
You cannot see the kingdom until you do obey this command so you will be searching blind.
1 Peter 1 tells us we are reborn of imperishable seed and into a living hope.

[Paladin]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2009,07:14)

Hi TT, So as mediator he cannot also be part of the God he mediates for us with. There is no trinity.

You may want to rethink that one, Nick.

I agree he is not God, BUT, and this is important, he IS a man mediating for man. As for being God, as the son of God he is a form of God, but is not God.

One cannot be both a thing and a form of the thing.

What say you?

[Paladin]

Quote (Gene @ June 17 2009,02:50)

Paladin…………Good post brother. Giving us a greater depth of understanding is truely encouraging, use the talents GOD has given you, it edify's us all. peace and love to you and yours………………….gene

Thank you so much for you continued encouragement, Gene.

You and Tim Kraft for your encouragement, and Cindy for her correction, even my worthy opponents for making me do my homework; all have been truly a blessing to me.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Paladin @ June 17 2009,10:06)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2009,07:14) Hi TT, So as mediator he cannot also be part of the God he mediates for us with. There is no trinity. You may want to rethink that one, Nick. I agree he is not God, BUT, and this is important, he IS a man mediating for man. As for being God, as the son of God he is a form of God, but is not God. One cannot be both a thing and a form of the thing. What say you?

Hi P,
The only important matter FOR US is that the Father is our God and Jesus our Lord.[1cor8]

Leave the work of muddying the water to those with other agendas.

[Paladin]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 16 2009,11:13)

(WJ) Quote First of all Jesus says… He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, “KNOWN ONLY TO HIM WHO RECEIVES IT”. Rev 2:17 But I see that you left this verse out. Jesus clearly says that the new name written on the stone is NOT KNOWN to anyone except the one who receives it. So if it is the “Word of God” then how come we know it? So the “new name” cannot be the “Word of God”. The terms “New name” are only found twice in Revelation and your assumptions are at best ambiguous. Secondly, the term New Creation, ‘kainos ktisis’ is used of Paul in two places and is dealing with our new man that is born again by the Spirit. ( 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15). The first heavens and first earth has not yet passed away, (2Peter 3:10-12), so the New heavens and new earth has not come yet. Paul wrote his epistles way before John. And John doesn’t even use the term “new creation” ‘kainos ktisis’, does he? Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32) Jesus agrees with this version, because he spoke accordingly – Did he? Where does Jesus ever use the term “‘kainos ktisis’ New creation? Paladin,June wrote: John wrote of the beginning of creation – Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [ee arxee tees ktisews tou theou] beginning of the creation of God; Mark, Peter, and yes, even John had already had experience referencing the “beginning of creation.” They already knew from prior authorship and from inspiration, how to express “arxees ktisews” if the beginning of creation is what they want to express. If the “new creation” is what they wanted to express they would have used the word “kainos” with the word “archē” or “arxees kainos ktisews”, but they didn’t which leaves you guessing what they wanted to express, and of course that is what you have done. The words ‘kainos ktisis’ New creation is not there. Don’t you think that John and Jesus knew what the “New creation” was to them, because later in the book of Revelation John writes… And I saw a new (kainos) heaven and a new (kainos) earth: “for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea”. Rev 21:1 I still see a sea, don’t you? And apparently they forgot to notify Peter of this “new revelation” when he wrote… Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new (kainos) heavens and a new (kainos) earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:13 Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32) But John made two changes when he wrote his gospel. 1). He wrote [en arxee] and left off [ktisews] which he had previously expressed, because he now has a different [arxee] in mind. Just how do you jump to the conclusion that because John didn’t write ‘creation’ (ktisis) with the word ‘beginning’ that he is talking about a new creation, ‘kainos ktisis’? John uses the word archē for beginning many times where it is obvious he is not speaking of the “New creation” ‘kainos ktisis’. (John 2:11, John 8:44, 1 John 3:8). Jesus also said… I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. Rev 21:6 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Rev 22:13 If Jesus is meaning here that he is the beginning of the “New Creation” then why didn’t he mention it? Also if this is the beginning of the “New Creation” then why does he say that he is the end of it? Is the New creation going to end! So obviously Jesus use or the word “archē” (beginning) is not referring to the “New Heavens and New Earth for the first heavens and the first earth must pass away and melt with fervent heat and that hasn’t happened yet has it? (2 Peter 3:10-12) Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32) It is the same [arxee] he references in John 15:27 “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the [arxees] beginning.” It is the same [arxee] he references in John 16:4 “But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the [arxees] beginning, because I was with you.” John is here recording Jesus own testimony. Do you really think Jesus doesn't know how to reference “arxees ktisews?” Or do you really think John is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he means to express? Of course Jesus would know how to reference “arxees ktisews” (beginning creation), but he didn’t because he was not referring to the “arxees ktisews”, he is simply referring to the beginning of his ministry. Do you think Jesus would know how to reference ‘kainos ktisis’ if he meant the “New Creation”? Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32) I think you mean Rev 19:15 “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” Nothing indicates the “sword” of this verse to reference the “logos” but rather, reema, because the only time “sword” was referenced as a “word of God” it was “reema” – “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the reema of God:” [Eph 6:17] The logos  is “sharper than any two edged sword” therefore, the sword coming out of his mouth is not the logos.” Didn't you even READ my post? I addressed this above. Nothing in the verse says that it isn’t the “Word of God coming out of his mouth either! Would you say that the words proceeding out of the mouth of Jesus is less than the words of the Apostles? Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were for bidden of the Holy Ghost to “PREACH THE WORD, (LOGOS)” in Asia, Acts 16:6 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the “WORD, (RHEMA) OF FAITH, WHICH WE PREACH”; Rom 10:8 ”Preach the word, (Logos)”; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2 Tim 4:2 How about the use of the word “Rhema here… And have tasted the “good word (Rhema) of God“, and the powers of the world to come, Heb 6:5 Notice it say “The Powers of the World to come’. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by “the word (Rhema) of God“, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Heb 11:3 Where is the distinction in the above verses? Blessings WJ

PART TWO
(WJ)

Quote

First of all Jesus says… He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, “KNOWN ONLY TO HIM WHO RECEIVES IT”. Rev 2:17 But I see that you left this verse out.

(P) Please! I also “left out” Gen 3:16. What's your point? YOU left out the facts about Phil 2:10 but I didn't make an issue of it. NOBODY puts in every verse dealing with an issue. If they try, you complain it is too long. If they don't you complain that they conveniently left something pertinant out. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. The reason I did not include it is because it was not part of my presentation.

(WJ)

Quote

Jesus clearly says that the new name written on the stone is NOT KNOWN to anyone except the one who receives it. So if it is the “Word of God” then how come we know it? So the “new name” cannot be the “Word of God”. The terms “New name” are only found twice in Revelation and your assumptions are at best ambiguous.

(P) If you will carefully try to be true to what I actually post, I did not reference Rev 2:17. I referenced Rev 3:12, and do you know why? Because Rev 2:17 has nothing to do with the NEW NAME “logos of god.” Rev 3:12 DOES. So I try to limit my post to those things which I think are pertinant to my theme. Why don't YOU try to focus on what I actually post?

Now, watch and learn; “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” [Rev 2:17]

The NEW NAME referenced in this verse is “WRITTEN IN A STONE.” This new name is not the same new name that will be given to Christ.

The NEW NAME referenced in Rev 3:12 is Christ's new name, and it is to be “WRITTEN UPON HIM (him that overcometh).” IT IS NOT THE SAME! The first name [rev 2:17] is written in a stone.

THREE NAMES ARE WRITTEN ON THE SAINTS
“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him THE NAME OF MY GOD, and THE NAME OF THE CITY of my God, which is NEW JERUSALEM, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: AND I will write upon him MY NEW NAME.” [Rev 3:12]

And do you know why it was not known? Because John did not reveal it in chapter two. NOR in chapter three.

In fact, John does not reveal it until the nineteenth chapter of the apokalypse of God to Jesus Christ;
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Now, try very hard to focus here. I am going to tell you a secret, hidden in a mystery, which until now you don't know the answer to, as is evident by your question.

Quote

Jesus clearly says that the new name written on the stone is NOT KNOWN to anyone except the one who receives it. So if it is the “Word of God” then how come we know it?

The new name written on the stone of Rev 2:17 is NOT the same name as Jesus' new name in Rev 3:12, or 19:12-13. Jesus' new name is “the logos of God.” How do I know? THaaat's right! John just told me so. Right there in 19:13 of Rev 19.

NOW – Do you know Jesus' new name? Or should I go over it again?

(WJ)

Quote

Secondly, the term New Creation, ‘kainos ktisis’ is used of Paul in two places and is dealing with our new man that is born again by the Spirit. ( 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15). The first heavens and first earth has not yet passed away, (2 Peter 3:10-12), so the New heavens and new earth has not come yet.

(P) That isn't even the issue. Because the first heaven and earth are not being destroyed, they are being “folded up like a garment” and put away pending their destruction as referenced by Peter.

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

This is the “new creation” with which Jesus is involved. It is not a destruction of the first heaven and earth, it is a replacing thereof. The destruction comes later. This was prophesied by Isaiah, which was covered in depth in an earlier post. Since I can't find it, I will include the remakrs here for consideration.

There are two “beginnings” referenced for heaven and earth, one in reality and one in prophecy; just as there are two “destructions;” one as the changing of a garment, and one with fervent heat.. Peter tells of a “fervent heat” that shall melt the elements; this is one “destruction” of the heaven and earth. “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? [2 Pet 3:10,12]

“Fervent heat” is not the same as a “fading garment.” The first will be changed as a garment is changes; the second will be destroyed with fervent heat of a fire.

Look at how Isaiah foretells of the fading away of the old, and establishment of a new: “They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: [Psa 102:26]

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for
ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. [Isa 51:6]

“Smoke” is not “fervent heat” and a fading garment is not a burning element. This is the changing of a garment, the changing of a covenant, and the changeing of the “old” for the “new.”

Isa 51:11 Therefore the redeemed of the LORD shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away. 12 I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass;13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that HATH STRETCHED forth the heavens, AND LAID the foundations of the earth;

Isa 51:16 And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, THAT I MAY plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

“Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is HIS SON's name, if thou canst tell? [Prov 30:4]

Proverbs tells us that the one who established the ends of the earth had a son. Jesus did not have a son. Jehovah did. Jesus is not Jehovah. Jesus did not establish the ends of the earth, he established a new covenant and the “new creation” whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” just as delineated by Paul in [Col 1:16]

John tells us “all things by it became” referencing the logos of God, and when Jesus preached the sermon on the mount, establishing new parameters for the new kingdom of God; and when Jesus was raised far above all principality and power, dominion and throne in heavenly places, so that all former relationships were changed, he “established” the new heavens and earth.

Compare the two “passings” of the two “heavens” and the two “earths” and you will see Isaiah knew there would be a “new” and an “old;” that the new would replace the old. And there will still be a destruction of the original creation.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Paladin @ June 16 2009,18:06)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2009,07:14) Hi TT, So as mediator he cannot also be part of the God he mediates for us with. There is no trinity. You may want to rethink that one, Nick. I agree he is not God, BUT, and this is important, he IS a man mediating for man. As for being God, as the son of God he is a form of God, but is not God. One cannot be both a thing and a form of the thing. What say you?

Hi PD

Is the Father in “the form of God”, if not what form is he in.

Jesus said…

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, “nor seen his shape“. John 5:37 KJV

The NIV has it “form” instead of shape.

The Greek word for “shape” is eidos which means;

1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape

2) form, kind

Jesus claims he has seen the Father, implying that he has seen the Fathers shape or form.

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, “he hath seen the Father“. John 6:46

So if no man has seen the Father then when did Jesus see him?

Could it be when he was the Word that was with God and was God?

This same word is used for the Holy Spirit…

And the Holy Ghost descended in a “bodily shape (eidos)” like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. Luke 3:22

The Father God can take on forms just as the Son can.

The Greek word for “form” in Phil 2:6 is morphē which means;

1) the form by which a person or thing “strikes the vision“

2) external appearance

Phil 2:7 says he took on the form (morphē) of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

We would not say that he was not a servant or a man because he was in the form of a servant, a man, would we?

Jesus also appeared in another form here…

After that he appeared in another form (morphē) unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. MK 16:12

God is not limited to our finite minds and can only be seen in one dimension. Everything in the Universe is plural in nature right down to the molecular structure or building blocks of all of creation, the atom. In fact name one thing that is not Plural in unity!

The creation reveals the Glory of God.

God can and he did come in the likeness of sinful flesh.

And was given the name “Emmanuel” which is interpreted “God with us”.

Blessings WJ

PS I will be getting to your other post but it may be a couple of days. My wife is going in for surgery Thurs to remove a huge tumer (none malignant), and I may not be in town Sat, and Sunday.

[KangarooJack]

Paladin said:

Quote

I agree he is not God, BUT, and this is important, he IS a man mediating for man. As for being God, as the son of God he is a form of God, but is not God. One cannot be both a thing and a form of the thing.

Paladin,
You said that Christ was “a form” of God. Just how many forms does God have? The Greek literally reads,

Quote

Who being in God's form

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
So God came in the likeness of flesh?
Scripture says it was who Jesus came in the flesh.
He is the same one who told us to pray to God in heaven.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 16 2009,20:11)

Hi WJ, So God came in the likeness of flesh? Scripture says it was who Jesus came in the flesh. He is the same one who told us to pray to God in heaven.

Hi NH

Are you saying that it is not possible for God to do?

He created all flesh didnt he?

Is there anything impossible for him NH? Is there anything to hard for him? Or have you limited him to do only what your doctrine dictates?

If he can live inside of you and me at the same time then why could he not put on a body in the likeness of sinful flesh and be found in fashion as a man? Oh thats right he did!

John 1:1, 14, Phil 2:16-18, Acts 20:28

WJ

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
So we can say anything about what God does because we know He can do anything?
Scripture says he sent His son but you may choose to disagree.

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
Scripture says God was in Christ.
Does that mean that God was in God?

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
Scripture says Jesus Christ was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and power and that God was with him in Acts 10.

So if Jesus is God how does this all stack up?

[KangarooJack]

WorshipingJesus said:

Quote

Hi NH Are you saying that it is not possible for God to do? He created all flesh didnt he? Is there anything impossible for him NH? Is there anything to hard for him? Or have you limited him to do only what your doctrine dictates? If he can live inside of you and me at the same time then why could he not put on a body in the likeness of sinful flesh and be found in fashion as a man? Oh thats right he did! John 1:1, 14, Phil 2:16-18, Acts 20:28

Hi WJ,
You are correct. God can become flesh if He wants for He made flesh. The online Hebrew-English Interlinear on Exodus 3:14 says,

Quote

I shall become who I am becoming

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo3.pdf

thinker

[Author]

Posts