Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2011,04:58)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 28 2011,10:59) No, “The Word” Fathered Jesus. Hi Ed, If the Word fathered Jesus, and the Word is who had the glory of the only begotten from the Father, then Jesus would have had the glory of a GRANDCHILD of the Father.   14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Ed, it seems that you think the bolded word “his” above refers to the Father.  But it is clear from the context that this speaks of The Word's glory.  And it is clear that the Word is not the Father Himself when you factor in the impossibility of the Father having the glory of HIS OWN only begotten.  The Father has the glory of THE FATHER.  The Father does NOT have the glory of an only begotten OF the Father.   peace, mike

Hi Mike,

And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. (John 1:14)

Who's glory are they beholding? <– Answer this question; OK?
The Word's glory, OK, so we are in agreement then here!
Can we proceed then, building on this agreement?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Absolutely, Ed! We ARE in agreement on this. So let me begin our proceedings:

What exact glory did this Word have? Was it the glory of the Father? Or was it the glory as of ONE WHO WAS BEGOTTEN BY THE FATHER?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2011,06:12)

Absolutely, Ed!  We ARE in agreement on this.  So let me begin our proceedings: (1)What exact glory did this Word have?  (2)Was it the glory of the Father?  (3)Or was it the glory as of ONE WHO WAS BEGOTTEN BY THE FATHER?

Hi Mike,

1) His own, because “The Word” is the “HolySpirit”.
2) Yes.
3) It's The Father's glory seen in the Son.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Thank you for your patience during my questioning, Ed.

There is no need to go any further, for you have clearly displayed your inability to comprehend the clear English (Greek) of this verse.  And that's what the whole exercise was about.  This will be the case for anyone who stands and defends their doctrine against the truth, and actually DIRECTLY addresses all the questions asked of them, as you valiantly did.  This is WHY I often ask what may seem to be the same questions over and over.  I must first wade through the off-topic ramblings of the opponent to focus the discussion down to the nitty gritty and get to the truth of the matter.  You have performed like a true champ in this regard, and have allowed us to get down to the nitty gritty, thereby exposing the one faulty understanding at the foundation of your belief.  And once your foundation has been shown to be built on shifting sand, the hope is that you will start again from a foundation built on solid rock, thereby producing a doctrine that will stand the test of time and rising waters.

Kerwin also has valiantly stood to defend his doctrine with me.  And he has now come to the realization that he has an UNKNOWN only begotten of the Father due to his doctrine.  He has also realized that he has to change the scriptural word “ALL” to his own word “NEW” on two separate occasions in order to keep his doctrine alive.

This is the stuff I'm called to demonstrate to people like you and Kerwin and Kathi……………those of you who are not afraid to actually ANSWER the questions I ask them.

So again, thank you for directly addressing my points, Ed.

Our discussion has now come down to the fact that YOU think the glory of God Himself would be the same thing as the glory of an only begotten OF God.  Maybe this will help you to see your error:

If a prince is said to have the glory as of the only begotten of the King, it is not the King's glory the prince has, but the glory of a prince.  It is the glory of the SON OF the King, not of the King himself. For the King has ONE glory, and his only begotten prince has another.

I hope you can see this, Ed.

Now that you've allowed me to stay focused down to the bitter end, I will happily and DIRECTLY answer any of those questions I've passed over during this discussion. The ball is now in your court…………….ask away.

peace and love to you,
mike

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2011,07:11)

Thank you for your patience during my questioning, Ed. (1)There is no need to go any further, for you have clearly displayed your inability to comprehend the clear English (Greek) of this verse. And that's what the whole exercise was about.  This will be the case for anyone who stands and defends their doctrine against the truth, and actually DIRECTLY addresses all the questions asked of them, as you valiantly did.  This is WHY I often ask what may seem to be the same questions over and over.  I must first wade through the off-topic ramblings of the opponent to focus the discussion down to the nitty gritty and get to the truth of the matter.  You have performed like a true champ in this regard, and have allowed us to get down to the nitty gritty, thereby exposing the one faulty understanding at the foundation of your belief.  (2)And once your foundation has been shown to be built on shifting sand, the hope is that you will start again from a foundation built on solid rock, thereby producing a doctrine that will stand the test of time and rising waters. (3)So again, thank you for directly addressing my points, Ed. (4)Our discussion has now come down to the fact that YOU think the glory of God Himself would be the same thing as the glory of an only begotten OF God.  (5)Maybe this will help you to see your error: (6)If a prince is said to have the glory as of the only begotten of the King, (7)it is not the King's glory the prince has, but the glory of a prince. (8) It is the glory of the SON OF the King, not of the King himself. (9) For the King has ONE glory, and his only begotten prince has another. (10)I hope you can see this, Ed. (11)Now that you've allowed me to stay focused down to the bitter end, (12)I will happily and DIRECTLY answer any of those questions I've passed over during this discussion.  (13)The ball is now in your court…………….ask away. peace and love to you, mike

Hi Mike,

1) How exactly do you believe you have done this?
2) Once again declaring it and proving it can be worlds apart.

3) Which points, if any, do YOU feel I have dodged?

4) All glory is YHVH's, whether seen in his only begotten or in us.
5) What error?

6) Too bad that is not what is being said in John 1:14.
     The glory is being seen in the only begotten of the father.
7) Do you believe Jesus had his own glory, while in the flesh?
8) Do you believe Jesus had his own glory, while in the flesh?
9) Are there two different glory's here?  …is this how you solve your dilemma.

10) I can see you have started the doctrine of TWO Glory's.
      Can you support this newly publicized doctrine of yours?

11) Have we indeed reached the end of why you believe
what the systems of religion have taught you?
Not yet, I believe we have further to go!
12) Have you been purposefully dodging questions, while you ask me not to?
13) I will be addressing all of your arguments in your new thread. (Link)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Hi Ed,

My post was sincere.  When I thanked you for directly answering my questions, I meant it.  I was not being sarcastic about you, Kerwin or Kathi.  All three of you guys eventually address my questions directly.  

Quote

3) Which points, if any, do YOU feel I have dodged?

None.  You have directly addressed all of my points, and I thank you for the “grown-up” discussion which was a refreshing relief from some of the other discussions I've had here.  SERIOUSLY!  

Quote

6) Too bad that is not what is being said in John 1:14.     The glory is being seen in the only begotten of the father.

Actually, it is not the glory of the Father being seen IN His only begotten, Ed.  That is NOT what the words say.  The words say that the Word had the glory as of the only begotten from the Father.  The Word had the only begotten's glory, not the Father's glory.  Can you not see the difference?

Quote

7) Do you believe Jesus had his own glory, while in the flesh? 8) Do you believe Jesus had his own glory, while in the flesh? 9) Are there two different glory's here?  …is this how you solve your dilemma.

Of course Jesus had his own glory.    And of course there are MANY different glories, not just two:

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

Even Solomon had a glory of his own:
Luke 12:27
Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

peace,
mike

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2011,11:45)

Hi Ed, My post was sincere.  When I thanked you for directly answering my questions, I meant it.  I was not being sarcastic about you, Kerwin or Kathi.  All three of you guys eventually address my questions directly.   Quote 3) Which points, if any, do YOU feel I have dodged? None.  You have directly addressed all of my points, and I thank you for the “grown-up” discussion which was a refreshing relief from some of the other discussions I've had here.  SERIOUSLY!   Quote 6) Too bad that is not what is being said in John 1:14.     The glory is being seen in the only begotten of the father. Actually, it is not the glory of the Father being seen IN His only begotten, Ed.  That is NOT what the words say.  The words say that the Word had the glory as of the only begotten from the Father.  The Word had the only begotten's glory, not the Father's glory.  Can you not see the difference? Quote 7) Do you believe Jesus had his own glory, while in the flesh? 8) Do you believe Jesus had his own glory, while in the flesh? 9) Are there two different glory's here?  …is this how you solve your dilemma. Of course Jesus had his own glory.    And of course there are MANY different glories, not just two: 1 Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. Even Solomon had a glory of his own: Luke 12:27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. peace, mike

Hi Mike,

Isn't the glory of the “Sun” and the glory of the “Moon”, both referring to God's glory?   …who gave them their splendor?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 28 2011,19:04)

Hi Mike, Isn't the glory of the “Sun” and the glory of the “Moon”, both referring to God's glory? …who gave them their splendor?

No Ed, but I'm beginning to understand you a bit more now.

God did not forbid anything or anyone else from having their own glory. He just said He wouldn't share HIS glory with anyone else.

The glory of Solomon was truly SOLOMON'S glory, not God's. It is true that nothing could ever have glory at all if not for God, but God isn't a “glory-hog”. He has made everything glorious, meaning that everything has a glory all its own.

peace,
mike

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2011,11:45)

Hi Ed, Quote 6) Too bad that is not what is being said in John 1:14.     The glory is being seen in the only begotten of the father. Actually, it is not the glory of the Father being seen IN His only begotten, Ed.  That is NOT what the words say.  The words say that the Word had the glory as of the only begotten from the Father.  The Word had the only begotten's glory, not the Father's glory.  Can you not see the difference? peace, mike

Hi Mike,

And we beheld his(The Word's) glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. (John 1:14)

My turn now. Can you see by Hebrews 7:28, it clearly says “The Word” maketh the Son?

Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but
the word(TheSeed “IS” HolySpirit) of the oath, which was since the law,
maketh the Son(Jesus Christ), who is consecrated for evermore.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[terraricca]

eddy

what is the glory ? is it there shining glare ? what is it

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Hi Ed,

Hebrews speaks of the word of the oath, which came AFTER the Law.  Do you suppose that the Word of God did not exist until AFTER the Law?

All “words” are not equal, Ed.  Just because you read the word “logos” does not mean that particular mention refers to the Word of God.  Sometimes, the word “logos” simply refers to a spoken or written word of ANYONE.

Plus, this verse doesn't speak of a word literally making Jesus.  It speaks of Jesus being made a PRIEST, not by the word of the Law, but by the word of solemn oath – something that came AFTER the Law. It refers to God's word of solemn oath that He would make Jesus an everlasting High Priest in the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews 5:6)

peace,
mike

[Ed J]

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 29 2011,12:14)

eddy what is the glory ? is it there shining glare ? what is it Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Are you now having memory problems too? (Link) <– Third Post

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH! (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים=117  (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14 / Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org   …(Eccl.9:12-16)

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2011,12:21)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2011,12:11) Hi Mike, And we beheld his(The Word's) glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) My turn now. Can you see by Hebrews 7:28, it clearly says “The Word” maketh the Son? Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word(TheSeed “IS” HolySpirit) of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son(Jesus Christ), who is consecrated for evermore. Hi Ed, (1)Hebrews speaks of the word of the oath, which came AFTER the Law.  (2)Do you suppose that the Word of God did not exist until AFTER the Law? (3)All “words” are not equal, Ed.  (4)Just because you read the word “logos” does not mean that particular mention refers to the Word of God.  (5)Sometimes, the word “logos” simply refers to a spoken or written word of ANYONE. (6)Plus, this verse doesn't speak of a word literally making Jesus.  (7)It speaks of Jesus being made a PRIEST, not by the word of the Law, but by the word of solemn oath – something that came AFTER the Law. (8)It refers to God's word of solemn oath that He would make Jesus an everlasting High Priest in the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews 5:6) peace, mike

Hi Mike,

1) Correct
2) Your contention is unrealistic and you know it.

3) Your words certainly don't equal God's.
4) Is this your only defense, supposition and conjecture?
5) We are talking about the “Ho Logos”(91) of God's “Spirit”(91); not just any word.

6) Why not?   …Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?
7) Don't you mean the law could not negate a promise made by God?
8) The oath was given in Isaiah 7:14, about bringing forth a “God Son”(74). <– Fourth Post

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Hi Ed,

The points you made and questions you asked have already been answered in my previous post.  If in fact this “word of solemn oath” is the Word from John 1:1, then this scripture clearly says that Word came AFTER the Law.

I didn't write the scripture, Ed.  You call my “defense” supposition and conjecture.  It wasn't actually a “defense”, because you haven't yet made a claim that is scripturally sound.  It was an explanation of a scripture that you think says something it doesn't.  

Is it your contention that every time the word “logos” is used in the scriptures, it refers to the Word of God?  

And how did you end up in your mind about the “glory” thing?  Are you now convinced that the Word had the glory of a son OF God, and not of God Himself?

peace,
mike

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

Do you agree that the oath spoken of in Hebrews 7:28 is the verse in Isaiah 7:14?
Since I have not asked this question before, you could hardly of answered it already.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

No, I do not agree, nor did you ask that as a question of me in your last post.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2011,14:18)

The points you made and questions you asked have already been answered in my previous post.

Hi Mike,

Are these not your words? (See my point #8)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2011,19:29)

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 29 2011,12:14) eddy what is the glory ? is it there shining glare ? what is it Pierre Hi Pierre, Are you now having memory problems too? (Link) <– Third Post Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH! (Psalm 45:17) יהוה האלהים=117  (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm! Ed J (AKJV Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14 / Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org   …(Eccl.9:12-16)

eddy

Quote

dignity, glory, honor, praise, worship.

what make it to have dignity ?
what make it to receive honor ?
what make it to receive praise ?
what make it to receive worship ?

to this the answer will be glory = ?

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 28 2011,21:38)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2011,14:18)   The points you made and questions you asked have already been answered in my previous post.   Hi Mike, Are these not your words? (See my point #8) God bless Ed J

Since I have not asked this question before, you could hardly of answered it already.

Are these not YOUR words?

[mikeboll64]

Ed, how did you end up in your mind about the “glory” thing? Are you now convinced that the Word had the glory of a son OF God, and not of God Himself?

(See Ed? THIS is the thread for you to post your Romans scripture so that I can show you your error in understanding it.)

[Author]

Posts