Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,10:40)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12)

John 1:1 does not say anything about “in the beginning was pre-existant Jesus, and pre-existant Jesus was with God, and pre-existant Jesus was God;”
and John 1:14 does not say “Pre-existant Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.”

Hi Paladin,

Your John 1:1 is more accurate than the bias of the N.W.T.
John 1:14 says “The Word”(also called God's HolySpirit) bacame flesh.

Although I agree with your rendition of John 1:1,
John 1:1 is a reference to God's “HolySpirit”(The Word).

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

Logos is never calloed the sspirit. Reema is.

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the reema [word] of God:

September 17, 2011 at 11:59 pm#258688

kerwin

Participant

Paladin,

Quote

The fact that a verse is “hard of understanding” shows only that the Holy Spirit intended for it to. That is his tool for separating the serious student from the doctrinaire.

I assume you mean it separates those that are truly led by their hunger and thirst for righteousness from those that are led by other desires and so I agree.

Quote

If all one can use is those “easy to understand” scriptures, I would have to ask, “Easy to understand by whom?”

I was using it in the sense both parties agree on the ideas that certain passages express. One example is that God created the heavens and the earth.

In logical reasoning an argument that uses unsound premises is flawed. Therefore unless both parties agree the premises are free from defect the argument can establish nothing and thus become a useless argument that only wastes time and other resources.

September 18, 2011 at 12:01 am#258689

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,10:49)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,10:40)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12)

Hi Paladin,

Your John 1:1 is more accurate than the bias of the N.W.T.
John 1:14 says “The Word”(also called God's HolySpirit) bacame flesh.

Although I agree with your rendition of John 1:1,
John 1:1 is a reference to God's “HolySpirit”(The Word).

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

Logos is never calloed the sspirit. Reema is.

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the reema [word] of God:

Hi Paladin,

God's HolySpirit is called both “Ho Logos” and “Rhema”.
Did God's HolySpirit not grow and prevail?
…or merely sentence fragments?

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

September 18, 2011 at 12:27 am#258690

kerwin

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,05:49)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,10:40)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12)

John 1:1 does not say anything about “in the beginning was pre-existant Jesus, pirit.
and pre-existant Jesus was with God, and pre-existant Jesus was God;”
and John 1:14 does not say “Pre-existant Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.”

Hi Paladin,

Your John 1:1 is more accurate than the bias of the N.W.T.
John 1:14 says “The Word”(also called God's HolySpirit) bacame flesh.

Although I agree with your rendition of John 1:1,
John 1:1 is a reference to God's “HolySpirit”(The Word).

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

Logos is never calloed the spirit. Reema is.

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the reema [word] of God:

Paladin,

Mike pointed out to me that he believes reema is the sword of the Spirit and not the Spirit itself in that passage. I could also be understood t mean the sword is made of Spirit and so the Spirit is reema. Both understandings seem in keeping with the English language.

I do know that the Spirit of God is the manifestation of the Word of God as it demonstrates God's word with both its actions and its words.

Quote

John 16
King James Version (KJV)

13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I know that God is also the manifestation of his own word and that Jesus was made the manifestation of God's Word by receiving and living by the Spirit of God.

What is the relationship between reema and logos?

September 18, 2011 at 12:27 am#258691

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,17:32)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

Very good Kerwin. Now, what scripture is it that forbids Jesus from being the first of these sons of God?

Quote

Acts 13
King James Version (KJV)

22And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave their testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
23Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Which comes first, the seed or the tree from which the seed comes?

Kerwin, very good. Now, let's REALLY delve into this matter, okay? YES, I agree that Jesus was of David's seed…………..ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. And the fact that Jesus, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, came through the line of David makes him the BRANCH of David, right?

Now, WHAT EXACTLY MAKES JESUS THE ROOT OF DAVID? Because scripture says that Jesus is BOTH.

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,17:32)

Scripture speaks of no child of God’s body………..

Let's not get off track here. I asked you in what way angels were the sons of God. You said, “Since angels, including Satan, are also created by God they are all in a like manner the sons of God.” Are these angels “children of God's body”, Kerwin? What ever answer you give, either “YES” or “NO”, just apply that same reasoning to Jesus.

Because what you are saying is that God CAN bring forth spirit sons unto Himself, but for some odd reason, Jesus can't be one of them. And I'm trying to get the scripture out of you that PROHIBITS Jesus from being one of those spirit sons of God before he emptied himself, became the seed of David according to the flesh, and being found as a flesh and blood man, had the glory of the only begotten of God.

You are quick with the scriptures that speak of Jesus' beginnings as a HUMAN BEING, but the problem is that not one of them prohibits him from being a spirit son of God BEFORE God sent him to earth as the bread that came down from heaven.

Do you see my dilemma with your answers? You keep posting things I totally agree with. You just haven't EVER been able to post a scripture that would PROHIBIT Jesus from having been a spirit son of God BEFORE he became a human Son of God. Nor will you ever be able to, because a scripture like that simply doesn't exist. And the sooner you realize this, the easier the transition from your imagination to truth will be.

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,17:32)

You desire answers to direct questions but your question are in accordance with your understanding and so limits the answer to your understanding.

My questions on the debate thread will be the same kind of questions I ask on the public threads, Kerwin. The only difference will be that you will have to stand and defend your imaginary claims before I move off the subject.

What are you afraid of Kerwin? If my understanding is wrong, then you should easily be able to show me that, right?

peace,
mike

September 18, 2011 at 12:36 am#258692

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,11:27)

Now, WHAT EXACTLY MAKES JESUS THE ROOT OF DAVID? Because scripture says that Jesus is BOTH.

Hi Mike,

Excellent point! …truth always has the answer!
It's good to keep asking the hard questions!
Keep it up my friend, keep asking them.

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

September 18, 2011 at 12:43 am#258694

Participant

Hi Mike,

There are only three possibilities, they are…

1) Jesus was God
2) Jesus was an Angel
3) Jesus did not pre-exist.

I cant think of any other possibilities; can you?
Maybe this should be made into a “POLL”,
so we can see how others weigh in?

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

September 18, 2011 at 12:55 am#258695

Blocked

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,17:43)

Yes, there are many verses that show “The Word” of God is God's HolySpirit!

Hi Ed,

You think the Word is God's Holy Spirit, which, according to you, is not really “the Spirit OF God”, but “the God Spirit”. Therefore, you think that God Himself, as the “God Spirit who was the Word”, became flesh and had the glory of the only begotten of Himself. Except that you think God is the ONLY Being in existence who has glory at all, so the glory that was said to have been a glory of an ONLY BEGOTTEN OF GOD is really the glory of God Himself.

So, now we have the Word, which IS the Spirit, which IS God Himself, becoming flesh and for some odd reason, having His glory described by John, not as the glory of God Himself, but as the glory of the only begotten OF God.

Then later, this Holy Spirit which really IS God Himself prays to some God in heaven. This Holy Spirit which really IS God Himself asks Himself to take the cup away from him. Then this Holy Spirit says it will send a DIFFERENT helper, which we later find out is………….you guessed it – THE HOLY SPIRIT!

Oh, and then the Holy Spirit which is really God died and raised Himself from the dead.

It seems that Paladin and I may end up being comrades on this point. Maybe he will be able to show you how the Word cannot possibly be God's Holy Spirit.

mike

September 18, 2011 at 1:03 am#258696

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,15:17)

If you are ready to debate the old testament issues I raised way back in page 96 post #5 I will then consider debating new testament issues depending on how you react to the first debate.

I am willing for you to post the OT scriptures or teachings ONE AT A TIME that you think prohibit Jesus from pre-existing his flesh. I am interested in ONE POINT AT A TIME so I can examine each point individually instead of “the world according to Paladin” all at once.

Would you like to do it in this thread?

September 18, 2011 at 1:23 am#258701

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,11:55)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,17:43)

Yes, there are many verses that show “The Word” of God is God's HolySpirit!

Hi Ed,

Oh, and then the Holy Spirit which is really God died and raised Himself from the dead.

It seems that Paladin and I may end up being comrades on this point. Maybe he will be able to show you how the Word cannot possibly be God's Holy Spirit.

mike

Hi Mike,

Let’s try going the yes/no route that you seem to want; OK?
Please tell me if this works out better for you; OK?

Quote

(1)You think the Word is God's Holy Spirit, which, (2)according to you, is not really “the Spirit OF God”, but (3)”the God Spirit”.

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes

Quote

Therefore, you think that God Himself, as the “God Spirit who was the Word”, became flesh and had the glory of the only begotten of Himself.

Yes

Quote

(1)Except that you think God is the ONLY Being in existence who has glory at all, (2)so the glory that was said to have been a glory of an ONLY BEGOTTEN OF GOD is really the glory of God Himself.

1) No
2) Yes

Quote

Yes

Quote

(1)Then later, this Holy Spirit which really IS God Himself prays to some God in heaven. (2)This Holy Spirit which really IS God Himself asks Himself to take the cup away from him. (3) Then this Holy Spirit says it will send a DIFFERENT helper, which we later find out is………….you guessed it – THE HOLY SPIRIT!

1) No
2) No
3) No

Quote

Oh, and then the Holy Spirit which is really God died and raised Himself from the dead.

Quote

(1)It seems that Paladin and I may end up being comrades on this point. (2)Maybe he will be able to show you how the Word cannot possibly be God's Holy Spirit.

1) No
2) No

Feel free to import this post into the other thread if you want; OK?

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

September 18, 2011 at 2:06 am#258702

Blocked

Ed,

Thank you! That is the most brilliantly answered post you've ever produced IMO!

YES and NO is the best and most sure way to get to the bottom of what the other person believes. I don't know why some people have a problem with it.

For example, when I stated: “So, now we have the Word, which IS the Spirit, which IS God Himself, becoming flesh and for some odd reason, having His glory described by John, not as the glory of God Himself, but as the glory of the only begotten OF God”, you could have had me going round and round in crazy cirlces like you did when I first brought this point up to you.

But this time you didn't do that, Ed! You actually stood up for and clearly stated for all to see what your beliefs actually are. Once a person does that, I know what I'm dealing with, and what questions to ask next. Such as: Why do you think John would have described what was really God's glory as the glory, not of God, but of the only begotten OF Him?

September 18, 2011 at 3:26 am#258709

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06)

Ed,

Thank you! That is the most brilliantly answered post you've ever produced IMO!

YES and NO is the best and most sure way to get to the bottom of what the other person believes. I don't know why some people have a problem with it.

Hi Mike,

Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too!
May all who read our discussion be blessed!

Because it was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh.

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

September 18, 2011 at 9:53 am#258733

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 18 2011,10:59)

Paladin,

Quote

The fact that a verse is “hard of understanding” shows only that the Holy Spirit intended for it to. That is his tool for separating the serious student from the doctrinaire.

I assume you mean it separates those that are truly led by their hunger and thirst for righteousness from those that are led by other desires and so I agree.

Quote

If all one can use is those “easy to understand” scriptures, I would have to ask, “Easy to understand by whom?”

I was using it in the sense both parties agree on the ideas that certain passages express. One example is that God created the heavens and the earth.

One example that ilolustrates my point, is when two debaters agree “baptize” and “baptism” include pouring water over a baby's head.

It does no such thing. Yet there is agreement in many debates over that very issue.

There are some on this board who agree on the pre-existance of Jesus, but do not agree on every point of doctrine.

That does not come from Spirit-led bible study. It comes from zealous doctrine belief; which leads to understanding many prophetic statements as historical events.

September 18, 2011 at 9:56 am#258735

Participant

Hi Paladin,

You don't believe prophetic statements become historical events?

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

September 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm#258747

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,03:26)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12)

Tell me Mike, how can the logos of God increase? “And the logos of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” [Acts 6:7]

The problem you have comes from wanting every mention of “logos” in the scriptures to mean the same exact thing. And for a while you were claiming that since this scripture had “logos”, it meant one thing. And since that scripture had “rhema”, it had to mean something else.

It was a claim you made without any real evidence, and many jumped on board and accepted this claim as truth because they liked the non-preexistent conclusion you offered.

It does not seem like you are making the “logos” versus “rhema” claim anymore, which is good. Because they are simply two different words that can mean a lot of different things.

Both of them can simply refer to a spoken or written word of ANYONE. And both of them can have other, metaphorical meanings. But what is sure is that each mention of “logos” in the scripture does NOT refer to the same thing.

You ask how the “logos of God” can increase? Simple. We are told to preach the gospel to every nation. The gospel is the words of God concerning what will someday be. It can “increase” because of more and more people hearing it every day.

The “logos” of God can be “fulfilled” every time something God has spoken has come to pass.

But neither of these change the fact that “logos” means “word”, and Jesus, as the head spokesman of God is metaphorically called “the Word of God”, because he speaks God's words to others. I showed you all the example of the King of Abyssinia having a spokesman that was called “the Word of the King”. It doesn't mean that in Abyssinia, every mention of a “word” now refers to that particular Word, who is the King's spokesman. Nor does every mention of “logos” in the scriptures refer to Jesus.

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12)

John 1:1 does not say anything about “in the beginning was pre-existant Jesus, and pre-existant Jesus was with God, and pre-existant Jesus was God;” and John 1:14 does not say
“Pre-existant Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.”

Let's find out, Paladin. Would you like to discuss this in short, to the point posts with me? Would you be willing to answer my direct questions with DIRECT, to the point answers?

If so, then let's do it. We can post 1:1, and discuss, ONE POINT AT A TIME, what it teaches. And then do the same for the rest of John 1.

Let me know if you are willing to discuss this in a short and to the point manner.

mike

When you accuse me of offering scripture analysis “without any real evidence” Mike, you are simply piling on self-serving rhetoric. I have not offered false evidence, so what is your point?

When I quote John 1:1 telling us “the logos was God;” then offer another verse that tells us “the spirit, which is the reema of God,” and then give you my conclusion that the logos was God and the reema is the Holy Spirit, what is your complaint about my “not real” evidence? If you want me to I can supply you with every reference using either word, but then you would complain I have “cut and pasted” or posted “too long” a post, or some other justifiable argument.

So when I just quote two verses and conclude a difference, I fail to understand your remark that I have posted a position
“without any real evidence.” Do you not consider the scriptures “real evidence?” Or do you only consider your own conclusions to be “real evidence?

September 18, 2011 at 12:36 pm#258748

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,10:43)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,03:33)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,03:14)

Of course John 1:1 and 14 qualifiy as a hard to understand verses.

Not only do those verses seem very straightforward to me, but the Bible also contains many other verses that support the meaning of those two.

Hi Mike,

Yes, there are many verses that show “The Word” of God is God's HolySpirit!

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

I know of one.

show me two!

September 18, 2011 at 12:38 pm#258749

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,11:01)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,10:49)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,10:40)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12)

Hi Paladin,

Your John 1:1 is more accurate than the bias of the N.W.T.
John 1:14 says “The Word”(also called God's HolySpirit) bacame flesh.

Although I agree with your rendition of John 1:1,
John 1:1 is a reference to God's “HolySpirit”(The Word).

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

Logos is never calloed the sspirit. Reema is.

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the reema [word] of God:

Hi Paladin,

God's HolySpirit is called both “Ho Logos” and “Rhema”.
Did God's HolySpirit not grow and prevail?
…or merely sentence fragments?

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

where is “ho logos” called “Holy Spirit” in scripture?

September 18, 2011 at 1:17 pm#258750

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 18 2011,11:27)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,05:49)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,10:40)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12)

Hi Paladin,

Your John 1:1 is more accurate than the bias of the N.W.T.
John 1:14 says “The Word”(also called God's HolySpirit) bacame flesh.

Although I agree with your rendition of John 1:1,
John 1:1 is a reference to God's “HolySpirit”(The Word).

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

Logos is never called the spirit. Reema is.

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the reema [word] of God:

Paladin,

I do know that the Spirit of God is the manifestation of the Word of God as it demonstrates God's word with both its actions and its words.

Quote

John 16
King James Version (KJV)

I know that God is also the manifestation of his own word and that Jesus was made the manifestation of God's Word by receiving and living by the Spirit of God.

What is the relationship between reema and logos?

O.K. – Here's the complete statement –

“Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; 19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.” [Eph 6:14-20]

Now, focus on verse 17 – “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

The Greek origin of this translation, is – “o estin reema theou”

Now, focus on that little word “o” translated “Which” – And notice it is a nominative neuter singular relative pronoun.

Notice also that “sword” is from the greek “maxairan” which is an accusative feminine singular form of the noun “maxaira”.

Notice finally, that “Spirit” is from pneumatos – the Greek nominative neuter singular form of the noun pneuma.

Now, follow this reasoning: The relative pronoun “o” agrees in gender and number, with its antecedent. All you have to do is compare, in the greek the pronoun “o” gender which is neuter, and number which is singular, with sword whose gender is feminine, and whose number is singular;

then compare it with Pneumatos, whose gender is neuter, and whose number is singular.

Which does neuter singular “o” relate to? The feminine singular “sword?” or the neuter singular “Spirit?”

It relates to the neuter singular “Spirit.” It does not relate to the feminine singular “sword,” no matter what any commentator may say to the contrary.

As for the relationship between logos and reema –
both are the word of God- logos being the concept, reema being the written record.

What confuses some, is because sometimes God has the author recording his reema, the written account, but sometimes he has him recording the logos itself; i.e., the idea behind the written record.

How do we identify the difference? By paying attention when God tells us something is according to His reema, and when He tells us something is according to His logos. How simple can it get? That does not mean they are “the same.” If you reach that conclusion, it means you have not paid attention.

It is kinda like if I have a written agreement with you, and a sermon about the written agreement, and in discussing with you some important aspect of the agreement, I quote the written account, then offer comment from my sermon about it, claiming both are in the agreement. If I tell you “this is in the agreement” it may be in the written account, but equaloly, it may be in the sermon about the agreement. The written account gives the record, while the sermon gives the deeper meaning behind the written account.

Later, in discussing it with others, you may quote some of what I have given you from the written account, and some from the sermon; both would be about the agreement, but they would not be the same.

September 18, 2011 at 1:31 pm#258752

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,11:27)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,17:32)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

Very good Kerwin. Now, what scripture is it that forbids Jesus from being the first of these sons of God?

Quote

Acts 13
King James Version (KJV)

Which comes first, the seed or the tree from which the seed comes?

Now, WHAT EXACTLY MAKES JESUS THE ROOT OF DAVID? Because scripture says that Jesus is BOTH.

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,17:32)

Scripture speaks of no child of God’s body………..

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,17:32)

You desire answers to direct questions but your question are in accordance with your understanding and so limits the answer to your understanding.

What are you afraid of Kerwin? If my understanding is wrong, then you should easily be able to show me that, right?

peace,
mike

Mike;

Have you never seen new trees coming up from the root of a tree already growing? most of the time they are considered
“suckers” and are pruned from the tree.

A root grows a tree, and new roots. It is the perfect example for the relation between the Christ David, and the Christ Jesus. Both were the “Xristos” of God. Both from the same root. David was earlier on the root than Jesus, but still was
“of the root.”

As for Jesus saying “I am the bread of life” or referencing the mana in the wilderness, he is using allegory as a teaching tool. Just as the Jews were told to consider the crucified Jesus in the same manner in which they considered Nehushtan, raised on a pole in the center of the camp, so also Jesus is mana to the starving soul, just as mana was food to the starving Jews.

As for Jesus “coming down from heaven,” it is the same way the baptism of John was “from heaven.” It was by the authority of God in heaven.

As for the Jews not understanding it, most allegory winds up having to be explained, because the meaning is known best to the author.

Like when Paul says “I am become a fool” – knowing full well the teaching that says “the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God,” taught by Jesus, Paul went on to explain the meaning of his choice of words.

September 18, 2011 at 1:34 pm#258753