- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Paladin
Quote 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. simple question here ;why is that John the Baptist ad a man for father and Christ was given trough Gods intervention ,so no man intervention only women intervention ,???
Pierre
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,20:56) Hi Paladin, You don't believe prophetic statements become historical events?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Of course they do Ed. That was not my statement. I said many believe what is prophecy, is already historic event, when in fact, scripturally, it still had to be fulfilled. Like for example, old testament prophecies about Jesus are said to be statement of fact about Jesus, resulting in prehistoric reality for Jesus.Like when Isaiah saw Jesus' glory in Isa 52:13, speaking of his glory given to him after his resurrection, as though Isaiah actually saw it in his day. But as Luke phrases it, in referencing the prophetic language of David, – “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” [Acts 2:29-31]
There are many people who, upon reading Isaiah's writings, declare Jesus was seen by Isaiah, therefore, this is an account of the pre-existant Jesus. It is no such thing.
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2011,01:05) Paladin Quote 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. simple question here ;why is that John the Baptist ad a man for father and Christ was given trough Gods intervention ,so no man intervention only women intervention ,???
Pierre
How can you say there was “no man intervention” when Jesus is declared throughout scripture to be the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, etc?Read the story of Judah if you want to see “intervention” when God had to intervene so Judah would see that he had a duty to beget a seedline, because of prophecy that was going unfulfilled, because Judah couldn't be bothered.
Reaqd the stories of the Hebrew national record and you will see plenty of “man intervention” much of it brought about by the direct interaction of Jehovah God, and some of it brought to fruition because of the zeal of believers for God's word.
David is just one example of a man who did certain things based upon God's promise to him that Messiah would come of his seed.
And there was plenty of “woman intervention” too, so you aare at least correct in that respect, but it was not limited to Eve and Mary. There was also Rahab and Ruth who had active parts in the historical account of Christ.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,23:36) 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!
Hi Paladin,For to one is given by the Spirit “The Word” of wisdom; to another “The Word” of knowledge by the same Spirit; (1Cor 12:8)
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard “The Word” of truth, the gospel of your salvation:
in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that HolySpirit of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the
purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph.1:13-14)To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us “The Word” of reconciliation. (2Cor.5:19)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,01:50) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,23:36) 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.orgI know of one.
show me two!
Hi Paladin,
For to one is given by the Spirit “The Word” of wisdom; to another “The Word” of knowledge by the same Spirit; (1Cor 12:8)In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard “The Word” of truth, the gospel of your salvation:
in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that HolySpirit of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the
purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph.1:13-14)To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us “The Word” of reconciliation. (2Cor.5:19)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Nope!“Gifts of” tells us of gifts given by a giver of gifts. It is not telling us we are given the giver.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 19 2011,08:43) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2011,01:05) Paladin Quote 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. simple question here ;why is that John the Baptist ad a man for father and Christ was given trough Gods intervention ,so no man intervention only women intervention ,???
Pierre
How can you say there was “no man intervention” when Jesus is declared throughout scripture to be the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, etc?Read the story of Judah if you want to see “intervention” when God had to intervene so Judah would see that he had a duty to beget a seedline, because of prophecy that was going unfulfilled, because Judah couldn't be bothered.
Reaqd the stories of the Hebrew national record and you will see plenty of “man intervention” much of it brought about by the direct interaction of Jehovah God, and some of it brought to fruition because of the zeal of believers for God's word.
David is just one example of a man who did certain things based upon God's promise to him that Messiah would come of his seed.
And there was plenty of “woman intervention” too, so you aare at least correct in that respect, but it was not limited to Eve and Mary. There was also Rahab and Ruth who had active parts in the historical account of Christ.
Paladinsorry but you do not addressed the question ,Mathew ,Luke explain how Jesus came to be born of a women ,
so answer the question ,did Jesus add a man for a father ?
(biological)
or was God his father ??
Pierre
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 19 2011,02:01) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,01:50) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,23:36) 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.orgI know of one.
show me two!
Hi Paladin,
For to one is given by the Spirit “The Word” of wisdom; to another “The Word” of knowledge by the same Spirit; (1Cor 12:8)In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard “The Word” of truth, the gospel of your salvation:
in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that HolySpirit of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the
purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph.1:13-14)To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us “The Word” of reconciliation. (2Cor.5:19)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Nope!“Gifts of” tells us of gifts given by a giver of gifts. It is not telling us we are given the giver.
Hi Paladin,How did “The Word” grow, multiply and prevail? (Acts 12:24, Acts 19:20)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,07:31) 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.”
Hi Paladin,For your understanding to be realized, you will have to add words to the scripture like Gene does. You have the same understanding as Gene in this “Root” matter – it's just that he is honest enough to tell us he's changing the words “I am the Root of David” to “I am FROM THE ROOTS of David”. Your understanding requires the same scriptural twisting, but you don't seem willing to honestly state that fact the way Gene does. In fact, your version requires another word addition, making Rev 22:16 say, “I am FROM THE SAME ROOTS AS David”.
But one who is FROM THE SAME ROOTS AS another, but who came AFTER that other one would be the BRANCH, or OFFSPRING of that other one. He would never be called the Root of that other one, because being called the ROOT OF the other one would imply that he came BEFORE the other one. And that is the contrast Jesus is making in Rev 22. He is saying that not only was he the Offspring of David, according to the flesh, but he was also the Root of David, meaning that in a way not according to the flesh, he came BEFORE David.
Your understanding has Jesus speaking a redundancy. Your understanding has Jesus saying he came from the same roots as David, and is also the offspring of David. And since coming from the same roots of David, and also coming AFTER David, would already be implying that he was the OFFSPRING of David, there would be no reason for Jesus to state the same thing twice. For example:
From the same roots as David, but came after David = Offspring of David
Offspring of David = Offspring of DavidSo your understanding has Jesus saying, “I am the Offspring AND the Offspring of David”.
It's better for you to accept it the way it is written, Paladin. Jesus is making a contrast that he is at the same time the Root of (came before) David, and also the Offspring of (came after) David.
The scriptural fact of the matter, as hinted by Jesus to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:41-45, is that David came through Jesus, according to creation, and Jesus came through David, according to the flesh. (Acts 2:30, Romans 1:3, Hebrews 2:14)
mike
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06) Ed, 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?
Hi Mike,Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too!
Good. Now answer the question, please.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,06:33) 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?
Well,John 1:1 doesn't say the logos was “THE God”, with a capital “G”.
And I don't know of a scripture that refers to God's Spirit as “rhema”.
So maybe “real” is not the word I should have used. I should have said you are making this “logos” versus “”rhema” claim without any ACCURATE evidence.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,07:31) 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.
And you know this as a fact………….HOW?I'm not one of these people trying to make something out of nothing in a scripture. So when I read about Jesus HIMSELF saying “I came down from heaven”, I just take him at his word (logos? rhema?) that he meant what he said – that HE came down from heaven.
I understand that to be the only way he could also make this claim: “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.” And this one: “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.”
There are SO MANY scriptures I could list that all tie into the fact that God sent His only begotten Son down from heaven, prepared a flesh body for him so he could experience a human existence, (therefore making him an even better mediator and High Priest for us), before allowing him to die as His sacrificial Lamb to atone for our sins so that He could once again be righteous in ever calling any of us righteous.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,07:31) Like when Paul says “I am become a fool”
Paladin,What scripture has these words? I could use that in another discussion I'm having.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:23) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,07:31) 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.”Hi Paladin,
For your understanding to be realized, you will have to add words to the scripture like Gene does. You have the same understanding as Gene in this “Root” matter – it's just that he is honest enough to tell us he's changing the words “I am the Root of David” to “I am FROM THE ROOTS of David”. Your understanding requires the same scriptural twisting, but you don't seem willing to honestly state that fact the way Gene does. In fact, your version requires another word addition, making Rev 22:16 say, “I am FROM THE SAME ROOTS AS David”.
But one who is FROM THE SAME ROOTS AS another, but who came AFTER that other one would be the BRANCH, or OFFSPRING of that other one. He would never be called the Root of that other one, because being called the ROOT OF the other one would imply that he came BEFORE the other one. And that is the contrast Jesus is making in Rev 22. He is saying that not only was he the Offspring of David, according to the flesh, but he was also the Root of David, meaning that in a way not according to the flesh, he came BEFORE David.
Your understanding has Jesus speaking a redundancy. Your understanding has Jesus saying he came from the same roots as David, and is also the offspring of David. And since coming from the same roots of David, and also coming AFTER David, would already be implying that he was the OFFSPRING of David, there would be no reason for Jesus to state the same thing twice. For example:
From the same roots as David, but came after David = Offspring of David
Offspring of David = Offspring of DavidSo your understanding has Jesus saying, “I am the Offspring AND the Offspring of David”.
It's better for you to accept it the way it is written, Paladin. Jesus is making a contrast that he is at the same time the Root of (came before) David, and also the Offspring of (came after) David.
The scriptural fact of the matter, as hinted by Jesus to the Pharisees in Matthew 22:41-45, is that David came through Jesus, according to creation, and Jesus came through David, according to the flesh. (Acts 2:30, Romans 1:3, Hebrews 2:14)
mike
o.k. Mike, Let's examine you rimaginary book tale here.According to you, gene adds a word, “same” and is telling the truth.
According to you I add a word “From” and I am dishonest.
O.K. Mike, that tells us something about you as the judge.
All you have to do now, is show us all where I quoted a verse in Revelation with “same” within the quotes.
(Mike)
Quote Your understanding requires the same scriptural twisting, but you don't seem willing to honestly state that fact the way Gene does. In fact, your version requires another word addition, making Rev 22:16 say, “I am FROM THE SAME ROOTS AS David”. Which of my posts did you get this from?
You really need to quit judging my post if You can't even tell the difference between commentary and scripture.
Jesus originated in Messianic prophecy. God brought many things into reality to keep that prophecy alive, for example, Judah didn't care if he was a grandfather or not, so God brought certain people into the picture to make it happen, like Tamar [Gen 38]- “And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;”[Mat 1:3-6]
So, Messiah Jesus was the root of the lineage in prophecies that caused God to bring in Tamar to Judah, who begot Phares of Tamar, to keep the lineage of promise alive. They were all of the same root, but there is no verse that states it that way. Does that mean I am changing the scripture to tell you this? No. It means I am commenting on what the scriptures say, and giving you my conclusion. And my conclusion is backed by the scripture that tells us Messiah is the lion of Judah and the root of David [Rev 5:5]
Everybody in the lineage is the root of David, and of Messiah, who is the root of them all in prophecy. It is just like Acts 2:36-42 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.Are you going to accuse Peter and the apostles of misquoting scripture because after their gospel sermon in Acts two, “with many other words they did testify and exhort?” When they preached “many other words” did they distort God's message?
Gene did not corrupt God's word and neither did I, We simply tried to find a way to explain it so you would understand it.
And you think I am going to debate YOU? You won't understand anything I post.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:55) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,07:31) Like when Paul says “I am become a fool”
Paladin,What scripture has these words? I could use that in another discussion I'm having.
You could use them in this one. (assume a smiling idiot here)Paul said “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.” [II Cor 12:11]
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:54) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,07:31) 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.
And you know this as a fact………….HOW?I'm not one of these people trying to make something out of nothing in a scripture. So when I read about Jesus HIMSELF saying “I came down from heaven”, I just take him at his word (logos? rhema?) that he meant what he said – that HE came down from heaven.
I understand that to be the only way he could also make this claim: “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.” And this one: “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.”
There are SO MANY scriptures I could list that all tie into the fact that God sent His only begotten Son down from heaven, prepared a flesh body for him so he could experience a human existence, (therefore making him an even better mediator and High Priest for us), before allowing him to die as His sacrificial Lamb to atone for our sins so that He could once again be righteous in ever calling any of us righteous.
Michael, Michael, Michael;Don't you know “A body thou hast prepared me” is a reference to the church, the “children thou hast given me?”
Those who were the children of God were turned over to Jesus to shepherd.
“Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.” [Isa 8:18]
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. 13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”[Heb 2:9-16]God prepared his body of children to be the body of Christ, of whom it is siad “He is the head of the body, the church.”
As for Jesus “coming down from heaven”, you will never come to an understanding of it's meaning because you are blinded by the words instead of seeing the message behind the words.
Why do you suppose Paul said “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life?” Simply because there are many who cannot see beyond the printed page. It is kinda' like the folks Jesus mentioned who tithed anis and cumin, but left undone “the weightier matters of the law.” They could not see the spirit of the law because they were encumbered down with the letter of the law.
Jesus was never physically in heaven prior to being “begotten of the spirit” in Mat 1:20. You really need desparately to do a bible study on the meaning of gennaw, translated “begotten, begot, bore, born. It means “to cause to be.” Jesus existed only in prophecy prior to his begettal by the Holy Spirit of God.
“I came down from heaven” is a reference to “I did not come to be the same way all others did, i.e., from Eden. It does not matter if he said it ten thousand times, it means the same thing. It will not change with the telling. When the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary, that was from heaven, not Eden. But it took place on earth.
The son of man was never in heaven until after the ascension recorded in Acts two. He was a man raised from among his brethren [Deu 18:15,18]; seed of the woman; seed of Abraham, lion of the tribe of Judah, root and branch, seed of David, begotten of the spirit and made of a woman.[Mat 1:20][John 3:6][Gal 4:4]; a man who told the truth, which he heard from God [John 8:40] in keeping with [Deu 18:18]. THAT all came from heaven, not from Eden.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:04) Gene did not corrupt God's word and neither did I, We simply tried to find a way to explain it so you would understand it.
Well, Gene believes that Jesus being the ROOT OF David means that Jesus CAME FROM David's roots. Is that a correct assumption, Paladin?I assumed you believed the same from your “sucker tree root” story.
I now know that you realize that Jesus being the ROOT OF David means Jesus came BEFORE David. That is something Gene has yet to accept.
Which brings us to YOUR misunderstanding: You accept that Jesus came BEFORE David, but ODDLY invent some crazy idea that Jesus EXISTED from the moment he was prophesied about – but not as a real person.
Paladin, a person begins to exist the minute they become a PERSON – not before and not after. So for Jesus to have come BEFORE David, the PERSON Jesus had to have existed BEFORE David.
So yes, you and Gene are BOTH corrupting the word (logos? rhema?) of God – just in different fashions.
It's too bad scripture doesn't list the life span of Cyrus. Because if they added the 160 years between the time he was first prophesied about and the time he actually began to exist to his number of lived years, you could easily make your point!
Paladin,
The Jewish Virtual Library lists the life span of Isaiah from 740-681 B.C.
And Wikipedia lists the life span of Cyrus from 576-530 B.C.
I don't think you'll find any scholars that list the beginning of the existence of Cyrus as circa 700 B.C., when Isaiah first prophesied about him.
Therefore, I think it's a safe bet to say this “A PERSON BEGINS TO EXIST FROM THE MOMENT THEY'RE PROPHESIED ABOUT” theory is all you, dude.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:07) Paul said “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.” [II Cor 12:11]
Thank you – it won't help. I thought the Greek words would be “ego eimi”, but they're not.Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:44) Michael, Michael, Michael; Don't you know “A body thou hast prepared me” is a reference to the church, the “children thou hast given me?”
Paladin, Paladin, Paladin,Guess again.
Hebrews 10
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.’”8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
The body that was prepared was the SACRIFICE, Paladin. Was the church sacrificed?
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,08:17) 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) 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.orgLogos 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,
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?
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.
Hi Paladin,
You need to recheck the form of 'spirit' in this verse.You said:
Quote
Notice finally, that “Spirit” is from pneumatos – the Greek nominative neuter singular form of the noun pneuma.'Spirit' is not in the nominative form so that would throw your understanding off here. Fyi.
I would translate the verse like this:
Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, the word, which is of God.
I'm no Greek expert but I'm pretty confident about this.
What do you think?
Kathi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
