- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,02:42) Now the Logos being the Spirit of Christ, “the archetypal and governing idea of creation”, embodied itself in Jesus the mortal according to John 1:14 and the embodied Holy Spirit which had come from God lived among us.
Kerwin,Let me stop you right there, because Gene and I have been over and over this point. 1:14 does not contain the word “IN”.
Your assertion is that this spirit embodied itself IN Jesus the mortal. But that's not what 1:14 says, is it? 1:14 says “the Word BECAME flesh”, not “the Word came to be IN someone who was flesh”.
So I really don't need to read any further into your understanding and explanation, because your very first assertion is already re-writing the scriptures. In other words, your foundation is built on shifting sand, and not rock.
mike
Quote (terraricca @ April 15 2011,09:40) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,15:00) Terriccia……….You original scriptures are inspired by GOD , but those who interpret them may not necessarily be. Another thing no where doe it say the five wise were waiting for it (the oil in their flasks) they had it already, it was in them and it supplied the Light (intellect or spirit) in them , there bodies are symbolic for their vessels or flasks , they contained the oil of the Spirit of God (IN) their own selves symbolized as their flasks or vessels. Pierre you are a prime example of what i am talking about , you simply do not get it brother. May God have mercy and help you to see brother. IMO peace and love…………………………….gene
geneMT 25:5 “Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.
Quote Another thing no where doe it say the five wise were waiting and also I never mention any number ,
your interpretation is not true .
Pierre
Terricca………….They were waiting for the bridegroom, not for the OIL they had in their vessels of flasks, as you thought they were. You are good at switching context to a number things far from what my or your points were.peace and lvoe………………………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 14 2011,07:21)
Mike………..That is why i have said that the Trinitarians and the Preexistence are from the same view point concerning the preexistence of Jesus
Well Gene, if you knew how valiantly Irene, Pierre and I fight AGAINST the comically flawed, man-made trinity doctrine, then you'd know why it upsets us when you imply we're “in cahoots” with them.Paladin has made the same wrong assumption that you have, although this time he added a disclaimer stating he knows I'm not a Trinitarian.
But “Pre-exsistence of Jesus” does not in any way equal “Jesus is God Almighty”………….and for the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would equate the two. Angels pre-existed the earth and human beings and they're not God Almighty. So why couldn't Jesus pre-exist the earth and humans and not be God Almighty?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 14 2011,07:21)
The preexistence of Jesus was the point i was driving at, and this view is a view of
seperation Because it seperates Jesus the Son of Man from the rest of the Sons of Man, makes him a destenct seperate kind of person then we are,
Yes Gene, I already know the preconceived man-made notion you started with so that you now have to add words and twist scriptures so that they fit around YOUR own understanding. In fact, I was going to add a little something about it in my post to Wispring last night, but decided the post was long enough as it was.But here's what I almost added:
People who must “re-write” scripture are ones who begin their scriptural journey with a pre-conceived idea that they must then form the scriptures around. They try their best to make the scriptures fit around THEIR OWN opinions, instead of forming those opinions on the actual scriptures themselves.
For example, Trinitarians started with the urge to have a triune Godhead like many of the other nations had. So they started with that false notion, and then proceeded to add certain verses into the scriptures, change others, and translate still others in a Trinitarian slanted way that was never implied or even hinted at by the original writers of the scriptures.
Now you can surely see that this is just wrong, right Gene? But you guys are doing the same exact thing here. You and Marty and Kerwin must “understand” the scriptures in ways that make sure Jesus wasn't anything other than “exactly like us”. And you are apparently blind to the fact that it is your own man-made opinion that Jesus, for some reason, must have been no different than us that drives your understanding of the scriptures. Here's a plain difference between me and you, Gene:
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
I take this scripture in conjuntion with Rev 19:13 and understand that one of the many names we know our Savior by is “the Word of God”. I also know that no other thing called “logos” in the entire scriptures ever “became flesh”, “dwelled among us” and “had the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father”. I am further convinced by the fact that this “Word” is the one who John the Baptist said he was unworthy to untie the sandal of.
YOU, on the other hand, in order to maintain your own man-made understanding, must immediately start “shuffling” things around. First you add your own word “IN” into the scripture when it's not there. Then you ask me this…………. “Mike, have you ever seen a literal “word” become flesh?” ………………….apparently not realizing that it helps OUR point and hurts YOURS. And then you claim that this “Word” was really the Holy Spirit of God, knowing full well from the scripture you have often quoted in the “Bodies” thread that “spirit does not have flesh and bone, as you see I have”. And you apparently forget that the Holy Spirit is the OTHER helper that the Word says he'll send after he ascends to where he was before, so it can't possibly be the helper that is already here. And if that's not enough, in order for your “Holy Spirit” theory to even work, you must accept that the Spirit of God is a separate entity from Him and also His only begotten Son.
Now that I've posted it out in the open, can you see it Gene? Can you see the hoops you have to jump through, and the nonsensical and unscriptural things you have to claim, all because of your “wish” for Jesus to have been “exactly like us”? And your hero Paladin has been truthfully explaining to you that Jesus WASN'T “exactly like us” anyway. Come on Gene…………any first grader can easily see that someone born of God and a human would not be “exactly like” those who are born of a human and a human.
As far as Paladin goes, IMO he is driven by two main things, and neither of them are the serenity to accept the scriptures as they are written. One of them is his abhoration of the Trinity Doctrine. But this “driving force” of his is unfounded in itself, because understanding that Jesus pre-existed his flesh in no way whatsoever supports a trinity Godhead.
The other thing is his apparent drive to be the first one to discover something no one else has thought of or figured out. This is evident to me from his post to Wispring about figuring out some math theory that “everyone else has gotten wrong all these years”. I feel that he wants to “make a name for himself” with his “incarnation as a prophecy” and “logos = thought” stuff. But these are just my observations, and not known fact.
My point is if you had neither originally started with, nor been taught your non-preexistent views, you would be able to accept and understand that Jesus is the ONLY one who has the glory of “the only begotten Son from the Father”, the ONLY one about whom John testified, and the ONLY one John was unfit to untie the sandal of. But as it is, you must instead read John 1 and immediately start “shuffling” things, as shown above.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,05:54) Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,02:42) Now the Logos being the Spirit of Christ, “the archetypal and governing idea of creation”, embodied itself in Jesus the mortal according to John 1:14 and the embodied Holy Spirit which had come from God lived among us.
Kerwin,Let me stop you right there, because Gene and I have been over and over this point. 1:14 does not contain the word “IN”.
Your assertion is that this spirit embodied itself IN Jesus the mortal. But that's not what 1:14 says, is it? 1:14 says “the Word BECAME flesh”, not “the Word came to be IN someone who was flesh”.
So I really don't need to read any further into your understanding and explanation, because your very first assertion is already re-writing the scriptures. In other words, your foundation is built on shifting sand, and not rock.
mike
Mike,Your doctrine is that a Spirit being embodied itself in flesh.
So either change your own doctrine or acknowledge that it can be the Spirit instead of a spirit being because that is the only difference between what you are stating and what I am at this point.
Quote (942767 @ April 14 2011,11:34)
Hi Mike:I have already been over all of this with you, and so, I see not point in re-hashing the same thing over and over again.
None of those scriptures that you have say that he pre-existed. You may interpret them to mean that, but they do not specifically state that.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Hi Marty,I don't mean to pressure you, but if you'd just directly answer the question I've asked twice now, I'd appreciate it. Here's the question for the third time:
Can you show me even one scripture that prohibits Jesus from pre-existing?
Be forewarned though, there most likely will be the follow-up question of “How so?”.
Thanks,
mikeQuote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,19:11) Mike, Your doctrine is that a Spirit being embodied itself in flesh.
So either change your own doctrine or acknowledge that it can be the Spirit instead of a spirit being because that is the only difference between what you are stating and what I am at this point.
Hi Kerwin,You are mistaken. My doctrine, which is scriptural, is that a spirit being emptied himself of his spiritual existence, and was made in the likeness of a human being.
When Jesus was flesh, he was not a spirit being anymore, for “spirits do not have flesh, as you see I have”.
Now, won't you deal with the “IN” point? You doctrine relies on the word “IN” being added to 1:14. Well…………….does 1:14 contain the word “IN”?
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,18:28) Quote (terraricca @ April 15 2011,09:40) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,15:00) Terriccia……….You original scriptures are inspired by GOD , but those who interpret them may not necessarily be. Another thing no where doe it say the five wise were waiting for it (the oil in their flasks) they had it already, it was in them and it supplied the Light (intellect or spirit) in them , there bodies are symbolic for their vessels or flasks , they contained the oil of the Spirit of God (IN) their own selves symbolized as their flasks or vessels. Pierre you are a prime example of what i am talking about , you simply do not get it brother. May God have mercy and help you to see brother. IMO peace and love…………………………….gene
geneMT 25:5 “Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.
Quote Another thing no where doe it say the five wise were waiting and also I never mention any number ,
your interpretation is not true .
Pierre
Terricca………….They were waiting for the bridegroom, not for the OIL they had in their vessels of flasks, as you thought they were. You are good at switching context to a number things far from what my or your points were.peace and lvoe………………………gene
gene
Quote Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,12:12)
To All………..”The kingdom of God is likened unto to ten Virgins, five were wise and five were foolish” , the wise took oil or fuel with them for their lamps IMOpeace and love to you ALL…………………………………gene
Gene
if the oil was the logos or spirit why they would waiting for it then?
Pierre
and some are saying they have problem with my understanding,
ha ha ,ha ha Gene you are a Born skater ,
Pierre
Mike………..So you right all this about rewriting scripture right , But you have no problem saying Jesus (Is) the Logos written in John 1:1. Making him a preexistent being. even though the word Jesus is not even mentioned there. So who rewrites scriptures to fit their dogmas. And because you misunderstand scriptures that have been explained to you over and over here by ignoring the sound reasons and correct Greek rendering of those scriptures. Then You talk about adding word to scriptures do you mean like you do by saying Jesus Had preexistence Glory (as some preexistence being), by the way what was that glory Mike, when scripture say no such thing. Jesus just said the Glory He HAD with God before the world was, so you add in that , that glory was already His in a past life, but no where does scripture say that, Jesus could just as easily been referencing the FOREORDAINED Glory , GOD Had Prepared for him from the foundations of the earth. This has to be right because no scripture show Jesus a Preexistent BEING , you or anyone else have never produced ONE SCRIPTURE the say this. Now let be honest Mike where is the ONE SCRIPTURE At MIKE, I am not talking about some scripture that can be misconstrue to say that , but a SPECIFIC SCRIPTURE . Then you deny Scripture that plainly say GOD created the whole world alone and by himself , that mean no one was there helping him, so you twist scripture and try to say yes GOD was the only one that did it but he did it “THROUGH” Jesus I thought GOD Created everything “Through HIS OWN POWERS”. Then you go and say the US and OUR was GOD and Jesus, O but you don't add word right Mike. What you accuse other of you do far more then they do.
Mike and to say the trinitarians are not Preexistence as your are is simply not true they most certainly believe Jesus preexisted his berth on earth and you full well know that, so don't give us this bull you don't believe as they do that Jesus Preexisted his Berth on earth, the only difference is they believe he was a GOD and you he was some Kind of Preexistent Being which non of you preexistence can describe with any support scriptures.
peace and love…………………………….gene
Quote (terraricca @ April 15 2011,12:31) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,18:28) Quote (terraricca @ April 15 2011,09:40) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,15:00) Terriccia……….You original scriptures are inspired by GOD , but those who interpret them may not necessarily be. Another thing no where doe it say the five wise were waiting for it (the oil in their flasks) they had it already, it was in them and it supplied the Light (intellect or spirit) in them , there bodies are symbolic for their vessels or flasks , they contained the oil of the Spirit of God (IN) their own selves symbolized as their flasks or vessels. Pierre you are a prime example of what i am talking about , you simply do not get it brother. May God have mercy and help you to see brother. IMO peace and love…………………………….gene
geneMT 25:5 “Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.
Quote Another thing no where doe it say the five wise were waiting and also I never mention any number ,
your interpretation is not true .
Pierre
Terricca………….They were waiting for the bridegroom, not for the OIL they had in their vessels of flasks, as you thought they were. You are good at switching context to a number things far from what my or your points were.peace and lvoe………………………gene
gene Quote Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2011,12:12)
To All………..”The kingdom of God is likened unto to ten Virgins, five were wise and five were foolish” , the wise took oil or fuel with them for their lamps IMOpeace and love to you ALL…………………………………gene
Gene
if the oil was the logos or spirit why they would waiting for it then?
Pierre
and some are saying they have problem with my understanding,
ha ha ,ha ha Gene you are a Born skater ,
Pierre
Terricca………Why do you preexistences think by ridiculing others make you seem intelligent , Fact is what i told you is exactly what scripture is saying. Do i need to post the complete scriptures to prove it?. I can if you like. But i doubt it would do any good. IMOpeace and love……………………………..gene
Hi Gene,
How about you go through my claims about your understanding of 1:14…………and tell me which claim is untrue.
Let's start with the word “IN”. Do you need to add that word into 1:14 in order for your doctrine to work? I don't. See, there's the first difference between us. Now which one do you suppose is following the scriptures – the one who must add words in, or the one whose understanding is based on the words that are actually there?
mike
Mike………..Here is another side note, You have stated that Jesus is the LOGOS many times right? , So then please tell was who was (IN) Him reconciling the World unto HIMSELF> Was that Jesus (IN) Jesus doing that because he was the LOGOS, or was the FATHER who is the LOGOS and Was the LOGOS, in the beginning was In him doing the WORKS. DO you truly Believe GOD the FATHER was (IN) Jesus Mike or do you think Jesus being the LOGOS was doing all the works. You can have it both way Mike. If you deny Jesus as a GOD then the Logos could Not Have been the Man Jesus, Because it say “In the beginning was the word and the word was with GOD and the word WAS GOD”. No where doe it say there in the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was GOD.. The LOGOS was GOD and came to be (IN) Jesus after he was Born on earth. No mike it is you preexistences who twist the scriptures to meet you preconceived dogmas Just as the trinitarians do also.They scriptures you say they twisted are the same one youy do when it comes to Jesus preexistence , the ONLY Difference is you say he was something you really don't know what , while they say he was a GOD. So don't give us the change scripture stuff, no one changes scriptures any more then Preexistences do rather Trinitarians or Just preexistences. IMO
peace and love……………………………………..gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,11:58) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 14 2011,07:21)
Mike………..That is why i have said that the Trinitarians and the Preexistence are from the same view point concerning the preexistence of Jesus
Well Gene, if you knew how valiantly Irene, Pierre and I fight AGAINST the comically flawed, man-made trinity doctrine, then you'd know why it upsets us when you imply we're “in cahoots” with them.Paladin has made the same wrong assumption that you have, although this time he added a disclaimer stating he knows I'm not a Trinitarian.
But “Pre-exsistence of Jesus” does not in any way equal “Jesus is God Almighty”………….and for the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would equate the two. Angels pre-existed the earth and human beings and they're not God Almighty. So why couldn't Jesus pre-exist the earth and humans and not be God Almighty?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 14 2011,07:21)
The preexistence of Jesus was the point i was driving at, and this view is a view of
seperation Because it seperates Jesus the Son of Man from the rest of the Sons of Man, makes him a destenct seperate kind of person then we are,
Yes Gene, I already know the preconceived man-made notion you started with so that you now have to add words and twist scriptures so that they fit around YOUR own understanding. In fact, I was going to add a little something about it in my post to Wispring last night, but decided the post was long enough as it was.But here's what I almost added:
People who must “re-write” scripture are ones who begin their scriptural journey with a pre-conceived idea that they must then form the scriptures around. They try their best to make the scriptures fit around THEIR OWN opinions, instead of forming those opinions on the actual scriptures themselves.
For example, Trinitarians started with the urge to have a triune Godhead like many of the other nations had. So they started with that false notion, and then proceeded to add certain verses into the scriptures, change others, and translate still others in a Trinitarian slanted way that was never implied or even hinted at by the original writers of the scriptures.
Now you can surely see that this is just wrong, right Gene? But you guys are doing the same exact thing here. You and Marty and Kerwin must “understand” the scriptures in ways that make sure Jesus wasn't anything other than “exactly like us”. And you are apparently blind to the fact that it is your own man-made opinion that Jesus, for some reason, must have been no different than us that drives your understanding of the scriptures. Here's a plain difference between me and you, Gene:
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
I take this scripture in conjuntion with Rev 19:13 and understand that one of the many names we know our Savior by is “the Word of God”. I also know that no other thing called “logos” in the entire scriptures ever “became flesh”, “dwelled among us” and “had the glory of the only begotten Son from the Father”. I am further convinced by the fact that this “Word” is the one who John the Baptist said he was unworthy to untie the sandal of.
YOU, on the other hand, in order to maintain your own man-made understanding, must immediately start “shuffling” things around. First you add your own word “IN” into the scripture when it's not there. Then you ask me this…………. “Mike, have you ever seen a literal “word” become flesh?” ………………….apparently not realizing that it helps OUR point and hurts YOURS. And then you claim that this “Word” was really the Holy Spirit of God, knowing full well from the scripture you have often quoted in the “Bodies” thread that “spirit does not have flesh and bone, as you see I have”. And you apparently forget that the Holy Spirit is the OTHER helper that the Word says he'll send after he ascends to where he was before, so it can't possibly be the helper that is already here. And if that's not enough, in order for your “Holy Spirit” theory to even work, you must accept that the Spirit of God is a separate entity from Him and also His only begotten Son.
Now that I've posted it out in the open, can you see it Gene? Can you see the hoops you have to jump through, and the nonsensical and unscriptural things you have to claim, all because of your “wish” for Jesus to have been “exactly like us”? And your hero Paladin has been truthfully explaining to you that Jesus WASN'T “exactly like us” anyway. Come on Gene…………any first grader can easily see that someone born of God and a human would not be “exactly like” those who are born of a human and a human.
As far as Paladin goes, IMO he is driven by two main things, and neither of them are the serenity to accept the scriptures as they are written. One of them is his abhoration of the Trinity Doctrine. But this “driving force” of his is unfounded in itself, because understanding that Jesus pre-existed his flesh in no way whatsoever supports a trinity Godhead.
The other thing is his apparent drive to be the first one to discover something no one else has thought of or figured out. This is evident to me from his post to Wispring about figuring out some math theory that “everyone else has gotten wrong all these years”. I feel that he wants to “make a name for himself” with his “incarnation as a prophecy” and “logos = thought” stuff. But these are just my observations, and not known fact.
My point is if you had neither originally started with, nor been taught your non-preexistent views, you would be able to accept and understand that Jesus is the ONLY one who has the glory of “the only begotten Son from the Father”, the ONLY one about whom John testified, and the ONLY one John was unfit to untie the sandal of. But as it is, you must instead read John 1 and immediately start “shuffling” things, as shown above.
peace,
mike
Great job, Mike I couldn't have done any better…Keep up the good work.,…
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Gene Balthrop @ April 14 2011,20:04)
If you deny Jesus as a GOD then the Logos could Not Have been the Man Jesus, Because it say “In the beginning was the word and the word was with GOD and the word WAS GOD”.
Hi Gene,I suspect that John 1:1 is also a driving force behind Paladin's understanding as well. But John 1:1 doesn't even say the the Word was the God he was WITH. Even the Trinni's acknowledge this fact. From the Trinitarian scholars of NETNotes:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)……….
This shows that even the Trinni's don't think the Word was THE God he was WITH. It's funny though, how they say the Word isn't THE person of God. How many persons does the word “THE” that they use imply? And here they are saying that Jesus is not THE person of God he was with. See how easily THEIR doctrine is torn down by their own words? I'll show the same thing with YOUR doctrine in a minute.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 14 2011,20:04)
The LOGOS was GOD and came to be (IN) Jesus after he was Born on earth. No mike it is you preexistences who twist the scriptures to meet you preconceived dogmas
Gene, you are priceless. In your first sentence, you proudly display the word (IN) that you have to add to 1:14. And in your very next breath, you condemn me for “twisting scriptures”! What did Moses say about adding words to the Law? What did God say about adding them in Revelation?So, much like the Trinni's, YOUR doctrine can also be torn down by your own words, for you MUST add the word “IN” for your doctrine to work.
Gene, I suggest you bone up on what John 1:1 really says. It speaks of TWO who are called theos. One of them is called THE theos, and the other is a theos who was with THE theos in the beginning. 1:1 does not speak of one theos, but two separate theos. I hope this helps you out.
mike
Quote (Baker @ April 14 2011,20:46) Great job, Mike I couldn't have done any better…Keep up the good work.,…
Peace and Love Irene
Thanks Irene!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,07:20) Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,19:11) Mike, Your doctrine is that a Spirit being embodied itself in flesh.
So either change your own doctrine or acknowledge that it can be the Spirit instead of a spirit being because that is the only difference between what you are stating and what I am at this point.
Hi Kerwin,You are mistaken. My doctrine, which is scriptural, is that a spirit being emptied himself of his spiritual existence, and was made in the likeness of a human being.
When Jesus was flesh, he was not a spirit being anymore, for “spirits do not have flesh, as you see I have”.
Now, won't you deal with the “IN” point? You doctrine relies on the word “IN” being added to 1:14. Well…………….does 1:14 contain the word “IN”?
mike
So according to you Jesus is not a human being but rather looks like a human being. That does not make sense.Are you perhaps trying to say that the Spirit being that would be named Jesus changed kind by transforming into a human being in Mary's womb? How then do you conclude that human being Jesus decended from David?
What I have heard explained instead is that the Spirit being that would be named Jesus came and inhabited the flesh body that was a decendant of David. The Scripture used to back that conclusion up is one that is translated in some cases as “a body you have prepared for me”. In this way you account for both the flesh and spirit side of a human being.
I was not aware that you do not view explanation as correct.
Never the less even assuming the translators correctly translated the common Greek word to made, “made” is the past tense of “make” and “make” can mean “to form the essential being of”. In other words the Spirit makes the essential being of Jesus which is just another way of stating Jesus embodies the Spirit of God.
Your doctrine is not scriptural as Jesus is said to be human in scripture, even after his ascention of heaven, 1 Timothy 2:5. He is also called the decendant of Man when he sits by God and when he returns, Luke 21:36, Act 7:56, and Luke 22:69.
Jesus is heir to the Spirit of God which means he decends from God by inheritance. That is another definition of decend. I suppose you can swith those except God only fathers his children through the Holy Spirit.
Hello dear Sister;
Why are you so angry?
You were not called into question for posting a response to Karmarie when she asked if anyone had read the shepherd of Hermas, and she was not called in question for asking –
And in fact you felt free to introduce Tertullian and others onto the board.
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 28 2011,20:18) Quote (karmarie @ Mar. 28 2011,19:37) Hi All, Has anyone here read the Sheppard of Hermas and have an understanding of it?
In 'The Sheppard' (One of the most popular readings of the early church) it goes something like this;
Jesus was a virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the son.
Theres more to it than that though.Is this belief here similar to that in any way?
Just wondering. Thanks.
Hi! I just read some of it. One person who was in conflict with that believe is Quintus Septimus Florence Tertullian. He is the one who is known as bringing to light the trinity doctrine. Constantine went along with Him, and the trinity became the law of the first council of Nicaea in AD 325 It will take me a lot to read through all of what Sheppard of H. believed. Since you did, tell us did He believe in the preexisting or not.
You said that you are “very annoyed” by Whispering and I when we speak of things we like to discuss when we take a break to cool down.
Quote (Baker @ April 14 2011,06:33) Paladin and Wispring! Ich muss anfangen deusch zu sprechen, Ich finde es sehr ungezogen when man uber was sprechen tut, wo keiner was verstehen kann. Zahlen bis 123 und weiter, kann man wohl verstehen. Aber so weiter machen wenn keiner versteht bloss der jenige der auch das weist, ist ungezogen….
Did you understand anything I just wrote? I doubt it. So when you and Paladin speak of hyperbolic geometry, I don;t understand what you are talking about. I find it very annoying to do so….
This site is for debating. And sometimes you have to repeat in order for some to get it….its called a Chat-room…
Got it….If you want to chit-chat there is a place for it….IreneAnd you wrote:
Quote (Baker @ April 15 2011,01:02)
kerwin! That is so ridiculous. I don't care what any other man thinks of John and The Word of God. You agreed that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is speaking of Jesus, but yet deny that in John 1:1 it is not Jesus who became flesh. Now you go the the extreme to quote a Philosopher. I care less what they believe. I go by the Bible ONLY. We take Scriptures to apply to what WE believe. You just ignore them. And I for one have no idea why?
Since you ignore them, you are also calling Jesus a liar…… And why??
Jesus said He came down from Heaven to do the will of His Father who SEND Him.
Just take this Scripture alone, and tell me what I don't see? Or you don't see?
IreneI do not accuse you of anything at all dear sister, I am just wondering why you are so angry at some who post, when you post the same way.
And you say you go by scriptures only, but still quote tertullian and discuss shepherd of hermas, and no one faults you for that. So why do you fault others for it?
You say you
Quote We take Scriptures to apply to what WE believe.
Yet you get upset when we do the same – Why? That is all I am asking.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,10:40) Hi Paladin, It seems to me that your understanding of John 6:62 is that Jesus is speaking of “ascending” from Sheol to where he was before on the earth, right?
Breifly acknowledge if this is what you're saying please.
mike
John is asking what the Jews will do – “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” [John 6:62]Paul talks about what Jesus ascends to and from – “Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?” [Eph 4:9]
And Paul describes it perfectly – “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
Paul says Jesus descended, then ascended.
John asked what they would do if they saw Jesus ascend to where he was before. The son of man was descended to the lower part of the earth before.
It is not Paladin who originated this. It is John and Paul.
Quote (kerwin @ April 15 2011,10:45) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,07:20) Quote (kerwin @ April 14 2011,19:11) Mike, Your doctrine is that a Spirit being embodied itself in flesh.
So either change your own doctrine or acknowledge that it can be the Spirit instead of a spirit being because that is the only difference between what you are stating and what I am at this point.
Hi Kerwin,You are mistaken. My doctrine, which is scriptural, is that a spirit being emptied himself of his spiritual existence, and was made in the likeness of a human being.
When Jesus was flesh, he was not a spirit being anymore, for “spirits do not have flesh, as you see I have”.
Now, won't you deal with the “IN” point? You doctrine relies on the word “IN” being added to 1:14. Well…………….does 1:14 contain the word “IN”?
mike
So according to you Jesus is not a human being but rather looks like a human being. That does not make sense.Are you perhaps trying to say that the Spirit being that would be named Jesus changed kind by transforming into a human being in Mary's womb? How then do you conclude that human being Jesus decended from David?
What I have heard explained instead is that the Spirit being that would be named Jesus came and inhabited the flesh body that was a decendant of David. The Scripture used to back that conclusion up is one that is translated in some cases as “a body you have prepared for me”. In this way you account for both the flesh and spirit side of a human being.
I was not aware that you do not view explanation as correct.
Never the less even assuming the translators correctly translated the common Greek word to made, “made” is the past tense of “make” and “make” can mean “to form the essential being of”. In other words the Spirit makes the essential being of Jesus which is just another way of stating Jesus embodies the Spirit of God.
Your doctrine is not scriptural as Jesus is said to be human in scripture, even after his ascention of heaven, 1 Timothy 2:5. He is also called the decendant of Man when he sits by God and when he returns, Luke 21:36, Act 7:56, and Luke 22:69.
Jesus is heir to the Spirit of God which means he decends from God by inheritance. That is another definition of decend. I suppose you can swith those except God only fathers his children through the Holy Spirit.
I tested that definition of make against the origional common Greek and it does not apear to hold up. That is why going to the origion language can help.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 15 2011,13:50) So, much like the Trinni's, YOUR doctrine can also be torn down by your own words, for you MUST add the word “IN” for your doctrine to work. Gene, I suggest you bone up on what John 1:1 really says. It speaks of TWO who are called theos. One of them is called THE theos, and the other is a theos who was with THE theos in the beginning. 1:1 does not speak of one theos, but two separate theos. I hope this helps you out.
mike
Mike………..God and His word are on and the Same thing. Just as you and your words are on and the same. You words simply reaveal who you are as with GOD His word reaveals who he is.Mike tell us what part of this scripture you do not believe.
John 14:10 …..> Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the “WORDS” that I Speak unto you I Speak
NOT OF MYSELF: BUT THE FATHER THAT (DWELLS) (IN) ME, (HE) DOES THE WORKS.Mike those words are (reema,) and they are brought forth from the LOGOS working in and through Jesus, this same LOGOS can be in our FLESH Just as it was in Jesus Flesh in that way the LOGOS becomes FLESH , by existing in FLESH.
Your false doctrines of preexistence does not fit that. Because you have made Jesus the LOGOS that was (IN) him, so you are unable to see that GOD the FATHER was Truly (IN) Jesus. Reconciling the world unto himself through the anointed man Jesus. IMO
peace and love………………………………..gene
To all who have waited so patiently, greetings in Christ Jesus our Lord; Here is my understanding of Paul's defining work as applied by John, and as expressed by a proper application of scripture –
If I were to write a book, and give the book a title, “The Logos Of God” then proceed to write in that book, an explanation of a concept that involves God, involves the participation of men, and involves the story of a secret so well kept, it managed to stay hidden from ages and from generations, till God decided to tell that story, but only after a specific event took place in the history of the church; And God selects one man out of all his servants to relate the details of that story so that all men might understand its importance to the moral life of the saints, I could not start any place other than with the writings of Paul the Apostle.
For it was Paul the Apostle that tells the story, defining the terms and determining the issues, and expresses it to the whole world. And all of Paul's writings were completed prior to John's having written his first communication of any kind whatsoever.
In 48 a.d. Paul wrote:
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” [Gal 2:20]“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” [Gal 4:4-7]
Paul also said in that same letter – “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]
So Paul introduces a concept to the saints, of “Christ living in you;” but does not make any further defining remarks yet. Then, in In 55 a.d. paul said this -“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” [II Cor 13:5]
Paul begins to introduce some defining remarks when in 60 a.d. he said he had fully preached “the Logos Of God” to the whole world, and explained what it is – “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you , the hope of glory]:” [Col 1:23,25-27]
We need to remember some words Paul brings together for us to consider: “Glory” and “hope” and “The Logos of God.” We need to remember several things that are explained by Paul; 1) there was a mystery hidden from ages and generations, 2) it is now to be made manifest to the saints; and 3) there is glory somehow connected to this soon to be manifested mystery; and 4) Paul tells us this mystery has a name “The Logos Of God;” and 5) further, he tells us that this mystery, this manifested “logos of God” is “Christ in you” and yet further again, 6)it constitutes for us “the hope of glory.” This is quite a mouthfull.
So, let's see if this theme is picked up for verification anywhere else in scripture.
What we are looking for is some reference to “Christ in you” while you are “living” and “in your flesh,” and further, we are looking for some indication that this is available for a very long time, that this is not just for the saints of Paul's day, to last only as long as he continues to preach it.
So we look, and look some more, till in 69 a.d., we find a reference to “The logos of God;” but it seems to be in a far different theme or context; it is found in one of the writings of John, in a book called “apokolypse of John” more popularly referenced as “The Revelation of John.”
In this book, John speaks to us of a “new name” that Jesus is going to write upon his 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]
The use of the Greek word “kainon” (translated new) tells us this is not a name that has been around since creation and before; nor has it previously been applied to Jesus, or to anyone else as a name; though it has been defined by Paul, at this time,(69 a.d.) for over thirty-three years.
Then John tells us again “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 logos of God.”[Rev 19:12-13]
Finally, another Apostle picks up on the theme introduced and defined by Paul's writings. John is talking about the saints in whom the spirit of Christ has been sent by God to dwell in the saints; which was introduced by Paul – “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” [Gal 4:4-7]
But John speaks of it this way: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his (the one who received Christ) glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” [John 1:11-14]
John does not say “as many as received him, them he made sons of God.” No, John says “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become(no article in the Greek) sons of God.” John is telling us there is something required beyond believing, to qualify one for being a son of God. And that requirement has been being spelled out by Paul the Apostle since Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father, so many years ago.
Why does John fail to say “We beheld the glory of the only begotten son?” Instead, he says “We beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten son.”
[ως](pronounced like os in close) is what is called a “particle of comparison.” Why would John be comparing the glory of Jesus to the glory of Jesus? The truth is, he is not. He is comparing The glory of the saint in whom the logos of God is personified, with the glory of the only begotten son of God dwelling in that saint.
Jesus did not “become a man” in John 1:14. The only reason there is even a mention of Jesus at all in John's first chapter, is because in 96 a.d., John tied his gospel to the person of Christ and to “the logos of God” referenced in Rev 3:12 and in 19:12-13 with reference to the new name he is to be given, as “the logos of God.”
Jesus was not “the logos of God” in 30 a.d; He was not “The logos of God” in 33 a.d. when he was ascended. a
nd he was not “the Logos of God” in 69 a.d., when John prophecied about his gift-name.John is speaking in 1:14 about an event in the life of a saint, a personification, and recalling his remarks he wrote in 69 a.d, about Jesus, here ties the two events together.
But the personification of the logos of God takes place, according to Paul, everytime some saint or other, so lives his life that he can say “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” [Gal 2:20]
When this saint aknowledges “Christ Jesus” in his life, the logos of God is personified in the life of that saint. And “we behold the glory as of the only begotten son of God” all over again, in that saint, through Christ living in him.
Paul spent a lifetime convincing the saints about this subject of “Jesus Christ living in me” and said, “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]
So to recap what the Apostles have introduced and defined.
paul introduced “Christ in you;” Paul defined “Christ in you” and said it is “the hope of Glory.” He also defined it as “The Logos Of God.”Then John picked up on a new name which is to be given Jesus, and that new name is “The Logos of God;” Finally John brings together, in his prologue, the saints in whom can be said “Christ lives in you,” and “hope” and “glory” just as Paul had already introduced and defined. And John did not change a thing paul already said.
My grandson, at birth, received a name; that name was
“Christian,” And he received the name “Christian” which was his name and still is, and remained so as he grew in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and men, and when he was baptized into Christ, he received another name altogether, and that name was “Christian,” because now, he belongs to Christ.Jesus was born, at which time he received a name, “Jesus,” which served to identify him while he grew in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and men, and when he was fully grown, and had died, had been resurrected, and had ascended by 33 a.d., received a name, “The logos of God” between the time when it was published in 69 a.d., and 96 a.d. when John ties the personification in the saints, to Jesus, who received the name; but it was not who and what he was; it was a name recieved. Just as my grandson “Christian” was not “a Christian” until he accepted, obeyed, and became “a Christian.” He was already “Christian” when he became “a Christian;” So also, Jesus was never “the logos of God” but was given the name after he successfully completed his mission and was extolled and made very hingh, and given a name above every name.
People have him already pre-existing as “the logos of God” and recognized as the personification of “the logos of God” at his birth when in fact, the terminology did not even exist until 69 a.d.
When I see my Grandson, am I looking at “Christian” or “a Christian?” Both are names, one given at his birth, the other given at his birth into Christ, years later.
When I look at a saint in whom Christ lives, I see the logos of God personified, and “behold the glory as of glory of an only begotten son of God.”
Do you know the reason John uses [ως] in 1:14? Why does John speak of “Glory AS OF…” instead of saying
“We beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten son of God?”Because John is not speaking of Jesus, he is speaking of the saint in whom Jesus is dwelling, “and we beheld his glory, the glory as of an only begotten son of God” precisely because it is not Jesus of whom he speaks, but the saint in whom Jesus is dwelling in 96 a.d, when John is writing of the event. There is no article before “only begotten son” it is not about Jesus, it is about one more of the saints of God.
Which is what John is recording in 1:14
{We beheld = etheasametha = verb [indicative aorist middle deponent 1st person plural]}
[εθεασαμεθα]As of = [ως] = particle of comparison
Did you notice, John did not say “We looked and saw the glory of the only begotten son.” This would require a deliberate act of looking for something, finding what you are looking for, then articulating the action as a factual experience. It requires an active voice.
Rather, John said “We beheld glory as of an only begotten son.”
John uses first person plural, which means he is not alone in this activity. And he uses the indicative aorist middle deponent, which is neither active nor passive, but indicates a subject acting upon itself in some fashion. Rather than saying “We looked and saw…” John is saying “some information was brought to our attention without us looking for it;” “We beheld…” a personification of the logos of God; and it was glorious; as glorious as can be when a son of God shows forth the glory of Jesus.Instead of trying to convince anyone of the wrongness of the interpretation of John's prologue it makes more sense to focus on the rightness of Paul's interpretation, and show that he indeed defined it and John never changed what Paul said about it, he only made reference of its application to the saints “as many as received him…”
When John in his epistles [1st and 2nd John] speaks of “Jesus
Christ came in flesh,” he is not speaking of the birth of Jesus, he is speaking of “Christ living in me, in my flesh” spoken of by Paul – “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”[Gal 2:20]There is no way you can find a place to separate Paul's life in the flesh, from Jesus Christ living in Paul.
Furthermore, John himself said “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God:”
John did not use the article, and neither should we if we are going to understand exactly what John is saying. He is not speaking of Jesus own body his flesh, for then he would have said “Jesus came in the flesh,” and everybody would be in agreement. But John did not say that , he said “Jesus Christ came in flesh,” which he did when he lived in Paul “in the flesh.”
And to show it is no mistake of language, John repeats in II John 7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
In neither verse does John use the aorist tense verbs, which would be necessary if he was speaking of the life of Jesus in his flesh; but John used a perfect active participle when he said – “… Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God:”
The significance of the “perfect active” is that Jesus has accomplished to the fullest, the fact of “com[“-ing”] in flesh” as he lives in the lives of the saints. It is not a reference to his having been born “in the flesh.”
The present participle in II Jn 7, which if you know anything about Greek participles, they are “-ing” words, and being present tense, means that in 85 – 90 a.d., John is saying Jesus is still com[“-ing”] in flesh. check it out with any Greek scholar you wish, if he knows what he is doing, and is honest, he will lay aside all doctrinal bias and admit the truth of this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
