Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[Baker]

Quote (Paladin @ April 20 2011,23:39)

To any who are interested. The problem some of you are having is you fail to understand the proper use of threads. I posted an OP regarding the “incarnation” dealing with the doctrine, and the reality in my opinion. Some on the board instead of responding to the OP, immediately saw it as a challenge to their own pet doctrine, and began to respond with a view to changing my mind to agree with their doctrine, having nothing to do with the point of the OP. The only issue before this board should be implementation of the “incarnation” as factual or doctrinal, and when it became applicable. I claim the incarnation of Jesus became factual at the exact point God told the serpent that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the seed of the serpent. It became very real to the serpent. I claim the incarnation of Jesus became factual when God said “A father of many nations have I made thee..” At that precise point, the incarnation became a point of joy to Abraham. I claim that every time God reiterated his promise of Messiah through the medium of prophecy, the incarnation of Jesus became factual again. I claim that the historical moment Jesus began to exist, is that moment in which the Holy Spirit begat the babe in the womb of the Virgin, Mary. [Mat 1:20][John 3:6] I claim that the histoprical moment Jesus began to exist, is that moment in which God chose to form  the babe as he “was made of a woman” [Gal 4:4] If you can stick to the issue of the OP, it will not be a waste of time on this thread. If you have other issues you want to discuss, several of you have correctly pointed out, many of those issues are already on other threads, and a simple visit to the other threads should accomodate your hunger to express your belief about those issues. If you simply want to vent on this board about issues already covered on other boards, you are in fact, wasting everybodies time. There is nothing wrong with expanding the Op to include issues that contribute to clearing up points of confusion as to the issues of the OP, but to usurp the thread to insist your own favorite issues be discussed, will cause a major breakdown in communication. Can we please accomodate each other's differences without causing accusation and bad feelings? The only real issue should be “Is it addressing the issues raised in the OP? There should never be an issue between brethren, “why did you hurt my feelings?” Your feelings are not the issue. the OP is.

Paladin!  From the start of this tread, you responded.  If you didn't like to debate someones pet doctrine, you should have stopped them long ago…. You don't have to respond to it.  But you did.  
Now you want to stop those who believe in the preexisting of Jesus, is that correct?
I have asked you to show me where Mike was not nice to you….you did not.  Then you asked me to show you where I thought you said John  1:14 is not in the original transcript. I did not…..
Feelings sometimes do get hurt.  That is a human feeling.  To have the Spirit of Ant-Christ is one were my feelings were hurt.  That I was deceived by the Devil is another post, were my feelings were hurt.  I also have said that you and Wispring were nice.  But when I disagreed with you, after you tried to change my mind,  I believe your feelings got hurt.,. Is that right?
The last post to me, you did not sign in the manner you did before….I also don't like to go into another language to see if it in line with the Scripture I give,.  It was just fine before you joined us, and now we should all learn Greek?  I am 72 years old my friend, and I am not going to do that again.  One time was enough for me…
If you can't take me the way I am, then don't answer my post….  And I in return know what to do….
Peace and Love to you, Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,03:38)

It is my belief that both you and I agree that interpretation is in error as it is not meant literally but rather is speaking of God’s plan for humankind.

Hi Kerwin,

I believe it's only a matter of translation:  Rev 13:8 (Read the NET translation and their note #2)

Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,03:38)

I am not sure how God’s word of Prophecy can be an elohim……..

Nor am I.  I do know of one who was called by the name “the Word of God” and who IS elohim though.  

Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,03:38)

13and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down — the Son of Man who is in the heaven.

From NETNotes:  tc Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A

[kerwin]

Quote (Paladin @ April 20 2011,18:16)

Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,21:35) Paladin, I am not sure how you understand the word mysticism which according to the definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary I am using means: Quote the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight) To reword it and change its tense to the correct one I am stating that Jesus used words to conceal the direct knowledge of the truth of God from those that are not guided by a revelation from God. Parables are one way of doing that as you attest but the purpose is not to keep the Jew in the dark as many Jews became believers.  The purpose is instead to keep those who do not want to come out of the dark ignorant because.  They remain ignorant because they do not want to come out of dark because their deeds are evil just as taught in John 3. The term mystic has been much and falsely maligned to the point that even some mystics avoid using it.  Never the less myticism has its uses. I have no argument with that Kerwin. I just do not want to have anything to do wiith responding when someone asks me for a “mystic” response, specifically because “mystic” means very different things to different people, and I will not add to the confusion by giving what I think is an answer only to have some with a different understanding of what “mystic” means, to think I have agreed with his different view. I am not saying it is wrong, only that I do not do it, for the reason given.

Sounds reasonable!

[kerwin]

Quote (Paladin @ April 20 2011,19:39)

Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,20:49) Quote (Paladin @ April 20 2011,15:33) Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,17:19) Paladin and Mike, It is know that the Jews of Jesus' times often spoke in mysticisms.  The Hebrew language is based on mysticisms which is why  the word spirit can mean wind as well as other things.  Jesus spoke mystically when he chose to use his flesh and blood to symbolise other things.     He spoke in such riddles because he knew the truth is spiritually discerned.  I know that because he said so.  Parables are mystical educational stories. I try to stay within the purvue of scripture, rather than that of extrascriptural definition. The only place I know of that tells me Jews spoke in mystical language, is commentaries, which I do not use except to demonstrate the use of scholars testimony against their own testimony. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying I am not knowledgeable in that issue because I try to limit my understanding to the bible, not books about the bible. And I am not syaing reading books about the bible are wrong, I am simply saying it is not my method for study. Paladin, When scripture tells us Jesus was not speaking clearly they meant he was speaking in riddles or mysticisms.   I will try to look up the scriptures that address it when I have an opotunity,  God willing. Eze 20:49 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?[parabolee = nom fem s noun] Mat 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;[parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? [parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. [parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in (1)parables; and without (2)a parable spake he not unto them: (1)[parabolais = dat fem pl noun](2)[parabolees = gen fem s noun] Mat 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. [parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Mat 13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.[parabolas = acc fem pl noun] Mat 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.[parabolas = acc fem pl noun] Mat 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, [parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Mark 3:23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? [parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Mark 4:2 And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,[parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:[parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Mark 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this (1)parable? and how then will ye know all (2)parables? (1)[paraboleen = acc fem s noun] (2)[parabolas = acc fem pl noun] Mark 4:33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.[parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Mark 12:1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.[parabolais = dat fem pl noun] Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.[parabolais = dat fem pl noun]

Thank you!

[kerwin]

Paladin,

Some doctrinal tenets are tied in with the various incarnation doctrines.  I forget which specific one you are discussing but anything that when properly understood contradicts it in scripture disproves it.

I have discussed my understanding that the Spirit of God is incarnated in Jesus the human being.

I have went off topic at least once.

[Wispring]

Hi Paladin,
 

Quote

1 Corinthians 2:4 NKJV And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power…….

  In your view and understanding of scripture, what is the significance of Paul using the word logos instead of the word reema in the above scripture for the words speech and words?

                                                       With Love and Respect,
                                                              Wispring

[GeneBalthrop]

Wispering……….Notice Jesus said the word he was telling us are spirit  and life he did not say they were spirit but said they are spirit,  now a word is defined simply as  intelligent utterance, another words a sound the transmits intelligence from one person to another.  We all have Spirits or intellects in us, but it may or may not be of or from GOD , but could be from some other sources, but none the less it is still considered spirits. We are told to try the Spirits  to see if they are from God , and what are we trying is it not the words someone is saying that is His SPIRIT INTELLECT, and if it is not of GOD it is of another source, but those of GOD can tell if it is not of GOD by those words they speak or write. IMO

peace and love to you and yours……………………………………..gene

[kerwin]

Mike,

I am rather confused whether you believe A, B, or something else:

Quote

A)That a preexistent being from the realms of spirit incarnated into a human body that was descended from David. B)That a preexistent being from the realm of spirit was transformed by God into a human being.

You explanations seem to swing from one to the other when I try to pin you down and I have simply accepted it as a breakdown of communications.

If you believe A then that seems to be the point Paladin intended this thread to address.  If you believe B and have scripture to support you belief then you have a case to prove that incarnation does not take place.  

I do believe the Spirit of Christ was incarnated in the body of the human being Jesus son of David.  The definition for incarnate I am using is “Invested with bodily nature and form”.  The wording of John 1 does allow the use of “union”.  The union of the Spirit of Christ and the human being Jesus is the incarnation of the Spirit of God.

I was showing how certain scriptures can be understood to mean Jesus is speaking of the Spirit of Christ that he incarnates.   Paladin may well see that as beyond the scope of this thread so I will leave off doing that.

Elohim seems to mean any member of the family of God whether in heaven or on earth.   The elohim is God according to my understanding.  I believe you already know that.

A point unrelated to incarnation is that the English language also has a historical present tense which can be meant to change a story from a narrative to an actuality.   Jesus may very well have been doing just that in John 3:13.

[Wispring]

Truer words could not be expressed Gene.

[Paladin]

Quote (Wispring @ April 21 2011,15:40)

Hi Paladin,

Quote

1 Corinthians 2:4 NKJV And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power…….

In your view and understanding of scripture, what is the significance of Paul using the word logos instead of the word reema in the above scripture for the words speech and words?

With Love and Respect,
Wispring

I think it is comparable with Luke's remark in Acts two – “And with many other logos [words]did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.41 Then they that gladly received his logos [word]were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” [Acts 2:40-41]

Paul is dealing with concepts instead of the rigidity of a written record. He is offering truth in other words, rather than creeds or doctrines.

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ April 21 2011,03:33)

[/quote] Paladin!  From the start of this tread, you responded.  If you didn't like to debate someones pet doctrine, you should have stopped them long ago…. You don't have to respond to it.  But you did.

I tried to accomodate the interest shown by the posters who responded. Are you telling me it was a mistake?  Responding and trying to strike up a common understanding is part of any thread.

Quote

Now you want to stop those who believe in the preexisting of Jesus, is that correct?

No. I am trying to focus on the issues raised in the OP. some posters have not rebutted anything, but have simply tried to change the focus of the thread.

Quote

I have asked you to show me where Mike was not nice to you….you did not.

I asked you to show me where I made any such statement. You failed. I said no such thing. Therefore, since it was your post that said “prove all things” in the same context with the accusaion, I offered you the chance to demonstrate your own standard as expressed by “prove all things.”

Quote

Then you asked me to show you where I thought you said John  1:14 is not in the original transcript. I did not…..

Just another example of your accusations without merit in fact. I did not make that statement either. It is of no value to keep reminding one another of past efforts that were not factual. I think I would ocme out ahead in any post count, but will not participate in such childish behaviour, as I think both you and Mike would agree on this one.

Quote

Feelings sometimes do get hurt.  That is a human feeling.  To have the Spirit of Ant-Christ is one were my feelings were hurt.  That I was deceived by the Devil is another post, were my feelings were hurt.

Neither of those were stated in my posts.

Quote

I also have said that you and Wispring were nice.  But when I disagreed with you, after you tried to change my mind,  I believe your feelings got hurt.,. Is that right?

Absolutely not. And I have not tried to “change your mind” about anything. I have tried to get you to understand the importance of learning old testament principles first, then moving on to new testament, and was turned down. It is almost impossible to get anyone to see new testament principles without first having a working knowledge of old testament principles.

I offered you and George the choice and you chose “no.” I have respected your choice, and have tried to continue anyway, against any possibility of understanding between us.

Quote

The last post to me, you did not sign in the manner you did before….

I responded to this-

Quote (Baker @ April 19 2011,23:25)

Paladin! Is this Scripture to be instead of Col. 1:15, and those who believe in them, are not humble? Is that what you are implying? Are you now also put me on your bobo list…..Show us the post where Mike was nasty to you……You know we are to 1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Irene

I simply followed your lead.

Look, dear sister; we need to slow down and reach a kinder medium of communication. When someone on the board makes an accusation and will not show the reference where is is supposed to have happened, it kinda makes it harder to communicate. And when you change the way you close your post to me, I do not know what to think, except to respond the same way, not as some kind of “getting even” but as trying to not respond as usual because you hav eindicated it is not to your liking, by your response. That's all it mean.

You are still the image of God in my eyes, and precious as a sister in Christ.

Go in grace and in hope

[Baker]

Paladin! Whatever our disagreements were, I am willing to forget about it. One thing I want to say in regards to that, being 72 years old, I forget at times. The only time I just close with Irene, I must have been upset with something.
I simple don't understand with now over 50 Scriptures, that do one way or another, show that Jesus did preexisted. I ask you how old was Jesus when He was Baptized? And how old was Jesus when He went to the Temple and taught, and all were amazed at His wisdom?
Would you agree to take one Scripture at the time, and debate with me in the debate tread. Just you and I ? That I would like to do…..
Peace and Love Irene

[Paladin]

Quote (kerwin @ April 21 2011,15:18)

Paladin, Some doctrinal tenets are tied in with the various incarnation doctrines.  I forget which specific one you are discussing but anything that when properly understood contradicts it in scripture disproves it. I have discussed my understanding that the Spirit of God is incarnated in Jesus the human being. I have went off topic at least once.

Kerwin;

I think most of us have strayed off topic at one time or another. But at no time have I insisted someone give up their
belief system on my say so. In fact, at least once,l I have encouraged one for not changing just on my say so.

All I have to offe ris a perspective that explains what otherwise remains a contradiction between scriptures.

There is an argument offered that seems to claim to eliminate contradictions if only I would see their 30 verses like they see them; or forty verses; or fifty verses; different number on different boards.

To all of them I say simply you have misunderstood my position. It is not about how many scripture verses you can find agreemement in. Tthere is no end to the ways agreement can be reached. My position rests not on the number of verses that agree, but in the placing of the verses that eliminate all the doctriens. I begin with God defining himself to Abraham, and to Moses, and move on to God preaching through the scriptures, the gospel unto Abraham.

If we begin with a single person single being God, there is no room for a second person in a Godhead, nor is there any place for the pre-existant Jesus; but if people won't study the old testament scriptures, there is no other way I know to demonstrate the significance of what I am saying. There will always be that certain element of “yabut” response. That's where you make a point, and someone responds “yah, but, what about …?” as they offer another in a long line of scriptures. You respond to that one and get “yah, but, what about…? and another verse is offered.

That is not the way to address the issues. If we begin at the point in which God describes himself in defining language, and move on, taking those principles with us, we cannot develope a multi-person deity, nor a pre-historic Jesus. It is that simple.

It is not straying off topic that frustrates me. It is when insistance on agreement becomes the focus of the thread, when the thread is not even about the issues the insistance is about.

I don't mind getting off topic if someone has raised a question, whose answer becomes a learning experience; I even invite it sometimes, myself.

But when answering a question becomes so important to a poster that patience and courtesy dwindle, it has become too important, in my opinion. And no, this is not a subtle accusation against anyone. It is a simple observation that covers a multitude of occasions involving many of us.

Anyway, let us see if we can continue with a little more effort toward civility, and again, this is not a jab at you, it is a general observation for the board posters to consider.

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ April 22 2011,01:50)

Paladin!  Whatever our disagreements were, I am willing to forget about it.  One thing I want to say in regards to that,  being 72 years old, I forget at times.  The only time I just close with Irene, I must have been upset with something.   I simple don't understand with now over 50 Scriptures, that do one way or another, show that Jesus did preexisted.  I ask you how old was Jesus when He was Baptized?  And how old was Jesus when He went to the Temple and taught, and all were amazed at His wisdom?   Would you agree to take one Scripture at the time, and debate with me in the debate tread.  Just you and I ?  That I would like to do….. Peace and Love Irene

Only if you will begin at the beginning, and work to the back.

I would begin with Gen 17:1, establish an understanding, or a reason for not agreeing; would move on to Exo 3:14 to establish another point of agreement; and begin to extablish principles of hermeneuical and exegetical practices, and establish rules, not from the standpoint of a rules list, but from what actually works between two persons having a discussion.

For example, if you have no background in Hebrew or Greek, why would I bombard you with Hebrew and Greek information, other than the necessity of establishing an impossiblity that arises from the application of popular translations, that are in error?

Another example would be to show how defending a translation can be hazardous to the truth. Read my next post to Mike for an example of arguing for a translation causing a wrong conclusion.

I would not mind debating with you with George's agreement, because i will not get into a battle with another man's wife if he has no knowledge of what is transpiring. I have too much respect for George than to let that happen. If my own wife got into a debate with someone online, I might see occasion to jump in on the defense, myself (assuming she would ever need it).

But I am not interested in beginning in the new testament and arguing over issues not settled in the old testament. Nor in sarguing from the gospel of John, before establishing definitions already settled by the writings of Paul.

Go with grace and hope dear sister.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 21 2011,14:49)

Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,03:38) It is my belief that both you and I agree that interpretation is in error as it is not meant literally but rather is speaking of God’s plan for humankind. Hi Kerwin, I believe it's only a matter of translation:  Rev 13:8 (Read the NET translation and their note #2) Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,03:38) I am not sure how God’s word of Prophecy can be an elohim…….. Nor am I.  I do know of one who was called by the name “the Word of God” and who IS elohim though.   Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,03:38) 13and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down — the Son of Man who is in the heaven. From NETNotes:  tc Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A Θ Ψ 050 Ë1,13 Ï latt syc,p,h), have at the end of this verse “the one who is in heaven” (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, Jo wn en tw ouranw). A few others have variations on this phrase, such as “who was in heaven” (e syc), or “the one who is from heaven” (0141 pc sys). The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (Ì66,75 א B L T Ws 083 086 33 1241 pc co). On the one hand, if the reading ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: “who was in heaven,” “the one who is from heaven,” and omission of the clause. The Greek present tense is sometimes what is called “an historical present”.  Many English translators render these occurances as English past tenses.  I submit that Jesus was saying “the Son of Man – who WAS in heaven”, which directly corresponds to the previous statement he made about coming down from heaven. Quote (kerwin @ April 20 2011,03:38) Jesus knows because the Spirit of Christ reveals it to him and the Spirit of God knows God as scripture states. Yeah, but do you think God's Spirit BECAME flesh?  Remember that the words don't allow for “came to be in someone who was flesh”.  Do you think God's Spirit is His only begotten Son and His anointed one?  People were anointed WITH God's Spirit, so how could it be His Anointed ONE?  Also, you must reconcile this thought with all the OT prophesies about the coming Messiah AND with all the OT messiahs.  Can you do that? Kerwin, Paladin has expressed his concern that his thread has become a pre-existent thread.  If you would like to discuss this more, let's move to the proper thread, okay? mike

Mike – You already established the fact I introduced the issue of “pre-existant Christ” so please, don't move because I posted it and forgot about it.

if you remember, I did post to the board, I have short term memory problems, but that shouldn't make too much of a problem if we just slow down and be patient with each other.

Part of the problem comes when we make a point, and see it demolished in the next response. it makes us move, sometimes, in a defensive direction, when we really should be on the offensive with a new point of study. Instead, we wind up bickerin over a point of translation or of interpretation, and the original issue gets lost in charges and countercharges.

Consider for example, our exchange about john 6:62 –

What John said: John 6:62 “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”

That word translated “see” is not “blepo” nor does “blepo” apply in this regard. Jesus is asking the Jews “if then you [thewreete] behold the son of man ascending where he was at first?[thewreete = is the subjunctive present active form of the verb thewrew].

One response to this is found in Luke –

What did Luke say?
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye thewreite [see] me have.[thewreite = indicative present active form of the same verb thewrew] It responds to the question put by John in 6:62. The Apostles “beheld” or “saw” (depending upon the translator's use of the terms) but “blepo” is not under consideration, because John did not ask about
“blepo.” That argument is defending a translated English word
“see,” which is not under consideration.

I have hesitated this long to post this because I feel that perhaps I need to let things cool just a tad before responding, as words may tend to escalate for all the wrong reasons.

There are other verses I could offer, but one should suffice.

I offer you the same offer I made Irene, Mike, to debate beginning in the old testament with Gen 17:1; Exo 3:14, move through some Messianic prophecies, make a comment or two on the use of “monos” applied to God, and only after establisheg some hermeneutical and exegetical principles, move into the realm of new testament study, beginning with Paul's writings, and finishing in John's gospel.

[Paladin]

Quote (kerwin @ April 21 2011,20:25)

Mike,

I am rather confused whether you believe A, B, or something else:

Quote

A)That a preexistent being from the realms of spirit incarnated into a human body that was descended from David. B)That a preexistent being from the realm of spirit was transformed by God into a human being.

You explanations seem to swing from one to the other when I try to pin you down and I have simply accepted it as a breakdown of communications.

If you believe A then that seems to be the point Paladin intended this thread to address. If you believe B and have scripture to support you belief then you have a case to prove that incarnation does not take place.

I do believe the Spirit of Christ was incarnated in the body of the human being Jesus son of David. The definition for incarnate I am using is “Invested with bodily nature and form”. The wording of John 1 does allow the use of “union”. The union of the Spirit of Christ and the human being Jesus is the incarnation of the Spirit of God.

I was showing how certain scriptures can be understood to mean Jesus is speaking of the Spirit of Christ that he incarnates. Paladin may well see that as beyond the scope of this thread so I will leave off doing that.[/quote]

That is not necessary Kerwin; you might have the very information we need to properly assess the issues of disagreement.

Quote

Elohim seems to mean any member of the family of God whether in heaven or on earth. The elohim is God according to my understanding. I believe you already know that.

In my research, elohim seems to reference anyone not subject to death; i.e., those who already died, like Samuel, who is called elohim; those who have died and resurrected, like Jesus; those who are deemed “immortal” for other reasons, like Abraham, who is called elohim.

A point unrelated to incarnation is that the English language also has a historical present tense which can be meant to change a story from a narrative to an actuality. Jesus may very well have been doing just that in John 3:13.

I think John 3:13 begins an explanation made by John. Jesus already finished his statement in verse 12. John speaks till the end of the chapter, and continues in narative till about verse 7 of the next chapter.

[kerwin]

To all that are concerned,

I began a thread about Colossians 1:12-19  in  BELIEVERS PLACE » Scripture & Biblical Doctrine » Colossians 19:12-19

I may start other threads in regards to the other scriptures we have discussed here.

Edited to correct address of scripture I addressed here. I do not believe I can correct the title of the thread. I did in the initial post.

[Paladin]

Quote (kerwin @ April 22 2011,16:12)

To all that are concerned, I began a thread about Colossians 19:12-19  in  BELIEVERS PLACE » Scripture & Biblical Doctrine » Colossians 19:12-19 I may start other threads in regards to the other scriptures we have discussed here.

Col 19

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 18 2011,04:33)

[/quote] Quote (Paladin @ April 17 2011,03:48) 1 Peter 1:23 Being [anna/gennaw](born again) not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the logos of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Paladin, I believe you may have stumbled upon something within this verse that has been overlooked by many translators.

I didn't “stumble upon” anything here Mike, I understand this and have for a very long time.

When a person submits his life to Christ, so that Christ lives in him, and it is no longer his life that is evident, but Christ living in him, that is a new birth through “the logos of God” being personified in you. We are not only given new life, but become a source of new life to others –

“Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.” [Luke 8:11-15]

Quote

While we know that “logos” and “rhema” are simply Greek words that mean “word”, (despite your failed efforts to prove that “logos” has some mystical underlying meaning), we also know that Jesus has the name “the Word of God” because he is the main spokesman for God.

Nope! He was given the name “The Logos Of God” because he lives in the saints who yield theri lives to him.

And I have no “failed efforts” because I have never tried to prove “logos” has some mystical underlying meaning. The fact that you failed to comprehend the personification of the logos of God is a reflection on you, not on me.

Quote

And you have brought to my attention another mention of “logos of God” that might be better off translated as “the Word of God”, based on the context.

The only reason I continue to write “logos” instead of “word” is because there are at least three Greek words that are translated “word” – so I avoid the natural confusion by using a transliterated form – “logos.” This let's readers know I am not referencing reema nor logion. [logion is translated “word” in Psalms and Isaiah; translated “oracle(s)” in N.T.]

Quote

Compare your scripture with these other writings of Peter:

It is Peter's scripture, not mine.

Quote

1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Hmmmmmm……………new birth through Jesus Christ?

Some of us learned this way back in Romans – “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” [Rom 6:3-11]

1 Peter 2:5
you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Hmmmmmm…………..made into something spiritual through Jesus Christ?  Compare those two with your scripture, which says we are being born again of incorruptible seed through the Word of God.  

And compare those three teachings of Peter with these teachings found thoughout the NT:

We have grace and truth through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)
We have peace through Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:36)
We have righteousness through Jesus Christ.  (Romans 3:22)
We are justified through Jesus Christ. (Romans 3:24)
We are delivered through Jesus Christ. (Romans 7:4)
God gives us victory through Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:57)
We have confidence through Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 3:4)
We Gentiles have the blessing given to Abraham through Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:14)
Our adoption as spirit sons of God comes through Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:5)
We are made holy through Jesus Christ.  (Colossians 1:22)
We receive salvation through Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:9)

But most importantly, since we died through Jesus Christ (Romans 7:4), it is most fitting that we are also born again through him. (Titus 3:5-6)

Thanks for pointing that scripture out to me, Paladin.[/quote]

You are most welcome Mike, but you still fail to understand the significance of the “new and living way” referenced by virtue of the new birth in Christ. But that is for another thread.

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ April 22 2011,01:50)

I simple don't understand with now over 50 Scriptures, that do one way or another, show that Jesus did preexisted.

I saw a man once try to establish the falsity of scripture by quoting two verses out of context,[Mat 27:3-5]Judas hanged himself; [Luke 10:37] “Go thou and do likewise”- advising everyone on the board to go hang thermselves, because in his mind, it was all a fake when you can make scripture say anything you want. I disagreed with him, and still do. anyone can read a verse or even a hundred verses, and come up with a doctrine that is not taught in scripture, yet scripture may well be the starting point.  

And often people will disagree over the meaning of verses, and each will consider him/herself the one in the right, and the other simply not capable of understanding what is obvious to “me.” They could both be wrong, and never see it.

Quote

I ask you how old was Jesus when He was Baptized?

30

Quote

And how old was Jesus when He went to the Temple and taught, and all were amazed at His wisdom?

12
 

[Author]

Posts