Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 24 2011,02:28)

Paladin…….Brother , i have noticed you have not dealt with some of the questions i brought out here , so i will try to slow it down to as you a few questions, and this is it< Was God the FATHER (TRULY) (IN) JESUS? [/quote]

God was truly in Jesus, and Jesus was truly in the Father; just as also the apostles were in Christ and in the Father.
[John 17:21-23]

Quote

as Jesus said He was and was this a “CONCEPT” or actual FACT, was GOD the FATHER truly Doing the WORKS (IN) and THROUGH Jesus.

Fact, not concept; though that is not the correct difference, as the concept became factual.

Quote

or was it simply HIS LOGOS (WORD) that was doing it and if so was any power PRESENT other than Just WORDS. I also ask you this Where does a Word come from, is it NOT the MIND and How can GOD Separated HIS WORD FROM HIS MIND or himself, He can expand His mind into others that is possible.

Words come from the tongue and lips of men. they may be prompted from the heart, or the mind, or from evil desires, or from an attempt to gain an advantage, or from a host of reasons. Scripture references the heart as the source of much that really is the mind, but it considers both heart and mind to be central of what makes a man a man.

The original language sometimes speaks of “bowels” but the translators translate it “heart.”

But with God, to me it doesn't matter, if he says it, I do not ask “Is that from your heart or your mind?”

It is after all, only an exercise in pondering.

Quote

Is not a persons Word the utterance of a persons mind (unless he is quoting someone else)?> Spirit to me (IS) the intellect of the mind it gives the cognate ability to the mind to percieve thoughts, it is what life is. When we are told to try the Spirits to see if (THEY) are of or From GOD, are we not trying the MIND of a Person who is expressing what is (IN) HIM to us.

Does not the words proceed forth from the Heart of a man as Jesus said they did, are we not told to let this mind be in us as was in Christ (the anointed) Jesus. Tell me this brother, When Jesus uttered “DESTROY THIS TEMPLE AND IN THREE DAYS (I) SHALL RAISE (IT) UP”, was it Jesus or GOD (IN) him Speaking?. When Paul said “KNOW YOU NOT THAT YOUR BODY (IS) THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD. That to me Shows GOD is (IN) a Person who Has his SPIRIT (intellect) abiding (IN) HIM. I still believe GOD the Father LIVES Vicariously (IN) and Through his creation and give HIS CREATION it life Force. Words whether LOGOS or REMMA are just expressions of that POWER of (INTELLECT) uttered by any Being whether GOD or MAN. All word proceed from the MIND and therefore GOD and the LOGOS Word are one and the same thing.

When John say in (THE) definite article , Beginning He did not say in a different beginning the the actual beginning of (ALL) thing or new created thing But used the the words (THE BEGINNING) we have no reason to think he was referencing the beginning of a (New) creation.

The article is missing in the Greek, John says “In beginning, logos was; and logos was with ton theon, and logos was theos.” The only article is “ton” in the second part of the sentence.

Quote

How can GOD and HIS WORDS Be Separated God word (ARE) the SPIRIT (intellect) of the LIVING GOD, Jesus said “the word i am telling (ARE) Spirit (AND) LIFE, did he not say that.

God said his reema is the Spirit; and his logos was theos.

Both logos and reema are God's words, but in different categories of reference.

Quote

When it say Christ in you the Hope of Glory , that to me is saying the CHRISTOS (ANOINTING SPIRIT (INTELLECT) OF GOD THE FATHER IS (IN) THOSE WHO HAVE IT. That is not saying Jesus is (IN) us but God the Father is (IN) us via his SPIRIT through the CHRISTOS (anointing we recieve) just as he was (IN) Jesus also.

That is not how Paul sees it. Paul says “Christ in you” is the hope of glory. The Father is in you through Jesus Christ, as the Father is in Christ and you are in Christ. If you are not in Christ, the Father is not in you.

Brother we may have to agree to simple disagree on that issue at this time, not saying you are wrong , but perhaps i just can't quite get my mind to totally agree yet my brother. I am reading what you say and truly thinking about it though.

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

Hope and Grace to you Gene.

May 24, 2011 at 2:53 am#246703

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 22 2011,16:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,15:15)

Quote (Paladin @ May 20 2011,06:25)

In the beginning was the logos; and the logos was theon [Greek form of Direct Object of preposition (was”)];and “theos een ho logos.” Here, John is not saying the logos is the same person as ton theon, he is saying the logos was the same person as ton theon; but John later tells us the logos became not God (flesh) [1:14] This God cannot do. God cannot become “not God.”

Hi Paladin,

I don't really see the difference between the two explanations. You are still saying the Logos WAS “the same person as God”, but then became “not God”, which is something God cannot do. But if the Word WAS GOD, then it could not become “not God”, right?

Wrong!

Try again Mike.

I said, the logos was theon, [Greek form of direct object of the preposition (“was”). I never said anything about “The logos was the same person as God.” That is your interpretaion of my words.

Okay, my mistake. When you said the logos was the SAME PERSON as ton theon, I assumed that you knew “ton theon”, which means “the god”, was referring to God Almighty. You've also said:

Quote (Paladin @ May 16 2011,16:07)

“Ton theon” and 'theos” are references to the same person.

Every English translation says, “And the Word was with God“. Do you think this is wrong? Do you think it was some other person that the Word was with in the beginning? And since, according to you, “ton theon” and “theos” are the same person, but you don't seem to be sure that “ton theon” is really God Almighty, then perhaps John 1:1 doesn't mention God Almighty at all. Is this what you're claiming as a possibility?

May 24, 2011 at 3:15 am#246705

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 22 2011,17:00)

No Mike, It is YOU who are making changes to what I said.

I said the logos which was God, became not God. I did not say God became not God. Stop trying to confuse the readers.

I'M confusing the readers? Look at you own words above.

If the logos was GOD and then became “not God”, then aren't you saying that the GOD the logos WAS became “not God”. Which exact “God” do you think the logos WAS? And don't the words “WAS God” indicate something that “used to be God but isn't anymore”? How does that align with “God cannot become 'not God'”?

At first I thought I was just confused. Now I know why.

May 24, 2011 at 3:18 am#246707

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 22 2011,17:15)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 22 2011,13:36)

Quote (Paladin @ May 21 2011,03:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,15:00)

Perhaps you could try my template and break it down line for line like I asked Marty to do?

I don't even know what that means.

Paladin,

Here's the “template”, filled in with your answers for all but the last line. Just fill in the last line for me, please.

6Who, being in the form of God: While he was a human being

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped: While he was a human being

7but emptied himself: While he was a human being

taking the form of a servant: While he was a human being

and was made in human likeness: While he was a ? (Fill in the question mark)

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:”

Perhaps you missed this from an earlier post:
[page 108/ Post #3]

Quote (942767 @ April 24 2011,20:07)

This is what the scripture states:

1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version)

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

<!–QuoteBegin–Mike]No+actually…………THIS is what the scripture states:

Quote (Mike’>No @ actually…………THIS is what the scripture states:
ForthereisoneGodandonemediatorbetweenGodandmankind,themanChristJesuswhogavehimselfasaransomforall/>ItissayingthattheonewhoNOWmediatesbetweenusandGodWASoncethemanwhogavehimselfasaransomforall/>ThatisnotscriptureMike,thatispuredoctrinalbiasedrendingofscripturetopromoteapointofview.“Man”isanoun;“mankind”isan/>1Timothy2:5says“ForthereisoneGod,andonemediatorbetweenGodandmen,themanChrist/>andtheGreekusesanthrwpwnandanthrwposXristos/>anthrwpwnisthegenitivemasculinepluralformofanthrwpos;/>anthrwposisthenominativemasculinesingularformofanthrwpos;bothanthrwposandanthrwpwnaremasculine/>Theword“mankind,”amasculineadjective,isfoundseveralplacesinthenewtestament,andcomesfromtheGreek/>anthrwpinos/>Acts17:25“Neitherisworshippedwith[men's class="bbcode-color"> hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;” [anthrwpinwn = the genitive feminine plural form of anthrwpinos]

Rom 6:19 “I speak after the manner of [men] because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” [anthrwpinon = adverb form of anthrwpinos]

1 Cor 2:13 “Which things also we speak, not in the words which [man's] wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
[anthrwpinees = genitive feminine singular adjective]

1 Cor 4:3 “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of [man's] judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.”[anthrwpinees = genitive feminine singular adjective]

1 Cor 10:13 “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to [man]: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” [anthrwpinos = nominative masculine singular form of anthrwpinos]

James 3:7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of [mankind]: {mankind: Gr. (Adjective) nature of man}

[anthrwpinee = dative feminine singular form of anthrwpinos]

1 Pet 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of [man] for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

[anthrwpinee = dative feminine singular form of anthrwpinos]

This is the grammatic application of the Greek. Your application is the doctrinal application of the doctrine.
How in the world does this post answer my red question mark?

I will discuss your misunderstanding of 1 Timothy some other time. Answer the Phil 2 point for now, okay?

May 24, 2011 at 3:40 am#246711

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 23 2011,07:30)

The reason being, if “theos” is translated “a god” it gives credence to the Jehovah's Witness theology.

“JW theology”? What's that? Of course the indefinite article is implied and by all means should be added in the English translations. 1:1 OBVIOUSLY speaks of TWO, one of which was WITH the other. If only one of them is THE god, then the other is a DIFFERENT god who was WITH “THE god”. Hence, the Word was A god who was WITH THE God. God cannot be WITH God, nor would an “essence” or “attribute” OF God be said to be WITH God. For example, the “love of God” is never said to be WITH God, as if it's a separate entity from Him, right?

Acknowledging that the JW's are the only one's to translate John 1:1 correctly is not to give any credence to any other thing they say. (Although they are right on track with 99% of their understanding of the scriptures, IMO.)

And Kerwin, the definite article “the” is present before the god in 1:1b, so “No”, the God that the Word was with cannot be translated as “a god”, if that's what you were asking. John has specified that the word was with THE God, so it cannot be translated “the Word was with A god”.

May 24, 2011 at 4:32 am#246716

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 23 2011,07:35)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2011,14:41)

Quote (Paladin @ May 22 2011,16:19)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,14:53)

Paladin, is Peter EXCLUDING all other authorities EXCEPT FOR kings and governors by his use of the word “whether”? YES or NO?

Yes! since it is the king who appoints the governors, how can there possibly be any other options? Peter himself excludes all others when he says ” Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him…(the king)“

So then it DOESN'T include “the cop on the corner beat” like you claimed a week ago? Your new claim is that Peter is saying we must subject ourselves ONLY to kings and governors?

Paladin, you had it right the first time. Since Peter used the word “EVERY”, the word “whether” is listing only a couple of the “EVERY”. Peter is NOT telling us we can ignore “the cop on the beat”, or the President, or the judge in the courtroom, is he? He is NOT really saying we can ignore everyone EXCEPT FOR kings and governors, is he?

How is anyone here supposed to take you seriously if you keep changing your clearly posted answers after you've been showed they don't fit in with your claims?

Do you acknowledge that your first answer to this scripture was that it included law enforcement even “down to the cop on the corner beat”?

Do you acknowledge that you've now changed that answer and are claiming it applies ONLY to “kings” and “governors”?

Why would you do that?

mike

Mike, I have not changed anything. It is your attempt to meddle with my words that makes everyting I say loook like something else.

If you go back and post what I actually say, and post under my words, the words you ar einserting to make it look like something else, you will see why you are so bewildered by everything I say.

If you will just take my words, and stop trying to figure out some secret meaning, or some alternate reference you may begin to see what my words are actually saying.

as for the cop on the corner, it even includes the nun in the classroom, if authority is of an hierarchial nature, and the king supports those whom he appoints, which in turn would include thoe whom his governors appoint, and those whom his appointees would appoint, they are all subordinate appointees of those who are appointed by the king as supreme, therefore, are included in the two choices, the king as supreme, or to governors as appointed by the supreme king.

Okay Paladin,

I took your advice and looked up what you originally said. Here is a bit of our conversation about “whether”:

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2011,15:24)

So Peter is saying we should shun all human ruling institutions unless they are specifically a king or a governor? YES or NO, please.

Quote (Paladin @ May 14 2011,20:20)

A King, or a governor, or those he commissions. That covers everything down to the cop on the corner beat.

In other words, obey the law.

Quote (Paladin @ May 16 2011 @ 05:51)

Peter is simply pointing out that the king is supreme, and all others are commissioned, whether governors, or cops on the beat.

So you see, you have mentioned many times that Peter's intent was never to say we should subject ourselves ONLY to kings and governors, right? Even in today's post, you mention nuns, right? But here's the thing: Peter only mentions kings as supreme, and governors as those commisioned by the kings. You see? No mention of “cops on the corner beat”. No mention of “nuns”. And no mention of “ANYONE ELSE” that the king or governor commissions either.

Do you see what you're doing, Paladin? You are admitting that you KNOW Peter was including the cops and nuns and judges and whatever. But you are conveniently forgetting that Peter mentioned none of them by name, NOR DID HE MENTION THEM BY SAYING “OR THOSE THE GOVERNOR COMMISIONS”.

Peter mentions:

1. THE KING AS SUPREME
2. THE GOVERNORS THAT THE KING COMMISSIONS.

THAT'S IT. NO ONE ELSE IS MENTIONED AT ALL.

Yet we all KNOW that others are included because Peter says EVERY human institution, right? But only TWO are mentioned specifically.

I haven't “changed your words” at all, Paladin. You are playing games because you KNOW the word “whether” in this scripture does not EXCLUDE all authorities EXCEPT FOR kings and governors.

Will you admit this? (Btw, I've only briefly searched, but I've found two other scriptures where “whether” has the meaning of “even including” instead of “all others excluded”. But let's see if you're willing to own up to the truth of this scripture first.)

May 24, 2011 at 5:32 am#246720

kerwin

Participant

Paladin,

Thank you for your answers. I believe you have previously mentioned that the Spirit of God is the Word of God according to other scriptures. Is it plausible the John 1:1 is speaking about the Spirit which is a part of God also has an independent existence? I ask this because that is similar to the belief common among Rabbinical Jews at the current time according to the Wikipedia article on the issue.

Wikipedia article on Holy Spirit reads:

Quote

The Rabbinic “Holy Spirit,” has a certain degree of personification, but it remains, “a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes”

I learned that “join” is a possible English translation of the Greek Word “ginomai” from the online Lexicon at searchtgodsword.org which uses Strong;’s 1096. The New American Standard version translated “ginomai” to “joined” in at least one case Paul’s letter to the Romans. The King James Version translates it to “married” instead.

Thus I believe it is plausible to say the Word married (joined) Flesh.

May 24, 2011 at 9:31 am#246725

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 22 2011,13:36)

Quote (Paladin @ May 21 2011,03:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,15:00)

Perhaps you could try my template and break it down line for line like I asked Marty to do?

I don't even know what that means.

Paladin,

Here's the “template”, filled in with your answers for all but the last line. Just fill in the last line for me, please.

6Who, being in the form of God: While he was a human being

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped: While he was a human being

7but emptied himself: While he was a human being

taking the form of a servant: While he was a human being

and was made in human likeness: While he was a ? (Fill in the question mark)

Please show me the post from which you got “my answers” you have listed in this post.

May 24, 2011 at 9:45 am#246727

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ May 24 2011,07:30)

Quote (Paladin @ May 24 2011,13:04)

Quote (terraricca @ May 23 2011,11:04)

Paladin

Quote

Wrong, my friend, I see God as he reveals himself in his writings – i.e., he has heart and soul, hands, feet, arms, eyes, ears, etc, and sings. None of which changes the fact hs is spirit.

Look, my friend, God is the real. He is spirit, with spirit hands, spirit feet, spirit ears and eyse, and etc.

We are imitations, made in his image, in flesh. Just because we consider ourselves to be the real, does not make it so. We are the image of the real.

As ffor God's word existing only in the mind of a person, please explain to me then, what is the scripture? Is that only in my mind? Does my mind see it precisely as your mind does?

Both logos and reema are found in scripture. logos can be corrupted, because it warps concepts; reema can be accepted or rejected, because it is a written record of words telling about things that are understood in concepts. Niether are “only in our minds.”

When God began his creative effort, and spoke into existance all that ther eis, there was no ear to hear, yet the logos was real, and so also was the reema; and some things are written in heaven. So God's word is not just in the hearts of men. When God spoke and a berar came forth and killed according tohis word, what man had that in his mind?

you are saying that i am wrong again ,it seems that only you understand Gods word,but it seems that we have to believe your way of seeing things and that would be a blessing for us ,and this without showing a scripture to back up your vindication .

you have lost me ,because you force me to learn Greek,and you believe that this would do the truck,

your opinion on your views are not supported by scriptures at the least not all of it,

Quote

Look, my friend, God is the real. He is spirit, with spirit hands, spirit feet, spirit ears and eyes, and etc.

We are imitations, made in his image, in flesh. Just because we consider ourselves to be the real, does not make it so. We are the image of the real

where does it say that men creation is an imitation ;?

is the image means imitation??

so that we are mic mic like an ape imitates his master all Gods jesthers ?

Quote

When God began his creative effort, and spoke into existance all that ther eis, there was no ear to hear

Ps 94:9 Does he who implanted the ear not hear?
Does he who formed the eye not see?

I wander what he looks like your god?

Pierre

Do you know what an “imitation” is?

Paladin

which one ;ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. imitation – the doctrine that representations of nature or human behavior should be accurate imitations
doctrine, ism, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought – a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
mimesis – the imitative representation of nature and human behavior in art and literature
formalism – the doctrine that formal structure rather than content is what should be represented
2. imitation – something copied or derived from an original
copy – a thing made to be similar or identical to another thing; “she made a copy of the designer dress”; “the clone was a copy of its ancestor”
fake, sham, postiche – something that is a counterfeit; not what it seems to be
counterfeit, forgery – a copy that is represented as the original
3. imitation – copying (or trying to copy) the actions of someone else
copying – an act of copying
echo – an imitation or repetition; “the flower arrangement was created as an echo of a client's still life”
emulation – effort to equal or surpass another
mimicry – the resemblance of an animal species to another species or to natural objects; provides concealment and protection from predators
4. imitation – a representation of a person that is exaggerated for comic effect
caricature, impersonation
mock-heroic – a satirical imitation of heroic verse
humor, wit, witticism, wittiness, humour – a message whose ingenuity or verbal skill or incongruity has the power to evoke laughter
parody, pasquinade, put-on, sendup, spoof, charade, lampoon, mockery, burlesque, travesty, takeoff – a composition that imitates or misrepresents somebody's style, usually in a humorous way
Adj. 1. imitation – not genuine or real; being an imitation of the genuine article; “it isn't fake anything; it's real synthetic fur”; “faux pearls”; “false teeth”; “decorated with imitation palm leaves”; “a purse of simulated alligator hide”
faux, simulated, fake, false
artificial, unreal – contrived by art rather than nature; “artificial flowers”; “artificial flavoring”; “an artificial diamond”; “artificial fibers”; “artificial sweeteners”

it seems you are using very liberal words

Pierre

Pierre – I did not ask you if you have a dictionary.

I aksked you if you oknow what an imitation is?

Now you have spoiled my approach with your dictionary.

I wanted to know what YOU think an imitation is, instead, you give me a dictionary.

May 24, 2011 at 9:53 am#246728

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ May 24 2011,02:29)

Quote

This to me says that the spirit(mind) of God, the spirit(mind) of Christ Jesus and the spirit(mind) of Wispring or any true believer have the ability to live as one in perfect accordance with God's will/plan with enough faith and a true and full understanding of God's word. To be honest I am aware that I don't have a full understanding. My faith is unwavering so my hope is that God will grant me the grace and wisdom of a full understanding.

With Love and Respect,
Wispring

Hi Wispring, Good post. I agree that we all fall short of the glory of God. I also believe that like myself, don't want to go into any Greek/ my believe is that mostly the Translators too were inspired by God. I don't know if all know that it was a Catholic Monks that took little pieces of the Gospels and put them into a Book, which is the Bible, at least part of it. Georg my Husband has studied Ancient History, and He told me that until the 1800 hundreds year, the Bible only was avaible to the Catholic Authority. Anyone else who was found with the Bible was put to death. How much truth is to it, I have no idea.
We all are trying to tell how we see the truth. We also miss sometimes, what the Word of God shows. take the Scripture you quoted in John

Jhn 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Throughout the Gospel of John, He tells what Jesus said. You missed the part where it says “but the Father's which sent me.

there are several Scriptures that say “He sent me.” I don't remember if I ask before. Where did His Father sent Jesus from??? Then we have the Scripture that says “He came down from Heaven, to do not His own will, but the will of Him that sent me.”
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Thank you for your post, and may God be always with you, Irene

“There was a man sent from God”

Where did God send this man from?

May 24, 2011 at 10:10 am#246732

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2011,13:53)

Quote (Paladin @ May 22 2011,16:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,15:15)

Quote (Paladin @ May 20 2011,06:25)

Hi Paladin,

Wrong!

Try again Mike.

Okay, my mistake. When you said the logos was the SAME PERSON as ton theon, I assumed that you knew “ton theon”, which means “the god”, was referring to God Almighty. You've also said:

Quote (Paladin @ May 16 2011,16:07)

“Ton theon” and 'theos” are references to the same person.

Mike; if you will stop with all your alterations of my [posts, and simply ask questions about what you see in my posts, it will help.

When you make huge letters to emphasize what you want, you are distorting what I said.

You have placed emphasis in such a way it obliterated the emphasis I placed in the sentence, and it only causes confusion.

My statement was simple; John never said logos is the person of God; John said logos was the person of God.

When you place your giant letters, you make even me lose sight of what I actually said.

The difference is between “is and was.

John never said logos is God. Yet everyone argues as though they think logos is God. And they claim they got it from John. John never said it, and neither does any other scriptural source.

As soon as logos became (It does not matter what it became if it was not God) flesh, it was not God. logos changed by becoming what it was not. God did not.

May 24, 2011 at 12:34 pm#246735

Participant

Quote

“There was a man sent from God”

Where did God send this man from?

Paladin! Almighty God is in Heaven. Almighty God send his only begotten Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that through Him all will be saveth. And He came down from Heaven to do the will of Him that sent Him….

May 24, 2011 at 1:41 pm#246736

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Paladin………..Brother lets address the difference between is and was . Now if i were to say “in (the) beginning or (a) beginning , GOD was with the or a man, and the God was man. What i am saying is the GOD and the man are one and the same being. The use of the word was is only referencing what existed in the past is that not what was means. Is it not expressionism of time in the past, just as the word (beginning) represents a (start time), and if i say > at that start time was am i not tying both the start time and was time together as one and the same point of existence in time. My focus is the (start time) and (the was time) is the same point in time. Do you follow what i am saying brother. I am not going to add futher here because i want us to get this straight first brother. Thanks for your replies Paladin.

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

May 24, 2011 at 4:40 pm#246738

942767

Participant

Hi Pierre:

I nor the scriptures state that Jesus was God, but he was in the form of God by virtue of his authority as God's Christ.

Even now, he is not God, but he has said prior to his ascension to the poisition that he holds as head of the church: “All power and authority has been given unto me”. Of course, it is God who gave him the authority.

So, what does to be “in the form of God” mean to you? He is not nor was he ever God. There is “Only One God”.

In any of those scriptures that you quoted, or in any other scriptures that you may find throughout the bible, is there any man ever been given the authority to forgive sins? Or has there ever been any man been made both Lord and Christ?

Love in Christ,
Marty

May 24, 2011 at 5:47 pm#246742

Participant

Marty! There are two scriptures were Jesus was called God….

Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hbr 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Hbr 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If you have any doubt that John 1 is talking about jesyus in verse 14 it says..

Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Notice again THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH….

And He will come back as The Word of God. in

Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Rev 19:14 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Rev 19:16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Peace Irene

May 24, 2011 at 7:33 pm#246755

942767

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ May 25 2011,04:47)

Marty! There are two scriptures were Jesus was called God….

Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hbr 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Hbr 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If you have any doubt that John 1 is talking about jesyus in verse 14 it says..

Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Notice again THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH….

And He will come back as The Word of God. in

Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Rev 19:14 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Rev 19:16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Peace Irene

Hi Irene:

God calls his Son God, and the capital letters are put there by the translators, but does that mean that there are two Gods. No, there is only “One God”, and Jesus is the last Adam who is “the express image of God's person”.

In other words, Jesus is a partaker of God's divine nature by virtue of his obedience to God's Word.

Where do you see Jesus in the following scripture?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was with God.

It does not say in the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God, does it?

The Greek that was translated “Word” in John 1 is “Logos” which is the concept or God's plan that was with Him in the beginning, and the “Logos” pertains to Jesus but “he is not the Logos”. In John 1:14 the “Logos” became flesh. Here the Logos, or the sayings of God, became a sentient person. He was not a sentient person until this happened.

What is meant by Hebrews 1:10 is the Jesus “was the basis for the whole of creation”. As Colossians 1 states, God made all things by him and for him, and without him was nothing made that was made. It does not mean that Jesus was the creator. Genesis 1:1 states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. God is the creator. And Hebrews 1:1-3 states:

Quote

Hebrews 1
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he(God) made the worlds;

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Right now, as head of the church, Jesus watches over God's Word to perform it, God has made him judge of the living and the dead, and he judges by the Word that God has spoken to humanity through him and this same Word that he obeyed without sin even unto death on the cross. No man can come to the Father but by him, and so, right now those who are in the body of Christ, are being judged by this Word, and yes, he is coming back to render judgment unto all men and will judge them according to their works.

This is what Jesus said:

Quote

John 12:47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

50And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

I hope that I have addressed your questions.

Love in Christ,
Marty

May 24, 2011 at 8:28 pm#246759

Participant

Quote

Read what you said!!!! AND WITHOUT HIM, NOTHING WAS CREATED. Yet you don't believe what YOU just wrote….Jesus was there as THE WORD OF GOD… as a Spirit Being….
You say that by Jesus all was created,yet you don't believe He was there in the beginning, before the world was? That to me makes no sense what soever…that also does not mean, Jesus is all powerful….Even though He has more power then anyone else….. ..He will judge, and He is our Savior….that makes Him different then we will be here as a human being…

John 1:14 is talking about Jesus, just like John said in Rev. 19, I asked before who else fits that title “The Word of God?. That does not mean though that Jesus is equal with Almighty God. In Ancient times many were called God, it is a title …..The Bible speaks of other Gods, Almighty God judges other Gods
Psa 82:1 ¶ [[A Psalm of Asaph.]]Almighty God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

John 1;14 explains that it is Jesus, who was The Word of God and will come back as The Word of God, and Lord of Lords and King of Kings. I really can't understand why anyone just wants to make something else out of it….. The Word of God is not always the Logos of God. in both John 1:1 and verse 14 and Rev. 19 it is not….. Why, because of Rev. 19, there is No other being that fits that description….

If we understand Rev. 19 and see it is Jesus, then we should also see that it is Jesus in John1:1….

Peace Irene

May 24, 2011 at 9:28 pm#246762

942767

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ May 25 2011,07:28)

Quote

If we understand Rev. 19 and see it is Jesus, then we should also see that it is Jesus in John1:1….

Peace Irene

No, Irene:

Jesus was not there as a sentient person. God created all things with him in mind knowing that a particular point in time he would bring forth His Son in whom his plan for this world would be fulfilled. Jesus existed in the heart of the Father as someone who he would bring forth at a particular point in time.

God had forseen everything from the beginning and created this world with His children in mind.

Quote

Romans 8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

You say:

Quote

The Word of God is not always the Logos of God. in both John 1:1 and verse 14 and Rev. 19 it is not….. Why, because of Rev. 19, there is No other being that fits that description….

Mrs. please check the Greek in each of these scriptures and see if the word which was translated from Greek to English as “Word” in each of those scriptures is not “Logos”, and Revelation 19 it does not say that he is the Logos but states that “his name is called” the Logos of God. We know that his name is “Jesus” not “The Word of God”, but “his name is called” the Word of God because of his authority as the judge of the living and the dead.

Revelation 19:15-19 confirm this in that this is about the judgment of God being rendered through Jesus:

Quote

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

And in verse 16, he has the name “King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. These are titles.

Love in Christ,
Marty

May 24, 2011 at 10:15 pm#246764

terraricca

Participant

Quote (942767 @ May 25 2011,10:40)

Hi Pierre:

I nor the scriptures state that Jesus was God, but he was in the form of God by virtue of his authority as God's Christ.

So, what does to be “in the form of God” mean to you? He is not nor was he ever God. There is “Only One God”.

Love in Christ,
Marty

Marty

in the form of God,this does not make him God for sure ,

we know that Christ is the WORD OF GOD and has been created the first of all creation so he is the image of God all others are mix images from Christ not from God himself.

being of a form shows that God and Christ are two separated individuals beings with there own form ,but since Christ is the closes to God he also would be the closes image of God .

so yes he was “in the form of God” his father.

the fact that he received a job to do and received all the powers to do it ,what is wrong with that ?nothing

at the end he turn all things back to his father,right yes

so what seems to be your confusion??

you never heard a prince among men that received that authority from his father the king??

and also sins is wickedness and God does not touch wickedness so he give all judgement to the son,

Pierre

May 24, 2011 at 10:53 pm#246768