- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WHICH BEGINNING?
John 1:1 “In the beginning God…”Argument haas been made that John's “beginning” is a reflection of the Genesis account – “In the beginning God…”
But does scripture demonstrate this to be the case?Two arguments show that this is not so.
1). Argument is made that John is saying that in the beginning was Jesus, wearing the name “logos.” But the logos was not a name in the beginning of creation. It was still a “new” name in 69 a.d. when John penned the apokalypse which God gave to Jesus. And in it, he introduced the logos as a “NEW NAME,” where John used the Greek word “kainon” which is an accusative neuter singular adjective which means “New, not previously known, unused. So Jesus could NOT have been understood in scripture to be the logos of God in the beginning of creation.
2) The Holy spirit inspired New Testament writers to reference the “beginning of creation” when it was applicable.
Mark 10:6 But from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation God [epoieesen] made them male and female.
Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation which God [ektisen] created unto this time, neither shall be.
2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation.
Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [ee arxee tees ktisews tou theou] beginning of the creation of God;
Mark, Peter, and yes, even John had already had experience referencing the “beginning of creation.” They already knew from prior authorship and from inspiration, how to express “arxees ktisews” if the beginning of creation is what they want to express.
But John made two changes when he wrote his gospel.
1). He wrote [en arxee] and left off [ktisews] which he had previously expressed, because he now has a different [arxee] in mind.It is the same [arxee] he references in John 15:27 “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the [arxees] beginning.”
It is the same [arxee] he references in John 16:4 “But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the [arxees] beginning, because I was with you.”
John is here recording Jesus own testimony. Do you really think Jesus doesn't know how to reference “arxees ktisews?” Or do you really think John is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he means to express?
2) Remember back up the page, in Mark 10:6, the reference to “made?” He “made them male and female.” “Made” in that reference is [epoieesen].
Compare it with John 1:3 and you will see it is not the same meaning. John 1:3 records “All things were [egeneto] made by him; and without him was not any thing [egeneto] made that was [gegonen] made.
egeneto and gegonen both derive from ginomai, which means to become, as in “Herod and Pilate were made friends, for they had been at enmity before that day.”
John is not saying the same thing in 1:1-3 that he expresses elsewhere in his writings, and he knows the difference.
Quote (Paladin @ May 31 2009,12:03) WHICH BEGINNING?
John 1:1 “In the beginning God…”Argument haas been made that John's “beginning” is a reflection of the Genesis account – “In the beginning God…”
But does scripture demonstrate this to be the case?Two arguments show that this is not so.
1). Argument is made that John is saying that in the beginning was Jesus, wearing the name “logos.” But the logos was not a name in the beginning of creation. It was still a “new” name in 69 a.d. when John penned the apokalypse which God gave to Jesus. And in it, he introduced the logos as a “NEW NAME,” where John used the Greek word “kainon” which is an accusative neuter singular adjective which means “New, not previously known, unused. So Jesus could NOT have been understood in scripture to be the logos of God in the beginning of creation.
2) The Holy spirit inspired New Testament writers to reference the “beginning of creation” when it was applicable.
Mark 10:6 But from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation God [epoieesen] made them male and female.
Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation which God [ektisen] created unto this time, neither shall be.
2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation.
Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [ee arxee tees ktisews tou theou] beginning of the creation of God;
Mark, Peter, and yes, even John had already had experience referencing the “beginning of creation.” They already knew from prior authorship and from inspiration, how to express “arxees ktisews” if the beginning of creation is what they want to express.
But John made two changes when he wrote his gospel.
1). He wrote [en arxee] and left off [ktisews] which he had previously expressed, because he now has a different [arxee] in mind.It is the same [arxee] he references in John 15:27 “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the [arxees] beginning.”
It is the same [arxee] he references in John 16:4 “But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the [arxees] beginning, because I was with you.”
John is here recording Jesus own testimony. Do you really think Jesus doesn't know how to reference “arxees ktisews?” Or do you really think John is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he means to express?
2) Remember back up the page, in Mark 10:6, the reference to “made?” He “made them male and female.” “Made” in that reference is [epoieesen].
Compare it with John 1:3 and you will see it is not the same meaning. John 1:3 records “All things were [egeneto] made by him; and without him was not any thing [egeneto] made that was [gegonen] made.
egeneto and gegonen both derive from ginomai, which means to become, as in “Herod and Pilate were made friends, for they had been at enmity before that day.”
John is not saying the same thing in 1:1-3 that he expresses elsewhere in his writings, and he knows the difference.
It is interesting to note that perhaps no other writer in the Bible uses the term “The beginning” like John for instance.1 John 2:7 (King James Version)
7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
1 John 2:13-14 (King James Version)
13I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
14I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
John 2:23-25 (King James Version)
24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
2 John 1:5 (King James Version)
5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
The point I am making here is the literary affection the writer has for the use of that term it appears that to him the New Covenant is the beginning so to say:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Does not have to pertain at all to the beginning in Genesis but instead it is more likely the genesis of a New Covenant.
This should be easy to understand first of all because it is a gospel and it goes straight into the very beginning of the Gospel:
John 1
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe
So we see here that the location in time is the beginning of the Gospel.
Now John was sent to bare record so what is his testimony?
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
Paladin……Using the Definite Article (THE) must imply a specific time, place or thing. While John at times used it in regards to the beginning of conversion or some other specific events, He ties with the Article, He doesn't do that in John 1:1, He simple says “in the Beginning”, which leads me to believe He is referencing the (total beginning) of all creation or He would have uses a reference point with the wording. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
Quote (Gene @ May 31 2009,16:28) Paladin……Using the Definite Article (THE) must imply a specific time, place or thing. While John at times used it in regards to the beginning of conversion or some other specific events, He ties with the Article, He doesn't do that in John 1:1, He simple says “in the Beginning”, which leads me to believe He is referencing the (total beginning) of all creation or He would have uses a reference point with the wording. IMO peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
Hello Gene;Well, I started the day with another one of those pesky e-mails –
Hi
You have been sent this email as your registration process has been cancelled
You can reregister at https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi at any time.
Regards
The Forum Team
———————————————————–No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.46/2144 – Release Date: 05/30/09 17:53:00At least I am allowed back on the board so maybe it is just a glitch. We'll see.
Quote (Gene) Paladin……Using the Definite Article (THE) must imply a specific time, place or thing. While John at times used it in regards to the beginning of conversion or some other specific events, He ties with the Article, He doesn't do that in John 1:1, He simple says “in the Beginning”, which leads me to believe He is referencing the (total beginning) of all creation or He would have uses a reference point with the wording. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
I don't think so Gene, because he did not use the article with John 15:27 or 16:4 and I don't think the disciples were with him in the beginning of creation.
John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
John 16:4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
Quote (bodhitharta @ May 31 2009,14:38) Quote (Paladin @ May 31 2009,12:03) WHICH BEGINNING?
John 1:1 “In the beginning God…”Argument haas been made that John's “beginning” is a reflection of the Genesis account – “In the beginning God…”
But does scripture demonstrate this to be the case?Two arguments show that this is not so.
1). Argument is made that John is saying that in the beginning was Jesus, wearing the name “logos.” But the logos was not a name in the beginning of creation. It was still a “new” name in 69 a.d. when John penned the apokalypse which God gave to Jesus. And in it, he introduced the logos as a “NEW NAME,” where John used the Greek word “kainon” which is an accusative neuter singular adjective which means “New, not previously known, unused. So Jesus could NOT have been understood in scripture to be the logos of God in the beginning of creation.
2) The Holy spirit inspired New Testament writers to reference the “beginning of creation” when it was applicable.
Mark 10:6 But from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation God [epoieesen] made them male and female.
Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation which God [ektisen] created unto this time, neither shall be.
2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the [arxees ktisews] beginning of the creation.
Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [ee arxee tees ktisews tou theou] beginning of the creation of God;
Mark, Peter, and yes, even John had already had experience referencing the “beginning of creation.” They already knew from prior authorship and from inspiration, how to express “arxees ktisews” if the beginning of creation is what they want to express.
But John made two changes when he wrote his gospel.
1). He wrote [en arxee] and left off [ktisews] which he had previously expressed, because he now has a different [arxee] in mind.It is the same [arxee] he references in John 15:27 “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the [arxees] beginning.”
It is the same [arxee] he references in John 16:4 “But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the [arxees] beginning, because I was with you.”
John is here recording Jesus own testimony. Do you really think Jesus doesn't know how to reference “arxees ktisews?” Or do you really think John is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he means to express?
2) Remember back up the page, in Mark 10:6, the reference to “made?” He “made them male and female.” “Made” in that reference is [epoieesen].
Compare it with John 1:3 and you will see it is not the same meaning. John 1:3 records “All things were [egeneto] made by him; and without him was not any thing [egeneto] made that was [gegonen] made.
egeneto and gegonen both derive from ginomai, which means to become, as in “Herod and Pilate were made friends, for they had been at enmity before that day.”
John is not saying the same thing in 1:1-3 that he expresses elsewhere in his writings, and he knows the difference.
It is interesting to note that perhaps no other writer in the Bible uses the term “The beginning” like John for instance.1 John 2:7 (King James Version)
7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
1 John 2:13-14 (King James Version)
13I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
14I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
John 2:23-25 (King James Version)
24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
2 John 1:5 (King James Version)
5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
The point I am making here is the literary affection the writer has for the use of that term it appears that to him the New Covenant is the beginning so to say:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Does not have to pertain at all to the beginning in Genesis but instead it is more likely the genesis of a New Covenant.
This should be easy to understand first of all because it is a gospel and it goes straight into the very beginning of the Gospel:
John 1
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe
So we see here that the location in time is the beginning of the Gospel.
Now John was sent to bare record so what is his testimony?
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
Quote (bodhitharta)
It is interesting to note that perhaps no other writer in the Bible uses the term “The beginning” like John for instance.1 John 2:7 (King James Version) Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
1 John 2:13-14 (King James Version) I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. 14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
John 2:23-25 (King James Version) 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
2 John 1:5 (King James Version) And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
The point I am making here is the literary affection the writer has for the use of that term it appears that to him the New Covenant is the beginning so to say:
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Does not have to pertain at all to the beginning in Genesis but instead it is more likely the genesis of a New Cov
enant.This should be easy to understand first of all because it is a gospel and it goes straight into the very beginning of the Gospel:
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe
So we see here that the location in time is the beginning of the Gospel.
Now John was sent to bare record so what is his testimony? 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
Very good. John also testifies about the significance of Thomas' testimony;
John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, THE SON OF GOD; and that believing ye might have life through his name.Even Paul gets into the picture by telling us the significance of what is proved by the resurrection from the dead, which some use to prove Jesus is God –
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the SON OF GOD with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Both John and Paul pass up the perfect opportunities presented to them to argue Jesus is God, but both instead, tell us the truth of the matter, he is the “SON OF GOD.”
Thanks for the input.
Quote (Paladin @ May 31 2009,23:45) Quote (Gene) Paladin……Using the Definite Article (THE) must imply a specific time, place or thing. While John at times used it in regards to the beginning of conversion or some other specific events, He ties with the Article, He doesn't do that in John 1:1, He simple says “in the Beginning”, which leads me to believe He is referencing the (total beginning) of all creation or He would have uses a reference point with the wording. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………gene
I don't think so Gene, because he did not use the article with John 15:27 or 16:4 and I don't think the disciples were with him in the beginning of creation.
John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
John 16:4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
Paladin……..When John said that they were with Him in the beginning wouldn't that qualify as a (reference point) for the definite article (the). But when He states it in John1:1 there seem to be No reference point there. So to me leaving one out leads me to believe it is the beginning of (all) creation. I could be wrong Just my thoughts. Your explanations on scripture is greatey appricated by me and others here also. IMOpeace and love to you and yours………………….gene
Quote (Gene @ June 01 2009,02:51) Quote (Gene) Paladin……..When John said that they were with Him in the beginning wouldn't that qualify as a (reference point) for the definite article (the).
No my friend, the only reference point for the definite article is when the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to use it. If we begin supplying words we think the holy Spirit left out, or should have included, we build a trinity. “Omoousian” “theos 'o huios” and so on, are not in scripture but are the basis of musch debate because some like to include them where they are absnet.
Quote
But when He states it in John1:1 there seem to be No reference point there. So to me leaving one out leads me to believe it is the beginning of (all) creation. I could be wrong Just my thoughts. Your explanations on scripture is greatey appricated by me and others here also. IMOExactly, there is no reference point there. And where else do you see this application? In John 15:27 and 16:4 referencing the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
Remember, if he is referencing the beginning of creation, that moves the “logos” back also to the beginning of creation as a name. And the trinity has a useful tool. Without it, they have no pre-existent Jesus. John did not supply it, and neither should we.
The logos was any matter anyone was concerned about, it covered written words, spoken words, utterances, ideas, concepts, reason, account, any thing the mind could wrestle with. But when John referenced it in 1:1, he could NOT have been referencing the beginning of creation, because he has already established the logos as a new, unknown name, unused prior to his revelation of the fact in Rev 3:12 and 19:12-13. He could NOT have been referencing a pre-existent Jesus becoming flesh, as is claimed. This is the proof of it.
The logos of God is always referenced as “it” EXCEPT in the mistranslation of John 1:1-3 where the translators have changed it in the 16th century to “He.”Some think that because Jesus is referenced in verse 14 – “and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth,” – John must therefore have been referencinf Jesus as the pre-existent logos. But it is not a necessary conclusion form the facts presented by John.
He wrote his gospel in about 96 a.d., so his statements are not originally presented in John's gospel. His inspired understanding Logos had already been introduced in his Apokolypse, written about 69 a.d., and in his epistles, written in about 85-90 a.d.
And in the Apokolypse, he introduced a concept of the new, unknown name, “logos of God.” Then in his epistles, he told of Jesus Christ “coming in flesh.” Notice, again, my friend, he does not use the article. Jesus Christ “is come in flesh.” It is a reference to the saints living lives such that it is no longer they that live, but Christ living in them.
With this in memory, John puts together the concept of the logos being personified in the saints, “became flesh and dwelt among us,” that he combines it with another memory, that of the “New name” which is to be given to Jesus at some future date, and tells us in this account, that the personified “logos of God,” carried in name applied to this Jesus, is so perfectly carried out in Jesus and the saints.
It is a marvelous mystery now revealed by the preaching of Paul in Gal 2:20 and Col 1:25-17, and many other references already covered in previous posts.
Thanks for the input my friend.
Guest (Paladin?) said:
Quote Argument haas been made that John's “beginning” is a reflection of the Genesis account – “In the beginning God…”
But does scripture demonstrate this to be the case?It doesn't matter “which beginning.” The text literally reads “And God was the Word”.
Quote In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word Arguments about the “beginning” are intended to deflect from the truth that GOD WAS THE WORD.
thinker
Thinker…….Because GOD'S words indwells someone doesn't make that person a GOD, that is a TRINITARIAN assumption. When a person Has been given and recieved GOD'S words GOD is IN that person via His words, as He was in Christ Jesus, but being in someone does not make that someone the Almighty GOD himself , even If GOD”S words are in Him. Jesus said the WORDS i am telling you they (ARE) SPIRIT and life. But He plainly said those words were (NOT) His words. Spirit is simply (INTELLECT) transmitted to us BY WORDS , as Jesus said . The words (ARE) SPIRIT, and GOD's words are Spirit (INTELLECT) of GOD. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………….gene
Quote (thethinker @ June 01 2009,05:43) Guest (Paladin?) said: Quote Argument haas been made that John's “beginning” is a reflection of the Genesis account – “In the beginning God…”
But does scripture demonstrate this to be the case?It doesn't matter “which beginning.” The text literally reads “And God was the Word”.
Quote In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word Arguments about the “beginning” are intended to deflect from the truth that GOD WAS THE WORD.
thinker
Of course it matters. Where do you think trinitarians got their trinity from? They left off studying God's word in the order in which it was written, and began to study the “life of Christ” first. That changes EVERYTHING. Logos takes on a new meaning if understood from the viewpoint of John's gospel establisheing the meaning. But John's gospel was the LAST book written, not the first.When you study the “logos” ion the chronological order in which it was inspired to be written, you will begin to understand the truth of God's word. Otherwise, you will just continue to spew doctrines of men and wonder why you can't refute monotheism.
Quote (Gene @ June 01 2009,10:19) Thinker…….Because GOD'S words indwells someone doesn't make that person a GOD, that is a TRINITARIAN assumption. When a person Has been given and recieved GOD'S words GOD is IN that person via His words, as He was in Christ Jesus, but being in someone does not make that someone the Almighty GOD himself , even If GOD”S words are in Him. Jesus said the WORDS i am telling you they (ARE) SPIRIT and life. But He plainly said those words were (NOT) His words. Spirit is simply (INTELLECT) transmitted to us BY WORDS , as Jesus said . The words (ARE) SPIRIT, and GOD's words are Spirit (INTELLECT) of GOD. IMO peace and love to you and yours………………….gene
Gene John 1:1 is not the only Scripture that says that Jesus was God. In Hebrew also the Father calls Him God.
Hebrew 1:8-9
” Your throne, O God is for ever and ever; A scepter of righteousness, is your scepter of Your Kingdom
verse 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
THERFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more then Your companions.
If you would only see that God is a tittle and each, Father and Son have other names.
Also that Jesus was there in the very beginning, before the world was. And you do know that there are other Scriptures that prove that.
Even John in verse 3 of John 1 tells us that He made all through Him and nothing was made that was made.
Col. 1-15-17
verse 18 tells us that He was also the firstborn of the dead, so in all He will have preeminence, meaning first in all.
Rev. 3:14
John 17:5 by Jesus own words.
” And now, O Father glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory I had with You before the world was.Again and again I have put this down, and I will do so until you and others will understand. I for one will not deny Jesus word.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene……Then you should not deny Jesus said the word He told Us were (NOT) HIS. Hardly the word of a person who HIMSELF was the WORDS He Spoke. AS i said before If John meant to imply Jesus as the word He simply would have written Jesus there instead of the WORD, He would have said in the Beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with GOD and Jesus was GOD. Is that not the way you and trinitarians believe it says, If you believe that then you must believe Jesus is also GOD HIMSELF. But you have a problem, John never used the word Jesus in what he said , so you and trinitarians must force the text to make it say that. Why not Just except it as it is written and understand John put down exactly what he meant, and that wasn't Jesus. It was GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF. IMO
peace and love ot you and Georg………………gene
To all a thought: If we are born or recreated of Spirit from God we are literally uncovering who we have always been. Spirit is all that was, all that is and all that ever will be. Brother Einstein said energy was, is, is being and will be forever.Energy cannot be created nor destroyed yet it can be moulded into many things. Quantum theory now is finding that at 0-point energy (-o31) a quark of flowing, living, plasmic energy was, is, is being, and will be, that is completely entangled into one, interconnected ever creating, evolving and expanding from itself. A Self existent creative force that everything that is came from. Energy can be moulded and formed into multiple densities and life forms yet continues eternally. From this life force we all came. There was or is nothing else to come from. This is Spirit for me. God is a term used to describe and indescribable force. There is no begininng to Spirit itself yet there are beginnings to awareness of existence that seem to be a new beginning. If we allow our minds to wash away all the religious doctrines, and pre-conceived ideas we have about who we are and where we came from we just might find the Truth of who we are. This is the reason God uses words formed from ideas, grouped into thoughts to paint a picture on the hearts of men so they can see who they really are. The function of the human mind as I see it is only limited to its beliefs. If you could unwrap incorrect beliefs from the mind you would find pure God Spirit. That is who you are. That is where we came from. God/Self Existent Life is everywhere and in everything. To me this is being born again. The re-creation or uncovering of the Truth of what we came from and will eternally go to.To purify your mind you must think clearly. If you believe in Sin you are not clean. As a man thinketh so he is.If you can see the finish work of Jesus you will hear the whole Spirit say it is finished. You are made perfect in Christ. A free gift. Only believe without rules and demands. If you establish judgement for someone else you judged yourself. Where there is no Law you made a Law unto yourself. We are the Kingdom of God, the Church of God, the Temple of God, the Spirit of God and have the life force of God within. We are Sons of God! These are my beliefs, if you respond please be kind. I welcome rebuttal but not anger. Peace and Love to All, TK
T.K. Why should anybody be angry at a post? They might disagree with you. You say a lot about Humanity in general, but not much about John 1:1 what this tread should be all about. The Kingdom of God is not in us. While we are the Temple of God. Jesus when He comes will establish the Kingdom of God. My Husband believes that Jesus is already back in the Spirit and is preparing the elect to be Priest and Kings that will rule with Him in the Millenium. I can't see and can't prove that to myself. You also say nothing about us being Baptized. In order to understand the thing's of God we will first have to receive God's Holy Spirit at Baptism.
Your first sentence makes no sense. We were made from dust and to dust we will return. The Spirit which God breathed into us, will go back to God who giveth.
I have to smile when you say: ” When you respond, be kind.”
I am a kind person, so you have nothing to fear from me.
As far as this tread is concerned, I have already given all the Scriptures I will give.
So my friend, Peace and Love IreneIrene: Thank you for your kind rebutal: My expose' started from a much broader “beginning” and much broader spiritual application of words used but half of what I wrote was about John 1:1. Now, In Luke (KJB)17:20 the religious leaders asked Jesus…”when the Kingdom of God would come” and Jesus answered,…”the Kingdom of God cometh not with observation, people won't say, Look here or Look there for the kingdom of God is within you”. There are many othe scriptures that infer that it is here or in reach but that one is direct. The Lords prayer also says, Thy Kingdom come… If one says God dwells in my heart what would that mean? We are each individually an abode (place to dwell) for God/Jesus/Spirit et.al. We have been made a nation of Kings and Priests. Kings of our Kingdom, Priests of our Temples. Preachers of our Churches. If God is everywhere, where would he not be? Nothing can separate us from God unless we choose to believe we are in sin or have sin then we have cut ourselves off from God. God will never leave us, only we could leave God through sin/error of thought/wrong belief. Water Baptism is of no value whatsoever apart from cleaning the flesh. John did it to show a picture to the people of being cleansed and washed by the water of the words of God. The Baptism of the water of the word of God is the Spirit baptism.In that is life. You must be born of Spirit. Recreating your mind from literal understanding to Spiritual dream and visions for awareness and understanding. My first sentence had nothing about dust to dust. My attempt was at a word picture the Spirit of God. Thanks and bless you, TK
T.K. You must understand differently about the the Kingdom of God, then most here IMO believe. Jesus Kingdom will come, Scriptures say. Jesus will rule a thousand years in that Kingdom, the Millenium. I can see somewhat what my Husband says, that Jesus is setting up the Kingdom, but I do not belief that the Kingdom is in us. Where is that prove. You know Thessalonian tells us that we should prove all things.
And who is talking about water Baptism, without receiving the Holy Spirit. I even mention the Holy Spirit of God, that should tell you, that I did receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism. In today's world, not all Ministers lay hands on those that get Baptized. IMO that is essential. Our Minister did. Oh, I realized that, big times. We came out of the Catholic Church. ( I don't know if I mentioned that)
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Paladin @ May 31 2009,19:48) Quote (thethinker @ June 01 2009,05:43) Guest (Paladin?) said: Quote Argument haas been made that John's “beginning” is a reflection of the Genesis account – “In the beginning God…”
But does scripture demonstrate this to be the case?It doesn't matter “which beginning.” The text literally reads “And God was the Word”.
Quote In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word Arguments about the “beginning” are intended to deflect from the truth that GOD WAS THE WORD.
thinker
Of course it matters. Where do you think trinitarians got their trinity from? They left off studying God's word in the order in which it was written, and began to study the “life of Christ” first. That changes EVERYTHING. Logos takes on a new meaning if understood from the viewpoint of John's gospel establisheing the meaning. But John's gospel was the LAST book written, not the first.When you study the “logos” ion the chronological order in which it was inspired to be written, you will begin to understand the truth of God's word. Otherwise, you will just continue to spew doctrines of men and wonder why you can't refute monotheism.
Hi PdBut you are evading the issue, John 1:1 says “The Word was with God and was God”, or “God was the Word”.
Tell me, if the translators were wrong and you are so right, then maybe you can show us some Hebrew and Greek credentials. Do you have any degrees in Biblical Hebrew or Greek?
If not, then why should we believe you over the hundreds of translators and commentators on BibleGateway.com or Blueletterbible.org?
Also since when does it make sense to call the Word who was with God and was God, an it?
Is God an it?
Blessings WJ
Quote (Gene @ June 01 2009,10:19) Thinker…….Because GOD'S words indwells someone doesn't make that person a GOD, that is a TRINITARIAN assumption. When a person Has been given and recieved GOD'S words GOD is IN that person via His words, as He was in Christ Jesus, but being in someone does not make that someone the Almighty GOD himself , even If GOD”S words are in Him. Jesus said the WORDS i am telling you they (ARE) SPIRIT and life. But He plainly said those words were (NOT) His words. Spirit is simply (INTELLECT) transmitted to us BY WORDS , as Jesus said . The words (ARE) SPIRIT, and GOD's words are Spirit (INTELLECT) of GOD. IMO peace and love to you and yours………………….gene
Gene,
When have I ever said that the word of God merely dwelled in Christ? I have said that Christ WAS Himself the Word.Quote …the Word was with God and God WAS the Word thinker
Proverbs 8(KJV) reads:
Quote Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.
O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
I believe it was Irene who pointed me to this passage and when she did it was revealed to me it was parallel to John 1.
Does “the word” = “wisdom”?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
