JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[JustAskin]

S'truth Gene,

Are you still pushing ''whatever''?

Did you ever respond to … And whatn about Jesus saying he was going back to where he came from. John 16 and 17.

If you have then please show me where or indulge me and write it again here.

I'm fascinated by your'potential' response.

Thank you.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,01:56)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 27 2010,01:44) To all………..Lets stay on subject here, Is Jesus (the) Word spoken of in John1:1 or is the Word Spoken of there God himself.  Remember Jesus plainly said the words he spoke were (not) his words, so who can we reconcile this difference. I believe Jesus did speak GOD the Fathers Word to us , but I believe also those word did not come from himself as many do believe here. Where it say that they may Know you “the only true God , and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”. some believe that some how puts Jesus on par with GOD as an equal, i disagree with that idea,  We know GOD the FATHER as A GOD, we know Jesus as a Son of Man, by knowing both GOD and Jesus the man we can understand much about the salvation process is it is good that we understand Jesus and The only true God the Father , both of them. IMO peace and love to you all…………………gene Hi Gene, And let's add John 1:18. 18No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten god,who is at the Father's side, has made him known. No one has ever seen God.  But someone OTHER THAN GOD, who is at God's side, has explained God. peace and love, mike

Mike……..So Jesus Explained Him, and is (NOW) at his side , so whats your point, what makes you believe He preexisted his berth because He disclosed (explained) the Father to us. Who disclosed who Jesus was to Peter? was it not the same GOD that was disclosing who he was to Jesus and Jesus was relaying that to us.

Here is even something even more interesting , Jesus said He has told us about the Father in Proverbs (fictitious illustrations) , but a time will come when he will show us plainly about the Father.

Don't you believe God was revealing to Jesus thing while he was on this earth and telling Him what to say and How to say it? Jesus said he was, so we can't use that as some kind of Proof of His preexistence, now can we brother. IMO

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

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (JustAskin @ June 27 2010,03:10)

S'truth Gene, Are you still pushing ''whatever''? Did you ever respond to … And whatn about Jesus saying he was going back to where he came from. John 16 and 17. If you have then please show me where or indulge me and write it again here. I'm fascinated by your'potential' response. Thank you.

JA……..Don't think i Have , but i will now, Jesus was indeed a preconceived purpose of GOD and as a result he was from Heaven and he returned to where he was preconceived in the first place. But we can say that about all of us were we not also Preconceived by God>

Rom 8:29…> For whom he did (foreknow), he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, the He (Jesus) might be the firstborn among many brethren .

So were we also in heave before we were born seeing GOD foreknew us?

JA do you see my point Scripture does not specifically say Jesus existed as a Person before his berth Brother. The have to force the text somewhat to make it say that. IMO

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

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 27 2010,03:46)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,01:56) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 27 2010,01:44) To all………..Lets stay on subject here, Is Jesus (the) Word spoken of in John1:1 or is the Word Spoken of there God himself.  Remember Jesus plainly said the words he spoke were (not) his words, so who can we reconcile this difference. I believe Jesus did speak GOD the Fathers Word to us , but I believe also those word did not come from himself as many do believe here. Where it say that they may Know you “the only true God , and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”. some believe that some how puts Jesus on par with GOD as an equal, i disagree with that idea,  We know GOD the FATHER as A GOD, we know Jesus as a Son of Man, by knowing both GOD and Jesus the man we can understand much about the salvation process is it is good that we understand Jesus and The only true God the Father , both of them. IMO peace and love to you all…………………gene Hi Gene, And let's add John 1:18. 18No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten god,who is at the Father's side, has made him known. No one has ever seen God.  But someone OTHER THAN GOD, who is at God's side, has explained God. peace and love, mike Mike……..So Jesus Explained Him, and is (NOW) at his side , so whats your point, what makes you believe He preexisted his berth because He disclosed (explained) the Father to us.  Who disclosed who Jesus was to Peter? was it not the same GOD that was disclosing who he was to Jesus and Jesus was relaying that to us. Here is even something even more interesting , Jesus said He has told us about the Father in Proverbs (fictitious illustrations) , but a time will come  when he will show us plainly about the Father.   Don't you believe God was revealing to Jesus thing while he was on this earth and telling Him what to say and How to say it? Jesus said he was, so we can't use that as some kind of Proof of His preexistence, now can we brother. IMO peace and love to you and yours……………….gene

See how you are, Gene?  

I post a scripture to back you up that the Word couldn't have actually been God Himself, and you jump down my throat for the effort.  

You said:

Quote

So Jesus Explained Him, and is (NOW) at his side , so whats your point,

Yes, Gene.  Jesus is now at his God's side – why?  Because he was raised to his previous glory and postion.  Doesn't that imply he was already God's only begotten Son at His side before he came in the flesh?  How do you answer this scripture?

What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before?

You said:

Quote

Don't you believe God was revealing to Jesus thing while he was on this earth and telling Him what to say and How to say it? Jesus said he was, so we can't use that as some kind of Proof of His preexistence, now can we brother. IMO

Yes, God revealed much to Jesus while he was on earth.  But Jesus had also already seen with his own eyes the things of God and of heaven.

John 3:31-32
He that comes from heaven is over all others. 32 What he has seen and heard, of this he bears witness, but no man is accepting his witness.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 25 2010,13:56)

Hi MB, ONLY BEGOTTEN is one word, not two, in greek. It means something different to what you imagine

Hi Nick,

Yes, monogenes comes from two Greek words. Mono, meaning “only” and “ginomai” meaning “to generate” or “to become”. Together, they have the meaning of “only generated”. It is not me, but you and seemingly everyone else on HN who try to imagine new definitions for monogenes. I just take the words as they are written. And apparently, Greek Bible scholars from the 1st and 4th century agree with me, not you all.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 25 2010,13:57)

Hi MB, Jesus is to be the FIRST of many brothers. You can follow him into his anointing as a son.

Yes Nick,

And even as I follow him, I do so with the knowledge that I will NEVER be the monogenes son of God through whom all things were created. The one who left his position of monogenes Son of God to accomplish God's will on earth, and then was given that postion back.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Oxy @ June 26 2010,10:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,15:48) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 25 2010,13:39) Hi MB, Are you not yet a son begotten of God? No Nick, for Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God. mike Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, but we who have received Christ have been grafted into the vine so that we may be joint heirs with the Son, also sons of God, born of the Spirit.

Hi Oxy,

Haven't you heard? Monogenes doesn't mean “only begotten” anymore – it means “unique”. And we are to be joint heirs “of” Christ, not “with” him. Such are the adjustments of men who will do anything to prove that Jesus is God Almighty, equal to the Father.

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 26 2010,19:32)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 23 2010,14:35) [ I forget things very easily. And Gene was referrring to another thread where he posed this same question and we already butted our heads till a bloody mess and got no where. but again, him like others, post things that dont make sense. at times. and he knows that im not a brute, because i have agreed with him in other things. like the seven spirits of God thread. so KJ accused me of cheating, Numbers accused me of speculating and adding to the word of God, and now Gene is stating that I DENNISON avoid posts. Wow… is there another person named simplyforgiven here? because these accusations dont represent my character nor personality within this thread. SF……..Sorry if i offended you > I can get frustrated at times, when someone doesn't get my points, but perhaps it's because i am not explaining them right. However , back to the original issue, my point is that Jesus is (NOT) GOD, When i quoted that scripture, you replied i was taking it out of context, i disagree with you there, I still am not sure what you meant by that. Are you saying Jesus is the word of GOD and is the exact same as GOD Himself. Are you saying that Jesus himself is the life himself to us, or is it that God the Father is Life to both Jesus and us alike which is the way i see it. I full well know Jesus showed us that life of GOD the Father it was (IN) him, but i don't believe it was (from) him. peace and love to you and yours………………..gene

Gene,

Its all Good
Dont forget im human.
We have to define things in order to understand eachother fully.

Scripture states that Jesus is Life, and is the WAY and the TRUTH.
yet like i stated with Mike scripture speaks of ALL fullnes not Gods fullness.
He is the Word.
He is literally those things.
Where does it say that God is life to Jesus?
Doesnt it not say that Jesus is the bread of life,
the one who will never let you thirst again?

Lets say God wanted to be the perfect rolemodel in our same situation. like Mike said that GOD can do ANYTHING he wants to.
Lets say that God wanted to be a perfect human rolemodel.
and subjected himself to human flesh.
Imagine for a moment, to be a perfect example he would still need to subject himself to depend on eternity, to unlimited power. Yet Jesus has access to that full eternity, to the full power of God without limits.
For God to show us any better, he would have to lead by example. meaning he would need to show us how.

[SimplyForgiven]

*Mike,

Quote

Okay.  The NIV, which I quoted has “His fullness”.  I see from the Greek that you are right – it just says “fullness”.  But, by comparing 1:19 with 2:9, it is clear to me that it  means God's fullness.  But if it doesn't, so what?  This “all fullness” dwells in Jesus for one reason only – because it pleased Jesus' Father and God for it to be this way.

(be open minded about this. as i am with you)
Lol dont tell Bod, he will use that as evidence against the bible. Ok so just to have it clear that we both agree the scripture refers to “general all fullness” and now we can move on.  I disagree about the 2:9 point.  Why i say this. because it doesnt say it pleased the father that the fullness of the Godhead was in Christ. anyways its a seperate point from the subject in hand.  
The context refers to all life, time, space, and matter is created by Christ.  So therefore i relate fullness to that, all creation and power within this “limited world”
So mike back to your logic, its not the same now.  ITs not stating his exact fullness. but the fullnes of everything that is. so its not fullness begatting fullness.

Co 2:9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

verse 9 is incomplete.  note the word “and” afterwards.  Christ is noted as Head not only the church but of all principality and power.  I would use that to say that for once the Father is not noted as the head.  Yet Jesus is suppose to be the right hand of power?  Where is the right side of the throne of the omnipresent God?

Quote

What?  To borrow a line from Stu….. it's English I'll grant you, but that doesn't seem to be much help.

Jesus has a power beyond flesh before taking flesh. He always had a fullness about him.  

Quote

Okay.  But who is the most supreme of all?  I don't understand how so many people want to go all weird and add totally crazy ideas to what the Bible teaches.  It is really quite simple.  God was alone.  He begat a Son.  He and His Son created everything else.  If you begat a son it would simply mean that you are now the father to your son.  Why should it be any different with God?  Isn't He the one who set up our languages and understandings?  Why would His Son also be Him when none of our sons are us?  It's just silly to me.

I have  a question mike? do you just pick and choose what your going to respond to and ignore the rest?  How can you say that God was alone?  I think you dont want to things spiritually or by roles.  I agree if i stuck my mind to only look at things between father and son than i would agree.
but it seems to me like the prodigal son story that Jesus told spoke of a crazy disobeident son, yet there was a father.  where is the son in this story?  we have a father of a son and a son.
we were created by the SON?
yet our creator died for us.
Its not the same.  We have a Son that acts like a father.  and has the rights by spiritual ways and by mans ways to be the king of kings.
What does the Son of God really mean?
i would like to define that.

[Oxy]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,17:21)

Quote (Oxy @ June 26 2010,10:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,15:48) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 25 2010,13:39) Hi MB, Are you not yet a son begotten of God? No Nick, for Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God. mike Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, but we who have received Christ have been grafted into the vine so that we may be joint heirs with the Son, also sons of God, born of the Spirit. Hi Oxy, Haven't you heard?  Monogenes doesn't mean “only begotten” anymore – it means “unique”.  And we are to be joint heirs “of” Christ, not “with” him.     Such are the adjustments of men who will do anything to prove that Jesus is God Almighty, equal to the Father. peace and love, mike

Haven't I heard? Of course I've heard. What's your point?

[JustAskin]

Gene,

Your response to me is flawed, seriously.

First off, the 'them' are the elect, it is not ALL people.

This is why I keep stating that posters here should be careful about claiming a place in Heaven because the Disciple and Apostles say 'We will become Sons of God' and similar.

Yes, 'they' will, and a little less than 144,000 more. But none of 'us', not of the Apostleship, Saints, Prophets, Elders, must not claim the prize, but instead, suggest a 'hope' of such a prize.
So you say, Jesus is going back to the place that he was 'preconceived', as an idea in God's head, so to speak?
Jesus is 'Ascending' to God's mind, and 'the we…the elect' will join him as an idea?

But yet we see Jesus in Heaven 'standing at the righthand of the power of God'.

Serious flaw, my man. It is not surprising, then, that you did not respond before, twice then before…

Tell me, Gene,…in humbleness… Did it disturb you to respond in this flawed manner?
Did you feel the 'Sin' in you when you made up your flawed response?

You also suggest to Mike that Jesus was being spoken to by God who was telling him what to say.
Well, Scriptures clearly has Jesus stating that his Father taught him what to say and then 'Sent him'.

For sure, Jesus communicated with his Father continuously throughout his time on earth and that is a fine example to all of us. But Jesus was already instructed in his ambassadorship 'before' hebwas dispatched as an embassador…and is this not normal, even for humans? Ha! And aren't humans imitating God?

Gene, seriously, try to align Scriptures with your ideas…they don't fit…the 'preexistent' part I mean.

The rest is mainly Scriptural and I would concur as far as I have not looked closely.

But then, for you to deliberately force fit 'going back to preconceived', man, that's hard to take that you say that…

Please, indulge me one more time.
Please say again what you think Jesus means when he says, 'What if you see the son of man ascending to where he once was'

And,
'Father, glorify me now with the glory i had with you before the world was'

And, in line with that, who was with God when God said, 'Let us make man…'

Gene, this time, please answer with Holy Spirited honesty.

Thank you.

[SimplyForgiven]

Ja,
explain your 144,000 statement.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Dennison,

You said:

Quote

I have  a question mike? do you just pick and choose what your going to respond to and ignore the rest?

Okay, fair enough.  You sometimes post things like a 1st grader.  You don't use proper punctuation or capitalize the first letter of a new sentence, etc.  Then you go all off on quasi-philisophical rants that IMO have nothing at all to do with what we are discussing.  In short, it is HARD to follow the thoughts that you post.  Gene has had problems with them, and I saw where JA posted something similar just the other day.  You want me to not skip over things?  Okay, let's take it ONE POINT AT A TIME, then I can't possibly miss your point.  We'll start here:

I said:

Quote

Okay.  The NIV, which I quoted has “His fullness”.  I see from the Greek that you are right – it just says “fullness”.  But, by comparing 1:19 with 2:9, it is clear to me that it  means God's fullness.  But if it doesn't, so what?  This “all fullness” dwells in Jesus for one reason only – because it pleased Jesus' Father and God for it to be this way.

You said:

Quote

Ok so just to have it clear that we both agree the scripture refers to “general all fullness” and now we can move on.

No, I don't agree.  Col 1:19 in the NIV says:
19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

I agree with these 100 scholars that it applies to “God's” fullness.  Why?  Compare to Col 2:9,

9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

By comparing to 2:9, we can reasonably assume that it is God's fullness that Paul talks about in both places – agreed?

So my logic question remains:  If Jesus WAS God, why say all of God's fullness dwells in him?

And Eph 3:19 says,

19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

We too, have the hope of being filled with the fullness of God. Will we be God?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (JustAskin @ June 27 2010,18:43)

Gene, Your response to me is flawed, seriously. First off, the 'them' are the elect, it is not ALL people. This is why I keep stating that posters here should be careful about claiming a place in Heaven because the Disciple and Apostles say 'We will become Sons of God' and similar. Yes, 'they' will, and a little less than 144,000 more. But none of 'us', not of the Apostleship, Saints, Prophets, Elders, must not claim the prize, but instead, suggest a 'hope' of such a prize. So you say, Jesus is going back to the place that he was 'preconceived', as an idea in God's head, so to speak? Jesus is 'Ascending' to God's mind, and 'the we…the elect' will join him as an idea? But yet we see Jesus in Heaven 'standing at the righthand of the power of God'. Serious flaw, my man. It is not surprising, then, that you did not respond before, twice then before… Tell me, Gene,…in humbleness… Did it disturb you to respond in this flawed manner? Did you feel the 'Sin' in you when you made up your flawed response? You also suggest to Mike that Jesus was being spoken to by God who was telling him what to say. Well, Scriptures clearly has Jesus stating that his Father taught him what to say and then 'Sent him'. For sure, Jesus communicated with his Father continuously throughout his time on earth and that is a fine example to all of us. But Jesus was already instructed in his ambassadorship 'before' hebwas dispatched as an embassador…and is this not normal, even for humans? Ha! And aren't humans imitating God? Gene, seriously, try to align Scriptures with your ideas…they don't fit…the 'preexistent' part I mean. The rest is mainly Scriptural and I would concur as far as I have not looked closely. But then, for you to deliberately force fit 'going back to preconceived', man, that's hard to take that you say that… Please, indulge me one more time. Please say again what you think Jesus means when he says, 'What if you see the son of man ascending to where he once was' And, 'Father, glorify me now with the glory i had with you before the world was' And, in line with that, who was with God when God said, 'Let us make man…' Gene, this time, please answer with Holy Spirited honesty. Thank you.

Hi JA,

Good post to Gene, but why did you need to add the insults?  You have been doing a good job as moderator as far as trying to keep posts on topic.  So my “pet project” is to try to eliminate the insults and ridicules that so often accompany posts.  What good does it do?  0 good.  What harm does it do?  Plenty.

Something Karmarie posted once has stuck with me.  She said, in effect, that she doesn't like posting in the heated debates for fear of incurring the harsh wrath and mean, insulting words of KJ.  Is that what Christians who are on this site to further their knowledge of God should be worried about?  Should we be afraid to ask an honest question for fear the others will say, “Ha Ha!  You're so stupid!  You're an idiot!   “?

Gene has just as much of a right to his view as you and I do to ours, JA.  I agree with you that his view does not align with scripture, and have scripturally tried to show him this.  But why should I include a slam or a ridicule?  Is Gene's alleged misunderstanding really a preconceived “SIN” on his part, as you imply?

People, PLEASE can we try our best to act more Christian-like?  I'm talking also to myself.

peace and love to all,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,23:30)

Hi Dennison, You said: Quote I have  a question mike? do you just pick and choose what your going to respond to and ignore the rest?   Okay, fair enough.  You sometimes post things like a 1st grader.  You don't use proper punctuation or capitalize the first letter of a new sentence, etc.  Then you go all off on quasi-philisophical rants that IMO have nothing at all to do with what we are discussing.  In short, it is HARD to follow the thoughts that you post.  Gene has had problems with them, and I saw where JA posted something similar just the other day.  You want me to not skip over things?  Okay, let's take it ONE POINT AT A TIME, then I can't possibly miss your point.  We'll start here: I said: Quote Okay.  The NIV, which I quoted has “His fullness”.  I see from the Greek that you are right – it just says “fullness”.  But, by comparing 1:19 with 2:9, it is clear to me that it  means God's fullness.  But if it doesn't, so what?  This “all fullness” dwells in Jesus for one reason only – because it pleased Jesus' Father and God for it to be this way. You said: Quote Ok so just to have it clear that we both agree the scripture refers to “general all fullness” and now we can move on. No, I don't agree.  Col 1:19 in the NIV says: 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, I agree with these 100 scholars that it applies to “God's” fullness.  Why?  Compare to Col 2:9, 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. By comparing to 2:9, we can reasonably assume that it is God's fullness that Paul talks about in both places – agreed? So my logic question remains:  If Jesus WAS God, why say all of God's fullness dwells in him? And Eph 3:19 says, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. We too, have the hope of being filled with the fullness of God.  Will we be God? peace and love, mike

Hi Mike

ouch i write like a 1st grader..
sorry i dont take the time to correct my posts. i just write, and post.

ok lets start.
This what you orginally said!

Quote

Okay.  The NIV, which I quoted has “His fullness”.  I see from the Greek that you are right – it just says “fullness”.  But, by comparing 1:19 with 2:9, it is clear to me that it  means God's fullness.  But if it doesn't, so what?  This “all fullness” dwells in Jesus for one reason only – because it pleased Jesus' Father and God for it to be this way.

I responded:

Quote

Ok so just to have it clear that we both agree the scripture refers to “general all fullness” and now we can move on.

because im thinking we agreed already.

now you continue with 2:9 which i disagreed with and responded.

Quote

I disagree about the 2:9 point.  Why i say this. because it doesnt say it pleased the father that the fullness of the Godhead was in Christ. anyways its a seperate point from the subject in hand.   The context refers to all life, time, space, and matter is created by Christ.  So therefore i relate fullness to that, all creation and power within this “limited world” So mike back to your logic, its not the same now.  ITs not stating his exact fullness. but the fullnes of everything that is. so its not fullness begatting fullness. Co 2:9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: verse 9 is incomplete.  note the word “and” afterwards.  Christ is noted as Head not only the church but of all principality and power.  I would use that to say that for once the Father is not noted as the head.  Yet Jesus is suppose to be the right hand of power?  Where is the right side of the throne of the omnipresent God?

your last response with

Quote

No, I don't agree.  Col 1:19 in the NIV says: 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, I agree with these 100 scholars that it applies to “God's” fullness.  Why?  Compare to Col 2:9, 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. By comparing to 2:9, we can reasonably assume that it is God's fullness that Paul talks about in both places – agreed? So my logic question remains:  If Jesus WAS God, why say all of God's fullness dwells in him? And Eph 3:19 says, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. We too, have the hope of being filled with the fullness of God.  Will we be God? peace and love, mike

I would say no i disagree. the context of the first chapter does not talk about Gods fullness.  First of all in the first chapter it talks about what Christ did, and who he was.  therefore i think abot the fullness is all creation.
second 2:9 is a seperate point.  and it doesnt talk abotu pleasing the father through this fullness in the Godhead.
and it refers to Jesus being the HEAD of all power. and since the sentenced continued and spoke of Christ which says in WHOM, or what not, is the head of all power.

either way you already agreed that in greek it refers to what i stated to ch.1.  So therefore the only thing left to argue is whether 2:9 is also included within your logic.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Dennison,

I absolutely LOVE point by point.     We are getting somewhere!

Okay, so we disagree on whether 1:19 refers to the fullness of God or fullness in general.  Let's assume you are right, because that IS, after all what the Greek says.

My logic is:  IF Jesus IS God, then it is already assumed that all fullness dwells in him, why say once that
“all fullness in general” dwells in him and then, like 10 sentences later say that all the fullness “of God” dwells in him?

You said:

Quote

either way you already agreed that in greek it refers to what i stated to ch.1.  So therefore the only thing left to argue is whether 2:9 is also included within your logic.

Let's compare scripturally.

Titus 2:13
13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Trinitarians like to quote this scripture as Paul calling Jesus “our great God”.  But the Greek actually says,

manifestation     of     the     great      god     of us     and      of savior      of jesus     christ

And as further proof that Paul wasn't saying Jesus was our God in this scripture, I offer,

Eph 1:2
2Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now what if Paul had said, “peace to you from our God and Lord Jesus Christ”?  But because he clearly spells out that it is the Father who is God in his openings of his letters to the Ephesians, the Corinthians,

1 Cor 1:3
3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

the Colossians,

3We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

and every letter he addresses, we can logically assume that he doesn't think Jesus is God in Titus 2:13.  I think the same applies with Col 1:19.  Because of 2:9, I think it is clear.  And you like to say that “the head of” wording is further implying that Jesus is God, but what of the scripture that makes it clear that man is the head of woman, Christ is the head of man, and GOD IS THE HEAD OF CHRIST?

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,01:07)

Hi Dennison, I absolutely LOVE point by point.     We are getting somewhere! Okay, so we disagree on whether 1:19 refers to the fullness of God or fullness in general.  Let's assume you are right, because that IS, after all what the Greek says. My logic is:  IF Jesus IS God, then it is already assumed that all fullness dwells in him, why say once that “all fullness in general” dwells in him and then, like 10 sentences later say that all the fullness “of God” dwells in him? You said: Quote either way you already agreed that in greek it refers to what i stated to ch.1.  So therefore the only thing left to argue is whether 2:9 is also included within your logic. Let's compare scripturally. Titus 2:13 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, Trinitarians like to quote this scripture as Paul calling Jesus “our great God”.  But the Greek actually says, manifestation     of     the     great      god     of us     and      of savior      of jesus     christ And as further proof that Paul wasn't saying Jesus was our God in this scripture, I offer, Eph 1:2 2Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Now what if Paul had said, “peace to you from our God and Lord Jesus Christ”?  But because he clearly spells out that it is the Father who is God in his openings of his letters to the Ephesians, the Corinthians, 1 Cor 1:3 3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. the Colossians, 3We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, and every letter he addresses, we can logically assume that he doesn't think Jesus is God in Titus 2:13.  I think the same applies with Col 1:19.  Because of 2:9, I think it is clear.  And you like to say that “the head of” wording is further implying that Jesus is God, but what of the scripture that makes it clear that man is the head of woman, Christ is the head of man, and GOD IS THE HEAD OF CHRIST? peace and love, mike

Hi Mike,

I think you went off in a tangent.

Quote

we can logically assume that he doesn't think Jesus is God in Titus 2:13.

I thought we were discussing abuot ch1 and 2 of collosians.
im not going to answer the rest because its a new point to argue.

I stil state that the fullness refered doesnt state of Gods but of all life, every power.

Why do i state this.
The Context of the first chapter
verse 1-13 talks about how WE should be like,
14-20-is the description of Christ and his power.

lets add verse 20 by the way,
20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
now 21-29 refers back to us.

now the second chapter refers to a whole new point, of conditions concerning us.  but its not the same when related to the last chapter of Jesus description,

you cannot use that one scripture(2:9) and state that its overrides the context of the first chapter.

in this case context of Pauls intent, and the orginal greek (that YOU agreed about) holds.

WE agree so far about the greek,
we disagree about interpretation.  
I agree with exactly what is stated and using context to explain what fullness is.

2:9 doesnt count as the full context of chapter 1.  

Now that where we are right now from what i know to agree about the “fullness” or not.
im not argueing at this moment that Jesus is God or not,
we are talking about the fullness. onced this is over than we can continue a new point.

[SimplyForgiven]

Mike and to add,
that greetings point is so STOLEN from david! lol
we will get into it later…

[RokkaMan]

The reason it's so difficult to accept is because Jesus' deity is a paradox.

Paradoxes are always hard to comprehend.

He was both fully man and fully God.

Whether you say God was in him or he is, doesn't change the implication.

A lot of verses refer to his human form and goal as a human.

A lot of verse refer to his Godship and his goal as God.

Scripture doesn't make sense and is contradictory if you choose EITHER.

But if you accept BOTH, then scripture is reconciled.

If Jesus was not God, then we're all going to hell for the greatest form of idolatry.

If he is God, then his death is the greatest story of compassion to ever exist for anyone and anything.

That The God of the universe and all things is willing to die for his creation called Man.

[RokkaMan]

Quote (Oxy @ June 27 2010,18:27)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,17:21) Quote (Oxy @ June 26 2010,10:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,15:48) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 25 2010,13:39) Hi MB, Are you not yet a son begotten of God? No Nick, for Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God. mike Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, but we who have received Christ have been grafted into the vine so that we may be joint heirs with the Son, also sons of God, born of the Spirit. Hi Oxy, Haven't you heard?  Monogenes doesn't mean “only begotten” anymore – it means “unique”.  And we are to be joint heirs “of” Christ, not “with” him.     Such are the adjustments of men who will do anything to prove that Jesus is God Almighty, equal to the Father. peace and love, mike Haven't I heard?  Of course I've heard.  What's your point?

Are you sure Oxy?

Monogenes is from the greek words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’. The Strong’s Concordance defines it as “only-born”; but let’s investigate a little deeper

The first article of Monogenes is 3441 monos mon'-os which is defined as: remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication, mere:–alone, only.

The Second article is 1085 genov genos ghen’-os which means an offspring or kind. It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

In the New Testament, and in the writings of Ante-Nicene Christians, the term Monogenes takes the more stable denotation of its root ‘ginomai’ (1096).{which is defined as; to cause to be (“gen”-erate or to be born)}, and thus is reckoned as ‘only begotten’.

And what is the specific meaning of monogenes in the New Testament? It is used only in reference to sons or daughters, in view of the literal relationship that exists between parent and offspring. It is used repeatedly by Christian writers who lived closest to the age of the Apostles to denote the filial relationship between God and Christ. And it is the cornerstone for the pre-temporal generation of the Son from the Father doctrine, which was held universally among Christians prior to 400 AD (Modalists being exempted) and was held almost universally until the last two hundred years.

[Author]

Posts