JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[RokkaMan]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 28 2010,10:07)

Hi RM, Are you not yet a son of God and a brother of Jesus?

yes but i aam adopted.

Have you ALWAYS been a son and brother to God?

No, you become adopted when you “CHOOSE” to receive them.

Jesus has ALWAYS been a son, even before his incarnation.

[NickHassan]

Hi RM.
Then if you are one with the Lord Jesus why do you want to worship him instead of his God?

[NickHassan]

hmmm

[RokkaMan]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 28 2010,10:18)

hmmm

As bout a useful response as all your others
———

See i've never denied God dwelled IN Jesus the flesh.

My issue with your views is that you seperate them completely.

You say Jesus is flesh and flesh alone.

and God was the spirit in him.

Well that's what i'm saying as well, except there's no division in the being.

God dwelled in him as much as my soul dwells in me.

Even thought my soul is seperate from my flesh, both compose my being.

In the same sense, YHVH in Jesus the flesh composed the being Jesus Christ.

This is why we say he was fully man yet fully God.

[NickHassan]

Hi RM,
Where did I say Jesus was just flesh?

[RokkaMan]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 28 2010,10:24)

Hi RM, Where did I say Jesus was just flesh?

In all your posts. and explaination of Jesus' being.

[RokkaMan]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 28 2010,10:16)

Hi RM. Then if you are one with the Lord Jesus why do you want to worship him instead of his God?

I worship The father in fellowship with The Son.

you must be confusing me with a trinitarian.

[NickHassan]

Hi RM,
Jesus said true worshipers worship the Father.[Jn4]
The Spirit of Christ helps us worship God.[Rom8]

[NickHassan]

Hi RM.
Really?

Jesus was a man of flesh.
Now he is the Spirit[2Cor3]

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,07:21)

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.

Hi Dennison,

I know I went in another direction, but it wasn't to distract or avoid. It was just to show how we can come to a better understanding of what was said in one scripture from what is said in others. I was trying to link the Father from 2:9 to 1:19 by example. But you didn't buy that link. Okay. Tell me exactly how you equivolate “all fullness” with “Jesus is God Almighty” then.

peace and love,
mike

[942767]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,09:53)

Quote (942767 @ June 28 2010,03:48) Quote (RokkaMan @ June 28 2010,09:37) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 28 2010,09:32) Hi RM, Our God alone possesses immortality.[1Tim6] He sent His Son. The same timothy says 1 tim 3:16 16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. You continue to ignore this verse. Explain it please? Hi RM: God does not have to be justified in the Spirit, and therefore, this verse is speaking about Jesus and should not read God. Love in Christ, Marty Numbers, So what are you saying? that scriptures are incorrect, lol so in one thread you say the ezekial cannot speak abuot the devil because he was talking about tyrus but NOW your stating that the scripture is not correct? make up your mind!!

Hi SF:

Do those who translate the scriptures from the original languages make errors?

Love in Christ,
Marty

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,05:30)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,07:21) 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. Hi Dennison, I know I went in another direction, but it wasn't to distract or avoid.  It was just to show how we can come to a better understanding of what was said in one scripture from what is said in others.  I was trying to link the Father from 2:9 to 1:19 by example.  But you didn't buy that link.  Okay.  Tell me exactly how you equivolate “all fullness” with “Jesus is God Almighty” then. peace and love, mike

Mike,

i did your point by point debate
So what is your take about the refutation i offered.
I told you about the context of ch 1.
and i told you about ch2.
so what now.
Do we agree or not.
or is there more?
we agreed about the greek,
now its either you agree with the conext of ch 1 and agree with the attack that i made on the link you brought up about ch 2 or you refute.
Which is it?

for we can move on.

I get what you did. but it doesnt solve the disagreement we have right now. we can get to that point later as it progresses.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (942767 @ June 28 2010,05:45)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,09:53) Quote (942767 @ June 28 2010,03:48) Quote (RokkaMan @ June 28 2010,09:37) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 28 2010,09:32) Hi RM, Our God alone possesses immortality.[1Tim6] He sent His Son. The same timothy says 1 tim 3:16 16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. You continue to ignore this verse. Explain it please? Hi RM: God does not have to be justified in the Spirit, and therefore, this verse is speaking about Jesus and should not read God. Love in Christ, Marty Numbers, So what are you saying? that scriptures are incorrect, lol so in one thread you say the ezekial cannot speak abuot the devil because he was talking about tyrus but NOW your stating that the scripture is not correct? make up your mind!! Hi SF: Do those who translate the scriptures from the original languages make errors? Love in Christ, Marty

lol if your stating that to be true,
than i could easily say that the translators compared tyrus to the devil.

Dont play games.

[942767]

Quote (RokkaMan @ June 28 2010,09:37)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 28 2010,09:32) Hi RM, Our God alone possesses immortality.[1Tim6] He sent His Son. The same timothy says 1 tim 3:16 16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. You continue to ignore this verse. Explain it please?

Hi:

Looking at the Greek interlinear, the word translated God is actually:

Quote

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon Strong's Number: 3739 Original WordWord Origin o&ßprobably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article (3588)) Transliterated WordTDNT Entry HosNone Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech hos Definition 1. who, which, what, that Wigram's count is 1309 not 1393. King James Word Usage – Total: 1392 which 394, whom 262, that 129, who 84, whose 53, what 42, that which 20, whereof 13, miscellaneous 430

Love in Christ,
Marty

[942767]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,11:49)

Quote (942767 @ June 28 2010,05:45) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,09:53) Quote (942767 @ June 28 2010,03:48) Quote (RokkaMan @ June 28 2010,09:37) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 28 2010,09:32) Hi RM, Our God alone possesses immortality.[1Tim6] He sent His Son. The same timothy says 1 tim 3:16 16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. You continue to ignore this verse. Explain it please? Hi RM: God does not have to be justified in the Spirit, and therefore, this verse is speaking about Jesus and should not read God. Love in Christ, Marty Numbers, So what are you saying? that scriptures are incorrect, lol so in one thread you say the ezekial cannot speak abuot the devil because he was talking about tyrus but NOW your stating that the scripture is not correct? make up your mind!! Hi SF: Do those who translate the scriptures from the original languages make errors? Love in Christ, Marty lol if your stating that to be true, than i could easily say that the translators compared tyrus to the devil. Dont play games.

Hi SF:

Yes, you can say whatever you want, and so go ahead and teach whatever you want.

I am not playing games, but teaching what I believe to be the Word of God in truth.

Does God have to be justified in the Spirit? Yes or No?

And are the scriptures in Ezekiel 28 addressed to King of Tyrus who is shown to be a man? If so, then that is what I have stated.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[mikeboll64]

Hi All,

The Greek of 1 Tim 3:16 doesn't have the word “god” in it. At least the MSS used by the NWT and Online Bible Study Tools. The word is “hos”, which means “who”.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interli….6&t=kjv

peace and love,
mike

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Which manuscripts are you looking at?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,11:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,05:30) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,07:21) 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. Hi Dennison, I know I went in another direction, but it wasn't to distract or avoid.  It was just to show how we can come to a better understanding of what was said in one scripture from what is said in others.  I was trying to link the Father from 2:9 to 1:19 by example.  But you didn't buy that link.  Okay.  Tell me exactly how you equivolate “all fullness” with “Jesus is God Almighty” then. peace and love, mike Mike, i did your point by point debate So what is your take about the refutation i offered. I told you about the context of ch 1. and i told you about ch2. so what now. Do we agree or not. or is there more? we agreed about the greek, now its either you agree with the conext of ch 1 and agree with the attack that i made on the link you brought up about ch 2 or you refute. Which is it? for we can move on. I get what you did.  but it doesnt solve the disagreement we have right now.  we can get to that point later as it progresses.

Hi Dennison,

I do not see anything in chap. 1 that implies Jesus is God Almighty. That is your assertion, right? Point me to what leads you to think it means Jesus must be God.

I just read it again, and I get nothing about Jesus being God. Look at the first few verses. Look at verse 21, which clearly says God (one person) has reconciled you by Christ ( a different person).

mike

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
If you would know about manuscript variation look up the scripture in the NIV version on the bible lookup of this site.

If you would find supporting verses look them up on the NASB version

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 28 2010,12:50)

Hi MB, Which manuscripts are you looking at?

Hi Nick,

The NWT used the Wescott and Hort from 1881 but have also taken into consideration the texts of Nestle, Bover and Merk.

I couldn't see where it says which MS Online Bible Study Tools uses.

NETBible says:
tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 Ï vgms) read θεός (qeos, “God”) for ὅς (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity.

I know that's more words than you've posted in a year Nick, but it's good info.  

mike

[Author]

Posts