JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

Participant

Mike,

Quote

YES Kerwin! I get it! Jesus was conceived AS A HUMAN BEING in Mary. But there is NOTHING in that statement that says he couldn't have existed in the form of God BEFORE he was conceived AS A HUMAN BEING in the womb of Mary. In fact, there are scriptures that say he DID!

Scripture does not say that Jesus existed as an angel prior to his conception. What is does state is he is of the Seed of David as regards and the Son of God as regards the spirit of Love within him; since he loves as God loves. It is simple to see that he is the Seed of David because the Spirit of God created him out of a part of Mary; even as she also created John the Baptist out of the fusion of a part from each of his parents. What is the more important part of Jesus according to God’s point of view; his body or his spirit?

Quote

Then the words “I HAD” have no meaning, Kerwin. If Jesus wasn't there, then there is no way he could have said he HAD that glory alongside God. In order to even BE “alongside God”, he would have had to existed.

It does not state he was alongside God and for Yahweh to have the glory reserved for him; all that was required is foreknowledge. God has that in an infinite supply.

April 27, 2012 at 8:31 am#295240

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,11:14)

Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2012,13:37)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,08:06)

Hi MB,
John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Nick and Mike,

“for he dwelleth with you” is present tense

“shall be in you” is future tense.

Hi KW,
Indeed this was before the death of Jesus and the sending of the Spirit of Christ at Pentecost.

Nick,

That is so; but many seem to not hear it.

April 27, 2012 at 1:37 pm#295254

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2012,07:51)

Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,14:54)

Quote (kerwin @ April 26 2012,17:37)

Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,09:32)

Hi Kerwin,

The line through Solomon was cursed. (2Samuel 12:10-11 and Rev.22:16)

Ed;

That is true but Scripture continued to call it the royal line.

Hi Kerwin,

The Crown was first taken away from David, starting in 1Kings 11:31-35, with
the removal of 10 tribes, and finishing in 1Kings 12:20. (study well my friend!)

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org

Ed,

The crown was taken from Salomon's line but they retained two tribes for the sake of David. The line of kings is mentioned on the return from Babylonian captivity.

Jesus is the natural decedent of David through his son Nathan and the adopted son of David through his son Solomon.

Hi Kerwin,

Nathan was born before the curse was given to David,
thus Jesus lineage is not of the curse of David's sin.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org

April 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm#295255

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,16:14)

Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2012,13:37)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,08:06)

Hi MB,
John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Nick and Mike,

“for he dwelleth with you” is present tense

“shall be in you” is future tense.

Hi KW,
Indeed this was before the death of Jesus and the sending of the Spirit of Christ at Pentecost.

Hi Nick, so was this prayer…

Matt 6:9-13 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but de-
liver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org

April 27, 2012 at 6:53 pm#295261

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2012,14:00)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 26 2012,20:32)

Mike,

I never said that the author of the so-called “Gospel of John” did not know Yahshua as the spokesman of his and our Father Yahweh's word in this last time period. The author is not speaking of Yahshua pre-existing his birth as a separate being as Father Yahweh's word in the beginning. He is simply speaking of Father Yahweh's word that existed with Him in the beginning that had power, strength and might.

So in other words, you have absolutely NO scriptural reason whatsoever to claim that the Word who became flesh and had the glory of God's only begotten Son was NOT the Jesus we know to have been flesh and God's only begotten Son?

Instead, it makes more sense to you that God was WITH Himself in the beginning, and His spoken word somehow BECAME FLESH?

So really, it's just a case of “We don't WANT that to be the case, so it isn't”, like I said, right?

Frank, when God's spoken word became flesh, WHO WAS IT? You say it was not Jesus………….so WHO WAS IT when it became flesh?

Mike,

It seems you are confusing your belief with what it is that I believe, since it is you who believes “the Word who became flesh”, not I.

April 27, 2012 at 6:55 pm#295262

Participant

Quote (jammin @ April 27 2012,16:59)

frank,

read the context boy LOL

14και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο και εσκηνωσεν εν ημιν και εθεασαμεθα την δοξαν αυτου δοξαν ως μονογενους παρα πατρος πληρης χαριτος και αληθειας

15ιωαννης μαρτυρει περι αυτου και κεκραγεν λεγων ουτος ην ον ειπον ο οπισω μου ερχομενος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν οτι πρωτος μου ην

16και εκ του πληρωματος αυτου ημεις παντες ελαβομεν και χαριν αντι χαριτος

17οτι ο νομος δια μωσεως εδοθη η χαρις και η αληθεια δια ιησου χριστου εγενετο

18θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο

what did john said?

did he say that the word is the

1. Holy spirit
2. son of GOD

pls choose your answer

jammit,

You read the context baby boy!

April 27, 2012 at 7:02 pm#295263

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,17:14)

Hi Jammin,
The Word is the only begotten of the Father.

To ALL,

Please do not confuse my beliefs with Nick's non-sense and unscriptural statement as follows:

“The Word is the only begotten of the Father.”

Nick and I do not share the same belief, even though it might seem that we do when he finds it necessary to respond to every post that I submit as if he were in agreement with me.

April 27, 2012 at 7:40 pm#295264

Participant

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 28 2012,01:02)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,17:14)

Hi Jammin,
The Word is the only begotten of the Father.

To ALL,

Please do not confuse my beliefs with Nick's non-sense and unscriptural statement as follows:

“The Word is the only begotten of the Father.”

Nick and I do not share the same belief, even though it might seem that we do when he finds it necessary to respond to every post that I submit as if he were in agreement with me.

Frank,

Nick is correct. You are just looking at the the only begotten as being a living being, but that is not necessary the case from a Scriptural point of view. Scripture after all refers to Wisdom as a she. Nick is doing the same type of thing with the only begotten, in keeping with John's action as regarding both the Word and the Light therein.

John personifies the Word and the Light therein, even though neither are persons. He does this for teaching purposes; though it confuses the ignorant. Part of the personification is to state the Word has a gory like that of the only begotten of God.

April 27, 2012 at 7:54 pm#295267

Participant

Ed;

You wrote:

Quote

Hi Kerwin,

Nathan was born before the curse was given to David,
thus Jesus lineage is not of the curse of David's sin.

David was dead and the curse was given unto the line of Solomon. Nathan was sired by David, a brother of Solomon, and not a descendant of Solomon; so the curse did not fall on him; even as you wrote.

April 27, 2012 at 8:08 pm#295268

NickHassan

Participant

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 28 2012,06:02)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,17:14)

Hi Jammin,
The Word is the only begotten of the Father.

To ALL,

Please do not confuse my beliefs with Nick's non-sense and unscriptural statement as follows:

“The Word is the only begotten of the Father.”

Nick and I do not share the same belief, even though it might seem that we do when he finds it necessary to respond to every post that I submit as if he were in agreement with me.

Hi Frank,
You may be struggling because the Christadelphians may not have a prepared exegesis on this for you to copy and paste.

But think for yourself.
It is about CONTEXT

The SUBJECT is the WORD

Jn 1
John 1
” 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.
…
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. “

No SON in there.

So the WORD is the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father

April 27, 2012 at 8:22 pm#295271

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2012,06:54)

Ed;

You wrote:

Quote

Hi Kerwin,

Nathan was born before the curse was given to David,
thus Jesus lineage is not of the curse of David's sin.

David was dead and the curse was given unto the line of Solomon. Nathan was sired by David, a brother of Solomon, and not a descendant of Solomon; so the curse did not fall on him; even as you wrote.

Hi Kerwin

Yes, Nathan was Solomon's older brother; most people
don't study God's word enough to know these things.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org

April 27, 2012 at 8:41 pm#295274

terraricca

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 28 2012,14:08)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 28 2012,06:02)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,17:14)

Hi Jammin,
The Word is the only begotten of the Father.

To ALL,

Please do not confuse my beliefs with Nick's non-sense and unscriptural statement as follows:

“The Word is the only begotten of the Father.”

Nick and I do not share the same belief, even though it might seem that we do when he finds it necessary to respond to every post that I submit as if he were in agreement with me.

Hi Frank,
You may be struggling because the Christadelphians may not have a prepared exegesis on this for you to copy and paste.

But think for yourself.
It is about CONTEXT

The SUBJECT is the WORD

Jn 1
John 1
” 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

No SON in there.

So the WORD is the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father

you are just like the Jews ;like Nicodemus ,lot of knowledge but nothing in understanding ,

if you would just let your heart free into the Lord wisdom ,

April 27, 2012 at 9:06 pm#295276

Participant

Pierre,

You claim Jesus is the Word and yet Jesus declares God(who is called the Word in John 1:1) dwells in him and speaks his words; even as it is written:

John 14:10
King James Version (KJV)

10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Do you believe Jesus is in Yahweh and Yahweh is in Jesus?

It is the Word that unites them and is in them.

April 27, 2012 at 11:08 pm#295279

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 28 2012,07:08)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 28 2012,06:02)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,17:14)

Hi Jammin,
The Word is the only begotten of the Father.

To ALL,

Please do not confuse my beliefs with Nick's non-sense and unscriptural statement as follows:

“The Word is the only begotten of the Father.”

Nick and I do not share the same belief, even though it might seem that we do when he finds it necessary to respond to every post that I submit as if he were in agreement with me.

Hi Frank,
You may be struggling because the Christadelphians may not have a prepared exegesis on this for you to copy and paste.

But think for yourself.
It is about CONTEXT

The SUBJECT is the WORD

Jn 1
John 1
” 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

No SON in there.

So the WORD is the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father

Nick,

Well, it seems that you are under the erroneous illusion that I am “struggling” and that I am a “Christadelphian”. You are dead wrong on both of theses points that you have erroneously assumed, since I have never once proclaimed that I am “struggling” or that I am a “Christadelphian”.

I do think for myself! In fact, I would never allow anyone “of this world” or any religious organization “of this world” to “lord” over me and dictate to me what it is that I should believe, and especially you.

Actually, the subject of this forum thread is “JOHN 1:1 WHO is the WORD?”, not simply “the WORD”.

The fact is, I do not believe that Father Yahweh's word is a “WHO”, but that His word is an “IT”.

As to your erroneous conclusion in saying “No SON in there.” in Yahchanan [“John”] 1:14, you are also dead wrong concerning this. It seems you are like all the rest here in telling me “It is about CONTEXT” and then in turn you contradict your own advise and do the exact opposite and completely ignore the CONTEXT OF SCRIPTURE AS A WHOLE. You instead conveniently ignore the CONTEXT OF SCRIPTURE AS A WHOLE and merely focus your attention on this one passage OUT OF CONTEXT OF SCRIPTURE AS A WHOLE and erroneously proclaim “No SON in there.” The fact is, nowhere in the so called “Gospel of John” does the author ever say “the WORD is the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father.” You have simply twisted (“wrest”ed) Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word to your own destruction and completely ignored the clear warning of Scripture as to what happens to those who add unto and take away from Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word.

April 28, 2012 at 12:32 am#295281

Participant

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 28 2012,05:55)

Quote (jammin @ April 27 2012,16:59)

frank,

read the context boy LOL

16και εκ του πληρωματος αυτου ημεις παντες ελαβομεν και χαριν αντι χαριτος

17οτι ο νομος δια μωσεως εδοθη η χαρις και η αληθεια δια ιησου χριστου εγενετο

18θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο

what did john said?

did he say that the word is the

1. Holy spirit
2. son of GOD

pls choose your answer

jammit,

You read the context baby boy!

jammit,

BTW, Maybe you could point out to us in this Greek text EXACTLY WHERE in this Greek text that you believe “john said … that the word is the 1. Holy spirit” OR 2. “son of GOD.”

April 28, 2012 at 2:15 am#295284

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2012,02:28)

Scripture does not say that Jesus existed as an angel prior to his conception.

Scripture teaches the pre-existence of Jesus in MANY places, Kerwin.

Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2012,02:28)

What is does state is he is of the Seed of David………..

No Kerwin. What it says is that Jesus is BOTH the Root AND the Branch of David. Branch means he came AFTER David, and Root means he came BEFORE David. But because you made your mind up what you WANTED the scriptures to teach before you read those scriptures, you will only allow yourself to believe the Branch part of the teaching.

Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2012,02:28)

It does not state he was alongside God…….

John 17:5 NRSV ©
So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

This is also how I understand 17:5. How would YOU translate the two uses of the Greek word “para”?

Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2012,02:28)

………for Yahweh to have the glory reserved for him; all that was required is foreknowledge.

But does Jesus ask to receive the glory God “had reserved for him since before the world began”? Or does he ask to receive the glory HE [HIMSELF] HAD before the world began?

Which one did Jesus actually say, Kerwin?

Kerwin, did you read Frank's post about the manna not literally coming from heaven, and my response to that claim? Could you not see that this was a blatant attempt by Frank's source to nullify the clear words of Jesus when he said, “I came down from heaven”?

They started off by ADMITTING those words surely make it seem like Jesus himself came down from heaven, but then they tried to “nullify” those clear sounding words by making the unsubstantiated claim that manna didn't literally come down from heaven, therefore Jesus also didn't have to literally come down from heaven.

Are you blind to faulty reasoning such as that? Are you blind to the fact that these people, who KNOW full well what the scripture SEEMS TO BE teaching, but don't WANT it to be teaching that, made even more faulty claims in an attempt to cover up Jesus' clear words?

I'm just curious if you are able to perceive such things. I perceive them in your “explanations” all the time. For example, you don't WANT Jesus to be both the Root AND the Branch of David, because you know what that would imply, and so you are willing to PRETEND that you can't understand the contrast between Jesus being the ROOT of David and the BRANCH of David. You go as far as to PRETEND that they are two different words that convey the same meaning.

This is why I get tired of these discussions. When the opponent no longer even CARES about how unintelligent he must pretend to be, then what's the point?

You PRETEND that you can't understand the simple language of Jesus, who was CLEARLY asking to be reinstated to the glorious position he had with God before he emptied himself to be made into a human being. But I KNOW you, Kerwin. I KNOW you are not that dull-minded.

I wouldn't even mind as much if one of you guys would just ADMIT what we know you KNOW: That most of these scriptures we direct you to DO sound like they teach of the pre-existence of Jesus. At least then, I would be able to detect some HONESTY in your claims.

If you were to say, “You know, Mike, it is EASY for me to see how you came to your understanding based on these scriptures you post – it's just that I don't see it the same way”, or something to that effect.

But look at your posts to me and Pierre and t8. You guys (especially Nick) act as if we must be complete morons to even think that any of these scriptures teach a pre-existent Jesus. It's like we read, “I came down from heaven”, and BELIEVE it, and you guys act dumbfounded that we would be STUPID enough to believe such nonsense out of Jesus' own mouth.

At least Frank's source was HONEST enough to say right up front that John 6:38 surely seems to be saying that a pre-existent Jesus “came down from heaven”. It would be nice to see that kind of honesty out of you guys once in a while.

April 28, 2012 at 2:51 am#295285

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 27 2012,12:53)

Mike,

It seems you are confusing your belief with what it is that I believe, since it is you who believes “the Word who became flesh”, not I.

And what do you believe John 1:14 is saying?

April 28, 2012 at 4:11 am#295297

NickHassan

Participant

Hi MB,
You understand the words but not who spoke them.
You still only see the vessel.
Tragic.

April 28, 2012 at 4:14 am#295298