JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[jammin]

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

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

yes nick. who is that begotten in verse 18

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

[Ed J]

Quote (terraricca @ April 28 2012,15:28)

Quote (Ed J @ April 28 2012,22:14) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2012,13:51) 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? Hi Mike, Do these verses together help you to understand who “The Word' is?? the glory as of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14)   com- pared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18) The Word(HolySpirit) of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son(Jesus Christ), who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7:28) 1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by “The Word”(HolySpirit) of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Of his own will begat he us with “The Word”(HolySpirit) of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org edj tell me what is John 1;14 as to do with Paul conversation in Roman 8,and what relation is there in Hebrew 7,and then 1Peter ;1. do you really believe that in those verses they talk about the same thing or are you wish they do ?

PIERRE,

Those verses shed light on who “The Word” really is.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,22:11)

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

Nick,

Did the Word BECOME flesh?  Or did he “come to be IN someone who was already flesh”?   Which conclusion does John 1:14 bear out?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2012,16:32)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 27 2012,22:11) Hi MB, You understand the words but not who spoke them. You still only see the vessel. Tragic. Nick, Did the Word BECOME flesh?  Or did he “come to be IN someone who was already flesh”?   Which conclusion does John 1:14 bear out?

Reason this out, Mike.

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the HolySpirit and with power:
who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil;
for God was with (in more term “IN”) him.

2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God  was in  Christ, reconciling the
world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;
and hath committed unto us “The Word” of reconciliation.

John 14:10 Believest 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.

With G3326: μετά (met-ah')

properly, denoting accompaniment; with which it is joined; often
used in composition, in substantially the same relations of
participation or proximity, and transfer or sequence.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Or is it time for you to make Scripture argue with Scripture?

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Further discussion on jn 1.14
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

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

Scripture does not teach what you hold to; it does teach that the Spirit of through which God lives; came down and made a home in Jesus.  It teaches us that same Spirit both preexists Jesus and reveals the Word of God, as well as the Light therein.

Quote

No Kerwin.  What it says is that Jesus is BOTH the Root AND the Branch of David.

That is one of those paradoxes you insist on believing in despite knowing God is not a God of confusion.  Jesus is the root of David’s faith and the offspring of his body.

Quote

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.

John 17:5
King James Version (KJV)
5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

There is two “para”’s  in the sentence and therefore in the first use Jesus is asking either to be glorified with God or in his presence.  In the second is speaking of the glory Jesus had with God.  The “with” in “with the” is inferred.  I am not seeing where you are going with all that I do see that you are picking the words “I had” out of the object  “the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed/ the glory which I had with thee before the world was.   Except for Jesus’ ownership of it and God’s possession of it, the sentence is speaking of the glory.

Quote

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?

It is not faulty reasoning; you are simply not using God’s point of view.  Did the prophets of old come from this world or from above?  I assure you they came from above because their words are from God and God’s Word does not come from this world.  Jesus is greater that the greatest of them.

[jammin]

edj

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

[Ed J]

Quote (jammin @ April 28 2012,19:00)

edj 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

JAMMIN

He said: “The Word” was GOD.
Do you deny that the “HolySpirit” is GOD?     <– Please answer

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[jammin]

read the context.

i posted greek bible and you must read and try to understand the verse well.
edj

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

[Ed J]

Quote (jammin @ April 28 2012,19:36)

read the context. i posted greek bible and you must read and try to understand the verse well. edj 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

Hi Jammin,

Does the context change the meaning of: “The Word” was GOD ?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[jammin]

truly the WORD was GOD. but john did not say that the WORD is the HS. the WORD is the begotten of the father in verse 14 and that begotten is not the HS but the SON OF GOD! (begotten son)(verse 18) monogenes huios!

[Ed J]

Quote (jammin @ April 28 2012,19:44)

truly the WORD was GOD. but john did not say that the WORD is the HS. the WORD is the begotten of the father in verse 14 and that begotten is not the HS but the SON OF GOD! (begotten son)(verse 18) monogenes huios!

Hi Jammin,

The Word(HolySpirit) of the oath, which was since the law,
maketh the Son(Jesus Christ), who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7:28)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[jammin]

i cant read HS in the verse. you are a doctor kwak kwak edj LOL

the meaning of the word of the oath is the promise of the oath
Hebrews 7:28

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak, but the promise of the oath, which came after the law, appoints a Son, who has been perfected forever.

LOL

study hard boy

[Ed J]

Hi Jammin,

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,
by “The Word”(HolySpirit) of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[jammin]

LOL
so you jump again to the other verse just to prove your man made doctrine. LOL

sorry boy but i cant read HS in that verse.
you are a doctor kwak kwak LOL

1 Peter 1:23

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

23 Do this because God has given you new birth by his message that lives on forever.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2012,01:04)

Mike, Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Scripture teaches the pre-existence of Jesus in MANY places, Kerwin. Scripture does not teach what you hold to; it does teach that the Spirit of through which God lives; came down and made a home in Jesus.  It teaches us that same Spirit both preexists Jesus and reveals the Word of God, as well as the Light therein.

Hi Kerwin,

It seems you have the same problem that Nick, Frank, and Gene have in this case:  You want John 1:14 to be speaking of a Word who “came to be IN someone who was already flesh”.

But does 1:14 actually say what you guys WANT it to say?  If “the Word” is “the Spirit of God”, then 1:14 teaches that “the Spirit of God” BECAME flesh.  And if “the Spirit of God” BECAME flesh, we need to know WHO it BECAME flesh AS.

We also need to know why the Spirit of God was still active AS the Spirit of God after it BECAME flesh.  Because the Spirit of God could definitely come to be IN someone who was already flesh and still remain the Spirit of God.  But the Spirit of God cannot BECOME flesh and still remain the Spirit of God.

So can you tell me WHO the Spirit of God was when it BECAME flesh?  And can you explain how the Spirit of God was able to BECOME flesh while simultaneously remaining the Spirit of God?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2012,01:04)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) No Kerwin.  What it says is that Jesus is BOTH the Root AND the Branch of David. That is one of those paradoxes you insist on believing in despite knowing God is not a God of confusion.  Jesus is the root of David’s faith and the offspring of his body.

There is no “paradox” here, Kerwin.  Could it be that Jesus was BEFORE David in one respect, yet AFTER David in another?  If not, then show me the SCRIPTURE that explains to us that this is an impossibility.

Also, how could Jesus be “the Root of David's faith” if Jesus didn't even exist?  David talked directly to God Himself – why wouldn't GOD be “the Root of David's faith”?  

Kerwin, instead of making up your own “explanations” (actually, “excuses”), why not show me why MY understanding is not the scriptural one.  And before you do, read Matthew 22:41-46, because Jesus explains MY understanding to the Pharisees in this passage.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2012,01:04)

There is two “para”’s  in the sentence and therefore in the first use Jesus is asking either to be glorified with God or in his presence.  In the second is speaking of the glory Jesus had with God.  The “with” in “with the” is inferred.  I am not seeing where you are going with all that I do see that you are picking the words “I had” out of the object  “the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed/ the glory which I had with thee before the world was.   Except for Jesus’ ownership of it and God’s possession of it, the sentence is speaking of the glory.

Kerwin,

I didn't understand a word you were saying here.  What I'M saying is that if the first use of the word “para” refers to Jesus wanting to be glorified literally IN THE PRESENCE of God (as in heaven with Him), then why doesn't the second use of “para” indicate the same “presence of God”?

If Jesus wants to be glorified LITERALLY beside God now, then what SCRIPTURE tells you that he wasn't LITERALLY beside God with the glory HE HAD before the world began?

It seems that once again, I am taking Jesus' words at face value while you are scampering to find ANYTHING else those words could possibly mean because you don't WANT them to mean what they mean at face value.

So once again, I ask for a SCRIPTURE that makes it clear to us that Jesus WASN'T asking to be returned to the glorious position in God's presence that he had before the world began.

I would also like to see some CLEAR words as to how Jesus could have said HE HAD this glory in the past if Jesus really didn't HAVE that glory in the past.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2012,01:04)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) 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?   It is not faulty reasoning; you are simply not using God’s point of view.

Oh.  So then you won't mind showing me the SCRIPTURES that explain to us that manna didn't literally come down from heaven like the scriptures say, but that it exists in the wilderness of the Middle East as a regular part of the landscape?

And you could explain why it's called “the bread of angels”, but exists on earth, and not in heaven where the angels actually dwell?

[Author]

Posts