- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 17 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Jammin,
Indeed Jesus became the Son by anointing.TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU
He became the WORD inheriting the name above all others.
YOU ARE MY BELOVED SON IN YOU I AM WELL PLEASED
LISTEN TO HIM.
LOL
john did not say that he became the son by anointing. that is just your imagination LOL
14 The Word became human and lived among us. We saw his glory. It was the glory that the Father shares with his only Son, a glory full of kindness and truth.
15 (John declared the truth about him when he said loudly, “This is the person about whom I said, ‘The one who comes after me was before me because he existed before I did.’”)
16 Each of us has received one gift after another because of all that the Word is. 17 The Teachings were given through Moses, but kindness and truth came into existence through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. God’s only Son, the one who is closest to the Father’s heart, has made him known.
nowhere in the bible that says you became my son by anointing at the jordan river. that is just your imagination LOL
make your own version boy
Quote (jammin @ April 29 2012,20:40) LOL john did not say that he became the son by anointing. that is just your imagination LOL
14 The Word became human and lived among us. We saw his glory. It was the glory that the Father shares with his only Son, a glory full of kindness and truth.
15 (John declared the truth about him when he said loudly, “This is the person about whom I said, ‘The one who comes after me was before me because he existed before I did.’”)
16 Each of us has received one gift after another because of all that the Word is. 17 The Teachings were given through Moses, but kindness and truth came into existence through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. God’s only Son, the one who is closest to the Father’s heart, has made him known.
nowhere in the bible that says you became my son by anointing at the jordan river. that is just your imagination LOL
make your own version boy
jammin…And somehow you have translated Jesus into the likeness of a concordance, which only reflects how the translators have translated the manuscripts revealing all the promises of his coming, his appearing, an his departure, all the written speculations of what he might mean,or actually be supporting about himself…The word is all about the wonders worries an fears of mans disturbing end (Death) resolved..an of corse the Romans keeping the spoil! lol
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2012,01:20) 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?
Hi Mike, (you attempt to build doctrine on a misunderstood verse?)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 μετά (met-ah')
with which it is joined;
properly, denoting accompaniment.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd,
Please don't post duplicate posts in multiple threads. Your post has been answered in the 1 John 5:20 thread.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 28 2012,15:29) Hi MB,
You cannot reconcile scripture?
Actually Nick,I've been trying to get YOU to reconcile with scripture for days.
Does the scripture say the Word BECAME flesh, or came to be IN someone who already was flesh? Which one?
Nick, are you unable to answer my question that I've asked a dozen times……………… or just unwilling?
Quote (942767 @ April 28 2012,15:56) In Revelation 19 it is said of Jesus that “his name is called the Word of God” because here God has spoken to humanity through him……………
Hebrews 1
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.Your claim is correct, Marty. In these last days, God has spoken unto us by His Son, through whom He made the universe.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made;So all things were made through one who is called “God's Son” in Hebrews, and called “the Word” in John. And we agree that Jesus is called “the Word” in Revelation.
Now add to that the fact that when this Word BECAME FLESH, he had the glory of God's only begotten Son.
Don't you find that the least bit interesting, Marty? Can you at least see why I understand it the way I do?
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 28 2012,16:28) kerwin, It is not the author of the so-called “Gospel of John” that personified Father Yahweh's word, but it was the Trinitarian translators who chose who chose to personify Father Yahweh's word in an attempt to promote their “Triune God”.
The pronouns associated with “the Word” are written in the masculine form in the Greek mss, Frank.Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ April 28 2012,16:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2012,13:51)
And what do you believe John 1:14 is saying?
Mike,You should know full well by now that I believe that Father Yahweh's word became flesh THROUGH (BY WAY OF) his son Yahshua.
What does that mean, Frank. Please explain.Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2012,16:57) The only way to get around these paradoxes is to conclude that Jesus transformed and then crawled into Mary’s womb; therefore he was not conceived there; even though Scripture states he was.
And what word would YOU have used, had YOU been the angel talking to Mary?How would you explain to Mary that one who already existed in heaven would be caused to be conceived in her womb and born as a human being?
There is no paradox, Kerwin. Surely God can cause a spirit being to be conceived in a human womb, and be born as a human being.
Now, I have been patiently waiting for one of you guys to list the very first SCRIPTURE that prohibits Jesus from pre-existing his flesh, or that makes it abundantly clear that he could never have been anything other than a human being.
It seems you guys have failed (as I knew you would). So what have we learned?
On one side of the argument, we offer over 50 SCRIPTURES that speak of the pre-existence of Jesus.
And on the other side of the argument, you offer your own, self-serving, personal WISHES for Jesus not to have pre-existed because it makes you feel more empowered if he didn't.
Hmmmmm……………….
Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2012,02:22) Hi Mike, (you attempt to build doctrine on a misunderstood verse?) 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 μετά (met-ah')
with which it is joined;
properly, denoting accompaniment.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Mike,You call asking questions answering my post? Besides,
this it the thread you should address my post in.
What do you say about God being IN Jesus?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (kerwin @ April 28 2012,18:00) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 29 2012,05:38) Hi KW,
The man is the branch of David and the Word is the root.
Nick,That sounds correct.
Praise God!Nick, you have done for Kerwin what I was unable to do!
Kerwin, do you now agree that “Root” refers to CAME BEFORE DAVID, while “Branch” refers to CAME AFTER DAVID?
Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2012,20:34) Frank, Translating the Greek genders to neuters is also acceptable as it does not meaningfully change the message and takes into account the lack of gendered nouns and pronouns in the English language. Either way the message is understandable to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
Is it acceptable if it does “meaningfully change the message”, Kerwin?For example, should we change the masuline pronouns associated with God to neuter, and say “IT created man in ITS image”?
Frank just needs to learn that the pronouns associated with the Word in John 1 are MASCULINE, and therefore John was referring to a HE, no matter how various translations rendered it throughout the years.
We can't just go around changing the scriptures to suit us, can we?
FRANK, the pronouns were written in the MASCULINE form by John, so you need the play the hand you've been dealt and live with it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2012,02:27) Quote (Ed J @ April 29 2012,09:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2012,06:57) I know what the words actually say, and believe them. You, on the other hand, don't like what the words actually teach, and so have taken it upon yourself to add words into 1:14 so it conforms better around your own imagined doctrine. The teaching is that the one called “the Word” BECAME flesh. The teaching never was that the thing called “the Word” came to be IN somebody who already was flesh.
Nick, isn't it you who keeps spouting off about how “every word counts” and other such things? Why then would you add your own words into the God-inspired scriptures, thereby changing the entire context and meaning of those scriptures?
Hi Mike, (you attempt to build doctrine on a misunderstood verse?)Acts 10:38
………for God was with (in more term “IN”) him.2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ……
John 14:10 ……….but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
With μετά (met-ah')
with which it is joined;
properly, denoting accompaniment.God bless
Ed J
Okay Ed,(1)You've claimed for a long time that the Word was God. (2)But that doesn't work unless you believe God became flesh, and dwelled among us with the glory of God's only begotten.
Hi Mike,1) That's what John 1:1 claims.
2) 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)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ April 29 2012,09:58) Besides,
this it the thread you should address my post in.
Then WHY did you post it in the OTHER THREAD?Pick one thread, Ed, and I will address your post. Would you like me to address it HERE, or THERE?
Quote (Ed J @ April 29 2012,09:58) What do you say about God being IN Jesus?
Do I need to refer you back to the Peter Frampton song, I'm in You again?If you want to use the poetic references of God (or Jesus) being “IN” us as proof of your understanding of John 1:14, then you need to show proof of John using the word “IN” in 1:14.
LOL
edj, rom 8.18 has nothing to do with john 1.14
read the context boy LOLrom 8.18 says that the glory is the GREAT THINGS THAT BELIEVERS SHALL HAVE
Romans 8:18
Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
18I think that the troubles we have in this life are nothing when we think of the great things that we shall have.
STUDY HARD BOY LOL:D
Ed many times just grabs any old scripture out of the Bible and tries to make it apply to the current discussion, whether it really does or not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
