- This topic has 25,905 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 16 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Mike;
Quote Because THAT is the gist of Barnes' point, Kerwin. I already addressed Barnes’ point by introducing the fact that John the Baptist belongs to the group of those that are born of women opposed to the group of those in the kingdom; even if born of women. Jesus is the Archetype of those that are both in the kingdom and born of women.
To answer the question why, let us look at the Ancient Greek words translated born. In Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:8 the word “gennétos” is used and it is an adjective; while in Galatians 4:4 the word “ginomai” is used and is a verb. “Ginomai” is also used in John 1:14 where it is translated “was made” or “became”. One term is descriptive while other reveals action.
God sent forth his Son(huios) who is made of women and made under the law. In Galatians 4:6 we are taught he now sends the Spirit of his Son(huios) into the hearts of believers. So clearly Jesus is the Son of God’s Spirit as the Spirit is called his as well. In addition he was made of Mary’s flesh just as Scripture teaches us that Eve was made of Adam’s flesh and bones. We also know he was made under the law since he is a child of Israel.
Quote Please explain to me how the words “at the first” say anything different than the word “before”. “He was from the first” echoes “which is in heaven” while “before” does not.
John 3:13
King James Version (KJV)13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Quote A “play on words”? Jesus clearly said, “I came DOWN from heaven”, and “what if you see me ascend to where I WAS at the first”. Then, many of those same Jews actually SAW him ascend to where he was at the first. Yes, Jesus played on words to teach; just as is claimed by the following quote:
Quote The conversation begins with a play on words. Jesus tells Nicodemus that to grasp spiritual truth – literally, “to see the kingdom of God” – he must be “born again.” Nicodemus asserts that a grown-up man cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time!
No, indeed, says Jesus, but only “the spirit can give birth to spirit”. In other words, you need to change your attitude completely, and this can only come from God.
Comparing the spirit to the wind – the Hebrew word for both is the same – Jesus persists with the metaphor. Just as one cannot see the wind, but only notice its effects, so too the spirit. It cannot be ‘seen’ or ‘touched’ or indeed ‘controlled’. “It blows where it wills…you do not know where it comes from, or where it is going. So is it with all who are born of the spirit.”Note: The above quote is from this Catholic source.
Hi KW,
The Spirit changes those who are reborn from above and who are willing to be taught.The carnal efforts of men stand in the way of that transformation.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 27 2012,01:28) Hi MB,
God made plain again that he was a man under the same difficulties we are.
jb 25.4-6
Nick;Good answer!
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 27 2012,15:24) Hi KW,
The Spirit changes those who are reborn from above and who are willing to be taught.The carnal efforts of men stand in the way of that transformation.
Nwrong
the ones that practice the truth of the written word of God and follow Christ and his saints are the ones that are changed and reborn of the spirit ,because they have stopped the practice of the flesh and so no longer belong to the world but to Christ and by doing so they become one with Christ ,
but you would not understand this because it is spiritual ,and you are still carnal,
Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) I already addressed Barnes’ point by introducing the fact that John the Baptist belongs to the group of those that are born of women opposed to the group of those in the kingdom; even if born of women.
No, it was ME who pointed out that Jesus was contrasting the human nature of John the Baptist against the spiritual nature of those of heaven.And my question remains: What nature was Paul contrasting Jesus' human nature against? If he didn't mention “born of a woman” as a CONTRAST, then why on earth would he mention that a man who had no other option BUT to be born of a woman, was born of a woman?
Kerwin, it would be like Paul saying Jesus came, “with two legs”. Duh! Don't [virtually] all human beings have two legs? Since the answer is yes, then there would be no reason for Paul to mention that Jesus had two legs, right?
Likewise, since all who have never been anything more than human were “born of a woman”, there would have been no reason for Paul to mention that Jesus was born of a woman…………unless he was contrasting Jesus' human nature against a different nature.
Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) Jesus is the Archetype of those that are both in the kingdom and born of women.
What does that mean? And how does it explain Paul mentioning that Jesus was born of a woman?
Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) To answer the question why, let us look at the Ancient Greek words translated born. In Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:8 the word “gennétos” is used and it is an adjective; while in Galatians 4:4 the word “ginomai” is used and is a verb. “Ginomai” is also used in John 1:14 where it is translated “was made” or “became”. One term is descriptive while other reveals action. God sent forth his Son(huios) who is made of women and made under the law. In Galatians 4:6 we are taught he now sends the Spirit of his Son(huios) into the hearts of believers. So clearly Jesus is the Son of God’s Spirit as the Spirit is called his as well. In addition he was made of Mary’s flesh just as Scripture teaches us that Eve was made of Adam’s flesh and bones. We also know he was made under the law since he is a child of Israel.
This is the kind of wordy, nonsensical post that usually drives me away from extended conversations with you, Kerwin. None of this lengthy quote answers the question of why Paul would mention that Jesus was born of a woman in Gal 4:4. It seems like a bunch of unrelated information designed to divert away from the very simple question of why Paul would mention that Jesus was born of a woman if there was no other option available.Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) “He was from the first” echoes “which is in heaven” while “before” does not. John 3:13
King James Version (KJV)13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Kerwin, it is thought by many scholars that the words “which is in heaven” was a marginal note added in later. You must be able to see that the words, first of all, make no sense if Jesus said them to Nicodemus at the time, and second, would have most likely prompted a bewildered question from Nicodemus had he said them.Besides, this oddly worded translation doesn't even support the point you're trying to make about “from the first”. If I told you that I am now in Arizona, but was in Iowa from the first, would you think it meant something different than me saying I was in Iowa before?
Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) Quote A “play on words”? Jesus clearly said, “I came DOWN from heaven”, and “what if you see me ascend to where I WAS at the first”. Then, many of those same Jews actually SAW him ascend to where he was at the first. Yes, Jesus played on words to teach; just as is claimed by the following quote…………
There is nothing in what you quoted about Jesus “playing with words” by saying he came DOWN from heaven, so why did you post it? More diversions. Show me a commentator that tells us how Jesus was playing with words in John 6:38. Show me how it was a “play on words” when many of the Jews there actually SAW him ascend to where he was BEFORE.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 26 2012,13:28) Hi MB,
God made plain again that he was a man under the same difficulties we are.
jb 25.4-6
As opposed to WHAT, Nick? Why would God, through Paul, be making plain what wasn't in question in the first place?If there was no other option but for Jesus to have been born of a woman, then why would God, through Paul, point out that he was?
EXACTLY, Nick!
Now, imagine that there was no other possibilty EXCEPT FOR Jesus to have ONLY ever been born of a woman. In that scenario, there would be NO REASON WHATSOEVER for Paul to point out such a thing.
Now on the other hand, if Jesus was existing in heaven in the form of God BEFORE being “born of a woman” (like scripture clearly teaches many places in many different ways), then it would make all the sense in the world for God, through Paul, to point out that He sent His son [to be] born of a woman.
The point is EXACTLY what you said: Paul was pointing out that a lessor god who dwelled in heaven with glory alongside his own God before the earth was made through him was SENT into the world and born of a woman. Why? Because since the children were of flesh, the Son too had to partake in flesh to accomplish his purpose.
It's all right there in the scriptures if you'd only care to believe them.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2012,10:57) Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) I already addressed Barnes’ point by introducing the fact that John the Baptist belongs to the group of those that are born of women opposed to the group of those in the kingdom; even if born of women.
No, it was ME who pointed out that Jesus was contrasting the human nature of John the Baptist against the spiritual nature of those of heaven.And my question remains: What nature was Paul contrasting Jesus' human nature against? If he didn't mention “born of a woman” as a CONTRAST, then why on earth would he mention that a man who had no other option BUT to be born of a woman, was born of a woman?
Kerwin, it would be like Paul saying Jesus came, “with two legs”. Duh! Don't [virtually] all human beings have two legs? Since the answer is yes, then there would be no reason for Paul to mention that Jesus had two legs, right?
Likewise, since all who have never been anything more than human were “born of a woman”, there would have been no reason for Paul to mention that Jesus was born of a woman…………unless he was contrasting Jesus' human nature against a different nature.
Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) Jesus is the Archetype of those that are both in the kingdom and born of women.
What does that mean? And how does it explain Paul mentioning that Jesus was born of a woman?Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) To answer the question why, let us look at the Ancient Greek words translated born. In Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:8 the word “gennétos” is used and it is an adjective; while in Galatians 4:4 the word “ginomai” is used and is a verb. “Ginomai” is also used in John 1:14 where it is translated “was made” or “became”. One term is descriptive while other reveals action. God sent forth his Son(huios) who is made of women and made under the law. In Galatians 4:6 we are taught he now sends the Spirit of his Son(huios) into the hearts of believers. So clearly Jesus is the Son of God’s Spirit as the Spirit is called his as well. In addition he was made of Mary’s flesh just as Scripture teaches us that Eve was made of Adam’s flesh and bones. We also know he was made under the law since he is a child of Israel.
This is the kind of wordy, nonsensical post that usually drives me away from extended conversations with you, Kerwin. None of this lengthy quote answers the question of why Paul would mention that Jesus was born of a woman in Gal 4:4. It seems like a bunch of unrelated information designed to divert away from the very simple question of why Paul would mention that Jesus was born of a woman if there was no other option available.Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) “He was from the first” echoes “which is in heaven” while “before” does not. John 3:13
King James Version (KJV)13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Kerwin, it is thought by many scholars that the words “which is in heaven” was a marginal note added in later. You must be able to see that the words, first of all, make no sense if Jesus said them to Nicodemus at the time, and second, would have most likely prompted a bewildered question from Nicodemus had he said them.Besides, this oddly worded translation doesn't even support the point you're trying to make about “from the first”. If I told you that I am now in Arizona, but was in Iowa from the first, would you think it meant something different than me saying I was in Iowa before?
Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2012,14:55) Quote A “play on words”? Jesus clearly said, “I came DOWN from heaven”, and “what if you see me ascend to where I WAS at the first”. Then, many of those same Jews actually SAW him ascend to where he was at the first. Yes, Jesus played on words to teach; just as is claimed by the following quote…………
There is nothing in what you quoted about Jesus “playing with words” by saying he came DOWN from heaven, so why did you post it? More diversions. Show me a commentator that tells us how Jesus was playing with words in John 6:38. Show me how it was a “play on words” when many of the Jews there actually SAW him ascend to where he was BEFORE.
Hi Mike,Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence?
Since we are all “born of a woman” would that then not mean we also preexisted as well?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Nick Hassan @ May 27 2012,11:05) Hi T,
How can you follow Jesus without going through the water and Spirit baptisms?
Hi Nick,Are you suggesting there are two baptisms?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMindless fluff, Nick. Show me the ERROR of my understanding, as I just posted it to you. Show me a valid REASON for Paul to point out that Jesus was born of a woman if there was no other option. Tell me how I didn't align my understanding with at least three other scriptures – scriptures that all support it.
Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:19) Hi Mike, Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence?
Since we are all “born of a woman” would that then not mean we also preexisted as well?
No Ed,I'm saying that Paul had no reason to even MENTION that Jesus was “born of a woman” unless it has some meaning. If Jesus had never been anything BUT “born of a woman”, then there would have been no reason for Paul to even bring it up. He surely didn't say that God sent His Son, “born with two legs, one head, two eyes, and two hands…………..”, did he? Why? Because those things would have already been understood. So the question is WHY would Paul have mentioned something that MUST HAVE BEEN THE CASE anyway? WHY did he make a point of mentioning the OBVIOUS?
Ed, Kerwin and Nick are PRETENDING that they can't see the importance of those four little words. But add those words to what Paul said in Hebrews 2:14, among many other scriptures, and you'll begin to understand why those words are there.
As Nick likes to point out, there are no “accidents” in the scriptures. Every single word there, is there for a specific reason.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 26 2012,18:30) Hi MB,
A long complicated doctrinal self justification?
More mindless fluff, Nick. SHOW ME A REASON, or pipe down, okay?Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2012,11:35) Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:19) Hi Mike, Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence?
Since we are all “born of a woman” would that then not mean we also preexisted as well?
No Ed,I'm saying that Paul had no reason to even MENTION that Jesus was “born of a woman” unless it has some meaning. If Jesus had never been anything BUT “born of a woman”, then there would have been no reason for Paul to even bring it up. He surely didn't say that God sent His Son, “born with two legs, one head, two eyes, and two hands…………..”, did he? Why? Because those things would have already been understood. So the question is WHY would Paul have mentioned something that MUST HAVE BEEN THE CASE anyway? WHY did he make a point of mentioning the OBVIOUS?
Ed, Kerwin and Nick are PRETENDING that they can't see the importance of those four little words. But add those words to what Paul said in Hebrews 2:14, among many other scriptures, and you'll begin to understand why those words are there.
As Nick likes to point out, there are no “accidents” in the scriptures. Every single word there, is there for a specific reason.
Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,18:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2012,11:35) Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:19) Hi Mike, Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence?
Since we are all “born of a woman” would that then not mean we also preexisted as well?
No Ed,I'm saying that Paul had no reason to even MENTION that Jesus was “born of a woman” unless it has some meaning. If Jesus had never been anything BUT “born of a woman”, then there would have been no reason for Paul to even bring it up. He surely didn't say that God sent His Son, “born with two legs, one head, two eyes, and two hands…………..”, did he? Why? Because those things would have already been understood. So the question is WHY would Paul have mentioned something that MUST HAVE BEEN THE CASE anyway? WHY did he make a point of mentioning the OBVIOUS?
Ed, Kerwin and Nick are PRETENDING that they can't see the importance of those four little words. But add those words to what Paul said in Hebrews 2:14, among many other scriptures, and you'll begin to understand why those words are there.
As Nick likes to point out, there are no “accidents” in the scriptures. Every single word there, is there for a specific reason.
Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2012,06:11) EXACTLY, Nick! Now, imagine that there was no other possibilty EXCEPT FOR Jesus to have ONLY ever been born of a woman. In that scenario, there would be NO REASON WHATSOEVER for Paul to point out such a thing.
Now on the other hand, if Jesus was existing in heaven in the form of God BEFORE being “born of a woman” (like scripture clearly teaches many places in many different ways), then it would make all the sense in the world for God, through Paul, to point out that He sent His son [to be] born of a woman.
The point is EXACTLY what you said: Paul was pointing out that a lessor god who dwelled in heaven with glory alongside his own God before the earth was made through him was SENT into the world and born of a woman. Why? Because since the children were of flesh, the Son too had to partake in flesh to accomplish his purpose.
It's all right there in the scriptures if you'd only care to believe them.
Mike;Which lesser god of heaven was made of women?
There is none as it is human beings whom are made of woman.
Which lesser god of heaven was made under the Law of Mosses?
There is none as the angels were made previously to the Law.
Is John 1:14 stating that The Word was born flesh or does is it stating the Word was made flesh? It is the same word though a different part of Greek grammar that is used in Galatians 4:4. The KJV keeps it the same word while other translation do not.
Quote (terraricca @ May 27 2012,12:06) Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,18:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2012,11:35) Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:19) Hi Mike, Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman”
is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence?
Since we are all “born of a woman” would that then not mean we also preexisted as well?
No Ed,I'm saying that Paul had no reason to even MENTION that Jesus was “born of a woman” unless it has some meaning. If Jesus had never been anything BUT “born of a woman”, then there would have been no reason for Paul to even bring it up. He surely didn't say that God sent His Son, “born with two legs, one head, two eyes, and two hands…………..”, did he? Why? Because those things would have already been understood. So the question is WHY would Paul have mentioned something that MUST HAVE BEEN THE CASE anyway? WHY did he make a point of mentioning the OBVIOUS?
Ed, Kerwin and Nick are PRETENDING that they can't see the importance of those four little words. But add those words to what Paul said in Hebrews 2:14, among many other scriptures, and you'll begin to understand why those words are there.
As Nick likes to point out, there are no “accidents” in the scriptures. Every single word there, is there for a specific reason.
Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?
PIERRE,He said 'no Ed', did he not? …are you suggesting his 'no' really means “Yes”?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
