JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (terraricca @ May 27 2012,08:39)

J unless you can prove consistency with all the scriptures that God almighty is also his own son ,and that so he has send himself into the world as a man and prayed to himself ,begging for help, and make miracles to himself and give the holy spirit of him in abundance to himself ,all this to prove that he was himself ?what ??

Well said, Pierre.  

Think about those things, jammin.  Did God pray to Himself?  Or send Himself into the world?  Or give Holy Spirit without measure to Himself?  Or do miracles through Himself?

Is God the anointed one of Himself?  Or the servant of Himself?  Is He the God of Himself?  Or the Son and Father of Himself?  Or the High Priest to Himself?

This is just a partial list. And Pierre is right, you must be able to prove these claims of your CONSISENTLY throughout the scriptures.

For example, reading “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”, and making the final conclusion that the Son IS the Father, based on this one verse, would be like building your house on shifting sand.

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Thanks for your opinions.

[terraricca]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 28 2012,11:44)

Hi MB, Thanks for your opinions.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,04:26)

Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:46) Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then? Ed, I will only tolerate yours games for so long.  You already know this, right?  So listen carefully: What I suggest is that there would have been no reason whatsoever for Paul to state the obvious in Galatians 4:4.  He would not have any reason to state that Jesus was born under the Law of Moses, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a Jew.  He would not have any reason to state that God's Son had to be born of a woman, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a human being. So the term “born of a woman”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a human being.  And the term “born under the Law”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a Jew.  But the fact that Paul even MENTIONS these two obvious things about Jesus shows that he is CONTRASTING Jesus' human nature from the one he had when he was existing in the form of God, and having glory alongside Him before the world was created through him. I cannot say it any clearer than I have.  So if you still don't understand the point I'm making, you apparently never will.  (Personally, I think you know EXACTLY what Barnes and I are saying about Gal 4:4, but are pretending not to just to be a pest.)

Hi Mike, not so! I ask for clarification!

For one that demands Yes/No answers from others, you
sure are having difficulty answering “MY” yes or no question to you. So I repeat…

Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?     …yes or no?

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

[Ed J]

Mike, what I seek is agreement!

I believe “GOD” is not a person like you.
Yet you agree with me that GOD is “an entity”.          

Will you please answer my yes or no question to you?

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

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ May 28 2012,16:27)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,04:26) Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:46) Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then? Ed, I will only tolerate yours games for so long.  You already know this, right?  So listen carefully: What I suggest is that there would have been no reason whatsoever for Paul to state the obvious in Galatians 4:4.  He would not have any reason to state that Jesus was born under the Law of Moses, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a Jew.  He would not have any reason to state that God's Son had to be born of a woman, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a human being. So the term “born of a woman”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a human being.  And the term “born under the Law”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a Jew.  But the fact that Paul even MENTIONS these two obvious things about Jesus shows that he is CONTRASTING Jesus' human nature from the one he had when he was existing in the form of God, and having glory alongside Him before the world was created through him. I cannot say it any clearer than I have.  So if you still don't understand the point I'm making, you apparently never will.  (Personally, I think you know EXACTLY what Barnes and I are saying about Gal 4:4, but are pretending not to just to be a pest.) Hi Mike, not so! I ask for clarification! For one that demands Yes/No answers from others, you sure are having difficulty answering “MY” yes or no question to you. So I repeat… Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?     …yes or no? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

edj

Quote

Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then? …yes or no?

now I understand your question ,if you say ;yes to your question what scriptures would you use to back it up

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,16:27)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,04:26) Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:46) Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then? Ed, I will only tolerate yours games for so long.  You already know this, right?  So listen carefully: What I suggest is that there would have been no reason whatsoever for Paul to state the obvious in Galatians 4:4.  He would not have any reason to state that Jesus was born under the Law of Moses, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a Jew.  He would not have any reason to state that God's Son had to be born of a woman, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a human being. So the term “born of a woman”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a human being.  And the term “born under the Law”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a Jew.  But the fact that Paul even MENTIONS these two obvious things about Jesus shows that he is CONTRASTING Jesus' human nature from the one he had when he was existing in the form of God, and having glory alongside Him before the world was created through him. I cannot say it any clearer than I have.  So if you still don't understand the point I'm making, you apparently never will.  (Personally, I think you know EXACTLY what Barnes and I are saying about Gal 4:4, but are pretending not to just to be a pest.) Hi Mike, not so! I ask for clarification! For one that demands Yes/No answers from others, you sure are having difficulty answering “MY” yes or no question to you. So I repeat… Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?     …yes or no? God bless Ed J

Ed,

Read the big words in my quote.  The answer is “NO”.  And the fact that my answer was already in my last post proves to me that sometimes, you just like to be a pest.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,16:42)

I believe “GOD” is not a person like you. Yet you agree with me that GOD is “an entity”.

Ed,

From your wording, it seems like you're saying that we both agree God is not a person.  But I know God is a BEING, and in my understanding, that means He is both a person and an entity.

From Dictionary.com:
Main Entry: BEING

Definition: animate object

Synonyms: animal, beast, body, conscious thing, creature, entity , human, human being, individual, living thing, mortal, organism, person, personage, soul, thing

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,11:01)

Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,16:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,04:26) Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:46) Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then? Ed, I will only tolerate yours games for so long.  You already know this, right?  So listen carefully: What I suggest is that there would have been no reason whatsoever for Paul to state the obvious in Galatians 4:4.  He would not have any reason to state that Jesus was born under the Law of Moses, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a Jew.  He would not have any reason to state that God's Son had to be born of a woman, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a human being. So the term “born of a woman”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a human being.  And the term “born under the Law”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a Jew.  But the fact that Paul even MENTIONS these two obvious things about Jesus shows that he is CONTRASTING Jesus' human nature from the one he had when he was existing in the form of God, and having glory alongside Him before the world was created through him. I cannot say it any clearer than I have.  So if you still don't understand the point I'm making, you apparently never will.  (Personally, I think you know EXACTLY what Barnes and I are saying about Gal 4:4, but are pretending not to just to be a pest.) Hi Mike, not so! I ask for clarification! For one that demands Yes/No answers from others, you sure are having difficulty answering “MY” yes or no question to you. So I repeat… Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?     …yes or no? God bless Ed J Ed, Read the big words in my quote.  The answer is “NO”.  And the fact that my answer was already in my last post proves to me that sometimes, you just like to be a pest.

Hi Mike,

If the answer is “No”, than it makes no difference that he said it; right?    
…otherwise the answer would really have to be “Yes”, right?   …yet you deny this?   …why?

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

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,11:12)

Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,16:42) I believe “GOD” is not a person like you. Yet you agree with me that GOD is “an entity”. Ed, From your wording, it seems like you're saying that we both agree God is not a person.  But I know God is a BEING, and in my understanding, that means He is both a person and an entity. From Dictionary.com: Main Entry: BEING Definition: animate object Synonyms: animal, beast, body, conscious thing, creature, entity , human, human being, individual, living thing, mortal, organism, person, personage, soul, thing

Hi Mike,

I choose not to use confusing word structures like you.

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

[mikeboll64]

Yes Ed,

They are so confusing that the very first dictionary site I pulled up listed exactly what I've been telling you.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,18:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,11:01) Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,16:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,04:26) Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:46) Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then? Ed, I will only tolerate yours games for so long.  You already know this, right?  So listen carefully: What I suggest is that there would have been no reason whatsoever for Paul to state the obvious in Galatians 4:4.  He would not have any reason to state that Jesus was born under the Law of Moses, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a Jew.  He would not have any reason to state that God's Son had to be born of a woman, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a human being. So the term “born of a woman”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a human being.  And the term “born under the Law”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a Jew.  But the fact that Paul even MENTIONS these two obvious things about Jesus shows that he is CONTRASTING Jesus' human nature from the one he had when he was existing in the form of God, and having glory alongside Him before the world was created through him. I cannot say it any clearer than I have.  So if you still don't understand the point I'm making, you apparently never will.  (Personally, I think you know EXACTLY what Barnes and I are saying about Gal 4:4, but are pretending not to just to be a pest.) Hi Mike, not so! I ask for clarification! For one that demands Yes/No answers from others, you sure are having difficulty answering “MY” yes or no question to you. So I repeat… Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?     …yes or no? God bless Ed J Ed, Read the big words in my quote.  The answer is “NO”.  And the fact that my answer was already in my last post proves to me that sometimes, you just like to be a pest. Hi Mike, If the answer is “No”, than it makes no difference that he said it; right?

Ed,

Read the words I made big this time.

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

My goal is to discuss biblical beliefs as they relate to biblical doctrine, not
to argue who is right or wrong; you seem to want the latter; isn't this true?

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

[mikeboll64]

What does your question have to do with any Biblical doctrine?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,11:31)

Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,18:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,11:01) Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,16:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,04:26) Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:46) Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then? Ed, I will only tolerate yours games for so long.  You already know this, right?  So listen carefully: What I suggest is that there would have been no reason whatsoever for Paul to state the obvious in Galatians 4:4.  He would not have any reason to state that Jesus was born under the Law of Moses, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a Jew.  He would not have any reason to state that God's Son had to be born of a woman, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a human being. So the term “born of a woman”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a human being.  And the term “born under the Law”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a Jew.  But the fact that Paul even MENTIONS these two obvious things about Jesus shows that he is CONTRASTING Jesus' human nature from the one he had when he was existing in the form of God, and having glory alongside Him before the world was created through him. I cannot say it any clearer than I have.  So if you still don't understand the point I'm making, you apparently never will.  (Personally, I think you know EXACTLY what Barnes and I are saying about Gal 4:4, but are pretending not to just to be a pest.) Hi Mike, not so! I ask for clarification! For one that demands Yes/No answers from others, you sure are having difficulty answering “MY” yes or no question to you. So I repeat… Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?     …yes or no? God bless Ed J Ed, Read the big words in my quote.  The answer is “NO”.  And the fact that my answer was already in my last post proves to me that sometimes, you just like to be a pest. Hi Mike, If the answer is “No”, than it makes no difference that he said it; right?     Ed, Read the words I made big this time.

Hi Mike, either it is irrelevant towards preexistence or it isn't, make up your mind! You seem to say it is yet it isn't?

Then you are suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?      …why do you deny this?

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

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,11:39)

What does your question have to do with any Biblical doctrine?

Hi Mike,

All my questions have to do with biblical doctrine.
When the dialog is avoided then so is it's attachment.

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

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

If you call my quest to dig for biblical truth in ones belief “being a pest”, then so be it!

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

[NickHassan]

Hi ED,
But not all your beliefs expressed here are truly bible based with biblical witnesses,
Some are more akin to spiritualism

[kerwin]

Mike;

Quote

Which human being had a human mother and God as his Father?  NONE, right, because ALL human beings have a human mother AND father, right?  Hmmmm………..but wasn't Jesus an exception to the norm, Kerwin?

Adam was made of Earth while Eve was made of Adam.   Both of their physical origins seems stranger that of Jesus.  Identical twins are when that offspring embryo (Eve) is made from the parent embryo (Adam) and many of the nutrients that we are physically made of come from the Earth; just as they did with Adam.  Few debate against the idea that Jesus’ conception was miraculous; as he like Eve was created from a part of another human being.

Quote

Again, you are making MY point for me, Kerwin.

The Greek word is ginomai; just like in John 1:14.    Gennaó is less vague and means bring forth.  Consider why the former was used and not the later.

Quote

So why do you suppose Paul bothered to mention the OBVIOUS?  It was to CONTRAST Jesus' pre-existence from his humanity.

It had nothing to do with preexistence; as he explicitly speaks of the Son being sent from God and then two verses later speaks of the Spirit of the Son being sent into the hearts of believers; who are also made of woman.  I assure you the Spirit and those that are led by it are sent from above.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,18:40)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,11:31) Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,18:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,11:01) Quote (Ed J @ May 27 2012,16:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,04:26) Quote (Ed J @ May 26 2012,18:46) Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is NOT a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then? Ed, I will only tolerate yours games for so long.  You already know this, right?  So listen carefully: What I suggest is that there would have been no reason whatsoever for Paul to state the obvious in Galatians 4:4.  He would not have any reason to state that Jesus was born under the Law of Moses, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a Jew.  He would not have any reason to state that God's Son had to be born of a woman, because everyone already knew that Jesus was a human being. So the term “born of a woman”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a human being.  And the term “born under the Law”, in and of itself, proves nothing except that the one described is a Jew.  But the fact that Paul even MENTIONS these two obvious things about Jesus shows that he is CONTRASTING Jesus' human nature from the one he had when he was existing in the form of God, and having glory alongside Him before the world was created through him. I cannot say it any clearer than I have.  So if you still don't understand the point I'm making, you apparently never will.  (Personally, I think you know EXACTLY what Barnes and I are saying about Gal 4:4, but are pretending not to just to be a pest.) Hi Mike, not so! I ask for clarification! For one that demands Yes/No answers from others, you sure are having difficulty answering “MY” yes or no question to you. So I repeat… Are you suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?     …yes or no? God bless Ed J Ed, Read the big words in my quote.  The answer is “NO”.  And the fact that my answer was already in my last post proves to me that sometimes, you just like to be a pest. Hi Mike, If the answer is “No”, than it makes no difference that he said it; right?     Ed, Read the words I made big this time. Hi Mike, either it is irrelevant towards preexistence or it isn't, make up your mind! You seem to say it is yet it isn't? Then you are suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?      …why do you deny this? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed, Ed, Ed……………………..  

Listen once more, okay?

The term ITSELF doesn't speak one way or another towards pre-existence.  (Now listen carefully here)  The fact that Paul would USE that term in Galatians 4:4 speaks volumes towards JESUS' pre-existence.  (NOT anyone else's, but JESUS' alone.)

[Author]

Posts