JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Volumes?
From your own inferences?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 27 2012,19:34)

Few debate against the idea that Jesus’ conception was miraculous; as he like Eve was created from a part of another human being.

So then your original statement was flawed and unrelated, right?

[mikeboll64]

Kerwin, there is only ONE being who ever dwelled among mankind with the glory of God's only begotten Son. And we all know that this one is called by the name, “The Word of God”.

Are we in agreement so far?

[terraricca]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 28 2012,19:37)

Hi MB, Volumes? From your own inferences?

N

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,04:29)

Quote (jammin @ May 26 2012,20:11) what if i can read to you that the verse says SON OF MAN, will you accept that you are really a false teacher mike? yes or no? If you can read it in the GREEK MSS, then I will be surprised, but not a “false teacher”.  Because like I said, it doesn't really matter.  Both “Son of God” and “Son of Man” describe the same being, Jesus, so either one would say the same thing:  Jesus DOESN'T know all things.

i think mike you should go to school and study greek

also, you should study the bible well. your doctrine is so funny.

i double dare you.
you cant read that in mat 24.36 it refers to the son of GOD

what we can read in the bible is that that verse refers to the son of MAN!

as MAN, he does not know the day of his coming.

that's what the bible says

Christ has the nature of GOD
he became flesh (incarnate) and dwelt among us.

HE BECAME LIKE US MIKE. AS MAN, WE DO NOT KNOW ALL THINGS

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ May 28 2012,03:03)

Quote (jammin @ May 27 2012,20:26) Quote (terraricca @ May 27 2012,14:44) Quote (jammin @ May 27 2012,20:14) Christ is GOD mike by nature and not a lesser nature GOD LOL do you have a lesser nature MAN mike? your doctrine is so funny LOL your christ is a puny god Christ is not God ,and there for is lower than God almighty, It does not matter what the nature is or is not ,being the son and a creation makes you inferior to the one that created you, A creation is Not a offspring. Just like Adam was not an offspring but a first creation,and so is Christ. Christ is not GOD? LOL i believe what the bible says thomas said to jesus my LORD and my GOD (john 20.28) Jammin; You fail to understand what Scripture states  as there is but one God; who is Yahweh; who is the Jesus' God and the Father of his Spirit; just as he is the the the God of all that believe and the Father of the their spirits.

MAKE YOUR OWN BIBLE.

i believe what thomas said.

[terraricca]

Quote (jammin @ May 28 2012,20:18)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,04:29) Quote (jammin @ May 26 2012,20:11) what if i can read to you that the verse says SON OF MAN, will you accept that you are really a false teacher mike? yes or no? If you can read it in the GREEK MSS, then I will be surprised, but not a “false teacher”.  Because like I said, it doesn't really matter.  Both “Son of God” and “Son of Man” describe the same being, Jesus, so either one would say the same thing:  Jesus DOESN'T know all things. i think mike you should go to school and study greek also, you should study the bible well. your doctrine is so funny. i double dare you. you cant read that in mat 24.36 it refers to the son of GOD what we can read in the bible is that that verse refers to the son of MAN! as MAN, he does not know the day of his coming. that's what the bible says Christ has the nature of GOD he became flesh (incarnate) and dwelt among us. HE BECAME LIKE US MIKE. AS MAN, WE DO NOT KNOW ALL THINGS

j

Mt 24:36 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

what is your point ??

[Ed J]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 28 2012,12:10)

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

'biblical witnesses'? …please define this term?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,12:37)

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.)

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

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 27 2012,20:18)

HE BECAME LIKE US MIKE. AS MAN, WE DO NOT KNOW ALL THINGS

jammin,

Are you DAFT?  I keep telling you that Jesus was ALSO a man when Peter said he “knew all things”.  

The only point I've been trying to make is that “all things” was an emphatic statement, and not meant to be taken LITERALLY – just like in 1 John 2:20.

Your very own words in the quote box above CONFIRM the very thing I've been trying to show you.

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ May 28 2012,20:26)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,12:37) 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.) Then you are suggesting that the term “born of a woman” is a secret clue pointing towards preexistence then?      …why do you deny this?

edj

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 2012,20:26)

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

Ed, here is my same answer from before (and it is the LAST time I'll answer the same question, because as I said to you 6 posts ago, “I will only tolerate yours games for so long.”

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.)

[Ed J]

Hi Miike,

That is, after all, what you are saying and at the same time denying?     …can you not see this?
On the one hand you say that it doesn't point towards this,      
but on the other hand you say that it does point towards this?  
…a 'yes/no' type of answer, which is absurd to say the least.

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

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

It's no wonder why your conversations don't lead
to any productivity, but only unending conflict.

You seem to want everyone to abandon their view and adopt yours.
Should your goal instead be to see where the truth lies between both views;
and let the 'chaff' just fall away because it is not eternal? Would this not be better?

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

[Ed J]

Quote (Ed J @ May 28 2012,13:35)

Hi Miike, That is, after all, what you are saying and at the same time denying?     …can you not see this? On the one hand you say that it doesn't point towards this,       but on the other hand you say that it does point towards this?   …a 'yes/no' type of answer, which is absurd to say the least. God bless Ed J

Hi Mike,

This is like when Jammin says 1John 5:20 is definitive,
but when the same structure is used elsewhere it isn't.      …can you really not see “The Truth” in this wishy washy answer of yours?

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

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ May 28 2012,08:19)

Quote (kerwin @ May 28 2012,03:03) Quote (jammin @ May 27 2012,20:26) Quote (terraricca @ May 27 2012,14:44) Quote (jammin @ May 27 2012,20:14) Christ is GOD mike by nature and not a lesser nature GOD LOL do you have a lesser nature MAN mike? your doctrine is so funny LOL your christ is a puny god Christ is not God ,and there for is lower than God almighty, It does not matter what the nature is or is not ,being the son and a creation makes you inferior to the one that created you, A creation is Not a offspring. Just like Adam was not an offspring but a first creation,and so is Christ. Christ is not GOD? LOL i believe what the bible says thomas said to jesus my LORD and my GOD (john 20.28) Jammin; You fail to understand what Scripture states  as there is but one God; who is Yahweh; who is the Jesus' God and the Father of his Spirit; just as he is the the the God of all that believe and the Father of the their spirits. MAKE YOUR OWN BIBLE. i believe what thomas said.

Jammin;

You misunderstand Thomas as it is Jesus who stated his God and Father is the same God and Father of those that follow him. Jesus is the brother of those that believe in God; just as it is written:

Hebrews 2:11
King James Version (KJV)

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,07:42)

Kerwin, there is only ONE being who ever dwelled among mankind with the glory of God's only begotten Son.  And we all know that this one is called by the name, “The Word of God”. Are we in agreement so far?

Mike;

There is but one intercessor between God and mankind; the man Jesus Christ.

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,13:28)

Quote (jammin @ May 27 2012,20:18) HE BECAME LIKE US MIKE. AS MAN, WE DO NOT KNOW ALL THINGS jammin, Are you DAFT?  I keep telling you that Jesus was ALSO a man when Peter said he “knew all things”.   The only point I've been trying to make is that “all things” was an emphatic statement, and not meant to be taken LITERALLY – just like in 1 John 2:20. Your very own words in the quote box above CONFIRM the very thing I've been trying to show you.

mike,
peter knows he is the son of GOD.
the apostles know that Christ is God by nature.
and as GOD, he knows all things.

kerwin,

make your own bible.

thomas said jesus is LORD and GOD.

do not put your own words to thomas' mouth.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 27 2012,21:25)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,07:42) Kerwin, there is only ONE being who ever dwelled among mankind with the glory of God's only begotten Son.  And we all know that this one is called by the name, “The Word of God”. Are we in agreement so far? Mike; There is but one intercessor between God and mankind;  the man Jesus Christ.

Please answer the question, Kerwin.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 28 2012,09:09)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 28 2012,13:28) Quote (jammin @ May 27 2012,20:18) HE BECAME LIKE US MIKE. AS MAN, WE DO NOT KNOW ALL THINGS jammin, Are you DAFT?  I keep telling you that Jesus was ALSO a man when Peter said he “knew all things”.   The only point I've been trying to make is that “all things” was an emphatic statement, and not meant to be taken LITERALLY – just like in 1 John 2:20. Your very own words in the quote box above CONFIRM the very thing I've been trying to show you. mike, peter knows he is the son of GOD. the apostles know that Christ is God by nature. and as GOD, he knows all things.

So did Jesus FORGET that he was the Son of God and “God by nature” when he said he didn't know the day or the hour?

[Author]

Posts