JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ July 06 2012,20:12)

Mike, So, did Tertullian as a Trinitarian like the word “by” or “through” as a translation of the Greek word 'dia'? Do you believe his choice of either translation would have had any repercussions in his being a Trinitarian?

I believe his acceptance of the “through” translation points to it generally being accepted as “through” in the early centuries after the death of Jesus.

When is the first instance recorded of someone thinking it meant the worlds were created “on account of” Jesus?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2012,02:37)

When is the first instance recorded of someone thinking it meant the worlds were created “on account of” Jesus?

Hi Mike,

I believe “on account of” is the correct interpretation.       …do you not?

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

[mikeboll64]

Hi Ed,

I think it is clear from the discussion I'm having with Frank that I believe “through” is the correct translation.

Do you have a scriptural reason to think “on account of” is correct? Because I wonder how the dinosaurs, etc. were made “on account of” Jesus if he wasn't even around to enjoy them.

[jammin]

so many false teachers here.
the WORD in john 1.1 is Christ. why cant they accept that? that is just so simple to understand . john the apostle also says that that the Word is the son of GOD. he is Christ. he was with GOD before all time.

they cant deny the truth.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2012,10:50)

Quote (Ed J @ July 08 2012,09:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2012,02:37) When is the first instance recorded of someone thinking it meant the worlds were created “on account of” Jesus? Hi Mike, I believe “on account of” is the correct interpretation.       …do you not? God bless Ed J Hi Ed, I think it is clear from the discussion I'm having with Frank that I believe “through” is the correct translation. Do you have a scriptural reason to think “on account of” is correct?  Because I wonder how the dinosaurs, etc. were made “on account of” Jesus if he wasn't even around to enjoy them.

Hi Mike,

“On account of” – as in “because of” Jesus' crucifixion. (see Rev.13:8)

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

[Ed J]

Quote (jammin @ July 08 2012,13:30)

john the apostle also says that that the Word is the son of GOD.

Where?

[jammin]

John 1:14

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

14 The Word became a human being. He made his home with us. We have seen his glory. It is the glory of the one and only Son.

He came from the Father. And he was full of grace and truth.

[Ed J]

Hi Jammin,

That is not what John 1:14 says.  
Posting corrupted text proves nothing.

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

[mikeboll64]

That's pretty much EXACTLY what 1:14 says, Ed. What do YOU think it says?

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ July 08 2012,09:20)

John 1:14 New International Reader's Version (NIRV) 14 The Word became a human being. He made his home with us. We have seen his glory. It is the glory of the one and only Son.   He came from the Father. And he was full of grace and truth.

Jammin,

That Scripture states the Word has a glory like the only begotten of God. It does not state the Word is the only begotten of God.

Philo of Alexander, a Jew of the First Century, does claim that the Word is the first begotten of God, but he does not claim he is a actual person.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ July 08 2012,13:57)

Jammin, That Scripture states the Word has a glory like the only begotten of God.

That's right, jammin.  And only people with pre-conceived notions would imagine that someone or something else would have the glory of God's only begotten Son.

To those of us who let the scriptures do the teaching, it seems clear enough that nothing else besides God's only begotten Son would have the GLORY of God's only begotten Son.

1:14 is simply a case of John referring to Jesus by the name he was called in Revelation – another book that was written by the same author.

[942767]

Quote (terraricca @ July 05 2012,08:23)

Quote (942767 @ July 05 2012,14:14) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2012,03:56) Quote (942767 @ July 03 2012,12:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2012,08:48) And is it scriptural that, WHILE JESUS WAS ON EARTH, he was the only begotten Son of God?  YES or NO? No. No? Hi Ed: I said no, because of the following scripture: Quote Jhn 1:12   But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:   Jhn 1:13   Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God But since the disciples did not receive the Holy Ghost until the day of Pentecost, perphaps I should have answered yes instead of no. Thanks for keeping me honest. Love in Christ, Marty Marty Jn 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. this was 50 days before the high room

Hi Pierre:

I am aware of this scripture, but they did not actually receive the Holy Ghost until the day of Pentecost.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 09 2012,04:11)

That's pretty much EXACTLY what 1:14 says, Ed.  What do YOU think it says?

Hi Mike,

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld
his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

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

[942767]

Quote (kerwin @ July 05 2012,15:11)

Marty, Quote How did John the Baptist recognize the Word of God in Jesus?   I am not sure it is written but it seems reasonable that he listened to the Spirit that spoke through him.  It is clear he did from the words of John 1:15 and Matthew 3:14. Quote Sin is defined as “the transgression of the Law”, and an infant has not transgressed the Law, and therefore, I disagree with you that infants have a sin nature. All human beings have the nature of sin as a result of the Fall; infants being humans are no exception.  But Scripture declares that those who sin due to a true lack of knowledge receive fewer stripes than those that have knowledge, Luke 12:48.  Infants do not have a righteousness and holiness that is like God’s but Jesus did as an infant and still does. Quote The scripture states that Jesus was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, but no, David was not his biological Father, God was his Father. Unlike the Pharisees, you answer Jesus’ “how” question in Matthew 22:45 when you state “Jesus was born of the seed of David”.  I am confused how you believe someone can be the father of the flesh but not the biological father as genes are part of the flesh.  Scripture declares Jesus a human and not a hybrid.

Hi Kerwin:

John the bapist recognized Jesus as the Messiah because:

Quote

Jhn 1:33   And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.   Jhn 1:34   And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

The scripture states that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and death passed upon all men in that all men have sinned, and that is true.  All men born of the sperm of man have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  The sin nature was developed as each practiced sin.  Some became murderers, others adulterers, some liars, and all became this or that as we practiced sin, but sin is defined as the transgression of the Law, and I know no infant that has transgressed the Law, and so, if you still believe that we were born with a sin nature, please show me how this is so.

Furthermore, it was important that Jesus be like us in every way.  All of us were tempted, and all of us have yielded to temptation, but he did not, and the scripture states:

Quote

Hbr 2:17   Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Quote

r 4:15   For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin

Jesus mother, the virgin Mary desended from the lineage of David, and therefore, the scripture states that he was from the seed of David according to the flesh.  But the virgin Mary conceived in her womb when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her.  There was no sperm from the lineage of David involved in her conceiving in this way, and so, I say that God is his biological Father.  Maybe this terminology is not appropriate in this case since this is just a miracle performed by God, and so, the scripture states that God is Jesus Father.  His Only Begotten Son.  He is unique in that he was conceived in this way.

The scripture that you quote from Luke is about judgment, and is stating that judgment will be more severe upon those who know the truth and do not obey it, and God is just and it should be this way.

I hope that this answers your questions, but if not, please let me know.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2012,05:23)

Quote (942767 @ July 01 2012,16:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2012,01:14) Quote (942767 @ June 30 2012,20:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2012,10:14) Marty, Is it scriptural that John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God” – even though Jesus wasn't literally a lamb?  YES or NO? Yes. Hi Marty, And is it scriptural that Jesus is called by the name “the Word of God” – even though he is not literally a spoke word from God?   YES or NO? Yes. And is it scriptural that Jesus is called the “monogenes” Son of God?  YES or NO?

Yes.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (942767 @ July 08 2012,18:27)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2012,05:23) Quote (942767 @ July 01 2012,16:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 02 2012,01:14) Quote (942767 @ June 30 2012,20:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2012,10:14) Marty, Is it scriptural that John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God” – even though Jesus wasn't literally a lamb?  YES or NO? Yes. Hi Marty, And is it scriptural that Jesus is called by the name “the Word of God” – even though he is not literally a spoke word from God?   YES or NO? Yes. And is it scriptural that Jesus is called the “monogenes” Son of God?  YES or NO? Yes.

And is it scriptural that the Word who became flesh dwelled on earth with the glory of the “monogenes” Son of God? YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ July 08 2012,17:26)

Hi Mike, John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I see no major difference between the translation jammin quoted and the one you quoted.

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ July 09 2012,06:57)

Quote (jammin @ July 08 2012,09:20) John 1:14 New International Reader's Version (NIRV) 14 The Word became a human being. He made his home with us. We have seen his glory. It is the glory of the one and only Son.   He came from the Father. And he was full of grace and truth. Jammin, That Scripture states the Word has a glory like the only begotten of God.  It does not state the Word is the only begotten of God.   Philo of Alexander, a Jew of the First Century, does claim that the Word is the first begotten of God, but he does not claim he is a actual person.

John 1:14

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

14 The Word became a human being. He made his home with us. We have seen his glory. It is the glory of the one and only Son.

He came from the Father. And he was full of grace and truth.

study hard boy

[terraricca]

Quote (942767 @ July 09 2012,16:59)

Quote (terraricca @ July 05 2012,08:23) Quote (942767 @ July 05 2012,14:14) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2012,03:56) Quote (942767 @ July 03 2012,12:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2012,08:48) And is it scriptural that, WHILE JESUS WAS ON EARTH, he was the only begotten Son of God?  YES or NO? No. No? Hi Ed: I said no, because of the following scripture: Quote Jhn 1:12   But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:   Jhn 1:13   Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God But since the disciples did not receive the Holy Ghost until the day of Pentecost, perphaps I should have answered yes instead of no. Thanks for keeping me honest. Love in Christ, Marty Marty Jn 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. this was 50 days before the high room Hi Pierre: I am aware of this scripture, but they did not actually receive the Holy Ghost until the day of Pentecost. Love in Christ, Marty

Marty

You are just like those unbelievers ,who says ,yes I know the bible but it is not the truth ,

Do you never wander why that scripture is there ? and how it contradict your claim but how the truth stopped to influence you ,you have become passive to it ,

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 09 2012,11:35)

Quote (Ed J @ July 08 2012,17:26) Hi Mike, John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. I see no major difference between the translation jammin quoted and the one you quoted.

Hi Mike,

“The Word's” glory is – the father begetting children.

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

[Author]

Posts