- This topic has 25,869 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 5 hours, 33 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Yeah, the power of two is about right.
Binary is used by computers because it represents the old IBM punch card and later a switch which both have only 2 states. That is why computers are so fast. They only have to compute 2 states even though they have to plough through an extraordinary amount of them.
Hi t8,
Amen for your insights, thank you so much!!!You are right in saying that the Son of God is not the “Most High God” and wouldn't want anyone to even believe that. That would take a unique glory away from His Father who is greater than Himself. Also, the Son of God is referred to as “King of kings and Lord of lords” however, that is where it stops. It doesn't continue with “and God of gods”.
See below in Deuteronomy. This is Moses who is speaking about the One who gave him the ten commandments.
Deut 10:17 “For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe…”Again, thank you for being here.
I will leave you with this thought for now:
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”– 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.Lu……..there is false Knowledge and there is true knowledge while Paul was addressing false Knowledge , to imply all knowledge is false is wrong on your part, the whole of Christan's today exists in a state of (FALSE) knowledge, because of the false influences that have crept into the church over the past centuries an some of the chiefest of them is the ideology of a preexistent Jesus as well as a Triune God Head, which by the way both say they use Greek Scholars to understand , however not understanding these So called Greek Scholars were all trinitarians and preexistences. So much of what is professed today has caused people to go astray from the truth. It doesn't take a very intelligent person to see that, with thousands of different denominations all professing they have the “TRUTH”, so just because you hear something that goes against you personal belief system does not mean it wrong. IMO
peace …………gene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 16 2008,21:31) Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 16 2008,16:16) What do suppose would happen to the Christian dogma if John 1:1 was never written? Sorry, I'm tired. What I mean is, if John 1:1 was never written would we have come up with some of the Christian dogma that is so popular?
Hi not3,
Yes many dogmatic people wish John had not shared his god given wisdom with us.
What is a dogmatic person in your opinon?And I'm sincerely wondering why two or three sentences in a whole collection of books can make such a winding path of Christian belief….
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 16 2008,21:17) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 16 2008,15:47) T8……> brown is part of and portrays what the cow is like. The cow is brown and therefore is part of the cow. The Word is an attribute of GOD and is therefore Part of Him , just as your words are attributes of you and portray who you are, Your words are not a separate thing from you. Neither is God's words separate from him. Don't you think if John wanted to say Jesus he could have written it there, why does anyone have to change anything, just read it and understand it as it is written. IMO peace to you ……….gene
You are saying that logos and theos both have the definite article and only one is identifying and the other is not. If I were you I would talk to an expert in Greek and find out if that is possible before holding onto it.Anyway, regardless of that outcome, there are still complications for you to overcome.
- Both logos and theos are both associated with the definite article in John 1:1 and in John 1:1a the Logos is associated with the definite article and God is not even mentioned yet. i.e., “In the beginning was the Word”,…
- In John 1:1b, the logos is WITH God, a second complication for your view.
- And in John 1:1c logos has the definite article and theos does not. The third complication.
If you find out that it is possible to still hold your view under serious scrutiny of Greek language construction, then fair enough. But if you don't study it to the degree to eliminate any possible error, then you will not be doing yourself much a service and it could also be said to be quite reckless, especially if you teach your view.
I also speak to myself and I am certainly willing to embrace any truth here to further my understanding.
T8….First of all lets establish one point, John 1:1 have be argued by nearly all religions over and over for hundreds of years so i don't think it as clear as you make it out to be.Secondly…. because we change upper and lower case wording to meant our understanding and apply rules to it does not makes it necessarily true. Thirdly if we understand that Spirit is Intellect and is expressed through Words, and it you understand that your words are as much part of who and what you are as God's words are Him, it becomes easy to tie God and His word together as one and the same thing, Just like i could tie you and your words to you. If you understand that John was relating to the beginning of creation and you were to read what Genesis says then you would easily see what John was talking about, God's words Spoke every into creation in the beginning, And to try to make it out to mean something else is forcing the text to fit your and others ideologies , when if you just read it as simple as it is written and use the meaning of the words John said it all fall into place naturally without changing any meaning of (WORD) or anything else.
If you understood and believed that God said He (ALONE) and BY HIMSELF) created everything and not try to force the text by some preconceived idea that Jesus Created everything you would see clearly what John was saying.
Your commit on the brown being part of the cow is right it would be part of it, Just as the words of God are Part of HIM. You say the word being with God is a complication, are you words with you?, where is the complication with that. You say Logos has a definite article with it , so what, a definite article only ties a proper noun to it and in this case the proper noun id GOD. But you and others are making the descriptor the proper Noun when in fact it is not. The most oblivious question to me is if John wanted to mean Jesus he simply would have wrote it in the text. And there would not have been all this constant concussion on the subject of John 1:1. So you state you have it so clear and WJ stated He has it so clear, and I state it see it so clear and doint have to change anything or upper or lower case anything and it makes sense to me and Adam Just as it is written, So who could not be doing themselves much service and being quite reckless, seeing WE don't have to change anything to understand it and you and WJ do?, interesting. And if you are truly willing to embrace any truth then try to read it and apply to it simplest meaning, that backs up other scriptures also, Like in Genesis in the beginning when GOD (SAID) a word and created something. That word identified who and what GOD IS> in my opinion and Adams and some other also.
Not trying to be hostel T8 but its just the way i see it and nothing presented by you or WJ , Has changed my mind so far.
love and peace to you brother…………gene
All I have been doing is reading your Post for awhile, but not saying anything to it. Since I have time today, I will put down how I see it.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. And the Word was with God. And the Word became flesh.
First lets look at the Word of God, who became flesh. Is He a real person? We have to look at other Scriptures to get the answer.
Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION. Here we see that the Word is not just a plan or a thought in Gods mind. He is the first thing that the Father created. Then in the next verse we see that He created all. For Him and by Him He created all that are in heaven and that are on earth. To me that shows a real creation, not just a plan or thought.
Rev. 3:14 is another scripture that tells us of the creation of the Son, before anything existed.
…THESE THINGS SAYS THE AMEN, THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WITNESS THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD.” It could not get any cleared to me. And that Scripture pretty much shows that He was the firstborn of all.
Now we have established that the Son was with the Father before anything was created.
Why do so many fall over the Word that it was God? If I begot a Son do I not give Him my name? I believe that God is a tittle or a Family Name. We are the Family of God.
The Head of the wife is man, the Head of Man is Christ and the Head of Christ is the Father.
No trinity. Just want to give one more scripture that shows that the Father is above all, it is in
Ephesians. 4:6 ….one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.
I hope this helps. This is the way I see it.
Peace and Love IreneIrene……..i know how you see it, and i respect you views, But i would have you answer one thing first how is it possible for a WORD to actually (BECOME FLESH) that is impossible because a word is Spirit and not Flesh. But it could come to be (IN FLESH) and that is what Happened God's words were in Jesus Just as He said, but He also said the WORDS were (NOT) HIS WORDS. So simple logic would demand that we conclude Jesus was not (THE) word but spoke the word of GOD to US. The words Jesus spoke did (NOT) originate from HIM just as He said.
this is just the way i see it Sis.
Love and peace to you and yours………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 17 2008,05:45) Irene……..i know how you see it, and i respect you views, But i would have you answer one thing first how is it possible for a WORD to actually (BECOME FLESH) that is impossible because a word is Spirit and not Flesh. But it could come to be (IN FLESH) and that is what Happened God's words were in Jesus Just as He said, but He also said the WORDS were (NOT) HIS WORDS. So simple logic would demand that we conclude Jesus was not (THE) word but spoke the word of GOD to US. The words Jesus spoke did (NOT) originate from HIM just as He said. this is just the way i see it Sis.
Love and peace to you and yours………..gene
But You are ignoring all other Sxcriptures given. Rev. 3:14 and Col. 1:15-18 Also John would not have to say that the Word was God, if it was His Word or just the Fathers Word. God in the flesh, God with us. The Word God became flesh. I believe that He was the Spokesword of God in the Old Testament. When ever you hear or see God it is the Word that became Jesus. Remember nobody has heard His voice or seen the form of the Father God. It is always the Son of God or an Angel.
Peace and Love
IreneQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 17 2008,05:45) Irene……..i know how you see it, and i respect you views, But i would have you answer one thing first how is it possible for a WORD to actually (BECOME FLESH) that is impossible because a word is Spirit and not Flesh. But it could come to be (IN FLESH) and that is what Happened God's words were in Jesus Just as He said, but He also said the WORDS were (NOT) HIS WORDS. So simple logic would demand that we conclude Jesus was not (THE) word but spoke the word of GOD to US. The words Jesus spoke did (NOT) originate from HIM just as He said. this is just the way i see it Sis.
Love and peace to you and yours………..gene
Hi GB,
But you told us in another thread that Jesus was ignorant about many things and the apostles only wrote according to their understanding.So you neither believe in the Word, nor in Jesus, nor in the God Whoo spoke through him.
So what do you believe in apart from Gene?
Nick….Where did Jesus ever say He know everything or for that matter where did the apostles say they knew everything, in fact one of them said they only seen through a dark glass. where did i say i did not believe in the word spoken by Jesus, Because i say Jesus Spoke the FATHERS words and not His own does mean i do not believe them, I just believe the words were from the FATHER not from Jesus Himself as He said in many places. again you are adding words to what i say and i find this very annoying. I said Jesus did not know everything and He himself said that. It is not sin to impute falsehood to a brother, you need to conceder this before you write something. IMO
peace……….gene
Hi GB,
It matters only that what he said and what they wrote is of God.
If you cannot accept that then you are not of God.
If you do then why do you not believe them?He, the one whose words came from God, spoke of evil spirits and satan but you deny them.
Why?Nick…….Jodi as well as i have explained our beliefs on this and you are trying to make it to be like we are against Jesus and the apostles which is falsehood on you part. Where did we say we did not believe in evil spirits and Satan, we said we believed that they are not separate beings jumping in and out of people at will, as you and other perceived them. That there origins were from Pagan practices and not from GOD. AS the old testament proves. Jodi posted much proof and you chose to ignore the proof but that you ignorance at work not hers or mine. And i do not deny Jesus spoke of evil spirits and Satan as you presume i said, i simply do not think the perceptions are right as to what they are because of the lack of knowledge at that time is all. And the lack of understanding of mental illnesses was the problem.
IMO
In the beginnng was the light? Not according to scripture, so it seems:
Genesis 1:2 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
In the beginning was the light? It seems the opposite is true in that from the beginning there was “darkness”.
I'm still trying to reconcile your interpretation of John 1:1, Kathi. Can we really replace “word” in John 1:1 to mean “light”? Light was not from the beginning according to the scriptures.
Thanks,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 17 2008,16:58) In the beginnng was the light? Not according to scripture, so it seems: Genesis 1:2 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
In the beginning was the light? It seems the opposite is true in that from the beginning there was “darkness”.
I'm still trying to reconcile your interpretation of John 1:1, Kathi. Can we really replace “word” in John 1:1 to mean “light”? Light was not from the beginning according to the scriptures.
Thanks,
Mandy
Mandy! Do you believe that the Angels shouted for joy about a place that was dark and void? I don't think so. I believe when God created the earth it was beautiful, Lucifer was put in charge to keep this planet that way. However because of his Pride and wanting to be like God and sit on His throne, He became dark and so did this planet along with 1/3 of the Angels. Lucifer fell like lighting from Heaven, and became that Devil, called Satan.
So in order for us to live on this planet God recreated it. IMO
That to me makes sense.
Peace and Love IreneAccording to the Genesis passage, the angels and so on were not created yet. IN THE BEGINNING there was “darkness”…….
A closer look seems to reveal that the Genesis passage is speaking of the EARTH only. So perhaps the angels were already there?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 17 2008,04:45) T8….First of all lets establish one point, John 1:1 have be argued by nearly all religions over and over for hundreds of years so i don't think it as clear as you make it out to be.
OK. Start with the first point then.In the beginning was THE logos.
Why is there a definite article here, considering that God hasn't even been mentioned yet?
I think that would be a good place to start for testing your view.
T8….good lets go through it slow, first lets establish, (the) beginning, as to what beginning John was talking about, and seeing there is no mention of (the) earth by the definite article then we must presume John was talking about the beginning of everything that exists including God himself. So how did God exist and in what way did he exist then, did GOD not exist with intellect and was that not expressed by the word or logos, (the) word of GOD) Spoke everything into existence. It was as much part of God as anything other part of His attributes are. And in fact the word God in the text is comes from Elohim which means (POWERS) So with that we can construct the Sentence to say, in the beginning of everything was the word (intellect) and the Word (intellect) was with GOD put it together word= spirit, God=spirit, the word of GOD was and is GOD. Just like John said, the word WAS GOD in the beginning of everything. IMO.
peace to you and yours……….gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
