- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 5 days ago by
.
- Posts
gene,
you are wrong. instead of word, god/jesus christ might have spoken 'intellect' through john.moreover, intellect means an intelligent person, called jesus was there in him as word form.that intelligent person was his child, called jesus.(according to isaiah:9:6-7niv)jesus /child is there from the beginning, because in niv present tense is used.more over , he existed as a distinghished/unparalleliled one among tens of thousands-yet he partook in flesh and blood for our redemption.
psbTo Gene Balthrop.
Before or post my reply, I want to get one thing straight regarding your understanding of John 1:1a.
i.e., “In the beginning was the logos”.Are you saying that THE logos is using THE because the logos is actually God, therefore the use of the definite article with Logos?
Or are you saying that the logos is an attribute of God and the use of the definite article is for another reason?If the latter answer, what is the reason for using the definite article if the Logos is not a person (either Jesus or God himself)?
T8………what i am saying is applying the definite article to Logos, does (Not) make it a Person an attribute can also be used with definite articles also. for instance (the) intellect of (the) man guided Him, or (the) intellect of man guides him. in both cases the definite article is not separating the man from his intellect is it even though a definite article was used. IN the beginning of all things was the word and the word was with God and was GOD, just as it says. The word is as much part of God as anything else is in fact GOD's word spoke everything into existence as scripture say it did, and Jesus said the words He spoke (ARE)spirit and HE said GOD is Spirit.
SO if we put it together GOD's WORD (IS) part of HIMSELF. Just as your words are Part of YOU. Your words can not be separated from you, neither can GOD'S words be separated from Him either because words are the expression of the intellect of the mind just as GOD's words are the expression of his mind also. If you read John 1:1 just like it is written and use the meanings of the words used it all makes sense and also remember John knew who Jesus was and if he want it to mean Jesus he would have just said Jesus, don't you think?
peace brother ………….gene
T8………this whole thing about John 1:1 is what trinitarians us to do two things , one to try to show Jesus' preexistence and His Identity as the God of creation. Both preexistences and trinitarians hinge the belief system on this simple verse and the word Jesus is not even in it. It's all just smoke and mirrors, the truth is that John was expressing what was in the very beginning of all things and that was his (ONLY) point and nothing else. If trinitarians as well as preexistences have to have that verse to prove there positions, there positions are weak at best. Because there is no specific mention of Jesus at all in the text and transposing it to mean that is forcing the text. IMO
love and peace to you and yours T8………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 19 2008,01:38) T8………this whole thing about John 1:1 is what trinitarians us to do two things , one to try to show Jesus' preexistence and His Identity as the God of creation. Both preexistences and trinitarians hinge the belief system on this simple verse and the word Jesus is not even in it. It's all just smoke and mirrors, the truth is that John was expressing what was in the very beginning of all things and that was his (ONLY) point and nothing else. If trinitarians as well as preexistences have to have that verse to prove there positions, there positions are weak at best. Because there is no specific mention of Jesus at all in the text and transposing it to mean that is forcing the text. IMO love and peace to you and yours T8………….gene
the “word” mentioned at John 1:1 IS referring to Jesus…John is simply showing Jesus relationship to his Father…I have never gotten the big deal with this verse..There are a sufficient amount of other verses to disprove the trinity, I don't see a need to get lost in words over this one.Quote (dirtyknections @ Aug. 19 2008,02:25) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 19 2008,01:38) T8………this whole thing about John 1:1 is what trinitarians us to do two things , one to try to show Jesus' preexistence and His Identity as the God of creation. Both preexistences and trinitarians hinge the belief system on this simple verse and the word Jesus is not even in it. It's all just smoke and mirrors, the truth is that John was expressing what was in the very beginning of all things and that was his (ONLY) point and nothing else. If trinitarians as well as preexistences have to have that verse to prove there positions, there positions are weak at best. Because there is no specific mention of Jesus at all in the text and transposing it to mean that is forcing the text. IMO love and peace to you and yours T8………….gene
the “word” mentioned at John 1:1 IS referring to Jesus…John is simply showing Jesus relationship to his Father…I have never gotten the big deal with this verse..There are a sufficient amount of other verses to disprove the trinity, I don't see a need to get lost in words over this one.
Well Hello stranger, have not seen you post for awhile, how are you doing?
You are right, I don/t know either why people fall over John 1:1 so much. We have other scriptures to see if God is a trinity or not ore if Jesus was there before the world was. And He was according to Co. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 John 17:5 I believe when a scripture is not clear to us, that we should see if there are other scriptures that can help us to understand.
I mainly writing this for Gen, I know you do understand the preexisting if Jesus.
Peace and Love IreneI think we tend to make things more complicated than they actually are.
We think that it should be something that is hard to understand that only we can understand. Or that you have to go to school to understand and debate about it for years on end to come to a conclusion.
Lets look at this scripture:
Quote
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.How much more plain can that be?
In the beginning there was the word, and that word was with GOD, and that word was GOD.
Too much debate. The writer is making a clear point.
Our salvation is in Jesus Christ.
No matter what else is said by any one or how they say it…the only way we are going to be saved is by confessing with our mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord. And, obeying his commandments.
There is no other way.
This is the way.
The only way.
Any other way will cause us to die in our sins.Hi Samuel,
I think you need to look again at the way of Christ.
Romans 10 was written to the saints, encouraging them to walk in the Spirit.
It was never given to us as a new way of salvation that bypasses the cross, the death and resurrection[Rom6]Irene…..what's so important about John 1:1, is trinitarians as well as preexistences can not find any other scripture that shows were Jesus is said to specifically preexist at all so they all uses John to try to get across they point, because if they can get people to see Jesus as the Word John is speaking of they both have a specific scripture to prove there points, and with out transposing the word written in John they have (NO) SPECIFIC Text that says Jesus preexisted. That why John 1:1 is the most contested scripture in the bible by scholars and Bible teachers.
Peace to you and yours……….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 20 2008,03:08) Irene…..what's so important about John 1:1, is trinitarians as well as preexistences can not find any other scripture that shows were Jesus is said to specifically preexist at all so they all uses John to try to get across they point, because if they can get people to see Jesus as the Word John is speaking of they both have a specific scripture to prove there points, and with out transposing the word written in John they have (NO) SPECIFIC Text that says Jesus preexisted. That why John 1:1 is the most contested scripture in the bible by scholars and Bible teachers. Peace to you and yours……….gene
Did you even read my last post? I did give clear scriptures that show the preexsisting of Jesus.
Thats all I am so tired of this, when people just ignore things.
Peace and Love Irene
P.S. thats it for me.Irene…..I am not trying to be disrespectful, but the issue of Jesus' preexistences has been heavily debated for centuries by Scholars, the reason being there is (NO) (SPECIFIC) Statement of Jesus' preexistences. There is inference but no (absolute) statement or there would not be the heavy debating on the subject as has been over the centuries. Believe me it is (NOT) as clear as you may think.
Love and peace to you and yours…………gene
The Pahrisees said “”You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
Jesus settled it when he replied “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!”
At this, they picked up stones to stone him.
Look at it closely. The Jews say you are not yet fifty and Jesus said before Abraham, I am.
When you say I am, are you not saying that you exist? e.g., are you t8, I am. To say that I am t8 means that I exist.
I AM THEREFORE I EXIST.
Jesus also said “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going”.
Where did Jesus go? Was it not heaven? If you say that he didn't come from heaven, then does that mean that you one of the people that doesn't know where he came from?
Jesus also said, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.”
Jesus spoke such to the Pharisees. Who is he saying this to today?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 22 2008,23:05) Jesus settled it when he replied “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!”
Hi T8,
Actually the word born was added.
What he actually said was “before Abraham was I am”
Which is poor sentence structure to say the least.Wasn't God called the great I am?
What if the comma was put after Abraham.
Could Jesus have just been saying before Abraham,
was I am? Before Abraham, was God.Tim
The use of I am in the New Testament is relatively common and in no instance is it used to say that someone was God.
Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM?
In Luke 1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In John 9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14.
Quote Hi T8,
Actually the word born was added.
What he actually said was “before Abraham was I am”Or, it could just as easily be translated “existed” or “was.” Note the context and why he said what he did. But of course, the word “born” isn't there.
Quote What if the comma was put after Abraham.
Could Jesus have just been saying before Abraham,
was I am? Before Abraham, was God.Well, they were discussing his age. His obvious response would be to say that he was before Abraham.
The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Hence the context means it should be translated as AT, Mo, CBW, SE, NWT and other's translate it, as ““Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence.
Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·mi′] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·go′ ei·mi′] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.
T8….Jesus was not the one who said (HE) saw Abraham that was what the lying Jew were trying to make him out as saying, and no where did Jesus say He was (BORN) before Abraham, your forcing the text to fit your ideology of preexistence. There is only One scripture that the debate of Jesus preexistence comes down to and that is John 1:1 and it will only work if you transpose the word (WORD) to Mean Jesus. as you and the trinitarians do. Don't you think if Jesus preexisted there would be a (SPECIFIC) statement made in Scripture clearing that point. Why is there no such Statement, But we find Peter Making the statement to the foreordained Jesus and Him coming into existence in His time.
peace brother……..gene
Hi GB,
John 8:56
” Your father Abraham rejoiced to see [1492] My day, and he saw [1492] it and was glad.”John 8:57
So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You [3708] seen Abraham?”Number 1492
Transliteration:
eido {i'-do} or oida {oy'-da}
Word Origin:
a root word
TDNT:
5:116, *
Part of Speech:
verb
Usage in the KJV:
know 282, cannot tell 3756 8, know how 7, wist 6, misc 19, see 314, behold 16, look 5, perceive 5, vr see 3, vr know 1Total: 666
Definition:
to see
to perceive with the eyes
to perceive by any of the senses
to perceive, notice, discern, discover
to see
i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
to pay attention, observe
to see about something
i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
to inspect, examine
to look at, behold
to experience any state or condition
to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit
to know
to know of anything
to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
of any fact
the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
to know how, to be skilled in
to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1Th. 5:12) For Synonyms see entry 5825Number 3708
Transliteration:
horao {hor-ah'-o}
Word Origin:
properly, to stare at [cf 3700]
TDNT:
5:315,706
Part of Speech:
verb
Usage in the KJV:
see 51, take heed 5, behold 1, perceive 1, not tr 1Total: 59
Definition:
to see with the eyes
to see with the mind, to perceive, know
to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience
to see, to look to
to take heed, beware
to care for, pay heed to
I was seen, showed myself, appeared For Synonyms see entry 5822Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 25 2008,10:48) T8….Jesus was not the one who said (HE) saw Abraham that was what the lying Jew were trying to make him out as saying, and no where did Jesus say He was (BORN) before Abraham, your forcing the text to fit your ideology of preexistence. There is only One scripture that the debate of Jesus preexistence comes down to and that is John 1:1 and it will only work if you transpose the word (WORD) to Mean Jesus. as you and the trinitarians do. Don't you think if Jesus preexisted there would be a (SPECIFIC) statement made in Scripture clearing that point. Why is there no such Statement, But we find Peter Making the statement to the foreordained Jesus and Him coming into existence in His time. peace brother……..gene
Amen to that post brother Gene, no son of man can pre-exist before his birth, if so we make the Mormonism to be proved as they believe all souls pre-exist before their birth.Thanks and love to you
Adam
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
