JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[carmel]

Quote

In what language does “Son OF God” mean “God in flesh”?

Mike,

Read again all what I posted.

I made it clear that when HE SAID SON OF GOD, HE MEANT

GOD IN FLESH.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LITERALLY MEANING.

SCRIPTURES  WAS NEVER  WRITTEN  TO BE READ ONLY LITERRAL.

SCRIPTURES ARE WRITTEN AND SHOULD BE INTERPRETTED ONLY SPIRITUAL WITH REGARDS TO GOD.

JESUS CALLED HEROD FOX.

WAS HEROD A FOX???

YOU WOULD DEFINITELY SAY NO!!

BUT FOR JESUS WAS  A FOX, AND SINCE JESUS WAS HIS CREATOR, HE WAS MORE THEN AWARE THAT HEROD WAS BOTH SPIRITUAL, AND CARNAL A FOX.

IT'S NOT WHAT ONE SAYS ON EARTH, IT'S WHAT COMES THROUGH THE HEART.

THE DEVIL IS THE FATHER OF LIES, AND WHEN HE SPEAKS, HE ONLY SPEAKS LIES.

PEACE AND LOVE IN JESUS

CHARLES

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 01 2012,11:55)

I've been discussing this with Ed, but now that I think about it, EVERYONE who believes John 1:1 teaches that God Most High actually WAS the Word who was WITH God Most High in the beginning, must also believe that the following paraphrase of 1:14 is accurate……….. 14 God Most High became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen God Most High's glory, the glory of the only begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Does this REALLY make sense to you all?

Hi Mike,

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

The HolySpirit's glory is seen in the children of God, first in Jesus, then in us.

      the glory as of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14) com-
      pared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)

      The Word of the oath, which was since the law,
      maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7:28)

      1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
      incorruptible, by “The Word” of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

      Of his own will begat he us with “The Word” of truth,
      that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

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

[jammin]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 31 2012,23:53)

Hi Jammin, I do. “The Word was God” (John 1:1) “God was in Christ” (2Cor. 5:19) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

the verse is correct.
just do not add your imagination ed.

rule #1
read the context

you do not know that ed

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,00:02)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 01 2012,11:55) I've been discussing this with Ed, but now that I think about it, EVERYONE who believes John 1:1 teaches that God Most High actually WAS the Word who was WITH God Most High in the beginning, must also believe that the following paraphrase of 1:14 is accurate……….. 14 God Most High became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen God Most High's glory, the glory of the only begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Does this REALLY make sense to you all?   Hi Mike, And the Word [HolySpirit] was made flesh, and dwelt among us,  (and we beheld [the HolySpirit's] his glory, the glory as of  the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.         (John 1:14)

Ed,

Since you believe the Holy Spirit IS God Most High, my paraphrase accurately conveys your understanding of 1:14.

It is only because you are now realizing your understanding doesn't make sense that you are trying to distinguish between the Holy Spirit and God Most High – although you've claimed for years that they are one and the same.

Which is it? Are they different or one and the same?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ Sep. 01 2012,00:00)

Mike, Read again all what I posted. I made it clear that when HE SAID SON OF GOD, HE MEANT GOD IN FLESH. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LITERALLY MEANING. JESUS CALLED HEROD FOX. WAS HEROD A FOX??? YOU WOULD DEFINITELY SAY NO!!

No, you didn't “make it clear”, Charles.  You made a claim which I consider illogical and unscriptural.  That is a far cry from “making it clear”.

And no, Herod wasn't literally a fox – but we must use our God-given common sense, Charles.  Common sense tells us that Herod wasn't literally a fox.  What tells us that Satan meant “God in the flesh” by the words “Son of God”?  

Did you read limjunis' post?  Does it really make sense to you that Satan offered something God gave him in the first place in exchange for an act of worship?  

That would be like me telling God I will give him an apple that He gave to me in the first place – if He would only worship me.

Surely Satan and the demons, being spirit beings, know who God is and have actually seen God.  And they knew that Jesus was not God.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

The Theology of John 1

The best place to start as we examine the theology of pre-existence is with the gospel according to John. No other historian of the Messiah alludes to the theme of “pre-existence” nearly to the extent that John does. Consequently, much of the theology existing today has been inspired by John's gospel. Not only is the interpretation of John primarily responsible for the view that the Messiah was “God incarnate” but it is also the main contributor to the doctrine that also includes the “Holy Spirit” among the “Godhead” — thus the “Holy Trinity.”

As mentioned in the introduction, a person's theology will color his translation of the Greek. Such is the case with the gospel of John. Undoubtedly, the theme of John is set forth in chapter one and is developed from there. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholic commentary on the “Holy Trinity” was developed by alluding first to their translation of John 1:1-14. For this reason it behooves us to look at some of these verses first.

The KJV and most that have followed have rendered John 1:1 thus:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Greek word translated “Word” is logoV (logos). Most scholars would agree that “word” is inadequate as a definition of logoV. Vine defines it thus:

“a. Denotes the expression of thought — not the mere name of an object as embodying a conception or idea… b. A saying or statement…” (ibid., vol. iv, p. 229)

Doctor Adam Clark defines it in this fashion —

“It signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning.” (op. cit., Burtt, p. 10)

As previously mentioned, the entire original manuscript of John was penned in Greek capital letters. Given this fact, to capitalize this word in the English is to interpret its meaning and this is what the majority of versions do. Just the fact that they capitalize it in this verse proves their Trinitarian bias and paradigm. It does not mean that they are wrong in their theology; it only identifies what their theology was as they entered their labors. If you change the translation of logoV to a lower case “message” it carries a greater meaning than the English “Word” and changes completely the theology contained therein.

In addition to capitalizing and translating logoV “Word”, they also translated the Greek word proV (pros) “with” — which is not its general use in the accusative case. ProV, as with most prepositions, has a very strong directional sense. Chase and Phillips define its use in the accusative as:

To, towards, with reference to, according to (A New Introduction to Greek, p. 119).

ProV (Pros) is not the word in the Greek that would have been used if John wanted us to understand the “Word” was “with” God in the English sense. “Meta” (meta) would have been used to convey that sense. In John 1:1, I agree with those that render it as “directed toward”. Another thing that happens with this verse in most English translations is the repositioning of the phrase “and 'God' was the logoV,” which is the order it appears in the Greek text. Sometimes switching the sequence of a sentence does not influence the meaning but in this case an entire theology can be bolstered as a result. Therefore, you see it translated “and the Word was God” in most English translations instead of “and 'God' the message was“.

Another important point that needs to be discussed here is that — in the opinion of most Greek scholars — at least the first portion of the John text is in poetic form. The poetic form that occurs is that the first word or principle meaning of the next sentence is the last word or principle meaning of the proceeding sentence. In view of this, let me quote what is in my opinion a superior translation of the passage:

In the beginning was the message,
And the message was directed toward God,
And “God” the message was.

As you can see illustrated by the above rendering, “message” is the last word of the first line and becomes the first primary word of the second line. “God” — which is the last word of the second line is the first primary word of the next line. This poetic structure appears in other portions of the “prolog” to John, such as:

What has been done in it was life,
And the life was the light of humanity.
And the light shone in the darkness,
But the darkness did not understand it. (vv. 4-5)

As you can also see, a tremendous change in theology can be derived by the above translation. Let me emphasize that the above IS a valid rendering and that it is not a perversion designed to undermine the Trinitarian view. The translator, Frank Daniels, did NOT hold the view contained in this thesis when he translated John.

Translating the first verse with the lower case “message” rather than the upper case “Word” also causes the pronoun autoV (autos) — translated “he” by the “authorized” versions — to be translated “it”, “this” or “the same” because it refers to a neuter “message” rather than a person “Word”. Instead of the normal rendering of verse 2 which is,

“He [autoV] was in the beginning with [proV] God.”

it is translated —

“The same [autoV] was directed toward [proV] God in the beginning.”

The pronoun autoV will be masculine or neuter depending upon the gender of the word to which it refers. Of course, we all know that “word” is neuter anyway. However, the KJV assumed that logoV — in this case — was a male person, i.e., “Jesus Christ,” so they rendered autoV “he.” Do you see what I mean by translator bias? You don't need to be a Greek scholar to notice this bias if it is pointed out to you.

Even the “authorized” versions do not uniformly translate autoV “him” in verses 2 through 4. In verse 2 cited above, they render autoV “He”. In verse 3, they give autoV as “him”. However, in verse 4, they switch to “it”. They are not being disingenuous here, only interpreting according to their paradigm. Instead of the KJV rendering,

All things were made by him [autoV]; and without him [autoV] was not any thing made that was made. In him [autoV] was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness and the darkness comprehended it [autoV] not (emphasis and Greek mine).

the alternative would continue the poetic structure with a different and consistent translation of the pronoun autoV as follows:

Through it [autoV], all things were done.
And without it [autoV] nothing was done.
What has been done in it [autoV] was life.
And the life was the light of humanity.
And the light shone in the darkness.
But the darkness did not understand it [autoV].

Do you see the seeds of a “new” theology emerging? The “authorized” rendering of verses 3-5, certainly demonstrates the personification of the Greek logoV (translated and capitalized “Word”) by the additional rendition of autoV as “he” and “him”. On the other hand, by translating logoV “message” and (autoV) “it” you project an entirely different connotation to verse 14 — which I believe states concisely the theme of the gospel of John — whereas the “authorized” version gives it as:

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.

The alternative would read —

And the message was embodied (made flesh) and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth.

The “authorized” rendering of John 1:3-5 also strongly implies that the personified “Word” was the creator by translating the Greek word dia
“by ” instead of “through.” Almost all later versions, including the RSV, NASV, ASV and NIV, correct this bias of the KJV and give it as “through.” However, most follow the error that is compounded by translating egeneto (egeneto) — a form of the word ginomai (ginomai) — “made”, strongly implying in this context create when the basic meaning is “happen”! Wilson aptly comments on its use here as follows:

“Ginomai occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but never in the sense of create, yet in most versions it is translated as though the word was ktizw (ktizo). 'The word appears fifty three times in John, and signifies to be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or transacted” (The Emphatic Diaglott, p. 312).

Understand this, egeneto NEVER carries a “creation” meaning and is never translated such outside the four times rendered such in the first chapter of John (John 1:3,4, and 10) and in these cases the translators strongly suggest create by translating egeneto “made.”

Are you beginning to understand the powerful influence of paradigm in the translation process? These men were brilliant scholars and certainly understood the English language and the nuances of word usage. It is easy to identify their bias in this example. I reiterate that it does not necessarily mean that their interpretation and theology was incorrect. It most assuredly shows, however, that their Trinitarian bias (coupled with their fear of King James whose many titles included “Defender of the Faith) “colored” their translation.

If we agree that the proper translation of egeneto is “were done” — which fits this context — you have the makings of a whole new interpretation. Instead of the logoV “message” being the creator itself, it becomes the reason that the “all things” under discussion in this text were “done.” Therefore, the rendering

Through it, all things were done.
And without it nothing was done.

could be interpreted as saying that YEHOVAH God brought “all things” into focus historically through and on account of the pre-existent “message,” and his whole plan was conceived and purposed toward this end. The next verse identifies the goal of this “message” as “life.”

What has been done in it was life. And the life was the light of humanity.

This also explains verse one's description, “And 'God' the message was.”

YEHOVAH God was the source, inspiration, and accomplisher of this plan and the pre-existent and forthcoming “message” would direct mankind toward this truth. YEHOVAH was the content of the message. The great Revelator, omnipotent and omniscient One described by Paul as one who “… calls things that are not as though they are” (Rom. 4:17), would be declared and glorified by a uniquely prepared individual — the Anointed Yeshua. In other words, instead of having the person of the “Anointed” pre-existing as God, you have the “message” of the “Anointed” pre-existing and “directed toward God.”

This message is the same message spoken to Abraham and Moses. A good example of this distinction can be seen in Ephesians 1:4. Paul writes that Christians were “chosen in him (the Anointed Yeshua) before the foundation of the world.” No one argues from this verse that Christians literally pre-existed but that the plan and purpose of YEHOVAH for their redemption pre-existed. If this is true concerning the believer (the goal of the message), couldn't it also be true regarding the “Anointed” (messenger) himself? If not, why not? Simply put, YEHOVAH God had the believer in MIND before he existed so why could not the “Anointed” have existed only in YEHOVAH's MIND before it became flesh?

This view makes much more sense than trying to explain the Messiah as being both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. In addition, this principle can be enjoined in all references to the pre-existence of the “Anointed” in the New Testament. Even the difficulty of making the switch from the neuter pronoun to the masculine in the first chapter of John is removed when you understand that Yeshua of Nazareth was the “message” of YEHOVAH God personified rather than “God personified”. So the “message” was embodied in the “flesh” in verse 14. We didn't observe the message itself, but the GLORY of the message, viz the embodiment of the message: The Messiah — a he.

And the message was embodied and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth.

This view also agrees with John's use of the neuter in introducing the subject of 1 John. Here, John also introduces the Messiah from the standpoint of a neuter “message” rather than a person “he.” Compare with John 1:1-4 and 1 John 1:1-2. John 1:1-4 has:

1 In the beginning was the message,
And the message was directed towards God,
And “God” the message was.

2 The same one was directed towards God in the beginning.

3 Through it, all things were done.
And without it nothing was done.

4 What has been done in it was life.
And the life was the Light of humanity.

In 1 John 1:1-2 he writes:

1 What was from the beginning,
What we heard, What we saw with our eyes,
What we observed and our hands felt
Concerning the message of life.

2 And the life appeared,
And we saw and are testifying and are declaring to you
the life, the eternal life,
which was directed toward the Father
and which appeared to us.

In 1 John 1:1-2, all scholars render the subject as neuter. Some translate it “that” instead of “what” but there is no difference in the meaning. John emphasizes that “what” they had seen and heard — their “hands felt”. When you think on it, a “what” would require substance of some sort in order to be heard, understood and felt, wouldn't it? And this is just what John is alluding to. Yeshua, as the Anointed, was the embodiment of the “message” of “life” — the “message” that directed people towards the giver of life — the “Father”. This also agrees with the concept raised by the Messiah in John 14:19. There the Messiah taught Philip, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.” Was he saying they had literally seen YEHOVAH God? No one claims this is the case! If he did not intend it literally then how did he mean it? They had beheld the “message” of YEHOVAH God personified in him — not YEHOVAH God Himself! Isn't this what John was teaching in John 1:18?

No one has ever seen God. The unique son, the one who is at the bosom of the Father, that one has related him.

In the above verse, the word translated “related” is exhghsato (exegesato) and is translated “declare” by the KJV. It is the word we derive our English word exegesis. Vine defines it as:

EXEGEOMAI (exhgeomai), lit., to lead out, signifies to make known, rehearse, declare… In John 1:18, in the sentence 'He hath declared Him,' the other meaning of the verb is in view, to unfold in teaching, to declare by making known. See Tell (op. cit., p. 265).

Yeshua, as the Anointed One, related to them everything that the “message” residing in him intended. Thus, through his life and teaching they had seen YEHOVAH God — His character, His love, His desire for their deliverance and abundant life, etc. As they examined the Messiah, they beheld the “life” of John 1:4. As they lived with him, listened to him and touched him, they “heard…saw… felt…the message of life.”

Not only is this view more sensible and consistent, but it also makes the unique man Yeshua even MORE compelling — if that is possible. This will be developed in detail before the end of this article.
SOURCE  

WHO IS THE WORD?
John Chapter O
ne

ELOHIM: ONE, OR MORE THAN ONE?
Exodus 32
By Voy Wilks
3/9/98

The Pre-existence
Philippians 2:5-11
By Voy Wilks
1/29/92

Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?

“Jesus IS God!”?

…

[carmel]

Quote

What tells us that Satan meant “God in the flesh” by the words “Son of God”?

Mike,

Literally ” Son of God ”

Spiritually  “GOD”.

JESUS AS FLESH WAS SON OF MAN AND SON OF GOD

JESUS AS SPIRITUAL was GOD IN FLESH.  

THE FULLNESS OF GOD IN JESUS BODY.

SINCE HE WAS ON EARTH, AND BECAME VISIBLE.

THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE, THE FLESH COUNTS FOR NOTHING,

AND HE DEMONSTRATED IT BY MASSACCERING HIS FLESH BODY AND  TRANSFORMED IT INTO HIS REAL SPRITUAL SUBSTANCE .

WHILE VISIBLE ON EARTH ONE COULD ONLY SEE  JESUS AS MAN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HIS APPOSTLES:

John 16:3 And these things will they do to you; because they have not known the Father, nor me

SO THE WORLD HAD NOT KNOWN NEITHER THE FATHER IN HIS FULLNESS AS SPIRITUAL IN JESUS AS GOD, NOR JESUS AS SON OF MAN AND SON OF GOD.

Quote

that Satan offered something God gave him in the first place in exchange for an act of worship

lUKE 4: 13 And all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from him for a time.

14 And Jesus returned in the power of the spirit, into Galilee, and the fame of him went out through the whole country.

MIKE,

The above scripture tells us that Jesus was not in the POWER OF THE SPIRIT when he was in the desert, so He was as a mere man to be tested,and to keep Satan in the blind in order to kill Him. if he knew that Jesus was the MESSIAH he wouldn't have crucified HIM.

Now read hereunder,

LITERALLY IT SAYS:

Which none of the princes of this world knew

So to make sure that you understand scriptures,the princes of this world are SATAN and his alliances

1 Corithians 2:8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Quote

Surely Satan and the demons, being spirit beings, know who God is and have actually seen God.  And they knew that Jesus was not God.

Mike and LIMJUNUS,

I'm afraid you still need MILK not MEAT since you don't know that Satan and the demons NEVER SAW GOD AND NEVER WILL SEE GOD IN THEIR EVIL STATE.

I WOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THIS FOR YOU, BUT I KNOW HOW UNCOMFORTABLE IT IS  FOR YOU  READING MY, AND LONG POSTS.

SO I LET YOU SEARCH SCRIPTURES TO VERIFY YOURSELF.

peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[Ed J]

Quote (jammin @ Sep. 02 2012,01:01)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 31 2012,23:53) Hi Jammin, I do. “The Word was God” (John 1:1) “God was in Christ” (2Cor. 5:19) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org the verse is correct. just do not add your imagination ed. rule #1 read the context you do not know that ed

Hi Jammin,

“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?
them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be
upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there
a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said,
This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;
here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” (Isaiah 28:9-13)

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul
also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;  As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they
that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

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

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,02:35)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,00:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 01 2012,11:55) I've been discussing this with Ed, but now that I think about it, EVERYONE who believes John 1:1 teaches that God Most High actually WAS the Word who was WITH God Most High in the beginning, must also believe that the following paraphrase of 1:14 is accurate……….. 14 God Most High became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen God Most High's glory, the glory of the only begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Does this REALLY make sense to you all?   Hi Mike, And the Word [HolySpirit] was made flesh, and dwelt among us,  (and we beheld [the HolySpirit's] his glory, the glory as of  the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.         (John 1:14) Ed, Since you believe the Holy Spirit IS God Most High, my paraphrase accurately conveys your understanding of 1:14.   It is only because you are now realizing your understanding doesn't make sense that you are trying to distinguish between the Holy Spirit and God Most High – although you've claimed for years that they are one and the same. Which is it?  Are they different or one and the same?

Hi Mike,

The Holy Spirit IS the spirit of God Most High.

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

[carmel]

Quote

Surely Satan and the demons, being spirit beings, know who God is and have actually seen God.  And they knew that Jesus was not God.

Limjunus,

As I said to Mike,

Jesus was a mere man while in the desert.

God never allowed Satan to recognize Jesus divinity.

Satan never saw, and knew who God was.

Satan saw for the first time God in Jesus, GLORIFIED in His mystical flesh body when he took HIS SOUL in hell

WITHOUT BEING AWARE WHO HE WAS.

You have to reflect upon the FACT that God alloowed Satan to own the MATTER, the reason that the world was his.

So as MATTER, although he is a spirit, he was never allowed the spiritual ATTRIBUTES of GOD, since God is the only  GENUINE spirit

keep in mind that it was and still is a WAR between

GOOD AND EVIL

GOD AND SATAN

SPIRIT AND FLESH

WHO WOULD OVERTHROW WHO!!

SO JESUS WAS BOTH FLESH(SATAN'S) AND SPIRIT (GOD'S)

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers

 OF FLESH AND BLOOD (Satan's substance), HE ALSO HIMSELF LIKEWISE TOOK PART OF THE SAME

that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17WHEREFOR 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.

18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted  

THEREFORE JESUS DESTROYED THE FLESH(SATAN'S) AND TRANSFORMED IT INTO HIS GENUINE  SPIRITUAL FLESH SUBSTANCE,

GOD'S MYSTICAL BODY,

AND JESUS OVERTHREW SATAN FROM THE ENTIRE CREATION AND REPLACED HIM, AND BECAME IN COMMAND OF:

BOTH HEAVEN AND EARTH.

BOTH SPIRIT AND  FLESH,

SATAN LOST MANHOOD

HIS DREAM TO BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH.

Peace and love in Jesus the only true God in flesh.

Charles

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ Sep. 01 2012,13:37)

Mike, Literally ” Son of God ” Spiritually  “GOD”.

No Charles,

“Son OF God” means exactly what it sounds like.  And just as the “son OF the President” is not also the President himself, the Son OF God is not also the God he is the Son OF.

One more thing:
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Not only did Satan see Jehovah, but he had a long conversation with Him about Job.  It's right there in the scriptures for all to to see.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,14:03)

Hi Mike, The Holy Spirit IS the spirit of God Most High.

Kudos, Ed!  

This is what MANY people have been trying to tell you for YEARS on this site.  Worshipping Jesus actually started two different threads in an effort to TEACH you what you finally seem to accept.

So why did you buck so hard against all of us who have been telling you the Holy Spirit is OF God, and not God Most High himself?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ Sep. 01 2012,13:37)

MIKE, The above scripture tells us that Jesus was not in the POWER OF THE SPIRIT when he was in the desert, so He was as a mere man to be tested

So “God” was merely a man on earth at first, and then somehow became “God” again?

Charles, Jesus is the Son of God. In other words, our ONE God, Jehovah, has a Son and his name is Jesus.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,08:46)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,14:03) Hi Mike, The Holy Spirit IS the spirit of God Most High. Kudos, Ed!   This is what MANY people have been trying to tell you for YEARS on this site.  Worshipping Jesus actually started two different threads in an effort to TEACH you what you finally seem to accept. So why did you buck so hard against all of us who have been telling you the Holy Spirit is OF God, and not God Most High himself?

Hi Mike,

The HolySpirit is God. (see Luke 1:35 / Acts 5:3-4)

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

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 02 2012,15:59)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,08:46) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,14:03) Hi Mike, The Holy Spirit IS the spirit of God Most High. Kudos, Ed!   This is what MANY people have been trying to tell you for YEARS on this site.  Worshipping Jesus actually started two different threads in an effort to TEACH you what you finally seem to accept. So why did you buck so hard against all of us who have been telling you the Holy Spirit is OF God, and not God Most High himself? Hi Mike, The HolySpirit is God. (see Luke 1:35 / Acts 5:3-4) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

edj

the holy spirit ,his the spirit of God as far that he make it known to creation ,BUT IT CAN NOT BE HIS SPIRIT AS WHAT HE THINKS OR PLANS ONLY WHAT HE REVEAL ,NO MORE NO LESS,BUT IT IS THE ONLY TRUTH ON HAND IN ALL CREATION ,

NO ONE CAN KNOW THE MIND OF GOD OR HIS PLANS UNLESS HE REVEAL IT .

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,08:46)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,14:03) Hi Mike, The Holy Spirit IS the spirit of God Most High. Kudos, Ed!   This is what MANY people have been trying to tell you for YEARS on this site.  Worshipping Jesus actually started two different threads in an effort to TEACH you what you finally seem to accept. So why did you buck so hard against all of us who have been telling you the Holy Spirit is OF God, and not God Most High himself?

Mike,

How many “YEARS” and for how many more “YEARS” are you going to argue with Ed J simply for the sake of arguing? Certainly you have become blue in the face at some point in time in these “YEARS”!  

WHO IS THE WORD?
John Chapter One

ELOHIM: ONE, OR MORE THAN ONE?
Exodus 32
By Voy Wilks
3/9/98

The Pre-existence
Philippians 2:5-11
By Voy Wilks
1/29/92

Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?

“Jesus IS God!”?

…

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,15:59)

Hi Mike, The HolySpirit is God.

So then the following DOES accurately portray your understanding, right?

14 God Most High became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen God Most High's glory, the glory of the only begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Ed, you say the Holy Spirit is God – the Father of Jesus.  And you say the Holy Spirit is the Word who was with God in the beginning.  How can the Word come FROM the Father, full of grace, if the Word actually IS the Father?

You are getting tripped up by your own doctrine.  Why don't you just say for all of us here that my paraphrase of 1:14 is how you understand it?  Why try to change my words to “Holy Spirit” in one post, and then turn around and say the Holy Spirit is God in the next?  

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Sep. 01 2012,17:55)

Certainly you have become blue in the face at some point in time in these “YEARS”!

Many times on many subjects.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,11:09)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,15:59) Hi Mike, The HolySpirit is God. So then the following DOES accurately portray your understanding, right? 14 God Most High became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen God Most High's glory, the glory of the only begotten, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Ed, you say the Holy Spirit is God – the Father of Jesus.  And you say the Holy Spirit is the Word who was with God in the beginning.  How can the Word come FROM the Father, full of grace, if the Word actually IS the Father? You are getting tripped up by your own doctrine.  Why don't you just say for all of us here that my paraphrase of 1:14 is how you understand it?  Why try to change my words to “Holy Spirit” in one post, and then turn around and say the Holy Spirit is God in the next?

Hi Mike, (I have reposed this for you) here is how it lines up…

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

The HolySpirit's glory is seen in the children of God, first in Jesus, then in us.

      the glory as of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14) com-
      pared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)

      The Word of the oath, which was since the law,
      maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Hebrews 7:28)

      1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
      incorruptible, by “The Word” of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

      Of his own will begat he us with “The Word” of truth,
      that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

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

[Ed J]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Sep. 02 2012,10:55)

Mike, How many “YEARS” and for how many more “YEARS” are you going to argue with Ed J simply for the sake of arguing? Certainly you have become blue in the face at some point in time in these “YEARS”!   …

Hi Frank,

Mike changes the wording in an attempt to make truth into a strange doctrine.

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

[Author]

Posts