JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,06:05)

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,14:45) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 15 2013,17:09) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,11:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2013,11:51) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 13 2013,20:28) i have no problem with the words of my Lord and savior mike. Well, Your Lord and savior told us that our one heavenly Father was also his one heavenly Father.  With this part, you agree, right? But in the same sentence, your Lord and savior told us that our one God was also his one God.  Why don't you agree with that part of what he said? what is the problem with that boy? the father also told to his son, he is God. heb 1.8 im sure you dont agree with that. but that is the truth of the bible yes. the son called his father God. but the father also called his son as God. Jammin, Paul is quoting from a wedding psalms. Each and every one of the children of the most high are gods; even though they are also human. God said that to his son. do you believe that? the son made the heaven and the earth. that is why john said in john1.3 that all things were made thru HIM heb 1 10 He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,    and the heavens are the work of your hands. John 1:3 New International Version (NIV) 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Jammin, Jesus is the archetype of the sons of the most high.  There are suns and there is the Sun.  There are sons and there is the Son.  There are gods and there is the God.  The God I am speaking of is not Jehovah but rather he is the archetype of the gods.  That is how language works.   The writer quotes from a wedding song that is sung to the singer's king as his bride.  It even states that the king has a God. It is Psalms 45. John 1:3 is teaching us that by the Word of God all things were made and without the Word nothing was made.  God said and it was. Hebrews 1:10-12 is a quote from Psalms 102 that is speaking of Jehovah but is true of Jesus as well.   It is an interpretation technique used among a portion of the Jews but not employed by many of any nation today.  Mathew 2:15 uses the same method to apply Hosea 11:1 to Jesus because it is true of Jesus despite the fact that Hosea 11:1 is literally speaking of the tribes of Israel. None of this supports your hypothesis that Jehovah changed and was able to be tempted by evil. You are doing better on you choice of translations.

not God said in john 1.3
the Word is a title of Christ.
read heb 1.10

dont you understand heb 1.10? the father also said to his son
you laid the foundation of the earth..

Hebrews 1:10

New Living Translation (NLT)

10 He also says to the Son,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth
and made the heavens with your hands.

read well kerwin. do not ignore this truth. may God open your eyes

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2013,11:35)

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 14 2013,23:52) yes. the son called his father God. but the father also called his son as God. You're missing the point again, jammin.  (Perhaps on purpose?) The Son said that the Father was his God and our God. 1.  How many Gods do you suppose the Son has, jammin?  ONE 2.  And who is that one God, jammin?  The Father 3.  And how many Gods do we have, jammin?  ONE 4.  And who is that one God, jammin?  The Father 5.  In other words then, our one and only God is the very same one and only God Jesus has – just like Jesus himself told us?  YES, Mike (I took the liberty of answering for you, since you won't ever directly answer those questions.) jammin, which of my answers above, if any, are scripturally incorrect?

you are repeating again your non sense words.

how many time do i need to tell you that the father and the son have the same nature, GOD

they only have one nature mike and that is their nature God.

do you have TWO NATURES? ALIEN AND HUMAN? LOL

christians believe that the father and the son have the same nature. phil 2.6 john 1.1

the father is God
the son is God

[jammin]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 15 2013,20:18)

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,19:37) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 15 2013,17:17) Hi Jammin, Are you suggesting that “I Change Not” exclusively means I don't change my mind?   (Yes  or  No) God bless Ed J i know you do not know how to read the context of the bible. Hi Jammin, Now that we established what my question really is. And now that you're through with giving me a speech…     WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

do you now agree that your explanation in mal 3.6 is not really in the bible?
did you read my explanation about mal 3.6?

ill post it again
Malachi 3:6

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

6 For I am the Lord: I change not, and ye sons of Jacob [a]are not consumed.
Footnotes:

Malachi 3:6 They murmured against God, because they saw not his help ever present to defend them: and therefore he accuseth them of ingratitude, and showeth that in that they are not daily consumed, it is a token, that he doth still defend them, and so his mercy toward them never changeth

do you understand that?

mal 3.6 talks about the promises of God

here is the other version
Malachi 3:6

New English Translation (NET)
Resistance to the Lord through Selfishness

6 “Since, I, the Lord, do not go back on my promises, you, sons of Jacob, have not perished.

Malachias 3:6

Knox Bible (KNOX)

6 In me, the Eternal, there is no change, and you, sons of Jacob, are a people still.

do you understnd that? the sons of jacob, are a people still

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,18:39)

you are repeating again your non sense words.

Which of my answers was wrong, jammin?

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2013,11:57)

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,18:39) you are repeating again your non sense words. Which of my answers was wrong, jammin?

if you say one God
that means you are referring to the nature.

the father is ONE
the son is ONE

but they are both God by nature.

one also means united in dictionary

[jammin]

therefore it is wrong to say that christians have two GODS bec they dont understand it that way.
what they know is the father and the son have the same nature, and that is nature God., phil 2.6 john 1.1

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 16 2013,06:36)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,06:05) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,14:45) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 15 2013,17:09) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,11:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2013,11:51) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 13 2013,20:28) i have no problem with the words of my Lord and savior mike. Well, Your Lord and savior told us that our one heavenly Father was also his one heavenly Father.  With this part, you agree, right? But in the same sentence, your Lord and savior told us that our one God was also his one God.  Why don't you agree with that part of what he said? what is the problem with that boy? the father also told to his son, he is God. heb 1.8 im sure you dont agree with that. but that is the truth of the bible yes. the son called his father God. but the father also called his son as God. Jammin, Paul is quoting from a wedding psalms. Each and every one of the children of the most high are gods; even though they are also human. God said that to his son. do you believe that? the son made the heaven and the earth. that is why john said in john1.3 that all things were made thru HIM heb 1 10 He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,    and the heavens are the work of your hands. John 1:3 New International Version (NIV) 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Jammin, Jesus is the archetype of the sons of the most high.  There are suns and there is the Sun.  There are sons and there is the Son.  There are gods and there is the God.  The God I am speaking of is not Jehovah but rather he is the archetype of the gods.  That is how language works.   The writer quotes from a wedding song that is sung to the singer's king as his bride.  It even states that the king has a God. It is Psalms 45. John 1:3 is teaching us that by the Word of God all things were made and without the Word nothing was made.  God said and it was. Hebrews 1:10-12 is a quote from Psalms 102 that is speaking of Jehovah but is true of Jesus as well.   It is an interpretation technique used among a portion of the Jews but not employed by many of any nation today.  Mathew 2:15 uses the same method to apply Hosea 11:1 to Jesus because it is true of Jesus despite the fact that Hosea 11:1 is literally speaking of the tribes of Israel. None of this supports your hypothesis that Jehovah changed and was able to be tempted by evil. You are doing better on you choice of translations. not God said in john 1.3 the Word is a title of Christ. read heb 1.10 dont you understand heb 1.10? the father also said to his son you laid the foundation of the earth.. Hebrews 1:10 New Living Translation (NLT) 10 He also says to the Son, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundation of the earth    and made the heavens with your hands. read well kerwin. do not ignore this truth. may God open your eyes

Jammin,

God reveals what he choose to who he chooses.  Jesus told me to seek God's righteousness and God's kingdom and so I do.  

If you want to look into why Matthew applied Hosea 11:1 to Jesus in order to advance the conversation then do so.  

Hosea 11
King James Version (KJV)

1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

This is the application of ancient interpretation method used in the early centuries.  Wikipedia speaks of it in its entry on Midrash with these words.

Quote

According to the PaRDeS approaches to exegesis, interpretation of Biblical texts in Judaism is realized through peshat (literal or plain meaning, lit. “plain” or “simple”), remez (deep meaning, lit. “hints”), derash (comparative meaning, from Hebrew darash—”to inquire” or “to seek”) and sod (hidden meaning or philosophy, lit. “secret” or “mystery”). The Midrash concentrates somewhat on remez but mostly on derash (Some thinkers divide PaRDeS into pshat, remez, din (law) and sod. In this understanding, midrash aggada deals with remez and midrash halakha deals with din).

You can clearly see that using the literal meaning of Hosea 11:1 that he is not speaking of Jesus, and is speaking of Israel.  That means Matthew was using one of the other three methods.  Hosea does not infer or imply Jesus will be called out of Egypt.  Hosea is speaking of a type where God is calling his son out of Egypt.  So until you understand Matthew is using derash, comparative meaning, you might claim Jesus is Israel.

I understand Hebrews 1:10 because God has compelled me to look into these matters and he has opened my ears and eyes that I not believe that he changed and subjected himself to being tempted.

The Word will be a name Jesus is called by; just as he is called Emanuel, Faithful, and True.  There is nothing that reveals he was called by any of these before he was conceived.  In fact Scripture explicitly states that he would be called Emanuel after he is the child that is conceived and born of a virgin, Matthew 1:23.

[jammin]

kerwin said:The Word will be a name Jesus is called by

where in the bible can you read that? that is just your own opinion kerwin.
do not alter the words of the bible.

the bible said the the Word is the name of Christ. the bible did not say the Word will be a name jesus is called by. those two sentences are different.
you are really blind. i hope God open your eyes.

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 16 2013,14:31)

kerwin said:The Word will be a name Jesus is called by where in the bible can you read that? that is just your own opinion kerwin. do not alter the words of the bible. the bible said the the Word is the name of Christ. the bible did not say the Word will be a name jesus is called by. those two sentences are different. you are really blind. i hope God open your eyes.

Jammin,

John is seeing a vision of prophecy in which the individual is described and then an angel cries “Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God”.

That supper is in the future and so the event being described is in the future.

Revelation 19:10-17
King James Version (KJV)

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

[Ed J]

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,06:05)

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,14:45) New International Version (NIV) Jammin, You are doing better on you choice of translations.

Hi Wakeup,

Why would Jammin be doing better choosing a corrupt translation?

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

[Ed J]

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 16 2013,11:48)

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 15 2013,20:18) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,19:37) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 15 2013,17:17) Hi Jammin, Are you suggesting that “I Change Not” exclusively means I don't change my mind?   (Yes  or  No) God bless Ed J i know you do not know how to read the context of the bible. Hi Jammin, Now that we established what my question really is. And now that you're through with giving me a speech…     WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION? God bless Ed J do you now agree that your explanation in mal 3.6 is not really in the bible? did you read my explanation about mal 3.6?

Hi Jammin,

Is your answer “Yes” then?      …or “No”?

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

[kerwin]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2013,01:44)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,06:05) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,14:45) New International Version (NIV) Jammin, You are doing better on you choice of translations. Hi Wakeup, Why would Jammin be doing better choosing a corrupt translation? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed J.

It is better than either a thought to thought translation or one full of commentary when both are by those that are not carried along by the Spirit.

I presently use the KJV and know it is far from being free of error.  Translator bias is expected and I do not follow the teachings of the Anglican Church, nor do I acknowledge the Royal of England as the head of God's church.

The Textus Receptus is more accurate than the KJV and some of it is translated from the Latin Vulgate.

[Ed J]

Hi Kerwin,

The “AKJV Bible” is a word for word translation from the original texts.

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

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,04:19)

That supper is in the future and so the event being described is in the future. Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

I understand the point you are trying to make, Kerwin, but it is not necessarily the way you think it is.

For example, Jehovah many times foretells future events, and says “I will be their God”. (Ezekiel 14:11, for one.) This doesn't mean that Jehovah WASN'T the God of the nation of Israel before these future events take place, right? Therefore, the fact that Jesus is called the Word of God in a future setting doesn't prohibit him from having been called the Word of God from before the world began.

What we know from the passage you posted is that one WILL ride on a white horse, and tread the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And we know that the one who WILL some day do these things IS called “The Word of God”.

Kerwin, don't you find it the least bit telling that the same author who wrote Revelation, in which he called Jesus “The Word of God”, also wrote John and 1 John, in which he describes someone who can only be Jesus Christ, and calls that someone “the Word” and “the Word of Life” respectively?

Are you PURPOSELY avoiding this important piece of the scriptural puzzle?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 16 2013,17:20)

Hi Kerwin, The “AKJV Bible” is a word for word translation from the original texts.

Not only was the KJV NOT translated from the “originals”, it wasn't even translated from very ancient mss.

The newer English Bibles are translated from much older mss than the KJV was.  In fact, parts of the KJV were BACK-translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was itself a translation of Greek mss.

The KJV is the result of good men, doing the best they could with what mss they had available to them. We have now uncovered better (closer to the originals) mss to translate from.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 17 2013,05:50)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,04:19) That supper is in the future and so the event being described is in the future. Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. I understand the point you are trying to make, Kerwin, but it is not necessarily the way you think it is. For example, Jehovah many times foretells future events, and says “I will be their God”.  (Ezekiel 14:11, for one.)  This doesn't mean that Jehovah WASN'T the God of the nation of Israel before these future events take place, right?  Therefore, the fact that Jesus is called the Word of God in a future setting doesn't prohibit him from having been called the Word of God from before the world began. What we know from the passage you posted is that one WILL ride on a white horse, and tread the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.  And we know that the one who WILL some day do these things IS called “The Word of God”. Kerwin, don't you find it the least bit telling that the same author who wrote Revelation, in which he called Jesus “The Word of God”, also wrote John and 1 John, in which he describes someone who can only be Jesus Christ, and calls that someone “the Word” and “the Word of Life” respectively? Are you PURPOSELY avoiding this important piece of the scriptural puzzle?

Mike,

1) John wrote of both the Word and the Word of life.

2) Jesus may be called by the name of the Word previous to the Supper of the Great God.

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 17 2013,07:13)

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2013,01:44) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,06:05) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,14:45) New International Version (NIV) Jammin, You are doing better on you choice of translations. Hi Wakeup, Why would Jammin be doing better choosing a corrupt translation? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Ed J. It is better than either a thought to thought translation or one full of commentary when both are by those that are not carried along by the Spirit. I presently use the KJV and know it is far from being free of error.  Translator bias is expected and I do not follow the teachings of the Anglican Church, nor do I acknowledge the Royal of England as the head of God's church. The Textus Receptus is more accurate than the KJV and some of it is translated from the Latin Vulgate.

bias?? you said bias bec it does not support your view. even commentaries do not support your views. you know why? bec your doctrine is not in the bible.

therefore, you are just making stories. LOL
your doctrine is full of stories.
how can people believe to those people like you saying words that are not in the bible.

you are blind kerwin. i gave a word for word verse for you in the bible and yet you dont believe that truth
may God open your eyes

[jammin]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2013,06:46)

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 16 2013,11:48) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 15 2013,20:18) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,19:37) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 15 2013,17:17) Hi Jammin, Are you suggesting that “I Change Not” exclusively means I don't change my mind?   (Yes  or  No) God bless Ed J i know you do not know how to read the context of the bible. Hi Jammin, Now that we established what my question really is. And now that you're through with giving me a speech…     WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION? God bless Ed J do you now agree that your explanation in mal 3.6 is not really in the bible? did you read my explanation about mal 3.6? Hi Jammin, Is your answer “Yes” then?      …or “No”? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

i answered that question already. i cant answer a yes or no bec YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONTXT BOY
LOL

cant you get that point? how will i answer you a yes or no if you do not understand the story of the verse? that is why im saying to and posting many versions about mal 3.6 for you to know the real meaning of that verse. once you know the meaning of that verse, you will know the answer for your question.

try to read my answer again about mal 3.6 boy

that only proves that you are blind. you say what is not written in the bible just like what you are doing in john 1.1. you said that the Word in john 1.1 is the HS but no version for that boy. even commentaries do not support your imagination LOL

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,21:19)

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 16 2013,14:31) kerwin said:The Word will be a name Jesus is called by where in the bible can you read that? that is just your own opinion kerwin. do not alter the words of the bible. the bible said the the Word is the name of Christ. the bible did not say the Word will be a name jesus is called by. those two sentences are different. you are really blind. i hope God open your eyes. Jammin, John is seeing a vision of prophecy in which the individual is described and then an angel cries “Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God”. That supper is in the future and so the event being described is in the future. Revelation 19:10-17 King James Version (KJV) 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

i cant read your illusion in rev boy

let me post again what you have said
kerwin said:
The Word will be a name Jesus is called by

the bible said
rev 19.13

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

did you see that boy? those 2 sentence that i highlighted are different. they do not have the same meaning

you said The Word will be a name Jesus is called by

but john said HIS NAME IS CALLED

is called and will be are not the same.

maybe you should go back to school and study english

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ Jan. 17 2013,06:23)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 17 2013,07:13) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 17 2013,01:44) Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 16 2013,06:05) Quote (jammin @ Jan. 15 2013,14:45) New International Version (NIV) Jammin, You are doing better on you choice of translations. Hi Wakeup, Why would Jammin be doing better choosing a corrupt translation? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Ed J. It is better than either a thought to thought translation or one full of commentary when both are by those that are not carried along by the Spirit. I presently use the KJV and know it is far from being free of error.  Translator bias is expected and I do not follow the teachings of the Anglican Church, nor do I acknowledge the Royal of England as the head of God's church. The Textus Receptus is more accurate than the KJV and some of it is translated from the Latin Vulgate. bias?? you said bias bec it does not support your view. even commentaries do not support your views. you know why? bec your doctrine is not in the bible. therefore, you are just making stories. LOL your doctrine is full of stories. how can people believe to those people like you saying words that are not in the bible. you are blind kerwin. i gave a word for word verse for you in the bible and yet you dont believe that truth may God open your eyes

Jammin,

I stated bias because bias is the norm, of which I know of no exception.

I state that certain people lack knowledge because their words display a lack of knowledge.

Anyone who tells me Jehovah changed and became able to be tempted by sin does not know what they are talking about.

God compels me to look into matters so as to become more certain.

[Author]

Posts