- This topic has 25,923 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 21 hours, 43 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2013,23:44) Quote (kerwin @ June 22 2013,02:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2013,07:12) Quote (kerwin @ June 21 2013,03:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2013,06:51) Yeah, but ARE you saying that the Word CREATED flesh?
Mike,These are the words I would speak to express the results of the Word being made flesh and dwelling among us. grammarly.com shows I am using good grammar.
The Word made flesh dwelt among us full of grace and truth with the glory we beheld, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.
I do perceive make and created as being synonyms.
Kerwin,There are many things wrong with your post. First of all, grammerly.com did NOT say you were using good grammer. I checked, remember? It gave you 67%. It's like they gave you a D on your assignment. And a D is a passing grade……. but just barely.
Secondly, “The Word made flesh dwelt among us” INSISTS that you are using the words “Word-Made-Flesh” as a title or name of some entity.
If you were in fact trying to say that the Word CREATED flesh, you would still need the conjunction “and” that is in the Greek text. Compare:
The Word CREATED flesh AND dwelt among us.
If you remove the conjunction, then the ONLY way it could be understood is as a title, like: The chicken-fried-steak dwelt among us.
So even after you've REMOVED an important conjunction from the Greek text, you are STILL not making your sentence say what you claim it says. Now, speaking of removing the conjunction, compare:
1. Mike ate AND drank.
2. Mike ate drank.
Do you really expect anyone in their right mind to believe that these two sentences make equal sense, and that grammerly.com would give you a passing grade for the latter one? Do you think a sentence says the same thing with or without the conjunction “and”?
Tell you what……….. IF and WHEN you decide to put the conjunction AND back into the Greek text where it belongs, and come to an understanding that INCLUDES that conjunction, let me know and we can discuss it further. As it stands, I really have no business feigning a bona fide scriptural discussion with a man who has changed the wording of the text to the point that it is no longer even a scripture.
Mike,You should check that(the whole sentence) again as I do mangle my English from time to time and may have corrected it. grammerly.com may be reading it as a title though I doubt it is. I believe it is you not me that is incorrectly understanding English but I only speak it fluently and am not an expert.
Okay Kerwin,Here we go AGAIN………………..
1. The chicken fried steak dwelt among us.
2. The chicken fried steak AND dwelt among us.
Can you see how the first sentence describes a thing that has the TITLE “chicken-fried-steak”, and how that thing dwelt among us?
Can you see how the second sentence describes a chicken that actually fried up some steak, and ALSO dwelt among us?
Are you seriously blind to the difference between these two sentences?
Like I said, WHEN you come up with an understanding that actually INCLUDES the conjunction “and” – which IS in the Greek text……. I'll be willing to discuss it further.
Mike,My post at Jammin who seems to detest explanation but chooses to make them. Not allowing an explanation is unfair but Jammin has done so on many occasions.
You do require an explanation as Word means Word and you need to explain that is is a title of Jesus instead in John 1:1.
Quote (2besee @ June 24 2013,07:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
“he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” …means…“their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments” (Isa 63:3)
Quote (Ed J @ June 24 2013,11:28) Quote (2besee @ June 24 2013,07:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
“he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” …means…“their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments” (Isa 63:3)
Ed,
The robe dipped in blood would be the flesh (son of man) which the word of God was in. Yes?Quote (kerwin @ June 24 2013,02:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2013,23:44) Quote (kerwin @ June 22 2013,02:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2013,07:12) Quote (kerwin @ June 21 2013,03:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2013,06:51) Yeah, but ARE you saying that the Word CREATED flesh?
Mike,These are the words I would speak to express the results of the Word being made flesh and dwelling among us. grammarly.com shows I am using good grammar.
The Word made flesh dwelt among us full of grace and truth with the glory we beheld, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.
I do perceive make and created as being synonyms.
Kerwin,There are many things wrong with your post. First of all, grammerly.com did NOT say you were using good grammer. I checked, remember? It gave you 67%. It's like they gave you a D on your assignment. And a D is a passing grade……. but just barely.
Secondly, “The Word made flesh dwelt among us” INSISTS that you are using the words “Word-Made-Flesh” as a title or name of some entity.
If you were in fact trying to say that the Word CREATED flesh, you would still need the conjunction “and” that is in the Greek text. Compare:
The Word CREATED flesh AND dwelt among us.
If you remove the conjunction, then the ONLY way it could be understood is as a title, like: The chicken-fried-steak dwelt among us.
So even after you've REMOVED an important conjunction from the Greek text, you are STILL not making your sentence say what you claim it says. Now, speaking of removing the conjunction, compare:
1. Mike ate AND drank.
2. Mike ate drank.
Do you really expect anyone in their right mind to believe that these two sentences make equal sense, and that grammerly.com would give you a passing grade for the latter one? Do you think a sentence says the same thing with or without the conjunction “and”?
Tell you what……….. IF and WHEN you decide to put the conjunction AND back into the Greek text where it belongs, and come to an understanding that INCLUDES that conjunction, let me know and we can discuss it further. As it stands, I really have no business feigning a bona fide scriptural discussion with a man who has changed the wording of the text to the point that it is no longer even a scripture.
Mike,You should check that(the whole sentence) again as I do mangle my English from time to time and may have corrected it. grammerly.com may be reading it as a title though I doubt it is. I believe it is you not me that is incorrectly understanding English but I only speak it fluently and am not an expert.
Okay Kerwin,Here we go AGAIN………………..
1. The chicken fried steak dwelt among us.
2. The chicken fried steak AND dwelt among us.
Can you see how the first sentence describes a thing that has the TITLE “chicken-fried-steak”, and how that thing dwelt among us?
Can you see how the second sentence describes a chicken that actually fried up some steak, and ALSO dwelt among us?
Are you seriously blind to the difference between these two sentences?
Like I said, WHEN you come up with an understanding that actually INCLUDES the conjunction “and” – which IS in the Greek text……. I'll be willing to discuss it further.
Mike,I still say “the Word made flesh” when speaking of the Word that was made flesh after it was made.
The chicken was fried steak and lived among us.
The chicken fried steak lived among us.The first is what was done to/by to the chicken and the second describes the chicken in the same way the boy with the bouncing ball describes the boy.
kbut the words of God given to the prophets were then also made flesh ;why would John make it so important and Paul
Quote (2besee @ June 23 2013,14:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
I believe it is to symbolize the sacrifice the Lamb of God made.What do you say?
Quote (kerwin @ June 23 2013,14:58) You do require an explanation as Word means Word and you need to explain that it is a title of Jesus instead in John 1:1.
Agreed, Kerwin. Some people do need it explained to them how the Word in John 1 is Jesus Christ. Most people can catch this easy teaching the first time they read the things said about the Word that are also said in scripture about Jesus…….. but not all people.But then again, not all people catch the easy teaching that the Word of God in Revelation 19:13 is Jesus either. Those people also have to have that one explained to them.
What is your point, BTW? Are you saying that your understanding of the Word being “the Holy Spirit Son of God” DOESN'T have to be explained to anyone?
Quote (kerwin @ June 23 2013,14:42) Mike, I still say “the Word made flesh” when speaking of the Word that was made flesh after it was made.
Okay. We're getting nearer to clearer now. So you are saying that AFTER the Word WAS MADE flesh, it is okay to refer to him as “The Word-Made-Flesh”. I can get on board with that.But before he could ever be called “The Word-Made-Flesh”, he first had to BE MADE flesh.
So who exactly was with God in the beginning, before he WAS MADE flesh and dwelt on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son?
Quote (Ed J @ June 23 2013,16:28) Quote (2besee @ June 24 2013,07:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
“he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” …means…“their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments” (Isa 63:3)
That could be, Ed. It seems the commentators agree with that thought.But isn't this rider in Rev 19 already wearing a robe dipped in blood BEFORE the battle even begins? How could it be THEIR blood before the battle has even started?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2013,14:14) Quote (2besee @ June 23 2013,14:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
I believe it is to symbolize the sacrifice the Lamb of God made.What do you say?
The word of God is the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit – and the robe is Jesus of Nazareth, who became the Christ (the anointed) Lord.2B,
1 Corinthians 15
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Do you agree that this passage is about JESUS CHRIST destroying all the enemies that his God placed under his feet?
If you do, then you'll also be able to see that it is JESUS CHRIST who does battle against the beast and the kings of the earth….. not the Holy Spirit, nor the “spirit of Christ”.
Read Acts 4:25-6/Psalm 2:1-2 for confirmation of who exactly the kings of the earth gather against. Then compare those verses against Revelation 19:19.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2013,13:00) Quote (Ed J @ June 23 2013,16:28) Quote (2besee @ June 24 2013,07:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
“he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” …means…“their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments” (Isa 63:3)
That could be, Ed. It seems the commentators agree with that thought.But isn't this rider in Rev 19 already wearing a robe dipped in blood BEFORE the battle even begins? How could it be THEIR blood before the battle has even started?
Hi Mike,I like when you attempt to use commentators to prove
your belief – then totally discard them when you disagree.Does that not PROVE that their commentaries MEAN NOTHING? (<– please answer)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 24 2013,08:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2013,13:00) Quote (Ed J @ June 23 2013,16:28) Quote (2besee @ June 24 2013,07:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
“he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” …means…“their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments” (Isa 63:3)
That could be, Ed. It seems the commentators agree with that thought.But isn't this rider in Rev 19 already wearing a robe dipped in blood BEFORE the battle even begins? How could it be THEIR blood before the battle has even started?
Hi Mike,I like when you attempt to use commentators to prove
your belief – then totally discard them when you disagree.Does that not PROVE that their commentaries MEAN NOTHING? (<– please answer)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
truth can come in many ways and many form but you have to be embedded with the truth of God to recognize those truthsQuote (2besee @ June 24 2013,13:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2013,14:14) Quote (2besee @ June 23 2013,14:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
I believe it is to symbolize the sacrifice the Lamb of God made.What do you say?
The word of God is the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit – and the robe is Jesus of Nazareth, who became the Christ (the anointed) Lord.
Close,“The Word” of God is the HolySpirit of God, and
the robe that the HolySpirit is wearing is the spirit of Christ,
called Jesus of Nazareth (in the flesh) and Jesus Christ (in the spirit).
That's the meaning: “their [spiritual blood] shall be sprinkled upon my garments”
I will stain all my raiment* Jesus Christ is*
“Owner of owners and Leader of leaders. (see 1Timothy 6:15)**And GOD's HolySpirit is**
“The OWNER of owners and the LEADER of leaders. (see Rev.19:16)Hope this helps
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)Quote (terraricca @ June 24 2013,13:50) Quote (Ed J @ June 24 2013,08:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2013,13:00) Quote (Ed J @ June 23 2013,16:28) Quote (2besee @ June 24 2013,07:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
“he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” …means…“their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments” (Isa 63:3)
That could be, Ed. It seems the commentators agree with that thought.But isn't this rider in Rev 19 already wearing a robe dipped in blood BEFORE the battle even begins? How could it be THEIR blood before the battle has even started?
Hi Mike,I like when you attempt to use commentators to prove
your belief – then totally discard them when you disagree.Does that not PROVE that their commentaries MEAN NOTHING? (<– please answer)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
truth can come in many ways and many form but you have to be embedded with the truth of God to recognize those truths
So, is that a “Yes” then? or a “no”?Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2013,05:24) Quote (Jodi Lee @ June 22 2013,01:21) I want to talk about Hebrews 5:7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, What does “in the days of his flesh” mean? I think I might understand it different than most.
Acts 2:30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
According to the FLESH Christ sits on the throne!
Hi Jodi,Jesus was of the seed of David ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. He does not sit on the throne ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. In fact, Paul is also the one who told us the last Adam became a life-giving SPIRIT. (1 Cor 15:45) It was also Paul who told us that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 15:50) And Jesus himself told us that flesh can neither see, nor enter the kingdom of heaven. (John 3:3-7)
I am happy to see that you realize there is something amiss between your belief that Jesus is still flesh in heaven, and the words of Hebrews 5:7. I made my previous post about this verse before even reading your second post – so it is interesting to me that we were both thinking, “something's not right here”.
And while I appreciate your attempt to “explain 5:7 away”, you didn't really do it. Nothing in your second post explains the words “in the days of his flesh”.
Perhaps this one scripture will be the turning point for you and the others. Perhaps this one scripture will be enough for you guys to realize that Jesus is not still a flesh being dwelling in the spiritual realm of heaven.
Anyway, I know that you come and go on this site – never sticking around for too long. But in the off chance that you will return to read these responses, I offer you this scripturally based research I painstakingly did to show how the things John said about “the Word” in John 1 are also ALL said about “Jesus” elsewhere in scripture. Give it some consideration……………
The italicized words below are things said about “the Word” in John 1. The scriptures listed in parenthesis identify some of the places in scripture where those same exact things are said about Jesus.
1. And the Word was a god: (Is 9:6, Heb 1:8-9, etc.)
2. He was with God in the beginning: (John 17:5)
3. All things were made through him: (Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:2)
4. In him was life, and that life was the light of men: (John 5:26, John 8:12)
5. The light shines in the darkness: (Matthew 4:16; John 3:19; 2 Corinthians 4:6)
6. John the Baptist came as a witness to testify concerning that light: (John 1:29-34; 3:26; 5:32-36)
7. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world: (Isaiah 42:6-7; John 3:19, 9:5, 12:35-36, 46; Luke 1:78-79)
8. Though he was in the world, the world did not recognize him: (Isaiah 53:3, John 4:10, Acts 13:27, John 12:37-38, 1 John 3:1)
9. He came to that which was his own: (Col 1:16; Matt 11:27; John 3:35, 13:3, 16:15; Eph 1:10; Heb 1:2)
10. but his own did not receive him: (Luke 9:53; John 5:43; Acts 13:46)
11. to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God: (Acts 4:12; John 3:14-16; Gal 3:26; Heb 2:10; Eph 1:5)
12. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us: (1 John 1:1-2, 4:2; Phil 2:6-7; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4-5)
13. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten: (John 1:18, 3:16-18; 1 John 4:9)
14. who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.: (John 1:16, 14:6; Luke 2:40; Romans 1:5)
15. John testified concerning him.: (Mark 1:7-8; John 1:32, 34; John 3:26; John 5:32-33; John 10:41)
16. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”: (John 1:29-30; John 3:28,30; Micah 5:2; Acts 19:4)
Jodi, I truly hope you look those scriptures up, and realize how most of them could ONLY be said about Jesus – because no one else in scripture would fit. And as you come to this realization, remember that all these things are said about the one John called “the Word” in John 1, 1 John 1:1, and Rev 19:13. The Word is so obviously Jesus that it is beyond me how some people are unable to see it.
Hi Mike,We have much to debate it looks like on this topic! Let me ask you separately this question,
What does it mean that Jesus is the Word? I don't understand what you believe that means exactly.
Thank You,
Jodi LeeHi Jodi,
Glad to see you're back. The term Mike uses
(I believe is) “God's top Spokesman”.But explaining why Jesus is “God's top spokesman” hardly counts
as an answer to your question; but I believe that is what his response will be.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (terraricca @ June 24 2013,05:55) Quote (kerwin @ June 24 2013,02:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2013,23:44) Quote (kerwin @ June 22 2013,02:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2013,07:12) Quote (kerwin @ June 21 2013,03:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2013,06:51) Yeah, but ARE you saying that the Word CREATED flesh?
Mike,These are the words I would speak to express the results of the Word being made flesh and dwelling among us. grammarly.com shows I am using good grammar.
The Word made flesh dwelt among us full of grace and truth with the glory we beheld, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.
I do perceive make and created as being synonyms.
Kerwin,There are many things wrong with your post. First of all, grammerly.com did NOT say you were using good grammer. I checked, remember? It gave you 67%. It's like they gave you a D on your assignment. And a D is a passing grade……. but just barely.
Secondly, “The Word made flesh dwelt among us” INSISTS that you are using the words “Word-Made-Flesh” as a title or name of some entity.
If you were in fact trying to say that the Word CREATED flesh, you would still need the conjunction “and” that is in the Greek text. Compare:
The Word CREATED flesh AND dwelt among us.
If you remove the conjunction, then the ONLY way it could be understood is as a title, like: The chicken-fried-steak dwelt among us.
So even after you've REMOVED an important conjunction from the Greek text, you are STILL not making your sentence say what you claim it says. Now, speaking of removing the conjunction, compare:
1. Mike ate AND drank.
2. Mike ate drank.
Do you really expect anyone in their right mind to believe that these two sentences make equal sense, and that grammerly.com would give you a passing grade for the latter one? Do you think a sentence says the same thing with or without the conjunction “and”?
Tell you what……….. IF and WHEN you decide to put the conjunction AND back into the Greek text where it belongs, and come to an understanding that INCLUDES that conjunction, let me know and we can discuss it further. As it stands, I really have no business feigning a bona fide scriptural discussion with a man who has changed the wording of the text to the point that it is no longer even a scripture.
Mike,You should check that(the whole sentence) again as I do mangle my English from time to time and may have corrected it. grammerly.com may be reading it as a title though I doubt it is. I believe it is you not me that is incorrectly understanding English but I only speak it fluently and am not an expert.
Okay Kerwin,Here we go AGAIN………………..
1. The chicken fried steak dwelt among us.
2. The chicken fried steak AND dwelt among us.
Can you see how the first sentence describes a thing that has the TITLE “chicken-fried-steak”, and how that thing dwelt among us?
Can you see how the second sentence describes a chicken that actually fried up some steak, and ALSO dwelt among us?
Are you seriously blind to the difference between these two sentences?
Like I said, WHEN you come up with an understanding that actually INCLUDES the conjunction “and” – which IS in the Greek text……. I'll be willing to discuss it further.
Mike,I still say “the Word made flesh” when speaking of the Word that was made flesh after it was made.
The chicken was fried steak and lived among us.
The chicken fried steak lived among us.The first is what was done to/by to the chicken and the second describes the chicken in the same way the boy with the bouncing ball describes the boy.
kbut the words of God given to the prophets were then also made flesh ;why would John make it so important and Paul
T,The prophets spoke the word of God while carried along by the Spirit and testified of a time to come when God's word would be written on the minds of his people and placed within their inward parts. Jesus is the way that time has come to be.
Quote (2besee @ June 24 2013,08:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2013,14:14) Quote (2besee @ June 23 2013,14:33) Mike,
What is the” robe dipped in blood” which the word is wearing.
I believe it is to symbolize the sacrifice the Lamb of God made.What do you say?
The word of God is the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit – and the robe is Jesus of Nazareth, who became the Christ (the anointed) Lord.
2besee,White robe generally means righteousness or holy spirit. Blood is Jesus' badge of honor.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2013,07:52) Quote (kerwin @ June 23 2013,14:42) Mike, I still say “the Word made flesh” when speaking of the Word that was made flesh after it was made.
Okay. We're getting nearer to clearer now. So you are saying that AFTER the Word WAS MADE flesh, it is okay to refer to him as “The Word-Made-Flesh”. I can get on board with that.But before he could ever be called “The Word-Made-Flesh”, he first had to BE MADE flesh.
So who exactly was with God in the beginning, before he WAS MADE flesh and dwelt on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son?
Mike,Before the Word was made flesh it was not the Word made flesh. It was the Word that was with the god and was god in the beginning. It was the Word by which all things were made. It was the Word in which there is life.
What do those words mean to a man familiar with biblical teachings of the time it was wrote and ignorant of those that arose afterwards?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
