JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ June 30 2013,09:26)

Quote (jammin @ June 30 2013,04:20) Quote (kerwin @ June 29 2013,11:55) Quote (jammin @ June 29 2013,04:03) not yet done? jesus is the WORD in john 1.1 . what else do you need to know? if you do not agree, then make your own  version lol Jammin, It is not written. it is written but you are blind. Christ Lived Before the World Was Made 1 The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God. Revelation 19:13 New Life Version (NLV) 13 The coat He wears has been put in blood. His name is The Word of God Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary 1:1-5 The plainest reason why the Son of God is called the Word, seems to be, that as our words explain our minds to others, so was the Son of God sent in order to reveal his Father's mind to the world. bible and commentary agree to me. may God open your eyes. Jammin, You are explaining.

i just gave you the verse.
cant you read those verses?

how about the commentary? dont you see that?

[jammin]

Quote (Ed J @ June 30 2013,09:51)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,04:21) Ed, I don't KNOW what the blood on the robe is.  When 2B asked me that question, I OPINED that it refers to the blood of Jesus' sacrifice – just as he is also seen as a lamb who looks like it has been slaughtered, earlier in Revelation. So I don't KNOW that I'm right, and you're wrong.  But I DO know that Isaiah 63 speaks of one being covered with the blood of those he has already slain.  And since in Rev 19, the blood is already on the rider BEFORE the battle even begins, I don't believe it can be the blood of those the rider has already slain. So whether you take the blood symbolically, or literally, it doesn't seem as if it can be the blood of those slain, since the blood is there before the battle begins. Hi Mike, It doesn't say 'robe' but:  “he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” Was the robe that put on Jesus “dipped in blood”? Because this seems to be the connection you are trying to make here. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

it does not say robe?are you sure?

before you talk, make further research boy.

here is the verse
rev 19.13
New Living Translation (©2007)
He wore a robe dipped in blood, and his title was the Word of God.

[kerwin]

Quote (2besee @ June 30 2013,06:02)

Quote In the beginning God was in the light and God was the light. How many God's are there? Kerwin, One.

2beesee,

I was referring to the argument that the word is God and the word is with God is speaking of two G/gods.

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ June 30 2013,06:10)

Quote (kerwin @ June 30 2013,09:26) Quote (jammin @ June 30 2013,04:20) Quote (kerwin @ June 29 2013,11:55) Quote (jammin @ June 29 2013,04:03) not yet done? jesus is the WORD in john 1.1 . what else do you need to know? if you do not agree, then make your own  version lol Jammin, It is not written. it is written but you are blind. Christ Lived Before the World Was Made 1 The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God. Revelation 19:13 New Life Version (NLV) 13 The coat He wears has been put in blood. His name is The Word of God Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary 1:1-5 The plainest reason why the Son of God is called the Word, seems to be, that as our words explain our minds to others, so was the Son of God sent in order to reveal his Father's mind to the world. bible and commentary agree to me. may God open your eyes. Jammin, You are explaining. i just gave you the verse. cant you read those verses? how about the commentary? dont you see that?

Jammin,

I see that you do not comprehend () embraces a non-biblical comment. Comments are explaining though not by you. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary explains in more details. You use Revelation 19:13 to explain. In short all you posted is explaining.

[kerwin]

Quote (2besee @ June 30 2013,05:35)

Quote (terraricca @ June 30 2013,03:52) Quote (2besee @ June 29 2013,19:23) Quote (terraricca @ June 30 2013,01:55) Quote (2besee @ June 29 2013,18:40) Quote 2besee, What you wrote states both “God is light” and “God is in the light”. “God is Love” is another statement John uses. In the case of the later it is said Love is an attribute of God. Hi Kerwin, If it is said by some that love is an attribute of God, despite it saying that God IS Love, then the word can be an attribute of God too……….? Therefore, Love is with God, and God is Love. Logos is with God,  and God is Logos. Does anybody actually know what logos is? 2BEE Quote Love is with God, and God is Love. WAS GOD'S LOVE IN DARFUR Africa starvation ,and is God's love within all the disasters like Japan,Katrina in the USA  ???and more just ask if you know T, The Beatitudes 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons a of God. 10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. you do not answer my question “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

2besee,

Jesus answered a like question with the words “repent or too will perish”.

[2besee]

Quote (kerwin @ June 30 2013,13:38)

Quote (2besee @ June 30 2013,06:02) Quote In the beginning God was in the light and God was the light. How many God's are there? Kerwin, One. 2beesee, I was referring to the argument that the word is God and the word is with God is speaking of two G/gods.

Kerwin,
No, one!
I feel strongly that the word who was with God and was God is one God not two.

[2besee]

Quote (2besee @ June 30 2013,13:54)

Quote (kerwin @ June 30 2013,13:38) Quote (2besee @ June 30 2013,06:02) Quote In the beginning God was in the light and God was the light. How many God's are there? Kerwin, One. 2beesee, I was referring to the argument that the word is God and the word is with God is speaking of two G/gods. Kerwin, No, one! I feel strongly that the word who was with God and was God is one God not two.

Kerwin,
A part of the one God.

[Ed J]

Quote (jammin @ June 30 2013,11:16)

Quote (Ed J @ June 30 2013,09:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,04:21) Ed, I don't KNOW what the blood on the robe is.  When 2B asked me that question, I OPINED that it refers to the blood of Jesus' sacrifice – just as he is also seen as a lamb who looks like it has been slaughtered, earlier in Revelation. So I don't KNOW that I'm right, and you're wrong.  But I DO know that Isaiah 63 speaks of one being covered with the blood of those he has already slain.  And since in Rev 19, the blood is already on the rider BEFORE the battle even begins, I don't believe it can be the blood of those the rider has already slain. So whether you take the blood symbolically, or literally, it doesn't seem as if it can be the blood of those slain, since the blood is there before the battle begins. Hi Mike, It doesn't say 'robe' but:  “he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” Was the robe that put on Jesus “dipped in blood”? Because this seems to be the connection you are trying to make here. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org it does not say robe?are you sure? before you talk, make further research boy. here is the verse rev 19.13 New Living Translation (©2007) He wore a robe dipped in blood, and his title was the Word of God.

Hi Jammin,

You can make a version say whatever you want.

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

[2besee]

Kerwin and all,
The love that God has is not another God but is part of God though God's love can be seen in others in different degrees of strength, so it is with the logos of God.

[kerwin]

Quote (2besee @ June 30 2013,07:00)

Kerwin and all, The love that God has is not another God but is part of God though God's love can be seen in others in different degrees of strength, so it is with the logos of God.

2besee,

I agree but certain people seem to get confused by the wording.

[jammin]

Quote (Ed J @ June 30 2013,12:00)

Quote (jammin @ June 30 2013,11:16) Quote (Ed J @ June 30 2013,09:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,04:21) Ed, I don't KNOW what the blood on the robe is.  When 2B asked me that question, I OPINED that it refers to the blood of Jesus' sacrifice – just as he is also seen as a lamb who looks like it has been slaughtered, earlier in Revelation. So I don't KNOW that I'm right, and you're wrong.  But I DO know that Isaiah 63 speaks of one being covered with the blood of those he has already slain.  And since in Rev 19, the blood is already on the rider BEFORE the battle even begins, I don't believe it can be the blood of those the rider has already slain. So whether you take the blood symbolically, or literally, it doesn't seem as if it can be the blood of those slain, since the blood is there before the battle begins. Hi Mike, It doesn't say 'robe' but:  “he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” Was the robe that put on Jesus “dipped in blood”? Because this seems to be the connection you are trying to make here. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org it does not say robe?are you sure? before you talk, make further research boy. here is the verse rev 19.13 New Living Translation (©2007) He wore a robe dipped in blood, and his title was the Word of God. Hi Jammin, You can make a version say whatever you want.   God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

i did not make it.
i just gave the version to you.

make further research boy

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ June 30 2013,11:45)

Quote (jammin @ June 30 2013,06:10) Quote (kerwin @ June 30 2013,09:26) Quote (jammin @ June 30 2013,04:20) Quote (kerwin @ June 29 2013,11:55) Quote (jammin @ June 29 2013,04:03) not yet done? jesus is the WORD in john 1.1 . what else do you need to know? if you do not agree, then make your own  version lol Jammin, It is not written. it is written but you are blind. Christ Lived Before the World Was Made 1 The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God. Revelation 19:13 New Life Version (NLV) 13 The coat He wears has been put in blood. His name is The Word of God Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary 1:1-5 The plainest reason why the Son of God is called the Word, seems to be, that as our words explain our minds to others, so was the Son of God sent in order to reveal his Father's mind to the world. bible and commentary agree to me. may God open your eyes. Jammin, You are explaining. i just gave you the verse. cant you read those verses? how about the commentary? dont you see that? Jammin, I see that you do not comprehend () embraces a non-biblical comment.  Comments are explaining though not by you.  Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary explains in more details.  You use Revelation 19:13 to explain. In short all you posted is explaining.

you dont believe what the bible says.
you are a hard headed boy.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ June 29 2013,16:19)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,03:57) Quote (kerwin @ June 29 2013,11:46) Mike, I actually wrote “John uses John the Baptist's words to…” and then from all I said it can be inferred John the Baptist was speaking of Jesus.  John on the other hand speaks of Jesus' attributes Can a person speak about “Jesus' attributes” without actually speaking about Jesus?   Of course not.  So next time, if Pierre asks whose ATTRIBUTES John spoke about, say “Jesus' attributes”. If instead he asks WHO John spoke about, say “Jesus”. In this way, you are answering the question that was actually ASKED. Mike, I am not going to fall for trickery if I can help it.  The verse he asked about is about Jesus attribute and so I answered.  Asking for a half truth does not get the truth.

I can't believe I'm even having this asinine discussion.

Kerwin, Pierre asked WHO John the Baptist was talking about in John 1.

The answer is “Jesus Christ”. End of story.

There is no “trickery” involved. It was just a simple question. It is interesting to note that people like you and Ed are often afraid to answer simple questions directly out of fear that the direct and honest answer my sound exactly like what we've been saying all along. So just a little advice: If you are getting to the point that your doctrine won't let you answer simple questions honestly and directly – it's time to adjust your doctrine.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ June 29 2013,16:51)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,04:21) Ed, I don't KNOW what the blood on the robe is.  When 2B asked me that question, I OPINED that it refers to the blood of Jesus' sacrifice – just as he is also seen as a lamb who looks like it has been slaughtered, earlier in Revelation. So I don't KNOW that I'm right, and you're wrong.  But I DO know that Isaiah 63 speaks of one being covered with the blood of those he has already slain.  And since in Rev 19, the blood is already on the rider BEFORE the battle even begins, I don't believe it can be the blood of those the rider has already slain. So whether you take the blood symbolically, or literally, it doesn't seem as if it can be the blood of those slain, since the blood is there before the battle begins. Hi Mike, It doesn't say 'robe' but:  “he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” Was the robe that put on Jesus “dipped in blood”? Because this seems to be the connection you are trying to make here.

Ed,

It seems you are trying to strain the gnat here. Robe, vesture, clothing, garment………….. what's the difference?

And I never said anything about whether or not the robe was dipped and blood and THEN put on Jesus. We haven't discussed anything like that.

What we HAVE discussed is that in Isaiah 63, the blood on the garment is from the people who were slain in battle. And in Rev 19, the blood is already on the garment BEFORE the battle even begins.

DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THIS FACT? YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ June 29 2013,17:26)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,06:33) Quote (2besee @ June 28 2013,19:14) The light is God Almighty. The light is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is also the light, 2B.  And so are the disciples of Jesus. So what is your point?  That the light can ONLY refer to God Himself? If that is your point, then you are wrong. No, that is not my point, Mike. Perhaps if you quoted my whole post instead of just a part of it, then you would see that I said EXACTLY what you just tried to 'inform me' as if I was ignorant of that.

2B,

It is my understanding that each word on this site costs t8 a certain amount of money. I may be wrong, but I've heard this said before. So I try not to be like some people here, who believe they must quote the last 50 responses of the conversation – just to say “Yes, I agree.”

I quote only what I believe is pertinent. As far as I could tell, your post listed a bunch of scriptures, and then a couple hard to understand statements from you. Not hard to understand wording-wise, but point-wise.

So why not tell us all plainly, directly, and with as few words as possible……….. what WAS your point then?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ June 29 2013,18:00)

Logos – Longer definition……………

The Greek word “logos” means “word”. That's really all it means, 2B.

It refers to written words, spoken words, yelled words……… any word at all.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,12:32)

Quote (Ed J @ June 29 2013,16:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2013,04:21) Ed, I don't KNOW what the blood on the robe is.  When 2B asked me that question, I OPINED that it refers to the blood of Jesus' sacrifice – just as he is also seen as a lamb who looks like it has been slaughtered, earlier in Revelation. So I don't KNOW that I'm right, and you're wrong.  But I DO know that Isaiah 63 speaks of one being covered with the blood of those he has already slain.  And since in Rev 19, the blood is already on the rider BEFORE the battle even begins, I don't believe it can be the blood of those the rider has already slain. So whether you take the blood symbolically, or literally, it doesn't seem as if it can be the blood of those slain, since the blood is there before the battle begins. Hi Mike, It doesn't say 'robe' but:  “he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood” Was the robe that put on Jesus “dipped in blood”? Because this seems to be the connection you are trying to make here. Ed, It seems you are trying to strain the gnat here.  Robe, vesture, clothing, garment………….. what's the difference? And I never said anything about whether or not the robe was dipped and blood and THEN put on Jesus.  We haven't discussed anything like that. What we HAVE discussed is that in Isaiah 63, the blood on the garment is from the people who were slain in battle.  And in Rev 19, the blood is already on the garment BEFORE the battle even begins. DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THIS FACT?  YES or NO?

Hi Mike,

The battle is spiritual, not physical.
Isaiah 63:3 is in reference to the
battle of Revelation 19:11:21.

So 'their blood' is not 'their blood' per-se –
it is their covering, which is Jesus' shed blood.

So He who sits on the white horse is covered by the blood that
those who are going to battle with him believe they are covered with.

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

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ June 29 2013,18:54)

Kerwin, No, one! I feel strongly that the word who was with God and was God is one God not two.

Now this is the kind of thing that I just can't wrap my head around.  How in the world of sanity can our ONE God be WITH our ONE God?  

And when people try to make this argument to me, their credibility meter takes a big nose dive, IMO.  I find it hard to take the other things they say seriously, because there must be something lacking in a person who thinks it makes perfect sense for our ONE God to be WITH our ONE God.

I also feel that NO ONE ON EARTH would EVER make such a nonsensical claim unless they are dead set against the more logical understanding that “THE god” was with “a god” in the beginning.

As Origen wrote about John 1:1…………

Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.

I wouldn't necessarily call these doctrines “wicked”, but they are indeed false – as well as nonsensical.

Sorry if that was harsh…. but I'm telling it like it is from my perspective.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ June 29 2013,19:48)

Hi Mike, The battle is spiritual, not physical. Isaiah 63:3 is in reference to the battle of Revelation 19:11:21. So 'their blood' is not 'their blood' per-se – it is their covering, which is Jesus' shed blood. So He who sits on the white horse is covered by the blood that those who are going to battle with him believe they are covered with.

In Isaiah 63, there is only one who is covered with the blood of those he himself killed.

And in Rev, there is only one who has blood on his robe.

Where are you getting that other people are also covered with this “spiritual shed blood”?

I'm not following.

[2besee]

Mike, I had only copy and pasted that longer post from months earlier. I am going back to move forward.

The point was in the next two posts.

Point:

If it is said by some that love and Light is an attribute of God, despite it saying that God IS Love, and God IS light, then the same rule can be applied to the Logos, and the Logos can be an attribute of God, and be God also. Therefore,

Love is with God, and God is Love.

Light is with God, and God is Light.

Logos is with God, and God is Logos.

…………

The love that God has is not another God but is part of God though God's love can be seen in others in different degrees of strength, so it is with the logos of God.

[Author]

Posts