- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2013,02:20) Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,18:00) If you believed them then you would believe the Word is not a person but it the personalization of Jehovah's utterance. You would know that Jesus by his faith gave flesh to God's utterance and so came to be called by it's name.
That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen you post on this site, Kerwin. And believe me, that's really saying something.
Jesus “gave flesh to Jehovah's utterance”?
“Not a person but a personalization”?
You say that last statement, but then insist the Word should have pronouns like “it” instead of “he” in John 1. How can it be “personalized” if we don't give it a PERSONAL pronoun?
Dude, you are all over the place on your quest to conquer the scriptures. I will pray that God's shines some light in your direction.
Mike,The Word in the KJV of Isaiah 55:11 uses “it” and yet is a personification.
Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,23:02) No Scripture calls Jesus the Word except one passage in Revelations…….
Wrong. 1 John 1:1-2 speaks of the same Word, which is also Jesus.So now there are THREE scriptures calling Jesus the Word – ALL OF WHICH were written by the same author. Doesn't that tell you something? It should.
Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,23:02) You have no evidence to conclude that John was using Word any differently than Isaiah……
Wrong. I have MANY reasons, Kerwin. Would you like me to list them again?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)
The real question is how YOU are linking an OBVIOUSLY spoken word in Isaiah to “the Word” in John 1, who was OBVIOUSLY a PERSON, and NOT a spoken word. He wore SANDALS for crying out loud!
In Isaiah, God was saying, “If I say it's going to happen, then it's going to happen”. Yet, in your quest to conquer the scriptures, you are trying to use the poetic wording of God's statement in Isaiah to cast a shadow on the OBVIOUS referent of “the Word” in John 1. (It's not working.)
So now that I've given you MY list of reasons, it's time for YOU to show SCRIPTURES that link the spoken word of God in Isaiah to the Word in John 1.
Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,23:02) You are not comprehending the argument as it is about hierarchy. The Word inherently has a hierarchy than is superior to Jesus as the Word it is what Jesus is called by and the default the Word means the Word.
I want you to tell me WHY Jesus would be called by the name of a DIFFERENT “demiurge”. If he is NOT the one through whom all things were created, then why on earth would he be called by that one's name? And I want you to explain why so MANY times in scripture, the phrase “his name is called” is used, but you only try to make some big deal out of it in this ONE scripture.
I want you to ADDRESS these points:
His name is called Kerwin = He is called Kerwin = He IS Kerwin.
I want you to either tell me that the above equation is wrong………….. or ACKNOWLEDGE that it's right.
What “secret” meaning did “no longer will your name be called Abram” have? Did it mean that Abram wasn't REALLY Abram? Was he someone OTHER THAN Abram who was just called by some demiurge's name or something? PLEASE ADDRESS THIS STUFF.
Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,23:13) Mike, The Word in the KJV of Isaiah 55:11 uses “it” and yet is a personification.
The word “it” isn't in the Hebrew text.Quote (kerwin @ July 08 2013,11:11) T, Quote number 1) wrong there are none and that is the reason why you have shown none ,
2)this is a lie ;Lk 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU ;THIS IS WHO MADE THE SON COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND MADE MARY A SURROGATE MOTHER ;THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH,
It states nothing about the Divine Word but is does teach that Jesus was conceived by the power of Jehovah. There are humans today that are continuously being conceived by the power of science. Virgin conception may soon become common due to that same power of science.
KQuote Virgin conception may soon become common due to that same power of science. An arrogant scientist was talking to God one day. He said, “God, with all the scientific advancements we've made, we can now create life, and therefore don't need you anymore.”
God said, “Show me.”
So the scientist grabbed up a handful of earth and started heading to his lab.
God said, “Not so fast – go get your own dirt”.
this above is an joke with a moral attache to it ; see no men could do nothing if they did not have learn and practice what they do,but in reality they are not working like God almighty or Christ ,you try to show me that they are equal in their works as God the creator ,you dead wrong ,
Quote (kerwin @ July 09 2013,09:20) Mike, It is in the King James. I have not looked at the Hebrew.
Kerwinare you going to skip Mike previous quote
it looks like it to memike,
you are wrong. the word was not a god but God.
study more boykerwin,
you are not yet done?
i told you to make your own version of john 1.1 so that next time you can get a verse for you imagination.Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,10:06) Quote (jammin @ July 07 2013,04:45) Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,04:41) Quote (jammin @ July 06 2013,10:34) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2013,01:25) Quote (jammin @ July 03 2013,16:04) kerwin and ed i cant imagine why you people dont want to believe what the bible actually says.
do you want to spend your second life in hell?
Hi Jammin,Both me and Kerwin do believe what the bible actually says.
What we don't believe is: man's alterations to “The Word” of God.
Man's alterations hold no Authority over anyone – EXCEPT (maybe) YOU.Jesus has promised all believers – they would be resurrected on “The Last day”.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
altering words is your masterpiece.
you want people to believe what is not written in the bible. you call that truth?
i call that insanity.it is written that Christ is the word in john 1.1 rev 19.13
.
Jammin,It is not written.
of course in your book it is not written. but in the bible, it is written.believe it or not.
scholars also agree to that that the word in john 1.1 is christ
Jammin,Some scholars believe Word = Jesus but not all. God after all befuddles the wisdom of the Wise. I know of no 1st Century Theologian that taught that the Word was a person. The define Word doctrines are hold that the Word is personified in Scripture but not a person. There are later doctrines that teach otherwise.
you do not know john? how sad…
we can read in john 1.1 that the Word is the son. according to john 1.14, the Word became flesh. that is not the HS but the son.
if you continue reading john 1.14, it says we have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only son…consult an ophthalmologist dude. it is getting worst.
Quote (jammin @ July 09 2013,17:33) Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,10:06) Quote (jammin @ July 07 2013,04:45) Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,04:41) Quote (jammin @ July 06 2013,10:34) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2013,01:25) Quote (jammin @ July 03 2013,16:04) kerwin and ed i cant imagine why you people dont want to believe what the bible actually says.
do you want to spend your second life in hell?
Hi Jammin,Both me and Kerwin do believe what the bible actually says.
What we don't believe is: man's alterations to “The Word” of God.
Man's alterations hold no Authority over anyone – EXCEPT (maybe) YOU.Jesus has promised all believers – they would be resurrected on “The Last day”.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
altering words is your masterpiece.
you want people to believe what is not written in the bible. you call that truth?
i call that insanity.it is written that Christ is the word in john 1.1 rev 19.13
.
Jammin,It is not written.
of course in your book it is not written. but in the bible, it is written.believe it or not.
scholars also agree to that that the word in john 1.1 is christ
Jammin,Some scholars believe Word = Jesus but not all. God after all befuddles the wisdom of the Wise. I know of no 1st Century Theologian that taught that the Word was a person. The define Word doctrines are hold that the Word is personified in Scripture but not a person. There are later doctrines that teach otherwise.
you do not know john? how sad…
we can read in john 1.1 that the Word is the son. according to john 1.14, the Word became flesh. that is not the HS but the son.
if you continue reading john 1.14, it says we have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only son…consult an ophthalmologist dude. it is getting worst.
Jammin,It is not written.
Mike,
Quote Wrong. 1 John 1:1-2 speaks of the same Word, which is also Jesus. So now there are THREE scriptures calling Jesus the Word – ALL OF WHICH were written by the same author. Doesn't that tell you something? It should.
It tells me two things. The first is John, a Jew, utilized a Jewish Divine Word doctrine. The second is that you choose to read into the verses a more modern teaching.
Okay Kerwin,
I think it's time we hear your understanding from start to finish.
You are now saying the Word is some demiurge other than Jesus. Do you still think this demiurge is the “Holy Spirit Son of God”? Or have you moved on to yet another understanding? (You've gone through so many of them in the last 3 years that it's hard for us to keep up with you.)
kerwin,
it is written
Christ Lived Before the World Was Made1 The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.
NLV
it is not written that the HS is the word in john 1.1
make your own bible
Quote (jammin @ July 10 2013,12:54) kerwin, it is written
Christ Lived Before the World Was Made1 The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.
NLV
it is not written that the HS is the word in john 1.1
make your own bible
Jammin,I have not claimed the HS is the Word for a while though it is the way the Word is utilized.
(Christ) is a comment and not what is written.
Try to find a more literal version where it is written and not back-filled or a comment and a manuscript to match.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2013,06:10) Okay Kerwin, I think it's time we hear your understanding from start to finish.
You are now saying the Word is some demiurge other than Jesus. Do you still think this demiurge is the “Holy Spirit Son of God”? Or have you moved on to yet another understanding? (You've gone through so many of them in the last 3 years that it's hard for us to keep up with you.)
Mike,Same understanding, different way of speech.
Philo also called the Word an archangel. An archangel is a god according to you. Despite using terms used these descriptive words while denying the Word was a person. He is teaching a Jewish Divine Word doctrine. John use a Jewish Divine Word doctrine to teach about Jesus. Like with Philo's words it can be misunderstood to mean a person by those that understand the use of a model to portray ideas.
I am tired and hope to cover more later.
Quote (kerwin @ July 10 2013,13:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2013,06:10) Okay Kerwin, I think it's time we hear your understanding from start to finish.
You are now saying the Word is some demiurge other than Jesus. Do you still think this demiurge is the “Holy Spirit Son of God”? Or have you moved on to yet another understanding? (You've gone through so many of them in the last 3 years that it's hard for us to keep up with you.)
Mike,Same understanding, different way of speech.
Philo also called the Word an archangel. An archangel is a god according to you. Despite using terms used these descriptive words while denying the Word was a person. He is teaching a Jewish Divine Word doctrine. John use a Jewish Divine Word doctrine to teach about Jesus. Like with Philo's words it can be misunderstood to mean a person by those that understand the use of a model to portray ideas.
I am tired and hope to cover more later.
KSo you are fallowing Philo,and accept men,s view or is it also what you can take from scriptures as from your personal understanding ,but I have to guess that you have NO personal understanding ,and that you fallow men,s opinion according what at the moment fit or agree with you ,right,
I hope you can answer that question
Quote (terraricca @ July 10 2013,13:56) Quote (kerwin @ July 10 2013,13:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2013,06:10) Okay Kerwin, I think it's time we hear your understanding from start to finish.
You are now saying the Word is some demiurge other than Jesus. Do you still think this demiurge is the “Holy Spirit Son of God”? Or have you moved on to yet another understanding? (You've gone through so many of them in the last 3 years that it's hard for us to keep up with you.)
Mike,Same understanding, different way of speech.
Philo also called the Word an archangel. An archangel is a god according to you. Despite using terms used these descriptive words while denying the Word was a person. He is teaching a Jewish Divine Word doctrine. John use a Jewish Divine Word doctrine to teach about Jesus. Like with Philo's words it can be misunderstood to mean a person by those that understand the use of a model to portray ideas.
I am tired and hope to cover more later.
KSo you are fallowing Philo,and accept men,s view or is it also what you can take from scriptures as from your personal understanding ,but I have to guess that you have NO personal understanding ,and that you fallow men,s opinion according what at the moment fit or agree with you ,right,
I hope you can answer that question
T,I am pointing out that the Jews had Divine Word doctrines that held the Word was an archangel, but not a person, in the same century that a Jew named John wrote the first chapter of John. You are following a doctrine that twists the Jewish Divine Word doctrines to make the Word a person and so depart from its roots. There is nothing in John's words of chapter 1 that reveals he so drastically departed from the Jewish divine Word doctrines.
All,
The word was God's speech, simple as that.Look what St. Irenaeus said regarding John 1:1, and this was written in the second century. He understood the word to be God's speech.
Read it all, and pay particular attention to the bolded part.(quote) “The world was not formed by angels, or by any other being, contrary to the will of the most high God, but was made by the Father through the Word.
1. Those, moreover, who say that the world was formed by angels, or by any other maker of it, contrary to the will of Him who is the Supreme Father, err first of all in this very point, that they maintain that angels formed such and so mighty a creation, contrary to the will of the Most High God. This would imply that angels were more powerful than God; or if not so, that He was either careless, or inferior, or paid no regard to those things which took place among His own possessions, whether they turned out ill or well, so that He might drive away and prevent the one, while He praised and rejoiced over the other. But if one would not ascribe such conduct even to a man of any ability, how much less to God
2. Next let them tell us whether these things have been formed within the limits which are contained by Him, and in His proper territory, or in regions belonging to others, and lying beyond Him? But if they say [that these things were done] beyond Him, then all the absurdities already mentioned will face them, and the Supreme God will be enclosed by that which is beyond Him, in which also it will be necessary that He should find His end. If, on the other hand, [these things were done] within His own proper territory, it will be very idle to say that the world was thus formed within His proper territory against His will by angels who are themselves under His power, or by any other being, as if either He Himself did not behold all things which take place among His own possessions, or was not aware of the things to be done by angels.
3. If, however, [the things referred to were done] not against His will, but with His concurrence and knowledge, as some [of these men] think, the angels, or the Former of the world [whoever that may have been], will no longer be the causes of that formation, but the will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He too made the angels, or at least was the cause of their creation; and He will be regarded as having made the world who prepared the causes of its formation. Although they maintain that the angels were made by a long succession downwards, or that the Former of the world [sprang] from the Supreme Father, as Basilides asserts; nevertheless that which is the cause of those things which have been made will still be traced to Him who was the Author of such a succession. [The case stands] just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king who prepared those things which are the cause of victory; and, in like manner, the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about. Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it who formed the axe and the saw for this purpose, and [who also formed] at a much earlier date all the tools by which the axe and the saw themselves were formed. With justice, therefore, according to an analogous process of reasoning, the Father of all will be declared the Former of this world, and not the angels, nor any other [so-called] former of the world, other than He who was its Author, and had formerly been the cause of the preparation for a creation of this kind.
4. This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man. But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all things, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land— on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them— while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies.
5. For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the disciple of the Lord, declares regarding Him: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” John 1:3 Now, among the “all things” our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis that He made all things connected with our world by His Word. David also expresses the same truth [when he says] “For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created.” Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world— these heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a faithful servant of God and a prophet? He at first narrated the formation of the world in these words: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” Genesis 1:1 and all other things in succession; but neither gods nor angels [had any share in the work].
Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying,] “There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all.” I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense?” (Unquote)
“These heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the subject”
“Who speak not a word out sense”The word in John 1:1 was God's spoken word.
Quote (2besee @ July 11 2013,03:37) All,
The word was God's speech, simple as that.Look what St. Irenaeus said regarding John 1:1, and this was written in the second century. He understood the word to be God's speech.
Read it all, and pay particular attention to the bolded part.(quote) “The world was not formed by angels, or by any other being, contrary to the will of the most high God, but was made by the Father through the Word.
1. Those, moreover, who say that the world was formed by angels, or by any other maker of it, contrary to the will of Him who is the Supreme Father, err first of all in this very point, that they maintain that angels formed such and so mighty a creation, contrary to the will of the Most High God. This would imply that angels were more powerful than God; or if not so, that He was either careless, or inferior, or paid no regard to those things which took place among His own possessions, whether they turned out ill or well, so that He might drive away and prevent the one, while He praised and rejoiced over the other. But if one would not ascribe such conduct even to a man of any ability, how much less to God
2. Next let them tell us whether these things have been formed within the limits which are contained by Him, and in His proper territory, or in regions belonging to others, and lying beyond Him? But if they say [that these things were done] beyond Him, then all the absurdities already mentioned will face them, and the Supreme God will be enclosed by that which is beyond Him, in which also it will be necessary that He should find His end. If, on the other hand, [these things were done] within His own proper territory, it will be very idle to say that the world was thus formed within His proper territory against His will by angels who are themselves under His power, or by any other being, as if either He Himself did not behold all things which take place among His own possessions, or was not aware of the things to be done by angels.
3. If, however, [the things referred to were done] not against His will, but with His concurrence and knowledge, as some [of these men] think, the angels, or the Former of the world [whoever that may have been], will no longer be the causes of that formation, but the will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He too made the angels, or at least was the cause of their creation; and He will be regarded as having made the world who prepared the causes of its formation. Although they maintain that the angels were made by a long succession downwards, or that the Former of the world [sprang] from the Supreme Father, as Basilides asserts; nevertheless that which is the cause of those things which have been made will still be traced to Him who was the Author of such a succession. [The case stands] just as regards success in war, which is ascribed to the king who prepared those things which are the cause of victory; and, in like manner, the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought about. Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it who formed the axe and the saw for this purpose, and [who also formed] at a much earlier date all the tools by which the axe and the saw themselves were formed. With justice, therefore, according to an analogous process of reasoning, the Father of all will be declared the Former of this world, and not the angels, nor any other [so-called] former of the world, other than He who was its Author, and had formerly been the cause of the preparation for a creation of this kind.
4. This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man. But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all things, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land— on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them— while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies.
5. For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His own Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the disciple of the Lord, declares regarding Him: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” John 1:3 Now, among the “all things” our world must be embraced. It too, therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis that He made all things connected with our world by His Word. David also expresses the same truth [when he says] “For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created.” Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world— these heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a faithful servant of God and a prophet? He at first narrated the formation of the world in these words: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” Genesis 1:1 and all other things in succession; but neither gods nor angels [had any share in the work].
Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying,] “There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all.” I have indeed proved already that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons, who speak not a word of sense?” (Unquote)
“These heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the subject”
“Who speak not a word out sense”The word in John 1:1 was God's spoken word.
2beethis is but a configuration of opinions on some or part of scriptures that could support the trinity ,and the striated gods are pagan ,
and sorry for you but ;the WORD of God can not be God ;
or answer this question ; the one that is ,is different than the one that he is with ;yes or no -THIS IS YOUR TRUTH
John 1-1
Quote (kerwin @ July 11 2013,02:53) Quote (terraricca @ July 10 2013,13:56) Quote (kerwin @ July 10 2013,13:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2013,06:10) Okay Kerwin, I think it's time we hear your understanding from start to finish.
You are now saying the Word is some demiurge other than Jesus. Do you still think this demiurge is the “Holy Spirit Son of God”? Or have you moved on to yet another understanding? (You've gone through so many of them in the last 3 years that it's hard for us to keep up with you.)
Mike,Same understanding, different way of speech.
Philo also called the Word an archangel. An archangel is a god according to you. Despite using terms used these descriptive words while denying the Word was a person. He is teaching a Jewish Divine Word doctrine. John use a Jewish Divine Word doctrine to teach about Jesus. Like with Philo's words it can be misunderstood to mean a person by those that understand the use of a model to portray ideas.
I am tired and hope to cover more later.
KSo you are fallowing Philo,and accept men,s view or is it also what you can take from scriptures as from your personal understanding ,but I have to guess that you have NO personal understanding ,and that you fallow men,s opinion according what at the moment fit or agree with you ,right,
I hope you can answer that question
T,I am pointing out that the Jews had Divine Word doctrines that held the Word was an archangel, but not a person, in the same century that a Jew named John wrote the first chapter of John. You are following a doctrine that twists the Jewish Divine Word doctrines to make the Word a person and so depart from its roots. There is nothing in John's words of chapter 1 that reveals he so drastically departed from the Jewish divine Word doctrines.
kERWINQuote There is nothing in John's words of chapter 1 that reveals he so drastically departed from the Jewish divine Word doctrines. this is not John doing it is Christ doing ;why do you think they have failed to recognized the Christ
when that happen you are going on a roller-coaster driving away from the truth of God ,
does God pay attention to men's culture
if yes this would be new to meTeraricca,
That is not trinitarian, far from it.
It is the only writing from the early century SPECIFICALLY about John 1. And it says EXACTLY what I have been saying all along.
All that you have is Origen, who's writings were tampered with to fit later theology (wikipedia) – and he was much later than Irenaeus.The word is God's speech. God's word. Simple.
You can prat all you like! Lol.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
