JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[kerwin]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 21 2013,20:11)

Quote (jammin @ Oct. 21 2013,23:08) kerwin, about the translation the Word was divine, you can check what moffat said. he  said the Word was divine. he did not say the word but Word. it is capital W. do you know the reason behind it why they translated is as Word ant not word?? bec that is a title or name of Christ. rev 19.13 now let me give a version of james moffat here is what he said john 1.1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. you know what, you need to study hard. im sorry boy but your belief cant be supported by the bible. you should make your own Jamminin……….ALL original Greek text are in Capitals of upper case lettering, the lower case Greek did not start until around 900 AD. Check it out. So all lettering in the original Greek was upper case. So who gave the right for the change (the Trinitarian) translators and Preexistence-rs did> They slant scriptures to meet their own “beliefs” by using Upper case and Lower case texts, that was not the case originally. peace and love………………….gene

Gene,

That is my error as I thought it was the other way. When I see Koine Greek written it seems to be all lower case.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ Oct. 20 2013,21:13)

Mike, You consist of your mind, and your spirit, and your word, and your flesh. All of those things are a part of you. They are not something else.

So I could say, “WE are going to the store.”

And someone could ask, “Who is the 'we' you're talking about?”  

And I could answer them, “Me and my mind and my spirit and my word and my flesh.”

Does that really make sense to you, 2B? Has that kind of a conversation ever happened to you in your lifetime?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 20 2013,23:11)

There is nothing to say the angels were there before heaven and earth were created or before God said let there be light.

Kerwin,

Why? Why must you so consistently read what the scriptures say, and then believe the exact opposite?

Are you saying that God created MOST OF the earth, then said, “Let there be light”, then created the angels, and THEN came back later to apply the “capstone” to the earth He had created eons earlier? And it was only this final act that the angels applauded?

[kerwin]

Jammin,

Quote

^ Harris, Murray J. ;Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992. <Murray J. Harris. Baker Books, pub. SBN 0801021952, p. 69

Quote

“[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.”

So it does not say Jesus is the Father or, as Trinitarian definition of God would have it, Jesus is the 3 in 1 God.  Interpretating it as you like requires explanation.

Quote

im not putting my belief to those men. what im saying is they KNOW what they are doing. they translated greek to english not will all small letters but those words need capitalization, they capitalize the letter.

So your words say that you do not put your faith in them but the spirit of your words says otherwise as you do not want them questioned.    Those sure sounds like you have put your faith in them because you believe they are far above you.

I can say that if their only reason for capitalizing the word in some places and not in other is because there chosen doctrine leads them to then you are taking their word that they follow the right teaching.  Do you follow all these men say even as they dispute with one another?

Quote

you told me that God is an aspect of the WORD. can you read that in john 1.1?:

If you truly lack the ability to follow my reasoning as you seem to be acting like then perhaps you also fail to comprehend that being divine is an aspect of God.  I do not believe either are the case.  

Quote

you are telling me lies Kerwin. you are the one who wants doctrine from men.you are preaching doctrines from men and not from God.

You are the one that is teaching to take the words of men not I.  Instead I try to reason with you out of Scripture.

Note: reference in relation to and quote from Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus.

[2besee]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2013,11:38)

Quote (2besee @ Oct. 20 2013,21:13) Mike, You consist of your mind, and your spirit, and your word, and your flesh. All of those things are a part of you. They are not something else. So I could say, “WE are going to the store.” And someone could ask, “Who is the 'we' you're talking about?”   And I could answer them, “Me and my mind and my spirit and my word and my flesh.” Does that really make sense to you, 2B?  Has that kind of a conversation ever happened to you in your lifetime?

Mike,
We are not God. We were made in God's image. God was not made in OUR image. Why insist on having God just like us?

Here's the thing: God is so great that we will never be able to fully comprehend Him. So, why question why God did this and that, as if to compare him to men?

God is not a man.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (942767 @ Oct. 21 2013,12:46)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 21 2013,10:44) Quote (942767 @ Oct. 20 2013,17:22) Rev 19:13 …….and his name is called The Word of God. Marty, WHOSE name is called “The Word of God” in that verse? Hi Mike: Listen to this video, and pay close attention to what it means when a scripture such as this one states “his name is called” or “his name shall be called” or the one in Isaiah which states “his name shall be called: “wonderful, counselor, prince of peace, mighty God.

I started to watch it, but then tested what he said against Genesis 2:19-20, where Adam gave “names” (shem) to all of the animals.

Does this guy think that Adam gave each animal its “character”?

Anyway, is that your answer?  That the “character” of the rider of the white horse is “word of God”?

Deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole we go, huh?

BTW, how does this apply to the GREEK language, which is the language of the verse we're talking about?  Look at Luke 1:61 – for one example.  Were they telling Elizabeth that none of her relatives bear the “character” of “John”?

What is the “character” of “John”?  No, Marty.  Instead they used the word “name” just as we would use it if we told someone that no one in their family had the “name Mike” – or whatever.  We would simply be talking about a regular old “name”, and not the “character” of any particular person.

It is the same in Luke 1:61 and Genesis 2:19-20.

Which means there is no reason to think it is any different in Revelation 19:13.

So please just DIRECTLY answer the question I asked.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2013,04:44)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 20 2013,23:11) There is nothing to say the angels were there before heaven and earth were created or before God said let there be light. Kerwin, Why?  Why must you so consistently read what the scriptures say, and then believe the exact opposite?   Are you saying that God created MOST OF the earth, then said, “Let there be light”, then created the angels, and THEN came back later to apply the “capstone” to the earth He had created eons earlier?  And it was only this final act that the angels applauded?

Mike,

In the beginning God created both the heavens and the earth.  There were no angels before the heavens were created. When God set the final capstone of the foundation the angels celebrated.  So we know that between the time the heavens were created and the time the capstone of the foundations of earth was set in place that the angels were created.  At the earliest they celebrated when earth is declared “form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

You seem to believe in this place that was not created and existed before either heaven or earth was created.  A place that existed when darkness is all that existed as light was not created.  In this place that you choose to believe in but that is not mentioned in Scripture God created the creature that would become Jesus out of his ghostly body so Jesus is body of God's body.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 21 2013,17:19)

Mike, In the beginning God created both the heavens and the earth. There were no angels before the heavens were created.

Kerwin,

This is what I believe – as it is explicitly taught in scripture:

The heavens and the earth were existing when God said, “Let there be light”. Angels were also existing at that time, since they shouted for joy when God made the earth.

The things you say have no support from any scripture, and I therefore have no reason to believe them, or to spend any more of my time trying to “refute” that which isn't even taught in the first place.

(The same goes for your claim that spirits can't be touched and can't eat. Why should I spend time “refuting” that which isn't taught in the first place? )

So, believe what you want about these things. But if you try to teach them here, I will be there to point out to your “students” that you are teaching things that aren't actually taught in any scripture.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ Oct. 21 2013,17:00)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2013,11:38) Quote (2besee @ Oct. 20 2013,21:13) Mike, You consist of your mind, and your spirit, and your word, and your flesh. All of those things are a part of you. They are not something else. Man was made in God's IMAGE. The only thing different was the flesh body. Correct? So I could say, “WE are going to the store.” And someone could ask, “Who is the 'we' you're talking about?”   And I could answer them, “Me and my mind and my spirit and my word and my flesh.” Does that really make sense to you, 2B?  Has that kind of a conversation ever happened to you in your lifetime? Mike, We are not God. Why insist on having God just like us? God is not a man.

 You started off trying to prove your point by comparing men to God.  Then when I shot down your point, you flip-flopped on me and scolded ME for comparing men to God.  

I find that funny.  

[terraricca]

Marty

Quote

Quote Gen 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”

Ge 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and ABOVE every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

WHY WAS THE SERPENT CURSED “ABOVE ” AND NOT UNDER or among ; this would place him just below men ;right ??

[terraricca]

Quote (2besee @ Oct. 22 2013,03:26)

Quote 2bee scriptures do not say THAT THE SON HIS THE HOLY SPIRIT ONLY MEN DO INTERPRET IT THAT WAY ;SO I WILL STICK TO THE SCRIPTURES THE WORD OF GOD ,NOT THE WORD OF MEN Terrarica, wrong. Shepherd was canon. They took it out at the council of nicea. But the earliest church read it out loud in church. That is a fact. Nobody had a problem with its christology!

2bee

Quote

Terrarica, wrong. Shepherd was canon. They took it out at the council of nicea. But the earliest church read it out loud in church. That is a fact. Nobody had a problem with its christology!

there were many scriptures that were in the canon,and that are no longer in it for very good reasons ,but you cannot see those reasons ,so it is stalemate ,according to our personal view in scriptures

[jammin]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 22 2013,01:11)

Quote (jammin @ Oct. 21 2013,23:08) kerwin, about the translation the Word was divine, you can check what moffat said. he  said the Word was divine. he did not say the word but Word. it is capital W. do you know the reason behind it why they translated is as Word ant not word?? bec that is a title or name of Christ. rev 19.13 now let me give a version of james moffat here is what he said john 1.1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. you know what, you need to study hard. im sorry boy but your belief cant be supported by the bible. you should make your own Jamminin……….ALL original Greek text are in Capitals of upper case lettering, the lower case Greek did not start until around 900 AD. Check it out. So all lettering in the original Greek was upper case. So who gave the right for the change (the Trinitarian) translators and Preexistence-rs did> They slant scriptures to meet their own “beliefs” by using Upper case and Lower case texts, that was not the case originally. peace and love………………….gene

it does not matter. what im trying to say here is those translators know what they are doing. can you read me an english bible that is all capital letters? or all small letters?

why do translators said God for the father and not god|?

do you know the reason behind it?

kerwin does not know all these things.
even greek, he does not know how to use that language.

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 22 2013,09:44)

Jammin, Quote ^ Harris, Murray J. ;Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992. <Murray J. Harris. Baker Books, pub. SBN 0801021952, p. 69 Quote “[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.” So it does not say Jesus is the Father or, as Trinitarian definition of God would have it, Jesus is the 3 in 1 God.  Interpretating it as you like requires explanation. Quote im not putting my belief to those men. what im saying is they KNOW what they are doing. they translated greek to english not will all small letters but those words need capitalization, they capitalize the letter. So your words say that you do not put your faith in them but the spirit of your words says otherwise as you do not want them questioned.    Those sure sounds like you have put your faith in them because you believe they are far above you. I can say that if their only reason for capitalizing the word in some places and not in other is because there chosen doctrine leads them to then you are taking their word that they follow the right teaching.  Do you follow all these men say even as they dispute with one another? Quote you told me that God is an aspect of the WORD. can you read that in john 1.1?: If you truly lack the ability to follow my reasoning as you seem to be acting like then perhaps you also fail to comprehend that being divine is an aspect of God.  I do not believe either are the case.   Quote you are telling me lies Kerwin. you are the one who wants doctrine from men.you are preaching doctrines from men and not from God. You are the one that is teaching to take the words of men not I.  Instead I try to reason with you out of Scripture. Note: reference in relation to and quote from Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus.

you did not give me any single version in greek about john 1.1
where can you read in greek that God is an aspect of the word?

do you know the difference between word and Word?
you qouted moffat buy he translated john 1.1 as Word and not word.

you should know first the meaning of that verse before posting it here.

you know what you are really a false teacher. you said before he wil be called the Word of God in rev 19.13 but no version would say that/ you are just making your own version.

your statement about rev 19.13 and john 1.1 tells us that you are a false teacher.

[2besee]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2013,12:40)

Quote (2besee @ Oct. 21 2013,17:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2013,11:38) Quote (2besee @ Oct. 20 2013,21:13) Mike, You consist of your mind, and your spirit, and your word, and your flesh. All of those things are a part of you. They are not something else. Man was made in God's IMAGE. The only thing different was the flesh body. Correct? So I could say, “WE are going to the store.” And someone could ask, “Who is the 'we' you're talking about?”   And I could answer them, “Me and my mind and my spirit and my word and my flesh.” Does that really make sense to you, 2B?  Has that kind of a conversation ever happened to you in your lifetime? Mike, We are not God. Why insist on having God just like us? God is not a man.  You started off trying to prove your point by comparing men to God.  Then when I shot down your point, you flip-flopped on me and scolded ME for comparing men to God.   I find that funny.

Mike,

Made in God's image and likeness:

We man have thoughts. God has thoughts ( 1 Corinthian 2:11)
We man have word. God is word (John 1:1)
We man have love. God is love (1 John 4:8)
We man have spirit. God is spirit (John 4:24)

Man was made in the likeness of God, the only difference : is the flesh.

I ask you this:
Is Mike's 'mind', and Mike's 'word', and Mike's 'spirit' other separate beings – or is Mike “one”?

HEAR O ISRAEL, THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE.

[2besee]

Terraricca,
The shepherd of hermas was called canon by the early church fathers from Justin Martyr to Origin; was read in the earliest church out loud as canon, and there is nothing anywhere to say they disagreed with it's christology (that the Holy Spirit was the Son of God in eternity).
So No, Hermas was not like other writings which were taken out.
But that's just my view (not only mine but it's making a come back today “spirit christology” – google it).

You don't have to agree.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2013,05:33)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 21 2013,17:19) Mike, In the beginning God created both the heavens and the earth.  There were no angels before the heavens were created. Kerwin, This is what I believe – as it is explicitly taught in scripture: The heavens and the earth were existing when God said, “Let there be light”.  Angels were also existing at that time, since they shouted for joy when God made the earth. The things you say have no support from any scripture, and I therefore have no reason to believe them, or to spend any more of my time trying to “refute” that which isn't even taught in the first place. (The same goes for your claim that spirits can't be touched and can't eat.  Why should I spend time “refuting” that which isn't taught in the first place?   ) So, believe what you want about these things.  But if you try to teach them here, I will be there to point out to your “students” that you are teaching things that aren't actually taught in any scripture.

Mike,

Quote

The heavens and the earth were existing when God said, “Let there be light”.

What do you think the heavens are?  They are not the skies not the darkness above as that had not yet been created until the angels shouted is Job 38:11 is in chronicle order.  So what bears that label.

Quote

When I made the cloud the garment thereof and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it and …

Quote

Angels were also existing at that time, since they shouted for joy when God made the earth.

Scripture does not explicitly or implicitly say the angels were existing when the earth was made. what the AKJV does say, corrected for punctuation, is.

Quote

who laid the corner stone thereof when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The corner stone is another name for cap stone in the building since the capstone happens to be a cornerstone. When the second temple was built the people celebrated when it was laid to finish of the foundations of the temple.

Quote

This is what I believe – as it is explicitly taught in scripture:

You are in error in your word use.  Explicit is when it is written in the very words which is clearly not the case.  Implicit is when is is written in the ideas the words express and not clearly in the words.

I have already pointed out that your teaching are neither explicit or implicitly.

Quote

(The same goes for your claim that spirits can't be touched and can't eat.  Why should I spend time “refuting” that which isn't taught in the first place?   )

That merely means you are unable to address my point but choose not to believe it either.   The last you chose to address it you took part of the scene and blanked out the rest that you could not see as relevant.  That is like playing a game of chess and only watching one part of the board.

Note: we are discussing this last item on another thread that loads faster.

[terraricca]

Quote (2besee @ Oct. 22 2013,14:41)

Terraricca, The shepherd of hermas was called canon by the early church fathers from Justin Martyr to Origin; was read in the earliest church out loud as canon, and there is nothing anywhere to say they disagreed with it's christology (that the Holy Spirit was the Son of God in eternity). So No, Hermas was not like other writings which were taken out. But that's just my view (not only mine but it's making a come back  today “spirit christology” –  google it). You don't have to agree.

2bee

I do not agree ;those days (second and third century)are the days of apostasy settings,many were fighting the heresies,should read the history of it ;that is were the torture Origin,and many others ,divisions between teachers ,this was the prep time for Constantine the first ,

scriptures do not teach that Christ his the holy spirit ,those are men made conclusions,but you can believe anything you want we have free will to chose that is what it is all about when Christ says ;

Jn 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Jn 3:20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Jn 3:21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

[942767]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2013,10:15)

Quote (942767 @ Oct. 21 2013,12:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 21 2013,10:44) Quote (942767 @ Oct. 20 2013,17:22) Rev 19:13 …….and his name is called The Word of God. Marty, WHOSE name is called “The Word of God” in that verse? Hi Mike: Listen to this video, and pay close attention to what it means when a scripture such as this one states “his name is called” or “his name shall be called” or the one in Isaiah which states “his name shall be called: “wonderful, counselor, prince of peace, mighty God. I started to watch it, but then tested what he said against Genesis 2:19-20, where Adam gave “names” (shem) to all of the animals. Does this guy think that Adam gave each animal its “character”? Anyway, is that your answer?  That the “character” of the rider of the white horse is “word of God”? Deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole we go, huh? BTW, how does this apply to the GREEK language, which is the language of the verse we're talking about?  Look at Luke 1:61 – for one example.  Were they telling Elizabeth that none of her relatives bear the “character” of “John”? What is the “character” of “John”?  No, Marty.  Instead they used the word “name” just as we would use it if we told someone that no one in their family had the “name Mike” – or whatever.  We would simply be talking about a regular old “name”, and not the “character” of any particular person. It is the same in Luke 1:61 and Genesis 2:19-20. Which means there is no reason to think it is any different in Revelation 19:13. So please just DIRECTLY answer the question I asked.

Wow, Mike:

You won't listen to instruction, and so, how are you ever going to understand the truth.

I don't know about the animals to which Adam gave names, but I am relatively sure that it had to do with their function or something on that order.  I will study this.

But the name “John” means “the Lord is gracious”, and the name “Jesus” means “YHWH  is salvation”, and Jesus is his name, but the scripture states: “his name is called”, not “his name is”.  Do you not see the difference.

But yes, his character is the “Word of God” since he obeyed God's Word without sin even unto death on the cross, and by his obedience his spirit was formed, and is now “the express image of God's person”.  He was made “a life giving spirit”, and so, he said: “I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man can come to the Father except through me”.  It is by this through this Word, and by his blood, that we also can overcome sin and have eternal life.

And it is through this Word that he will judge the quick(living) and the dead.

Quote

Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Quote

Jhn 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. Jhn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. Jhn 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Jhn 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. Jhn 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Quote

Hbr 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Hbr 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Hbr 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him

Love in Christ,
Marty

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ Oct. 22 2013,13:15)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 22 2013,09:44) Jammin, Quote ^ Harris, Murray J. ;Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992. <Murray J. Harris. Baker Books, pub. SBN 0801021952, p. 69 Quote “[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.” So it does not say Jesus is the Father or, as Trinitarian definition of God would have it, Jesus is the 3 in 1 God.  Interpretating it as you like requires explanation. Quote im not putting my belief to those men. what im saying is they KNOW what they are doing. they translated greek to english not will all small letters but those words need capitalization, they capitalize the letter. So your words say that you do not put your faith in them but the spirit of your words says otherwise as you do not want them questioned.    Those sure sounds like you have put your faith in them because you believe they are far above you. I can say that if their only reason for capitalizing the word in some places and not in other is because there chosen doctrine leads them to then you are taking their word that they follow the right teaching.  Do you follow all these men say even as they dispute with one another? Quote you told me that God is an aspect of the WORD. can you read that in john 1.1?: If you truly lack the ability to follow my reasoning as you seem to be acting like then perhaps you also fail to comprehend that being divine is an aspect of God.  I do not believe either are the case.   Quote you are telling me lies Kerwin. you are the one who wants doctrine from men.you are preaching doctrines from men and not from God. You are the one that is teaching to take the words of men not I.  Instead I try to reason with you out of Scripture. Note: reference in relation to and quote from Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. you did not give me any single version in greek about john 1.1 where can you read in greek that God is an aspect of the word? do you know the difference between word and Word? you qouted moffat buy he translated john 1.1 as Word and not word. you should know first the meaning of that verse before posting it here. you know what you are really a false teacher. you said before he wil be called the Word of God in rev 19.13 but no version would say that/ you are just making your own version. your statement about rev 19.13 and john 1.1 tells us that you are a false teacher.

Jammin,

You have not given me no scriptures that state the messiah bore the name word before he was made in his mother's womb.

Another way of saying that the Word like God is to say the Word is divine which is why the Koine Greek words can be translated either way.  

Like is probably a better word than aspect in English as God and theos are not complete synonyms in that theos can mean “his counsels, interests, things due to him” and God does not.   The word is equivalent to his counsels.

If you are following this then you should figure out that I don't mean that God is a part of his word even though I did use the wrong English word.

Note: theos
Note: I have formerly used the word aspect to express an idea works fine in Koine Greek but not in English.  I believe like is the correct English word.

[terraricca]

Marty

Quote

But yes, his character is the “Word of God”

just curious how is that that “the word of God ” HIS THE CHARACTER OF JESUS “ JUST BECAUSE HE OBEY HIS FATHER

IS THIS NOT MORE LIKE “HE WAS HUMBLE IN CHARACTER ” AND FOR THAT REASON HE WAS OBEDIENT TO HIS FATHER AND HE LOVED HIS FATHER ,

[Author]

Posts