- This topic has 25,906 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 7 hours, 57 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
learn the basic english for those who do not believe the Word is Christ.
your words cant be addressed as HE while the Word in john 1.1 was addressed by john as HE.
kerwin,
or maybe you want to read the footnote of the GNV
John 1:3
1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
3 [a]All things were made by it, and [c]without it [d]was made nothing that was made.
Footnotes:John 1:3 The son of God declareth that same his everlasting Godhead, both by the creating of all things, and also by the preserving of them, and especially by the excellent gifts of reason and understanding, wherewith he that beautified man above all other creatures.
John 1:3 Paul expoundeth this place, Col. 1:15 and 16.
John 1:3 That is, as the Father did work, so did the Son work with him: for he was fellow worker with him.
John 1:3 Of all those things which were made, nothing was made without him.mikeboll64,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote And let's face it, before God created the heavens and stars and planets, those things didn't exist, right? So unless the elements those things are made of had already existed from eternity, God also brought those things forth from Himself. Yet you say those things ARE created. Hmmm……….. Mike,
THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
WHAT GOD EMANATES!
AND WHAT GOD CREATS!
CAN YOU SINCE YOU ARE FULL OF WORLDLY CORRUPTED WISDOM , LIKE ALL HUMANS,EXPLAIN, SINCE YOU ARE NOT READY TO BE TAUGHT, BUT ALWAYS READY TO FLEE AS SOON AS YOU SMELL SOMETHING SPIRITUALLY CLEAR AND QUITE UNCONFRONTABLE!
LIKE FOR INSTANCE WHAT I POSTED HEREUNDER:
YOU SAID THAT:
IF “The Word of God” DIDN'T used to be an individual living breathing being,AND BECAME SO IT HAD TO HAVE A BEGINNING!
FROM GOD SIDE NOT REALLY!
FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT SINCE GOD IS ETERNAL, WHATEVER HE DOES CONCERNING HIMSELF, WHICH INCLUDES ALSO THE WORD MADE FLESH IT WOULD BE ALSO ETERNAL, EVEN IF WE DETERMINE THE OPPOSITE!
SO IT DIDN’T HAVE A BEGINNING!
NOW ANSWER:
WHEN BUTTERFLY COMES OUT OF HIS COCOON, WHICH HE HIMSELF PREVIOUSLY BUILT AS A CATERPILLAR,
WAS THE BUTTERFLY IN EXISTENCE ?
WAS THE BUTTERFLY THE SAME BEING BUT AS A CATERPILLAR?
DIDN’T THEREFORE THE BUTTERFLY ALTHOUGH HE HAD A BEGINNING, WAS STILL IN EXISTENCE THEREFORE HE NEVER REALLY HAD A BEGINNING AT ALL, BUT SIMPLY WHAT WE CALL A COMPLETE TRANSFORMATION?
SO! WITH THE SAME ARGUMENT:
CAN GOD DO WHAT HE COULD AND DID WITH A MERE WORM BUT INSTEAD TO HIMSELF, LIKE IN THE SAME SENSE THE CATERRPILLAR DID WITH HIMSELF?
SO
THE WORD WAS BORN AS A CHILD! BUT HE STILL DIDN'T HAVE A BEGINNING, SINCE HE WAS ALSO THE SON OF GOD,
THE WORD WAS BORN A CHILD IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE SUN ENTERS THROUGH A GLASS AND PASS ONTO THE OTHERSIDE AND IT REMAINS THE SAME SUN IN ALL ITS CHARACTERISTICS
THAT’S HOW MUCH GOD NEEDED THE WOMAN TO BE BORN IN THE WORD MADE FLESH!
BELIEVE IT OR NOT :
MARY WAS NOT A WOMAN LIKE ALL WOMAN BUT A NEW THING FOR GOD SINCE GOD NEVER NEEDED A MAN, A SPERM, THEREFORE ALS WHATEVER A WOMAN NEEDED IN ORDER TO SERVE MAN!
AS A PROOF THAT HE NEVER HAD A BEGINNING IN THE TRUTH!
THIS IS CONFIRMED IN:
Isaiah 55:For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.
10And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it.
SO IF GOD SAID:
9For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, SO ARE MY WAYS EXALTED ABOVE YOUR WAYS, and my thoughts above your thoughts.
THEREFORE:
ALL HUMANS IN ORDER TO BE BORN, A SPERM, AND AN OVUM MUST BE FUSED! SO THERE HAS TO BE AN ACT WHICH NEVER HAD BEEN BEFORE , BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT ELEMENTS! THEREFORE A COMPLETE BEGINNING!
THE WORD BECAME FLESH WITHOUT ANY SPERM AT ALL!
THE WORD BECAME FLESH WITHOUT ANY FUSION OF TWO DIFFERENT ELEMENTS AT ALL!
THE WORD BECAME FLESH FROM ONE ELEMENT, ONE SPIRIT! ONE ETERNAL SPIRIT! GOD'S
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote They did that because the word wisdom is a feminine noun in Hebrew. The word word is masculine in both Hebrew and Koine Greek. Kerwin,
BUT THAT IS NOT THE REAL TRUTH!
WHAT IF I TELL YOU THAT THE WORD THE TRIUNE MEDIATOR CREATOR GOD WAS BOTH MASCULINE AND FEMININE!
THEREFORE THE WORD MADE FLESH WAS ALSO MALE AND FEMALE
AS ALSO WAS MARY SINCE THE WORD MADE FLESH WAS BORN THROUGH HER!
NO ONE KNOWS THE FATHER EXCEPT THE SON, AND NO ONE KNOWS THE SON EXCEPT THE FATHER and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. … IN THIS CASE ME
TO CLARIFY:
THE FATHER LOVE
AND
THE SON WISDOM TOGETHER WITH
THE HOLY SPIRIT!
IN THE FORM OF WATER, SPIRIT AND BLOOD, MATTER!
WHEN THE WORD LEFT THE FATHER FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD!
1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth.
SINCE WISDOM THE FEMININE ASPECT OF GOD WAS WITH THE WORD BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD! IN FACT IT WAS THE VERY FIRST SPIRIT ATTRIBUTE WHICH THE DEITY, THROUGH THE FATHER WHO IS LOVE ITSELF ESTABLISHED/CREATED AS A SPIRIT!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 23 2014,13:18) Mike, So are you claiming a concrete thing can not become an aspect of an abstract thing.
That claim lacks support.
Okay Kerwin,But it's not for me to prove a negative. You'll have to prove the positive.
Can you find an example of an abstract quality or attribute, like “love”, that has a concrete thing as IT'S own attribute?
For example, can “love” have an elephant as one of it's attributes?
Can a command from God have a rhinoceros as one of it's attributes?
As far as I know, concrete things can have abstract things as attributes – but not the other way around.
Quote (jammin @ Feb. 23 2014,20:24) We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has.
BY DANIEL B WALLACE
jammin,That is a brilliant piece of work from Mr. Wallace! Thank you for posting it.
He does a great job of putting the technical information into laymen's terms that anyone can understand. And he is 100% correct on everything……… except for his conclusion.
Take a look:
“What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force.
Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).
That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.
As Mr. Wallace points out, the lack of the definite article in part c should logically keep all of us from identifying the Word with “the person of God”.
And notice that Mr. Wallace doesn't claim that “God” is made up of “persons” (plural), but instead recognizes that “God” is A person (singular). He even goes as far as to tell us that this ONE “person of God” is none other than “the Father”.
And he is absolutely correct that John INTENTIONALLY included the definite article in part b, but left it out in part c. John INTENTIONALLY wrote that the Word was WITH THE God; and made sure that he DIDN'T write that the Word WAS THE God.
John did that on purpose, jammin – just like Mr. Wallace so brilliantly points out.
But did you notice what Mr. Wallace did during the explanation part of his writing?
First, he explained that John went out of his way to make sure that no one thought the Word was actually “the person of God”. But then, Mr. Wallace stopped using the word “God” – and switched to “the Father”.
Why would Mr. Wallace do such a thing, jammin? And what would his explanation have looked like if he continued to use the word “God”, instead of switching to “the Father”?
“What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force.
Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God”.
That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that God has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not God.
And with those two minor adjustments I made to Mr. Wallace's writing, we are pretty dang close to exactly what John was trying to tell us in the first place. So, by putting “God” back into Mr. Wallace's writing, this is what we have learned:
1. What God was, the Word also was. And what is God? A very powerful spirit being, right? Jesus was also that.
2. Don't confuse “the Word” with “God Himself” (“the person of God” – as Mr. Wallace puts it).
3. Jesus had the same divine attributes that his own Father and God had – the same divine nature that we also can partake in some day. (2 Peter 1:4)
4. The lack of definite article in part c makes it clear that Jesus wasn't actually God Himself.
So you can see how brilliantly Mr. Wallace laid all these things out for us. And you can hopefully also see the little “trick” he tried to play on us.
Even if we left it as Mr. Wallace originally wrote it, there is nothing in what he wrote that would lead a sensible person to the conclusion that Jesus was a DIFFERENT “person of God”. In fact, that conclusion contradicts his claim that Jesus isn't “THE person of God”.
I hope you can see these things, and thanks again for posting that writing. Good stuff.
So jammin,
Using that information from Mr. Wallace, we can finally answer the question of this thread:
The Word is Jesus Christ, a powerful spirit being (god) just like his own God, who was given divine nature just like many of us will someday be given, and who is NOT “the person of God Himself”.
NOW we can finally close the thread.
Quote (carmel @ Feb. 24 2014,00:37) Mike, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
WHAT GOD EMANATES!
AND WHAT GOD CREATS!
Stop right there, Charles. Show me what you claimed in scripture, and THEN maybe I'll read the rest of your post.you had a wrong interpretation mike.
ill post again what wallace said
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.
and
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has.—-
mike,wallace told that the son is not the father but they have same NATURE (God)
Christ is God and not god. i did not see that wallace posted 2peter 1.4. you have a wrong interpretation about that verse./
your twist is not effective here
Jammin……….Your half way right, Jesus said clearly that the FATHER was “IN” Him he never said He was the Father Or for that matter He never said he was a God either, Jesus said he was going to “HIS” GOD and Identified it as OUR GOD ALSO, He was Going TO “HIS” FATHER and OUR FATHER ALSO. So by Jesus' own Mouth He Identifies himself with Us and Not as Being a GOD. You do not understand that the fullness of GOD DWELT “IN” HIM That is a completely different thing then saying He IS A GOD HIMSELF.
Simply put you are an “INDOCTRINATED TRINATARIAN and a INDOCTRINATED PREEXISTENCE'S. None of those are any part of God now Jesus the Christ, the anointed “MAN” of GOD> Jesus said clearly “THOU” art the “ONLY” TRUE GOD Now does the word “THOU, mean someone else then the person saying it , and does ONLY not mean there are “NO” Others. Why can't you trinitarians and preexistence's put simply and clear scriptures together, is it because God has sent to you a deluding Spirit “Intellect” and you can't seem to come to a true understanding?, well you not alone here that is for sure. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………………..gene
Quote (jammin @ Feb. 25 2014,14:05) you had a wrong interpretation mike. ill post again what wallace said
…… Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God”………..
Just focus on that one part I quoted above, jammin. Mr. Wallace clearly tells you that the person of the Word is NOT the person of God. He says that John's lack of a definite article in part c KEEPS US FROM IDENTIFYING THE WORD AS “GOD”.He is correct. The Word OF God cannot possibly BE “God”. This is simple common sense.
Quote (jammin @ Feb. 25 2014,14:05) Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has.
—-
mike,wallace told that the son is not the father but they have same NATURE (God)
Like I said yesterday, Mr. Wallace's conclusion doesn't even match his own teaching. First he tells us that the Word is NOT “the person of God”…….. and then he turns right around and concludes that the Word IS “the person of God”.
How he says one thing, and then concludes the opposite thing is a mystery to me.
His own words are fighting each other. Can't you see that?
Anyway, I've saved that writing to my Word program, for later reference. Thanks again for posting it.
Gene wrote:[/quote]
Quote You do not understand that the fullness of GOD DWELT “IN” HIM That is a completely different thing then saying He IS A GOD HIMSELF. Gene,
WITH YOUR ARGUMENT YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOUR SOUL IS NOT YOU since it abides in you!
but the truth is that when YOU die YOU WILL FACE THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST. TO BE JUDGED!
NOW HOW COME YOU WOULD BE IN THE GRAVE, AND ALSO IN FRONT OF JESUS?
HOW COME YOU WOULD BE WHEREVER YOU DESERVE TO BE, AND ALSO DUST?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
mikeboll64,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote God brought this “Word” forth, and caused it to have an existence at some point – which would mean that “the Word” had a BEGINNING to its existence. MIke,
PROVE THAT BROUGHT FORTH MEANS THAT IT NEVER HAD AN EXISTENCE, BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT FORTH!
NOW REFLECT:
WE BRING FORTH WORDS THROUGH OUR MOUTH! DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ACTUAL WORDS WHICH DEFINITELY MEANT A KIND OF COMMITMENT, WHICH EVENTUALLY WE BROUGHT FORTH WERE NOT WITHIN OUR MIND?
SINCE WE PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED OURSELVES WITHIN OUR CONCEPT AND DECIDED in a mode to say THAT
NEXT YEAR WE WOULD GO FOR A HOLIDAY?
WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER KIND OF MOUTH WHICH IS ALWAYS HIDDEN!
WE ALSO BRING FORTH HORRIBLE STINKY RESPECTIVE WORDS !
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THOSE HORRIBLE STINKY RESPECTIVE WORDS WERE NOT WITHIN US?
SO HOW ON EARTH YOU ARE SO CORRUPTED TO SAY THAT THE WORD OF GOD HAD A BEGINNING ONLY WHEN IT CAME FORTH! FROM GOD'S MOST HOLY, AND POWERFUL MOUTH?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (carmel @ Feb. 26 2014,17:32) mikeboll64,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Quote God brought this “Word” forth, and caused it to have an existence at some point – which would mean that “the Word” had a BEGINNING to its existence. MIke,
PROVE THAT BROUGHT FORTH MEANS THAT IT NEVER HAD AN EXISTENCE, BEFORE IT WAS BROUGHT FORTH!
NOW REFLECT:
WE BRING FORTH WORDS THROUGH OUR MOUTH! DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ACTUAL WORDS WHICH DEFINITELY MEANT A KIND OF COMMITMENT, WHICH EVENTUALLY WE BROUGHT FORTH WERE NOT WITHIN OUR MIND?
SINCE WE PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED OURSELVES WITHIN OUR CONCEPT AND DECIDED in a mode to say THAT
NEXT YEAR WE WOULD GO FOR A HOLIDAY?
WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER KIND OF MOUTH WHICH IS ALWAYS HIDDEN!
WE ALSO BRING FORTH HORRIBLE STINKY RESPECTIVE WORDS !
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THOSE HORRIBLE STINKY RESPECTIVE WORDS WERE NOT WITHIN US?
SO HOW ON EARTH YOU ARE SO CORRUPTED TO SAY THAT THE WORD OF GOD HAD A BEGINNING ONLY WHEN IT CAME FORTH! FROM GOD'S MOST HOLY, AND POWERFUL MOUTH?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Carmel.You hit the nail on the head.
What some can not understand is that God could give His own Word: a form:a living Word.
In the resurrection of the saints; we also will be given a form
*based* on the Word in us.(the flesh of Christ).(the bread of life). Disbelievers with no Word in them: there also will be no resurrection for them. No form given.wakeup.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 26 2014,08:29) Quote (jammin @ Feb. 25 2014,14:05) you had a wrong interpretation mike. ill post again what wallace said
…… Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God”………..
Just focus on that one part I quoted above, jammin. Mr. Wallace clearly tells you that the person of the Word is NOT the person of God. He says that John's lack of a definite article in part c KEEPS US FROM IDENTIFYING THE WORD AS “GOD”.He is correct. The Word OF God cannot possibly BE “God”. This is simple common sense.
Quote (jammin @ Feb. 25 2014,14:05) Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has.
—-
mike,wallace told that the son is not the father but they have same NATURE (God)
Like I said yesterday, Mr. Wallace's conclusion doesn't even match his own teaching. First he tells us that the Word is NOT “the person of God”…….. and then he turns right around and concludes that the Word IS “the person of God”.How he says one thing, and then concludes the opposite thing is a mystery to me.
His own words are fighting each other. Can't you see that?
Anyway, I've saved that writing to my Word program, for later reference. Thanks again for posting it.
yes he is not GOD the father. that is what wallace trying to portrait.the son is not the father BUT THEY HAVE THE SAME NATURE, Nature of God.
and also, he did not say about 2pet 1.4,. it is a differnt story mike. dont ever use that verse for what wallace said about john 1.1
it is very clear that you are twisting wallace's words.
wallace said
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has.—
do you understand that?? he did not say god but God.but you mike, you always say Christ is god and not God.
take a look what wallace said on the latter part of his letter. he said Christ is God!
he has all the attributes that the father has.
gene,
Christ is not the father but he has all the attributes that the father has. he is God (son)
the bible said we have God the father and God the only son.
that is why in john 1.1 john said that the Word was God. therefore Christ is God, just like wallace said. BUT HE IS NOT THE FATHER, HE is the Son (God the only Son).
Jammin……….My argument doe not say my Soul is not me, it is saying my Body can be a temple of the living God, or haven't you read, “KNOW YOU NOT YOUR “BODIES” ARE THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD. How is my body a “TEMPLE” of the Living GOD, if GOD is not in it also with me? Haven't you read, where God spoke through Jesus and said, “DESTROY this TEMPLE and in three Days I (GOD) shall raise it Up. That was not Jesus speaking those words, it was God the Father speaking through him.
Being a son of God does not make you a GOD, Humans are son of GOD also, Or haven't you read ADAM is also Called a SON of GOD in Luke 3:38. So does that make him a GOD also because he is a Son of GOD. Show me, show me “ONE” scripture where Jesus ever said he was a GOD of any kind. I have never seen one, no not even one.
Your whole thing about a Soul is not even related to what I was talking about, Because a “LIVING SOUL, is a BODY, with a SPIRIT in it, even animals are Living souls. Scripture say when a man dies his Spirit goes back to God who gave it, But the body goes to the grave and that man no Longer Exists the dead “KNOW” Nothing for in the day they die their “THOUGHTS” PARISH> There is no life after death until the resurrection of our Body and Spirit added back into it, Just like it was for Jesus. Yes jammin, Jesus said clearly he was “DEAD” and dead does not mean your still alive, God alone had to raise him up from the dead with a LIVING BODY and add His SPIRIT back into it or he still would be dead.
Jammin, your problem is you do not understand that Sprits are what are “IN” Bodies , and GOD is a SPIRIT and can DWELL in any Body he chooses to. Or haven't you read, If the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead “DWELL” IN YOU, He or it, shall also “QUICKEN” your “MORTAL” (dead) BODY.
You people preach a Doctrine of , SEPARATION Making Jesus something other then a HUMAN BEING, and MOVING him away from His brothers and sisters, it is a work of the DEVIL himself. Satan wants human beings not to see Jesus as one of them, why so he could plant in the mind of man, the idea , that they could never attain unto the “FULL” measure and Stature of Christ Jesus , Satan want to make Jesus a GOD, and the Object of Worship, instead of God the Father, who is the ONLY TRUE GOD.
Deceived Trinitarians and Preexistence's are doing his work of “SEPARATION”, causing humans to commit “IDOLATRY” If you could understand, Paul explained that in 2 Ths 2, the, “man of sin”, mention there, is the “LIE” a False “IMAGE” of JESUS, being presented as a GOD, He is the ONLY ONE SITING in the TEMPLE of GOD being Shown, by SATAN and His deceived Children, as a GOD. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………………gene
how believers became sons of GOD?
John 1:12
New International Version (NIV)12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
what about Christ?
no version that says Christ became son of God because he has given the right to become a son of God.
the bible tells us that he is THE ONLY SON OF GOD. do you understand the word ONLY?
or maybe you should go back to school…you can not read that Jesus said he is God but you CAN READ THAT THE APOSTLES SAID HE IS GOD.
Philippians 2:6
New International Version (NIV)6 Who, being in very nature God,
Philippians 2:6
New Living Translation (NLT)6 Though he was God,
thomas said
john 20.28
THE VOICE28 You are the one True God and Lord of my life.
john said
John 1:1
Living Bible (TLB)1 1-2 Before anything else existed,[a] there was Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.
Quote Haven't you read, where God spoke through Jesus and said, “DESTROY this TEMPLE and in three Days I (GOD) shall raise it Up. That was not Jesus speaking those words, it was God the Father speaking through him. Gene,
Read hereunder and tell me who said:
John 2:16……………. Take these things hence, and make not THE HOUSE OF MY FATHER a house of traffic.
17 And his disciples remembered, that it was written: The zeal OF YOUR HOUSE hath eaten me up.
19Jesus answered, and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I WILL RAISE IT UP.
21 But HE SPOKE OF THE TEMPLE OF HIS BODY.
READ THEM AGAIN:
16: THE HOUSE OF MY FATHER!
17: YOUR HOUSE!
19: I WILL RAISE IT UP!
21: HE SPOKE OF THE TEMPLE OF HIS BODY!
WHAT CONVINCED YOU THAT ONLY VERSE 19 WAS SPOKEN BY THE FATHER?
Quote God the Father, who is the ONLY TRUE GOD. YOU ALSO SAID:
show me “ONE” scripture where Jesus ever said he was a GOD of any kind.
NOW YOU:
GIVE ME ONE PROOF FROM THE OT. THAT GOD THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
