JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 18 2014,22:04)

Hi J42, Of course Jesus had half his DNA from his Father. The other half from Mary. His spiritual sonship was of the Spirit at the Jordan

That's an interesting point, Nick. You are forever telling us that God begot His Son at the Jordan River……. at the time of Jesus' baptism.

But Jesus was “half God's DNA” from conception in Mary, right? So wouldn't that mean that God LITERALLY begot His LITERAL Son Jesus at the time Mary gave birth to Jesus?

In other words, wasn't Jesus already God's “REAL” Son long before he was baptized?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ Mar. 19 2014,07:59)

i know that form has a synonym of image BUT if we are going to read the context of gen 1.26-27 and phil 2.6, they are not the same. why? bec gen 1.27- speaks only about righteousness and holiness. eph 4.24 but phil 2.6 speaks about the nature of God. do you understand>? i know you dont bec you do not know how to understand the context and the right way of understanding sentences.

jammin,

There was nothing in any of your posts to me that refuted the things I showed you.  So until you can refute the last things I said, there is no reason for me to respond to those newer posts.

As for this discussion you're having with Kerwin, I'll show you the NETNotes concerning Genesis 1:26, which says, “Let us make man in our image AND according to our likeness“.  Two different Hebrew words are used.

The word צֶלֶם (tselem, “image”) is used frequently of statues, models, and images – replicas.

The word דְּמוּת (dÿmut, “likeness”) is an abstract noun; its verbal root means “to be like; to resemble.”

In the Book of Genesis the two terms describe human beings who in some way reflect the form and the function of the creator. The form is more likely stressing the spiritual rather than the physical.

The “image of God” would be the God-given mental and spiritual capacities that enable people to relate to God and to serve him by ruling over the created order as his earthly vice-regents.

So now we know what the two Hebrew words in Gen 1:26 mean.  And we know that the Greek word “morphe”, which was used in Phil 2:6, means “outward appearance, image”.

Basically, Gen 1:26 is saying that mankind was created to “look like God”, and to “be like God”.

And Phil 2:6 is saying that Jesus also “looked like God” – even before he was made into the likeness of a human being.

Any “Jesus is God Almighty” proof that you read into Phil 2 comes from man's IMAGINATION – and not from any of the scriptural words Paul actually used.

(The part of the NETNote that I bolded is for Nick – who considers it folly for us to actually USE the “mental capacities” God gave us.)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 19 2014,08:24)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2014,11:46) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 18 2014,05:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 18 2014,12:02) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 17 2014,09:36) Mike i do not worship the commandments as my God………… Why not, Gene?   You say the words/commandments/curses/instructions of God ARE God, right? Aren't we supposed to worship “God”? So if His words ARE Him, then we should worship His words, right? Mike………What i said was Gods word are part of him because they are from him……. No Gene, You actually said (many times) that the Word of God IS God, because a person IS his word, and vice-versa.   So using that reasoning, the command/utterance/instruction/curse of God actually IS God Himself. And if it IS God, then we should worship it. If, on the other hand, the utterance God speaks is NOT actually God Himself, then the translation “and the Word was God“ is flawed. Mike…….NO, what i said was God and His words are one and the same ………..

Gene,

“One and the same” means “the same thing”.

For example, “Barak Obama and the President of the United States are one and the same.”

See?

Besides, a literal utterance from anyone's mouth is NEVER “one and the same” as the person who uttered the word.

For example, if God said the word “elephant”, that WORD floating around is not actually God Himself, Gene. That word “elephant” does NOT have a Son named Jesus. That word “elephant” is NOT our Redeemer. That word “elephant” does NOT have a throne in heaven, nor does it send prophets to mankind.

I could go on and on, but I hope you can see the point by now.

And therefore, that WORD “elephant” that God spoke is NOT “one and the same” as God Almighty Himself.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ Mar. 19 2014,11:20)

Quote It makes perfect sense to me that Jesus had to take on flesh to be sacrificed, and also so he could become a better mediator between us and his God due to knowing first hand the trials and tribulations we go through as a species. MIke, AS ALWAYS: YOUR WORLDLY WISDOM WILL NOT PERMIT YOU TO SEE GOD'S WISDOM………

Sorry Charles,

I made it through the first 4 or 5 paragraphs before my eyes glazed over with boredom.

If there was anything of value said after paragraph 5, and you want me to read it, re-post it to me in a sentence or two.

[journey42]

kerwin,Mar. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Nick, DNA is a bodily thing and Scripture declares Jesus was the Son of David, as of the body, Romans 1:2.  Journey's understanding is based on a flawed verse from a manuscript that the KJV uses, Acts 20:28.  Even then it can be interpreted different.

Kerwin

Acts 20:28   Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Which bit is flawed?
The part about taking heed?
The part about the disciples being made overseers of the church?
The part about the holy spirit in them (spirit of truth) which gives them the right to be overseers of the church?
The part about Jesus who purchased the church (believers) with his own blood?

Jesus DNA regarding his features etc comes from his Mother's side which is of the seed of David,
Jesus had 23 Chromosones from his mother,
and 1 (Y) from his father.
Jesus had Total 24 chromosones.

We Humans have 46 chromosones
23 from our mother
and 23 from our father.

Jesus blood was tested, and it was also still alive.
They said his Father was not human.
Do you not find this facinating?
They proved that Jesus was the real son of God,
who he claimed he was, who we preach.
Does it make you feel better to attack the KJV,
because it makes you feel more superior that YOU think YOU hold the truth?
Just because you find it hard to understand what the verses mean,
does not make your opinion true.
Is your feet not still standing in stagnated muddy waters?
Have you received the gift of prophecy yet?
Do you hold the testimony of Jesus Christ?
You dare not touch the prophesies,
so the scriptures tell us that you have not the testimony of Christ.
And I can see why
because that spirit is keeping you there prisoner,
never letting you out.
Keeping you in a state of confusion.

Sorry for being harsh,
but I feel it is my duty to tell you,
Still time to change Kerwin.
The true reliable Word of God,
will be your biggest enemy if you keep fighting it.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 19 2014,08:54)

Verses 6-7 sets up the ideas of having the form of God and taking on the form of a servant. Form is clearly used in the same sense in both instances.

That's a good point, Kerwin.

Both of the words “morphe” must use the same definition, since Paul was contrasting the fact that Jesus WAS in the morphe of God, but then took on the morphe of a servant.

If we use the literal meaning of “nature” in verse 6, then to meet the demands of the contrast Paul was making, we must also use the literal meaning of “nature” in verse 7.

jammin describes “nature of God” as meaning that Jesus is of the same “species” as Jehovah, making them both “God”.

But does that work for “servant” as well? Is there a “species” known as “servant-kind”?

What do you think about that line of reasoning, Kerwin?

What say you, jammin?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ Mar. 19 2014,12:28)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) So in your mind, “the Father God” was WITH “the Father God” in the beginning? Mike, YOU SAID THE FATHER! I MEANT GOD AND GOD IS NOT JUST THE FATHER! FOR ALL OF US WHO BELIEVE IN A TRIUNE GOD!

So then, in your triune Godhead understanding, John 1:1 tells us that the Word was with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit……… and the Word was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Because if the word John used is “God”, and to you, “God” means “Father, Son, Spirit”, then that's what it should always mean, right?

Or perhaps you're imagining that John was saying the Word was with “one person of the Godhead”, and the Word was “one of the other persons of the Godhead”?

First of all, the language in John 1:1 doesn't allow for such a thing.

Secondly, there is no teaching in the whole of scripture that would allow for such a thing.

And thirdly, where was that third person of the Godhead when this happened?

You assume the Word was with “the Father”, and was “the Son”, right?  Where was the “Holy Spirit person of the Godhead”?  

Why was the Word only with ONE of the other two “persons of God”?  Why wasn't he with BOTH of the other two “persons of God” in the beginning?

These questions are rhetorical, Charles.  You don't need to answer them…….. only think about them.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ Mar. 19 2014,14:37)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 18 2014,12:10) And unless the caterpillar in your example can be WITH the very butterfly he will one day become, your analogy doesn't work. Mike, WHO SAID THAT THE CATERPILLAR, WITHIN HIM IN HIS BOSOM, IN HIS ENTIRE EXISTENCE HASN'T GOT ALL HIS GENUINE ELEMENTS, WHICH EVENTUALLY THROUGH THEM WHEN IT IS TIME IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO FUNCTION AS THE BUTTERFLY? IN THE SAME SENSE THE FATHER ALSO WAS IN RELATION WITH HIS SON !

Charles,

When the butterfly comes into existence, the caterpillar is no more.

It is either one or the other – not both at the same time.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 19 2014,17:53)

Kerwin Acts 20:28   Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Which bit is flawed?

journey,

Acts 20:28  NRSV ©
…….to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Darby Bible Translation
…….to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own.

New World Translation
……….to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

NET ©
……..to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

The actual Greek words are, “with the blood of his own”.

Obviously, God did not give up His own blood…… but bought the church with the blood of His Son, Jesus, right?

[journey42]

mikeboll64,Mar. wrote:

[/quote]
Mike

The “he” is Jesus.
What makes you think it could be taken as referring to God?

Acts 20:28   Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

We all know the story Mike.
God sent Jesus to set up the church. He is the cornerstone.
If it's so confusing, then why do I not think it's referring to God when I read?
It's just common sense.  God can not die. Jesus did,
so it's referring to Jesus.

[journey42]

Hi Mike

Now instead of the “wow factor”,
that an archaeologist found the actual site where Jesus was crucified,
and under that site, his blood dripped on to the ark of the covenant
which was hidden underground all that time,
and that blood sample which was over 2000 old,
tested to be “alive” and proved that the owner of that blood,
had only 24 chromosones, instead 46,
proves that Jesus was in fact who he claimed,
the Son of God,
and his death really happened, which they like to deny,
so it means the bible record of Christ is true,
and not made up
Do you want to talk about this?
or do you want to argue for the fun of it
because you like to debate?

That's my point.

[NickHassan]

Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 20 2014,10:53)

kerwin,Mar. wrote: [/quote] Quote Nick, DNA is a bodily thing and Scripture declares Jesus was the Son of David, as of the body, Romans 1:2.  Journey's understanding is based on a flawed verse from a manuscript that the KJV uses, Acts 20:28.  Even then it can be interpreted different. Kerwin Acts 20:28   Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Which bit is flawed? The part about taking heed? The part about the disciples being made overseers of the church? The part about the holy spirit in them (spirit of truth) which gives them the right to be overseers of the church? The part about Jesus who purchased the church (believers) with his own blood? Jesus DNA regarding his features etc comes from his Mother's side which is of the seed of David, Jesus had 23 Chromosones from his mother, and 1 (Y) from his father. Jesus had Total 24 chromosones. We Humans have 46 chromosones 23 from our mother and 23 from our father. Jesus blood was tested, and it was also still alive. They said his Father was not human. Do you not find this facinating? They proved that Jesus was the real son of God, who he claimed he was, who we preach. Does it make you feel better to attack the KJV, because it makes you feel more superior that YOU think YOU hold the truth? Just because you find it hard to understand what the verses mean, does not make your opinion true. Is your feet not still standing in stagnated muddy waters? Have you received the gift of prophecy yet? Do you hold the testimony of Jesus Christ? You dare not touch the prophesies, so the scriptures tell us that you have not the testimony of Christ. And I can see why because that spirit is keeping you there prisoner, never letting you out. Keeping you in a state of confusion. Sorry for being harsh, but I feel it is my duty to tell you, Still time to change Kerwin. The true reliable Word of God, will be your biggest enemy if you keep fighting it.

Hi J42,
Folks love pseudoscience-myths and legends

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 19 2014,18:59)

Mike The “he” is Jesus. What makes you think it could be taken as referring to God? Acts 20:28   Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. We all know the story Mike. God sent Jesus to set up the church.  He is the cornerstone. If it's so confusing, then why do I not think it's referring to God when I read? It's just common sense.  God can not die. Jesus did, so it's referring to Jesus.

The “HE” most likely refers back to the last subject that was just mentioned by name. (It doesn't HAVE TO, but that is usually the case.)

And the last subject mentioned was “God”. So while I'm glad that you understand that it was Jesus', and not God's blood, the wording in the KJV sure makes it seem like, to feed the church of God, which He (God) purchased with His own (God's) blood.

It is really “the blood of His own”, not “His own blood”.

But if you believe it was Jesus', and not God's blood, then why did you use that scripture to support your video? Because that's why Kerwin said what he did, you know. He thought you understood that verse to be speaking about God's blood – like the Trinitarians try to tell us it is.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 19 2014,19:08)

Hi Mike Now instead of the “wow factor”, that an archaeologist found the actual site where Jesus was crucified, and under that site, his blood dripped on to the ark of the covenant which was hidden underground all that time, and that blood sample which was over 2000 old, tested to be “alive” and proved that the owner of that blood, had only 24 chromosones, instead 46, proves that Jesus was in fact who he claimed, the Son of God, and his death really happened, which they like to deny, so it means the bible record of Christ is true, and not made up Do you want to talk about this? or do you want to argue for the fun of it because you like to debate? That's my point.

I didn't watch the video, journey. Nor was I arguing with you. I was giving you facts, which sometimes you accept, and sometimes your pride won't let you accept.

I personally don't believe any of those claims you just listed. But my interest is piqued, so I will watch the video to see for myself if it is legit, or a hoax.

[david]

Not legit.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2014,06:01)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 19 2014,08:54) Verses 6-7 sets up the ideas of having the form of God and taking on the form of a servant.  Form is clearly used in the same sense in both instances. That's a good point, Kerwin. Both of the words “morphe” must use the same definition, since Paul was contrasting the fact that Jesus WAS in the morphe of God, but then took on the morphe of a servant. If we use the literal meaning of “nature” in verse 6, then to meet the demands of the contrast Paul was making, we must also use the literal meaning of “nature” in verse 7. jammin describes “nature of God” as meaning that Jesus is of the same “species” as Jehovah, making them both “God”. But does that work for “servant” as well?  Is there a “species” known as “servant-kind”? What do you think about that line of reasoning, Kerwin?   What say you, jammin?

Mike,

No, their is no creature kind called servant-kind.

[Wakeup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2014,13:57)

Quote (journey42 @ Mar. 19 2014,19:08) Hi Mike Now instead of the “wow factor”, that an archaeologist found the actual site where Jesus was crucified, and under that site, his blood dripped on to the ark of the covenant which was hidden underground all that time, and that blood sample which was over 2000 old, tested to be “alive” and proved that the owner of that blood, had only 24 chromosones, instead 46, proves that Jesus was in fact who he claimed, the Son of God, and his death really happened, which they like to deny, so it means the bible record of Christ is true, and not made up Do you want to talk about this? or do you want to argue for the fun of it because you like to debate? That's my point. I didn't watch the video, journey.  Nor was I arguing with you.  I was giving you facts, which sometimes you accept, and sometimes your pride won't let you accept. I personally don't believe any of those claims you just listed.  But my interest is piqued, so I will watch the video to see for myself if it is legit, or a hoax.

Matthew 26:28 For this is ***my blood*** of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

My=Jesus.
Jesus=the son of God.
God=the Father of Jesus.
Jesus=the Word of God.
The Word of God=God's speech,God's spoken Word.
God=YHWH.
The HS=the Holy Spirit *OF* God.

The Holy Spirit is *OF* God;The Word is *OF*God.
Both are *OF* God.
Both are not God.

We are OF Christ; we are NOT Christ.
We have the Spirit OF Christ,we are not Christ.

We have the HS in us; we are not the HS.

wakeup.

[kerwin]

Journey,

Quote

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Which bit is flawed?

The “church of God” part as many manuscripts state “church of the Lord”.

Even as it is the trinitarian translators picked a translation that sounded good to their ears as verse is the original language is somewhat ambiguous. They could have instead translated it as which he purchased with the blood of his own.

Even as it is you should know DNA is a created item and thus God has none as he is not created.

[Wakeup]

Quote (david @ Mar. 20 2014,14:06)

Not legit.

David.

We need your evidence,that it's not ligit.
Ron has witnesses for evidence and the pictures.
The concrete evidence has been suppressed by the israeli gov.

wakeup.

[kerwin]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 20 2014,01:36)

Hi KW, Do you doubt the parentage of Jesus by God? He was son of David via adoption by Joseph

Nick,

I did not say anything that should give you that idea. It was your words that made me think you might be falling for the idea God was the father of Jesus' body.

[Author]

Posts