JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ May 03 2014,11:35)

THE FACT THAT JESUS PROVED THAT HE WAS IN FLESH AND BONES, AND STILL ENTERED THROUGH WALLS ISN'T IT ENOUGH A PROOF THAT ONLY A GOD COULD ACHIEVE THIS 2000 YEARS AGO?

What about the angel OF God who destroyed 185,000 Assyrians in one night?

Could only God do that? Do you TWIST that scripture in your mind, and pretend that GOD HIMSELF came down from heaven and destroyed those Assyrians?

Or is it only in the case of Jesus that you're hell-bent on forcing a SERVANT of God into BEING the very God he serves?

Think, Charles! Peter walked on water as a flesh and bone human being. Will you tell us that only God could do such a thing, and therefore Peter WAS God?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ May 03 2014,12:17)

Mike, JESUS WAS ALSO EX HOLY SPIRIT!

See, this is what I'm talking about, Charles.

Show me ONE single scripture that teaches us about an “Ex-Holy Spirit”.

This is nothing but pure unscriptural nonsense – as is most of the things you post here.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ May 03 2014,12:44)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 04 2014,02:55) The SCRIPTURAL fact is that Jesus was the firstBORN of every CREATURE.  (Col 1:15) Mike, THAT IN NO WAY MEANS THE HE WAS CREATED!

Yeah, actually it does, Charles.

And I also listed about 5 other scriptures that support that first one.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ May 03 2014,13:35)

THAT THE SON IS THE LIFE OF MAN, NOT THE FATHER THE FATHER DOESN'T COUNT!

Jesus' OWN Father and God “doesn't count”?

Be careful where you tread, Charles. Each of us will have an accounting of the things we do and say in this life.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ May 03 2014,14:19)

NOW ANSWER: SINCE WE ARE BORN AGAIN THROUGH THE SEED JESUS CHRST WHICH CAME OUT FROM THE WORD OF GOD!ACCORDING TO THIS SCRIPTURE ABOVE, BY WHOM ARE WE BORN AGAIN?

I've already answered your misunderstanding of 1 Peter, Charles. I even quoted TRINITARIAN scholars, thinking that maybe you would believe them – since you don't believe us.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 04 2014,21:19)

Quote (kerwin @ May 03 2014,10:12) Stong's does say external appearance or the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision neither which fits what you want. Strong's definition fits EXACTLY what I've been saying, Kerwin. Jesus was existing as a being of light who looked like God Himself.  He emptied himself and took on the appearance of a person who has nothing – a person who serves others.  Ie:  He didn't wear fancy clothes like the royals, lords, and Pharisees.  His outward appearance to people on earth was as if he was a poor and “unimportant” pauper – not a king. In Mark 16, Jesus appeared to two of the disciples with a different outward appearance – one they had never seen before. So I don't know why you say Strong's definition doesn't “fit what I want”.

Mike,

Because what you want to claim is that Jesus is composed of the same thing that God is not that he looks like God.

According to you the two angels that came to Lot's existed in the form of human beings but their bodies were not composed of the same things.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ May 04 2014,00:44)

YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, BELIEVE ALSO IN ME!

Bam!  A perfect scripture to tell you that Jesus is NOT God.  (The words “believe ALSO in me” are a dead giveaway, Charles.)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 04 2014,09:55)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 04 2014,21:19) Quote (kerwin @ May 03 2014,10:12) Stong's does say external appearance or the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision neither which fits what you want. Strong's definition fits EXACTLY what I've been saying, Kerwin. Jesus was existing as a being of light who looked like God Himself.  He emptied himself and took on the appearance of a person who has nothing – a person who serves others.  Ie:  He didn't wear fancy clothes like the royals, lords, and Pharisees.  His outward appearance to people on earth was as if he was a poor and “unimportant” pauper – not a king. In Mark 16, Jesus appeared to two of the disciples with a different outward appearance – one they had never seen before. So I don't know why you say Strong's definition doesn't “fit what I want”. Mike, Because what you want to claim is that Jesus is composed of the same thing that God is not that he looks like God.   According to you the two angels that came to Lot's existed in the form of human beings but their bodies were not composed of the same things.

Kerwin,

I ASSUME that Jesus – and his myriads of spirit brothers – are all composed of the same stuff that God is:  SPIRIT.

But I have never claimed that Phil 2:6 teaches such a thing.  Phil 2:6 teaches that Jesus was existing in the OUTWARD APPEARANCE of God before taking on the OUTWARD APPEARANCE of a servant.

As for the angels who came to Lot, they indeed had the “MORPHE” (outward appearance) of men.  Of course we know they were not men, right?

[kerwin]

Mike,

So according to you Jesus existing in the outward appearance of God did not see equality with God as something to be grasped but instead emptied himself of his outward appearance and took on the out appearance of a servant, of which the two angels who visited Lot are.

[mikeboll64]

Kerwin,

It all ties together.  In conjunction with 1 Cor 15, Phil 3:21 explains how Paul is EAGERLY awaiting the transformation of his lowly body into a glorious new spiritual body like the one Jesus (and those of heaven) has now.

It is BETTER to have a wonderfully powerful spiritual body like those of heaven have – than to have a lowly flesh body like those of earth have.

So Jesus was existing with one of those wonderfully powerful spiritual bodies (“in the form of God”) before emptying himself of this wonderful body and taking on the outward appearance, not only of a lowly human being, but of a human being who was a pauper, and not a king (“form of a servant”).

And as if it was not sacrifice enough to transform from a glorious body to a lowly body, and not sacrifice enough to come as one of the lowliest OF those lowly flesh beings…….. he humbled himself EVEN FURTHER by becoming obedient to DEATH on a tree.

[kerwin]

Mike,

You shifting on what you are saying Philippians 2 is speaking of. You are trying to explain how Jesus was existing in the our form of an angel, some of who happen to look like human beings, then emptied himself of that outward appearance to take on the outward appearance of a human being. It does not make sense.

You can claim form means nature or essence but even that does not really make sense with essence of a servant. It still sound better that outward appearance.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 04 2014,19:11)

Mike, You shifting on what you are saying Philippians 2 is speaking of.

No.

Quote (kerwin @ May 04 2014,19:11)

You are trying to explain how Jesus was existing in the our form of an angel, some of who happen to look like human beings,  then emptied himself of that outward appearance to take on the outward appearance of a human being.    It does not make sense.

Angels have, on occasion, appeared on earth in the “morphe” of men.  They do not look like that in heaven, Kerwin.  That is not their normal appearance, according to many scriptures that describe angels when they are not on earth.

I'm saying that Jesus was existing in the form of his God, and in the form of his angel brothers – AS THEY LOOK IN HEAVEN……… not on earth.

Quote (kerwin @ May 04 2014,19:11)

You can claim form means nature or essence but even that does not really make sense with essence of a servant.

I DON'T claim that, Kerwin……. jammin does.  I have been arguing AGAINST his claim that “morphe” means “nature”.

Quote (kerwin @ May 04 2014,19:11)

It still sound better that outward appearance.

So “essence of a servant” is nonsensical to you?  Me too.  But then what is YOUR choice if you don't like “nature”, “essence”, OR “outward appearance”?

Never mind.  It doesn't really matter what “sounds good” to you, because the word “morphe” means “outward appearance”.

And the ONLY reason you are bucking so hard against “outward appearance” is because it throws a wrench into your unscriptural “God has no form” theory. If it wasn't for your preconceived notions, we would most likely not be having this argument.

In fact, if not for those preconceived notions of yours, we would probably not argue about very many things at all, Kerwin.

[jammin]

kerwin,

it is really hard to talk to mikeboll. it is like talking to a mongoloid baby

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 04 2014,01:59)

Quote (jammin @ May 02 2014,07:45) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 02 2014,10:45) WHO does Gill think the “God” is in Phil 2:6? It seems to me he says the word “God” refers to THE FATHER.  That means Gill DOESN'T think the word “God” refers to a “nature/species” known as “God”. So Gill is indeed supporting me on the thing we were actually discussing. really? hahaha that is only your OPINION. let me post what gill said Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible but this phrase, “the form of God”, is to be understood of the nature and essence of God……. jammin, I feel like I'm trying to explain brain surgery to an ant.  I fear that your mental capacities are not up to the task at hand. Yes, I agree that Gill believes the phrase “form of God” refers to the “nature and essence of God“. BUT WHO IS THAT “GOD” HE IS TALKING ABOUT? Gill believes the “God” in Phil 2:6 is the Father…… NOT a “nature”.  So in his opinion, Phil 2:6 teaches us that Jesus was existing with the “nature and essence” OF THE FATHER. So here's the difference between me and Gill: 1.  I believe Jesus was existing in the OUTWARD APPEARANCE of HIS OWN FATHER AND GOD, JEHOVAH. 2.  Gill believes Jesus was existing with the NATURE AND ESSENCE of HIS OWN FATHER AND GOD, JEHOVAH. So like I said so many posts ago:  It doesn't really matter (for OUR current discussion) if you insist that “morphe” means “nature” or “species” or “essence”……. because the bottom line is that the word “God” in Phil 2:6 refers to Jesus' OWN GOD, the Father.  It refers to Jesus' own God both times the word is used in Phil 2:6. And on this point, Gill and I DISAGREE with you, because you think the word “God” refers to a “nature” or “species”……. and NOT to Jesus' own God, the Father. Can you see the difference, jammin?   Some of the Trinitarian scholars I quoted agree with you that “MORPHE” means “nature”.  But none of them agree with you that the word “GOD” refers to a “nature” or “species”.

am i talking to the THEOS or morphe? hahaha
you are really out of your mind!hahah

i thought you dont believe morphe is nature but now you are saying that YOU DO BELIEVE GILL'S commentary saying that morphe is nature. hahaha

[jammin]

mike,

i told you many times that you and your father have the same nature, HUMAN.
do you understand? you are not your father but you are HUMAN just like your father.

Christ is God just like his father. he is not GOD THE FATHER. i did not teach that. how many times do i need to tell you this boy?

Christ is GOD THE ONLY SON. HE IS GOD by nature. BY NATURE MEANING HIS FORM is God.

Christ is God
the father is God

Christ is NOT GOD THE FATHER. HE IS GOD but not GOD THE FATHER. HE IS GOD THE ONLY SON

[jammin]

gene

you and your father have the same nature.
you are both HUMAN.

your nature is HUMAN.

Christ and his father have the same nature, God.
they have the same form (morphe). Christ is not the father. Christ is the son. he is just like his father. BEFORE HE BECAME HUMAN, HE WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD. no human can do that. we are created by God. we have no FORM before we became human. we are God's creation.

when Christ became like us, he is TRULY HUMAN but you should know that he was existing in the form of GOd before he became human.

[jammin]

mike

is Christ God? yes or no?

i am not asking you if Christ is God the father. i am asking you if he is God. yes or no?

are you HUMAN? yes or no?

i am not asking you if you are your father. i am asking you if you are HUMAN. yes or no?

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 04 2014,02:32)

Quote (jammin @ May 02 2014,08:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2014,04:08) Quote (jammin @ April 26 2014,20:42) There are two Greek words for form, morphe (Greek #3444) and schema (Greek #4976). They must both be translated form, because there is no other English equivalent, but they do not mean the same thing. Morphe (Greek #3444) is the essential form which never alters; schema (Greek #4976) is the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. For instance, the morphe (Greek #3444) of any human being is humanity and this never changes; but his schema (Greek #4976) is continually changing. A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphe (Greek #3444) of humanity, but the outward schema (Greek #4976) changes all the time. — WILLIAM BARCLAY This information cannot be accurate, since Barclay says “morphe” never changes, and “schema” does change from time to time. It doesn't work because Mark 16:12 says Jesus appeared to them in a DIFFERENT “morphe”.  But Barclay says “morphe” never changes. It also doesn't work because of the teaching in Phil 2:6 itself, which clearly says Jesus was in one “morphe” before being CHANGED to a different “morphe”. I have respect for the knowledge of the scholars, and often learn many things from them.  But you must also check the things they write, since they are just men like us, and as such, are prone to human mistakes like we are.  We must also remember that the vast majority of those scholars come into it with their own BIASES, and those biases often taint their conclusions. This is why I told you that the word “morphe” means “outward appearance”, and not “nature”.   1.  “God” is a PERSON, not a “nature”. 2.  “A servant” is a PERSON, not a “nature”. 3.  In Mark 16:12, Jesus did not appear to them in a different “nature”. I'm in the process of reading the NET Bible, cover to cover.  I read every footnote they have, and you'd be surprised at all the Hebrew and Greek words they simply don't KNOW the definition of, and so they make “educated guesses” about what those words really meant. They use context, and search out Aramaic, Arabic, and Akkadian cognates (base forms of the same word) to help them “guess” what the Hebrew word might have meant. In the case of “morphe”, some of them are “guessing” that it must also have a hidden meaning of “nature” – simply because they can't fathom God having a “form”, or “outward appearance”. But God DOES have an outward appearance – so the search to come up with a different meaning of “morphe” is really unnecessary. Nevertheless, this is how they do it, jammin.  This is how they translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of scripture into English the best they can. let me the post the profile of barclay While professor, he decided to dedicate his life to “making the best biblical scholarship available to the average reader”. The eventual result was the Daily Study Bible, a set of 17 commentaries on the New Testament, published by Saint Andrew Press, the Church of Scotland's publishing house. Despite the series name, these commentaries do not set a program of regular study. Rather, they go verse by verse through Barclay's own translation of the New Testament, listing and examining every possible interpretation known to Barclay and providing all the background information he considered possibly relevant, all in layman's terms. The commentaries were fully updated with the help of William Barclay's son, Ronnie Barclay, in recent years and they are now known as the New Daily Study Bible series. Hmmmm…………. I gave you a very good REASON why the thing Barclay said cannot be right. 1.  Barclay says “morphe” cannot be different. 2.  Scripture says Jesus appeared to them in a DIFFERENT “morphe”. Instead of dealing with those FACTS, you instead posted a biography of Barclay himself. Is that your way of diverting away from the point I made, so you don't have to address it?

im just trying to give you the reality that YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A GREAT PRETENDER. hahaha

barclay is a professor, a leading greek scholar, and author of many books and commentaries.

what about you? you have nothing mike. you have no formal studies in greek. you are a big clown boy. hahahaha

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 04 2014,02:25)

Quote (jammin @ May 02 2014,07:50) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Actually,I DO understand English, jammin.  On the other hand, it seems you sometimes struggle with it. If I am granted eternal life, then I – from that moment on – will be an eternal being.  I would be ETERNAL, jammin. On the contrary, being ETERNAL does NOT necessarily mean FROM eternity. Angels were created as ETERNAL beings – never to die.  That doesn't mean the angels are FROM eternity. Consider: Matthew 25:41 Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Does the fact that the fire is ETERNAL mean that fire has existed FROM eternity? ill repeat what matthew said. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary 2:5-11 The example of our Lord Jesus Christ is set before us. We must resemble him in his life, if we would have the benefit of his death. Notice the two natures of Christ; his Divine nature, and human nature. Who being in the form of God, partaking the Divine nature, as the eternal and only-begotten Son of God, Joh 1:1, jammin, The phrases “FROM eternity” and “only begotten” are at odds with each other.  I agree with Matthew Henry that Jesus can indeed be “eternal” and “begotten”.  But Jesus can't be “FROM eternity” and also “begotten”, because “begotten” refers to a time of being brought into existence. I also agree with Matthew Henry that Christ had two different natures.  He started off with a divine spiritual nature, like his God and the other spirit sons of his God also have. And then he was made in the form of a human being, and partook in human nature. Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Some of us will experience the REVERSE of that, jammin.  Some of us started off with human nature, and will partake in divine nature.   2 Peter 1:4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. But the fact that some of us will have divine nature doesn't mean we will BE God Almighty.  Likewise, the fact that Jesus has divine nature doesn't mean that he IS God Almighty. I have quoted a scripture about “eternal fire” in the quote box above.  Does the fact that the fire is “eternal” mean the fire has existed “FROM eternity”?  YES or NO?

did you read what matthew said? i doubt. he supported the phil 2.6 with john 1.1 verse.
he said Christ is God and that is the meaning of the jn1.1 verse. therefore, Christ is God phil 2.6. he has the divine nature!

2 peter 1.4 has nothing to do with phil 2.6. are you reading the context boy? hahaha

phil 2.6 said Christ was in the form of God before he became HUMAN. 2 pet 1.4 did not mention that THOSE BELIEVERS WAS EXISTING IN THE FORM OF GOD BEFORE they BECAME HUMAN by nature. hahaha
that is totally ridiculous mike. hahaha
you are trying to connect those two verse but the truth is they dont have connections.

let me post what gill said about 2pet 1.4

that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature; not essentially, or of the essence of God, so as to be deified, this is impossible, for the nature, perfections, and glory of God, are incommunicable to creatures; nor, hypostatically and personally, so as the human nature of Christ, in union with the Son of God, is a partaker of the divine nature in him; but by way of resemblance and likeness, the new man or principle of grace, being formed in the heart in regeneration, after the image of God, and bearing a likeness to the image of his Son, and this is styled, Christ formed in the heart, into which image and likeness the saints are more and more changed, from glory to glory, through the application of the Gospel, and the promises of it, by which they have such sights of Christ as do transform them, and assimilate them to him; and which resemblance will be perfected hereafter, when they shall be entirely like him, and see him as he is:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

the divine nature—not God's essence, but His holiness, including His “glory” and “virtue,” 2Pe 1:3; the opposite to “corruption through lust.” Sanctification is the imparting to us of God Himself by the Holy Spirit in the soul. We by faith partake also of the material nature of Jesus (Eph 5:30). The “divine power” enables us to be partakers of “the divine nature.”

you are a big clown hahahah

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

Angels have, on occasion, appeared on earth in the “morphe” of men. They do not look like that in heaven, Kerwin. That is not their normal appearance, according to many scriptures that describe angels when they are not on earth.

Are you speaking of the one one that look like a son of man. I always though that meant they looked like a human being.

I also do not remember in Scripture where it is written angels are shape shifters.

[Author]

Posts