JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2014,11:25)

Quote (jammin @ May 05 2014,10:53) a god is not a true God. Are you sure?  Because Jesus calls his and our God “the ONLY true God”.  He surely didn't say those words in John 17:3 to HIMSELF, right? So do you suppose that means Jesus is a “false god”?

true christians believe that there is only ONE GOD THE FATHER. When jesus calls his father the only true God, it does not mean he is not God.
he did not say i AM NOT GOD. no verse for that hahaha

when christ said i am the son of God, the jews understood it that he is God. but notice that Christ did not tell to the jews that “HEY IM NOT GOD. “

john 10
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

the apostles know that he is Truly God just like his father

John 1:1
New International Version (NIV)

The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Philippians 2:6
New International Version (NIV)

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,

John 20:28
The Voice (VOICE)

Thomas (filled with emotion): 28 You are the one True God and Lord of my life.

you have no match to the true teachings of the word of God.

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ May 06 2014,12:20)

Quote (jammin @ May 05 2014,22:53) Quote (terraricca @ May 06 2014,03:46) Quote (jammin @ May 05 2014,09:26) 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? J so you really ask if Christ is a god right i think we all agree to that T no. a god is not a true God. man can be a god but not God by nature. the father is God and not a god. Christ is God just like his father because they do have the same form, God. Jammin, Do you know what the sinful nature is?

what is the connection of sinful nature to the nature of God in phil 2.6?

you are not making any sense

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2014,11:12)

Quote (jammin @ May 04 2014,21:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 04 2014,02:32) 1.  Barclay says “morphe” cannot be different. 2.  Scripture says Jesus appeared to them in a DIFFERENT “morphe”. barclay is a professor, a leading greek scholar, and author of many books and commentaries. Well, he is apparently a professor who has no problem teaching things that CONTRADICT clear scriptures. Of course that is normal for TRINITARIAN “experts”.

that only tells us that you are a big clown hahaha

you are nothing. you have nothing to offer. you dont even have any formal studies in greek. who are you? hahahha

go first to school and study greek before talking here

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2014,10:47)

Quote (jammin @ May 04 2014,21:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 04 2014,01:59) 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. 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?   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 Apparently you CAN'T see the difference.   jammin, who does Gill think the word “God” refers to in Phil 2:6? 1.  Nature/species – like YOU think? 2.  The Father God – like I think?

gill said the phrase form of God refers to nature or essence. therefore, your explanation is not supported by gill.

do not make things complicated. take your vitamins

[kerwin]

Jammin,

Quote

john 10 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

If I remember correctly all Jesus stated was that he was in God our Father and his Father and God was in him just like believers are in them both and both of them are in believers.

After there accusation he said something about them wanting to kill him for claiming to be the Son of God just like believers are sons.

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ May 06 2014,19:58)

Quote (kerwin @ May 06 2014,12:20) Quote (jammin @ May 05 2014,22:53) Quote (terraricca @ May 06 2014,03:46) Quote (jammin @ May 05 2014,09:26) 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? J so you really ask if Christ is a god right i think we all agree to that T no. a god is not a true God. man can be a god but not God by nature. the father is God and not a god. Christ is God just like his father because they do have the same form, God. Jammin, Do you know what the sinful nature is? what is the connection of sinful nature to the nature of God in phil 2.6? you are not making any sense

Jammin,

You seem set on claiming nature is a physical nature and I pointed out it can be a spiritual nature.  

The nature of God and the nature of sin are in opposition.

A person who is God in nature does not do the things of the nature of sin and so does not see equality with God as a thing to be grasped but instead makes themselves nothing and takes on the nature of a servant.

[carmel]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 05 2014,02:56)

[/quote] Quote carmel,May wrote: 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.)

Mike,

BAM!

A perfect scripture to tell you that Jesus is God.

John 20:28 Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[carmel]

mikeboll64,May wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

You have personally CONCOCTED fantasies in your mind about the “soul of Satan”, an “Ex-Holy Spirit”, an “assimilation from Son to Father”……. and a whole bunch of other unscriptural garbage.

Mike,

LIES!   WHERE I  POSTED “SOUL OF SATAN”

WHY ARE YOU PREOCCUPIED  BY THE TERM “EX”

READ:

Forming nouns which denote a former state:
ex-husband
ex-convict

SO YOU MIKE , LIKE ALL OF US ARE:

EX CREATED SPIRIT  LUCIFER

EX ANGEL

EX REBELLIOUS ANGEL

EX FIRE

EX MINERAL

EX PLANT

EX ANIMAL

EX ADAM

EX DUST

EX DEVIL IN FLESH OR EX HUMAN THE IMAGE OF SATAN!

TO DAY THANKS FOR JESUS YOU ARE  CREATED ANEW IN SPIRIT, SOUL AND FLESH!

THE IMAGE OF GOD   IN JESUS CHRIST

THE ONLY FATHER/GOD YOU HAVE IN THE TRUTH!

ALMIGHTY GOD IS NOT YOUR FATHER EXCEPT IN JESUS CHRIST THE TRUTH

ALMIGHTY GOD IS NOT YOUR GOD EXCEPT IN JESUS CHRIST THE TRUTH

SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR:

John14:6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. NO MAN COMETH TO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME. IN EVERY SENSE MIKE!

I KNOW THAT THE TRUTH UPSET YOU!

ANSWER:

IS JESUS CHRIST A FATHER TO YOU IN A PARTICULAR WAY?

YES OR NO?

Quote

waiting for his own Father and God (who is also OUR Father and God) to place his enemies at his feet.

BAM! THIS CLEAR STATEMENT FROM YOUR OWN MOUTH CONTRADICTS YOU!

SO NOW GOD ALMIGHTY IS SERVING HIS ONLY TRUE GOD AND JESUS CHRIST

Quote

I have grown weary of addressing your fantasies – so don't take it personally if I don't respond to all of your posts from now on.

I KNOW MIKE!

BUT THE GOOD THING ABOUT THIS IS THAT:

AT ONE STAGE WELL BACK IN OUR THREAD

“CHARLES” JESUS IS GOD PROOF,

YOU STATED THAT I WILL BAIL LIKE ALL THE REST

I'M AFRAID YOUR OWN WORDS HAVE WORKED ON YOU, AND JUDGED YOU! EXACTLY WHAT JESUS SAID!

Luke 7:35 And wisdom WORLDLY, SATANIC is justified by all her children. IN THIS CASE IT IS YOU

MIKE I MIGHT SEEM ANTAGONISTIC, BUT MY AIM IS TO GET TO THE TRUTH, AND THROUGH YOUR POSTS I HAVE ACQUIRED LOADS OF TRUTHS, BUT I'M AFRAID THEY WORKED AGAINST YOUR WORLDLY WISDOM! NOT ONLY THAT, YOU PROVED THAT YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN HEAVENLY WISDOM!OBVIOUS!  I AM THE OPPOSITE!

I HATE WORLDLY WISDOM SINCE THE WORLD HATE
THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 06 2014,06:29)

It does not change my answer as I believe some angels are shaped like humans while others are not…………

You are free to believe whatever you want. But does that Ezekiel passage at least explain to you that I DON'T think Phil 2 says Jesus was existing in the form of a “son of man” before being made in the likeness of a “son of man”?

Remember? You were telling me that since spirit beings of heaven already look like men, my understanding of Phil 2:6 made no sense.

Have I adequately explained and scripturally supported my belief that spirit beings in heaven do NOT look like men when they are in heaven?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 06 2014,07:39)

how do you understand the word GOD? i am not referring to the father. you must understand that my question is about his nature God.

The word “God” always refers to a PERSON in scripture, jammin.  (A couple of times, the KJV renders the word “el” as “mighty”, instead of as “god”.)  But for the most part, that word refers to a PERSON.

Even when the scriptures are talking about the gods of the nations, the word itself refers to PERSONS – not a “nature/species”.

So when I read Phil 2:6, I know the word “God” is referring to a PERSON, and not to a “nature”.  It says Jesus was existing in the form of a PERSON known as “God”……….. and that he didn't consider equality with that PERSON something to be grasped.

The word “God” is a title for a PERSON, jammin.  There is no scripture where the word “God” refers to a “nature” or a “species”.  

So whether the “God” in Phil 2:6 was “the Father”, “Satan”, or some other god, the word “God” still refers to a PERSON.  And we can figure out from the context that the particular PERSON who is called “God” in Phil 2:6 is “the Father”.

GOD = Title of a PERSON

SPIRIT = The NATURE of persons who are gods.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 06 2014,07:39)

1.  God is not LIMITED. 2.  HE IS ALL POWERFUL, 3.  HE IS ALMIGHTY, 4.  HE IS ALL KNOWING, 5.  THAT IS THE NATURE OF GOD.

1.  Jesus IS limited.

2.  Jesus is NOT all powerful.

3.  Jesus is NOT almighty.

4.  Jesus is NOT all knowing.

5.  Those things you listed have nothing to do with “nature”, jammin.  They are distinct qualities that any particular PERSON can either have, or not have.

In reality, the NATURE of heavenly beings is “spirit”.  They (God and Jesus included) have a spirit nature, while we on earth have a flesh nature.

But even if you want to insist that those things you listed are “nature”, then it should be clear to you that Jesus DOESN'T have the nature of “God” – because NONE of the things you listed apply to him.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 06 2014,07:45)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2014,11:09) jammin, It's time to focus on the second part of Phil 2:6. When Paul told us that Jesus “didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped” – who exactly is the God Paul was talking about? ……….the phrase “WITH GOD”…. tells us that he is with his father.

Good. At least you are understanding half of the verse correctly.

Now you just need to listen to your forefather Gill on the other half.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 06 2014,07:48)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) 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?  YES or NO? is fire God or created by God? your example is non sense!

But it is called “ETERNAL fire”, right?

So do you now understand that the word “eternal” does NOT necessarily mean “FROM eternity”? YES or NO?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 06 2014,07:56)

true christians believe that there is only ONE GOD THE FATHER. When jesus calls his father the only true God, it does not mean he is not God.

So he was calling SOMEONE ELSE “the only true God”, but we should just naturally understand that Jesus was silently including himself as part of the OTHER person he was calling “the only true God”?    

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 06 2014,08:05)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2014,10:47) jammin, who does Gill think the word “God” refers to in Phil 2:6? 1.  Nature/species – like YOU think? 2.  The Father God – like I think? gill said the phrase form of God refers to nature or essence. therefore, your explanation is not supported by gill.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Who being in the form of God,…. The Father; being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.

Are you sure? Look again. I made it bigger for you, since you seem to have missed it the first few times I posted it.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 06 2014,12:20)

Jammin, Quote john 10 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” If I remember correctly all Jesus stated was that he was in God our Father and his Father and God was in him just like believers are in them both and both of them are in believers. After there accusation he said something about them wanting to kill him for claiming to be the Son of God just like believers are sons.

That's another case, like John 1:1, where there is no definite or indefinite article in front of the word “theon”.

So, just like with John 1:1, we must decided whether we ADD the definite article, and say, “you, a mere man, claim to be God“………

or add the indefinite article, and say, “you, a mere man, claim to be a god“.

And just like with John 1:1, “a god” is the only one that makes sense.  First of all, like you pointed out, Jesus NEVER called himself “God” in any scripture.  So the accusation of the Jews that Jesus CLAIMED TO BE GOD would have been untrue, and unfounded.

On the other hand, Jesus made it very clear that he was “the Son of God” in a way that no one else was a son of God.  He taught that he was the “only begotten” Son of God – a claim that no one else could make.  And he said he actually CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN to do the will of God.

And a LITERAL son of God, FROM HEAVEN, like Jesus claimed to be, would be “a god” in Hebrew culture and understanding.  They considered all spirit beings from heaven to be “gods”.

So, taken in context, and with the knowledge of Hebrew thought, and their use of the word “god” – it makes much more sense that they were accusing him of blasphemy by claiming to be a god, who was God's literal Son – sent down from heaven.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ May 06 2014,13:51)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 05 2014,02:56) 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.) Mike, BAM! A perfect scripture to tell you that Jesus is God. John 20:28 Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.

Mine works, and yours doesn't.

In mine, Jesus clearly identifies himself as someone OTHER THAN the one he himself called “God”.

In yours, Jesus has the title “god” applied to him.  Jehovah Himself applied that title to him in Hebrews 1:8, right?  But then 1:9 explains that the one called “O God” in verse 8 was set on high by HIS OWN GOD. And the MOST HIGH God doesn't have a God of his own.

Bottom line:  There are many gods and many lords, both in heaven and on earth.  Being called “god” does NOT equate you with the MOST HIGH God, Jehovah.

So the fact that Jesus was called “god” five times in scripture does not equate him with his own God, Jehovah, anymore than Satan being called “god” in scripture equates him with his own God, Jehovah.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 07 2014,05:43)

Quote (kerwin @ May 06 2014,12:20) Jammin, Quote john 10 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” If I remember correctly all Jesus stated was that he was in God our Father and his Father and God was in him just like believers are in them both and both of them are in believers. After there accusation he said something about them wanting to kill him for claiming to be the Son of God just like believers are sons. That's another case, like John 1:1, where there is no definite or indefinite article in front of the word “theon”. So, just like with John 1:1, we must decided whether we ADD the definite article, and say, “you, a mere man, claim to be God“……… or add the indefinite article, and say, “you, a mere man, claim to be a god“. And just like with John 1:1, “a god” is the only one that makes sense.  First of all, like you pointed out, Jesus NEVER called himself “God” in any scripture.  So the accusation of the Jews that Jesus CLAIMED TO BE GOD would have been untrue, and unfounded. On the other hand, Jesus made it very clear that he was “the Son of God” in a way that no one else was a son of God.  He taught that he was the “only begotten” Son of God – a claim that no one else could make.  And he said he actually CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN to do the will of God. And a LITERAL son of God, FROM HEAVEN, like Jesus claimed to be, would be “a god” in Hebrew culture and understanding.  They considered all spirit beings from heaven to be “gods”. So, taken in context, and with the knowledge of Hebrew thought, and their use of the word “god” – it makes much more sense that they were accusing him of blasphemy by claiming to be a god, who was God's literal Son – sent down from heaven.

Mike,

I look at it somewhat different but basing your doctrine on the words of unbelievers sounds foolish no matter what they said.

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 07 2014,10:30)

Quote (jammin @ May 06 2014,08:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 06 2014,10:47) jammin, who does Gill think the word “God” refers to in Phil 2:6? 1.  Nature/species – like YOU think? 2.  The Father God – like I think? gill said the phrase form of God refers to nature or essence. therefore, your explanation is not supported by gill. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Who being in the form of God,…. The Father; being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. Are you sure?  Look again.  I made it bigger for you, since you seem to have missed it the first few times I posted it.

i am very sure

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, and describes Christ as he was from all eternity;

your biggest mistake was you did not read the whole thing. you are a big clown. hahaha

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ May 07 2014,05:25)

Quote (jammin @ May 06 2014,19:58) Quote (kerwin @ May 06 2014,12:20) Quote (jammin @ May 05 2014,22:53) Quote (terraricca @ May 06 2014,03:46) Quote (jammin @ May 05 2014,09:26) 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? J so you really ask if Christ is a god right i think we all agree to that T no. a god is not a true God. man can be a god but not God by nature. the father is God and not a god. Christ is God just like his father because they do have the same form, God. Jammin, Do you know what the sinful nature is? what is the connection of sinful nature to the nature of God in phil 2.6? you are not making any sense Jammin, You seem set on claiming nature is a physical nature and I pointed out it can be a spiritual nature.   The nature of God and the nature of sin are in opposition. A person who is God in nature does not do the things of the nature of sin and so does not see equality with God as a thing to be grasped but instead makes themselves nothing and takes on the nature of a servant.

you should read the context before making any conclusions. phil 2.6 refers to Christ as being God. his has the nature God. before he became human, he was existing in the form of God.

2 pet 1.4 did not say that we were existing in the form of God before we became human.

you are not making any sense

[Author]

Posts