JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 14 2014,08:04)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2014,14:56) Quote (jammin @ May 13 2014,20:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2014,12:02) Quote (jammin @ May 12 2014,17:56) what is your form or nature? Which one are you asking about, jammin? The words mean two different things. form also means nature. nature is a synonym of essence and essence is a synonym of form . do you understand? now to make it simple, what is your nature? Show me from a thesaurus.   From Dictionary.com: Synonyms for form design   fashion   mode   model pattern plan   scheme   structure   style   system   anatomy appearance articulation cast   configuration   conformation   construction contour cut die embodiment figure formation framework mold outline profile silhouette skeleton I don't see “nature” or “essence” there….. do you? why dont you go back to school and study synonyms? http://thesaurus.com/browse/essence essence synonym – form ——- you need to study more

Here is the entire list:

aspect
basis
bottom line
character
core
crux
element
lifeblood
meaning
nature
principle
quality
reality
root
soul
spirit
structure
substance
attribute
backbone
base
being
bottom
burden
caliber
constitution
entity
essentiality
fiber
form
fundamentals
germ
grain
kernel
life
marrow
meat
nitty-gritty
nub
nucleus
pith
point
property
quiddity
quintessence
stuff
timber
vein
be-all and end-all
chief constituent
essentia
main idea
name of game
virtuality

There are a lot of words there that I would never equate with “essence”.  “Vein”?  “Meat”?  “Name of game”?  “Germ”?  “Grain”?  “Kernel”?  

I don't know what “form”, or those other words, are doing on that list, or how the word “form” is intended in that list.  I do know that when “form” has a meaning of “outward appearance”, like it does every time “morphe” is used in scripture, it is NOT a synonym of “essense”.

In fact, here are the antonyms of “essence”:

Antonyms for essence

abstract
exterior
exteriority
outside

The word “form” refers to the “exterior”, or “outside” that is VISIBLE.  So how could “form” be a synonym of “essence” – which clearly refers to the INNER things, since “exterior” and “outside” are ANTONYMS of it?  

Perhaps you could explain it to me.

At any rate, here is the definition of “morphe” from the Bible sites:

morphe
1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision 2) external appearance

That is good enough for me, since it makes perfect sense in EACH of the three times that Greek word is used in scripture.  There are also secular old Greek writings which use that same word “morphe” when referring to the form of gods when they make themselves VISIBLE to human beings.

But all of this is still beside the point anyway.  It doesn't matter if you want to say “morphe” refers to “nature” or “essence” – because the fact would still be that Phil 2:6 speaks of Jesus existing in the “nature/essence” of his own God, the Father.  (I learned that from your buddy Gill.   )

No matter how you slice it, you lose on this one, jammin.

Phil 2:6 says Jesus was existing in the form of HIS OWN God before being made in the likeness of a human being.  Just like I originally said so long ago.  

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ May 14 2014,12:29)

WHAT CONVINCED YOU SO MUCH THAT MADE YOU BELIEVE THAT HE NEVER HAD HIS SPIRITUAL BODY WHILE HE WAS ON EARTH?

Luke 24:37-39, Charles.

Jesus flat out told his disciples that he WASN'T a spirit at that time.  I don't believe he lied to them.

Also 1 John 3:2, where it is clear that the disciples hadn't ever seen Jesus “as he is”.

[jammin]

you need to make your own dictionary mike.

if you check the greek lexicon of strong you will see that morphe (form) also means nature.

also, the http://thesaurus.com/browse/essence said form is a synonym for essence. hahaha

you may also check this
Essence is also called form, for the certitude of every thing is signified through its form, as Avicenna says in his Metaphysicae I, cap. 6.

an educated man knows that essence is a synonym of form. i can't blame you mike because i know you have nothing to offer. you do not know greek. you do not know how to read the bible and now you do not know english hahaha.

go to school. it is best if you take my advice.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2014,05:43)

Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,00:37) Mike, Quote “Enter” is clearly implied by Paul, and explicitly STATED by Jesus in John 3.  And in Jesus' teaching, only “flesh” is mentioned, so you can't weasel out of it by saying, “Flesh and BONE is okay, as long as it's not flesh and BLOOD!” I assume you mean John 3:5 which has a meaning that a man cannot enter the kingdom after judgement day provide we are going by your interpretation which I disagree with.  It is not speaking of the present heaven. John 3:5 King James Version (KJV) 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. I'm not sure what your words are actually saying – or where you found the words “new heaven” or “present heaven” in John 3. But what that passage teaches is that FLESH can neither see, nor enter, the kingdom of God. Those who wish to enter that kingdom must be born again from above – by something OTHER THAN flesh – before being able to see or enter that heavenly kingdom.  They must be born of “spirit and water” – AS OPPOSED TO “flesh”.' Get it?  Something OTHER THAN flesh.

Mike,

I am saying the passage is speaking of the new earth and the new heaven and not the current earth or the current heaven.  

I see no need to go beyond that as it clearly is not speaking of entering the current heaven.

What do you think Jesus was teaching about if not entering the new heaven and the new earth?

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

I didn't find too many results, Kerwin. But here is one place where someone asked the question. Notice that the answer designated as “Best Answer” says: The earth was made for man and man was made for the earth. Only a very few humans have been bought from the earth and they will have to be resurrected as spirit beings or changed in an instant before they can go there. I concur. But if you want to believe that Jesus and the angels in heaven are flesh beings – I can't stop you. Is there really any sense in dragging this out further?

I can see the woman concurs to you though she stated he point strangely. She did not say that humans do not enter the kingdom of heaven but that instead they transform to spirit beings before entering. You have also claimed this previously even though there is nowhere in Scripture that is written.

I do not thing of that works with flesh and blood being used to means kinship as the kinship remains.

[carmel]

mikeboll64,May wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Jesus flat out told his disciples that he WASN'T a spirit at that time.  I don't believe he lied to them.

Mike,

HERE ARE SOME OF YOUR MUMBO-JUMBO!

YOU SAID:

Quote

God has given Jesus all things – to the point that Jesus can say, “What's His is mine, and what's mine is His.”

THAT’S PERFECT!

BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS?

IT MEANS THAT GOD THE FATHER GAVE JESUS, HIS ATTRIBUTES, ALL HIS THINGS, WHICH DEFINTIELY ARE ALL THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE SPIRIT!  SO JESUS OWNED AS HIS OWN ALL SPIRITUAL PROCESSES, AND HE COULD USE THEM AS HE SEES FIT! APART THAT HE OWNED HIS OWN FLESH BODY

NOW IN HEBREWS 2:8  PAUL SAID:

8Thou hast subjected all things under his feet. For in that he hath subjected all things to him, he left nothing not subject to him.

IN THE ABOVE  IT IS EMPHATICALLY CLEAR THAT:

THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT NOT SUBJECT TO JESUS

SO ALL SPIRITUAL POWERS WERE SUBJECT TO JESUS!

THEREFORE HE USED THAT SPIRITUAL FUNCTION IN ORDER TO ENTER THROUGH WALLS! THAN HE RETURNED INTO HIS FLESH BODY, AND SHOWED THEM HIS WOUNDS!

SO THEY BELIEVE THAT HE REALLY IS BACK TO LIFE!

NOW:

ANGELS ARE ONLY SPIRITS,THEREFORE  SINCE  JESUS OWNED ALL THE FATHER’S THINGS, AND ALSO HAD HIS OWN CARNAL THINGS,  HE COULD FUNCTION, BOTH AS A SPIRIT, AND AS FLESH, AS THE CASE MAY BE!

OTHERWISE, NOT ONLY HE WOULDN’T HAVE GLORIFIED , BUT HE ALSO WOULDN’T HAVE BECOME  SUPERIOR OVER THE ANGELS!

AND THE ANGELS WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO HIM!

NOW AS I SAID IN THE OTHER POST, IT WAS VITAL BOTH FOR GOD ALMIGHTY, AND EVEN MORE FOR JESUS, TO USE BOTH OF THESE POWERS ON EARTH, SINCE HE DIED ON EARTH, SATANA’S OWN GROUND, PRECISELY  FOR THESE CAUSES !

CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SATANA BELIEVED THAT HE WOULD BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH THROUGH JESUS’ DEATH!

Peace and love in Jesus

Charles

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 15 2014,07:41)

you may also check this Essence is also called form, for the certitude of every thing is signified through its form, as Avicenna says in his Metaphysicae I, cap. 6.

I have never heard of that person, or of that line of reasoning before.

But it doesn't matter, since “form” was in your list of synonyms of “essence”.  

You won the battle, but lost the war, jammin.  Even if you insist that “morphe” refers to “ESSENCE”, then Phil 2:6 still teaches that Jesus was existing “in the essence” of HIS OWN God, the Father.

I don't agree with the “essence” or “nature” thing, and believe that entire idea was cooked up by Trinitarian “scholars”, who regularly try their best to twist any scripture they can into saying Jesus is God Almighty.  

I mean, just look at those butchered paraphrase translations you're always posting here.  These guys are not honest scholars…… and they aren't interested in scriptural TRUTH.  All they want is for other people to believe the nonsense that you believe, jammin.  And they don't care how badly they have to twist scriptures and Greek definitions to arrive at their ultimate goal.

If the word “morphe” was found ONLY in Mark 16:12, there would never be any scholar trying to invent a new definition for it, like “essence” or “nature”.

But these “experts” have two agendas here:

1.  They DON'T want people to think of God as having a form.

2.  They DO want to convince people that Jesus and God are of the exact same “essence”, and are therefore both “God Almighty”.

I don't buy it for a minute, because I can easily see the agendas that are driving them to do the things they do.  You are blind to the way they butcher scriptures, because when they are butchering those scriptures, they are at the same time telling you exactly what your ears are itching to hear.

The bottom line is that Phil 2:6 teaches that Jesus was existing in the “morphe” of his own God, the Father, before being made in the likeness of a human being.  The Trinitarian scholars agree with me about that part.  So there is really no need for further discussion on the matter.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,11:48)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2014,05:43) Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,00:37) Mike, Quote “Enter” is clearly implied by Paul, and explicitly STATED by Jesus in John 3.  And in Jesus' teaching, only “flesh” is mentioned, so you can't weasel out of it by saying, “Flesh and BONE is okay, as long as it's not flesh and BLOOD!” I assume you mean John 3:5 which has a meaning that a man cannot enter the kingdom after judgement day provide we are going by your interpretation which I disagree with.  It is not speaking of the present heaven. John 3:5 King James Version (KJV) 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. I'm not sure what your words are actually saying – or where you found the words “new heaven” or “present heaven” in John 3. But what that passage teaches is that FLESH can neither see, nor enter, the kingdom of God. Those who wish to enter that kingdom must be born again from above – by something OTHER THAN flesh – before being able to see or enter that heavenly kingdom.  They must be born of “spirit and water” – AS OPPOSED TO “flesh”.' Get it?  Something OTHER THAN flesh. Mike, I am saying the passage is speaking of the new earth and the new heaven and not the current earth or the current heaven.   I see no need to go beyond that as it clearly is not speaking of entering the current heaven. What do you think Jesus was teaching about if not entering the new heaven and the new earth?

Kerwin,

It doesn't matter if you want to say “new heaven”, “old heaven”, “current heaven”, or “tomorrow land heaven”……… because Jesus never mentioned the word “heaven” at all. And even if he had, it wouldn't matter WHICH heaven he was talking about.

The fact is that flesh can ONLY give birth to more flesh. And for that reason, those who hope to see or enter the kingdom of God must be born again from above……. of WATER and SPIRIT. Ie: NOT FLESH.

If flesh could enter the kingdom of God, then there would have been no reason for Jesus to say we must be born again of something OTHER THAN flesh in order to see and enter the kingdom of God.

Can't you see this easy teaching?

Btw, this was a part of my daily Bible reading today:

Psalm 148:4
Praise him, O highest heaven, and you waters above the sky!

This alludes to the “heavenly water” I mentioned to you a while back. Also compare to Genesis 1:7.

In my understanding, there is “heavenly water” that is not the same as H2O. Those of us who are to dwell in heaven after the resurrection will be comprised of this heavenly water and spirit.

I believe this is what the angels are already comprised of.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,12:10)

She did not say that humans do not enter the kingdom of heaven but that instead they transform to spirit beings before entering.  You have also claimed this previously even though there is nowhere in Scripture that is written.

But it IS written in scripture!

Humans are made of FLESH, Kerwin.

And Paul says FLESH cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

And Jesus says FLESH cannot see or enter the kingdom of heaven.

Don't confuse the fact that you don't WANT to see it in scripture with the claim that it isn't even IN scripture.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (carmel @ May 15 2014,12:52)

NOW IN HEBREWS 2:8  PAUL SAID: 8Thou hast subjected all things under his feet. For in that he hath subjected all things to him, he left nothing not subject to him. IN THE ABOVE  IT IS EMPHATICALLY CLEAR THAT: THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT NOT SUBJECT TO JESUS

A father can give his son “everything he owns”.  But we must also use reason, Charles.  If God literally gave Jesus EVERYTHING, then God Himself would have NOTHING – not even an existence.

So take statements like those with a grain of understanding, okay?

In the following statement, Paul lays out the obvious for people like you, who might have otherwise allowed your personal wishes to cause yourself confusion:

1 Corinthians 15:27
For he “has put everything under his feet.”  

Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

So use common sense here.  God Himself is not subjected to His holy servant, Jesus Christ.  Nor would Jesus even be that highly exalted if it was not for his own God and King anointing him with the oil of joy, and placing him above his companions.  (Heb 1)  

Remember Charles, there isn't a servant who “became” God Almighty.  There still exists both God Almighty and His holy servant Jesus Christ.

And our one and only God (who is also Jesus' one and only God) has given His holy servant Jesus a very great amount of power and authority.  But don't let the fact that the GREATER ONE gave the LESSER ONE a bunch of stuff confuse you into thinking that the LESSER ONE has now become the GREATER ONE.

There is still a Most High God.  His name is Jehovah.  Jesus remains Jehovah's prophet, priest, spokesman, messiah, and servant.  He is not equal to Jehovah, but sits at the NEXT HIGHEST position there is – at Jehovah's right hand.

[jammin]

mike,

when gill said THE father in his commentary, he was explaining about form that the father and the son both have.
there is no version that would say Christ was existing in the form of HIS OWN GOD. if this phrase “form of his own God” (which you were saying) means they have the same form then i agree. i just do not want make confusion here by saying that the son was existing in the form of his own God because some believes that the son is also the father. that is not the teaching of the bible. the bible said Christ has the same nature just like his father. he is God just like his father. those scholars translated the bible to the best of their knowledge and ability. they did not say that God has no form. where can you read that? God has a form (nature). all scholars know that and they teach the nature and attributes of God. also, it is not the scholars who said that Christ and the father are of the exact same essence. it is written in the bible and john told us about this.

john 1.1

The Word was God.

paul also said Christ is equal with God.

phil 2.6 NIV
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

if Christ is not equal with God, then paul should not say did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. it is non sense to say those words if he is not equal with God.

therefore, it is very clear that you do not know the true meaning of the word of God.

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,04:54)

Quote (jammin @ May 14 2014,19:56) Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,16:49) Jammin, Quote you need a psychiatrist kerwin. Why do you choose to cover your lack of knowledge with insults? Have you not heard the proverb “It is better for a man to keep his mouth closed and to look a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” why do you choose not to accept the truth even if it is written? did you ask yourself that maybe you have a mind problem? why cant you accept that you have the form of HUMAN? a man created by God has no form of beast. that is not God's creation. you fool people. Jammin, I am not looking for a conversation from you where you choose not to seek knowledge.  Lack of knowledge is nothing to feel shame about.  The refusal to seek knowledge is something to feel shame about. You sit that and there and try to claim form and image are synonyms even though you should know better. If you do not know then seek to find out.  This should be that important and more to you.   You also choose to cast unfounded accusations against those who have done so.  Sometimes they have also stooped seeking but a different level but it is always wise to test what your hear and as well as what you believe.

God never created HUMAN with a form of beast. i said the form in phil 2.6 is a synonym of essence and it is written in the dictionary and the bible. if i say something, i back up it with version. i am not a storyteller like you.

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

And Paul says FLESH cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

It does not say that.

It instead says in part that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”

I am not finished processing it as of yet.

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ May 16 2014,07:23)

Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,04:54) Quote (jammin @ May 14 2014,19:56) Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,16:49) Jammin, Quote you need a psychiatrist kerwin. Why do you choose to cover your lack of knowledge with insults? Have you not heard the proverb “It is better for a man to keep his mouth closed and to look a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” why do you choose not to accept the truth even if it is written? did you ask yourself that maybe you have a mind problem? why cant you accept that you have the form of HUMAN? a man created by God has no form of beast. that is not God's creation. you fool people. Jammin, I am not looking for a conversation from you where you choose not to seek knowledge.  Lack of knowledge is nothing to feel shame about.  The refusal to seek knowledge is something to feel shame about. You sit that and there and try to claim form and image are synonyms even though you should know better. If you do not know then seek to find out.  This should be that important and more to you.   You also choose to cast unfounded accusations against those who have done so.  Sometimes they have also stooped seeking but a different level but it is always wise to test what your hear and as well as what you believe. God never created HUMAN with a form of beast. i said the form in phil 2.6 is a synonym of essence and it is written in the dictionary and the bible. if i say something, i back up it with version.  i am not a storyteller like you.

Jammin,

I do not want to confuse you by using the words “form of a beast” to mean two different things so I will not address it in reference to the creation of man.

Mankind has existed in the form of a beast since he rebelled against God.  Jesus came to free us and create a new man that exists in the form of God.

You can use essence or nature instead of form and  it all means the same thing.

I often hear the arguments of other men from you. They are not yours as they have been around longer than you have unless you are very very ancient.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2014,05:05)

Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,11:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2014,05:43) Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,00:37) Mike, Quote “Enter” is clearly implied by Paul, and explicitly STATED by Jesus in John 3.  And in Jesus' teaching, only “flesh” is mentioned, so you can't weasel out of it by saying, “Flesh and BONE is okay, as long as it's not flesh and BLOOD!” I assume you mean John 3:5 which has a meaning that a man cannot enter the kingdom after judgement day provide we are going by your interpretation which I disagree with.  It is not speaking of the present heaven. John 3:5 King James Version (KJV) 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. I'm not sure what your words are actually saying – or where you found the words “new heaven” or “present heaven” in John 3. But what that passage teaches is that FLESH can neither see, nor enter, the kingdom of God. Those who wish to enter that kingdom must be born again from above – by something OTHER THAN flesh – before being able to see or enter that heavenly kingdom.  They must be born of “spirit and water” – AS OPPOSED TO “flesh”.' Get it?  Something OTHER THAN flesh. Mike, I am saying the passage is speaking of the new earth and the new heaven and not the current earth or the current heaven.   I see no need to go beyond that as it clearly is not speaking of entering the current heaven. What do you think Jesus was teaching about if not entering the new heaven and the new earth? Kerwin, It doesn't matter if you want to say “new heaven”, “old heaven”, “current heaven”, or “tomorrow land heaven”……… because Jesus never mentioned the word “heaven” at all.  And even if he had, it wouldn't matter WHICH heaven he was talking about. The fact is that flesh can ONLY give birth to more flesh.  And for that reason, those who hope to see or enter the kingdom of God must be born again from above……. of WATER and SPIRIT.  Ie:  NOT FLESH. If flesh could enter the kingdom of God, then there would have been no reason for Jesus to say we must be born again of something OTHER THAN flesh in order to see and enter the kingdom of God. Can't you see this easy teaching? Btw, this was a part of my daily Bible reading today: Psalm 148:4 Praise him, O highest heaven, and you waters above the sky! This alludes to the “heavenly water” I mentioned to you a while back.  Also compare to Genesis 1:7. In my understanding, there is “heavenly water” that is not the same as H2O.  Those of us who are to dwell in heaven after the resurrection will be comprised of this heavenly water and spirit. I believe this is what the angels are already comprised of.

Mike,

It matters only in so much as I am intent on pointing out that 1 Corinthians 15:50 is not speaking of those who enter the current heaven, a place which will pass away.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ May 15 2014,19:12)

if this phrase “form of his own God” (which you were saying) means they have the same form then i agree.

Good enough.  I'm tired of talking about it.  

Quote (jammin @ May 15 2014,19:12)

if Christ is not equal with God, then paul should not say did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.

But Paul didn't say that, jammin.  You quoted the new, revised, 2011 NIV.  Here's what the original 1984 NIV said:

Philippians 2:6 NIV 1984
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

They changed it later because of those PERSONAL AGENDAS that I mentioned in my last post.

But think it out, jammin………. if ever someone was said to be “equal to God”, it is clear that that person was NOT God.  In order to be “equal to” someone, you can't actually BE the person you are “equal to”.

So even in the newer, butchered version of the NIV, the fact that “equality WITH God” was mentioned at all tells us that we are talking about “God” – AND someone OTHER THAN “God”.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,19:51)

Mike, Quote And Paul says FLESH cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It does not say that. It instead says in part that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” I am not finished processing it as of yet.

So you think FLESH can enter, all by itself? And BLOOD can enter, all by itself?

But they can't enter as a combination?

Pffff………

It doesn't matter, because Jesus only used the word FLESH, Kerwin. Jesus effectively took away your “flesh and BONE can enter” argument – long before Paul ever wrote his first letter to the Corinthians. So it's time you give it up – don't you think?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,20:13)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2014,05:05) Kerwin, It doesn't matter if you want to say “new heaven”, “old heaven”, “current heaven”, or “tomorrow land heaven”……… because Jesus never mentioned the word “heaven” at all.  And even if he had, it wouldn't matter WHICH heaven he was talking about. The fact is that flesh can ONLY give birth to more flesh.  And for that reason, those who hope to see or enter the kingdom of God must be born again from above……. of WATER and SPIRIT.  Ie:  NOT FLESH. If flesh could enter the kingdom of God, then there would have been no reason for Jesus to say we must be born again of something OTHER THAN flesh in order to see and enter the kingdom of God. Can't you see this easy teaching? Mike, It matters only in so much as I am intent on pointing out that 1 Corinthians 15:50 is not speaking of those who enter the current heaven, a place which will pass away.

But you don't even know that, Kerwin.

Luke 9:27
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Some of them have already been “transformed in the blink of an eye”, Kerwin. Some of these are the souls under the alter in Revelation.

So they went to the CURRENT heaven, and they are not there in a flesh body.

I still can't see the point of you trying to distinguish between “current heaven” and “new heaven”. I don't see how any of it changes the outcome of the discussion.

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

So you think FLESH can enter, all by itself? And BLOOD can enter, all by itself? But they can't enter as a combination?

That would be the literal interpretation. If Paul meant only flesh could not inherit then why add the words “and blood”?

Note: Be careful not to read into my words. I am investigating not stating a conclusion.

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

It doesn't matter, because Jesus only used the word FLESH, Kerwin.  Jesus effectively took away your “flesh and BONE can enter” argument – long before Paul ever wrote his first letter to the Corinthians.  So it's time you give it up – don't you think?

Jesus is speaking of the renewal of the spirit, Psalms 51:10, something any teacher of God's people should know.

That which is born of the human body is flesh while that which is born of God's spirit is spirit.  There is nothing about the body dying or transforming in the whole passage.  So you are assuming that spirit is referring to a body and that a body can either be flesh or spirit.

John seems to be the only one that uses that form of the Greek word “gennaó” and the other places he uses it besides John 3 is 1 John 5: 1 and 4 in which he speaks of being born of God.

[Author]

Posts