- This topic has 25,946 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 10 hours, 35 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (jammin @ May 30 2014,07:02) T you posted a version that says Christ is God. have you forgotten that? hahaha
Kerwin,
i do not need to repeat myself. it is enough for me to show you a WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION that the Word in john 1.1 is Christ and not what you think. you cant win a case without any supporting documents. you are a lawyer that should have no case hahaha
Jammin,What you revealed to be is that some trinitarian translators and commenter are of the religious opinion that John 1:1 is about Christ. I firmly believe trinitarians and others have that opinion.
They just do not have a solid case to prove it. Those that believe Jesus is the one true God do not have case as they have abandoned reason when they claim Jesus is the one true God and he was also tempted even as common to men.
Those that claim Jesus is a god have a better case as at least it is based on reasoned conjecture even though parts of their reasoning are not written.
mikeboll64,May wrote:[/quote]
Quote There is no such thing as a “spiritual body”. Mike,
THE ONLY SPIRIT WHICH IS WITHOUT A BODY IS GOD!
ALL THE REST HAVE A KIND OF BODY!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
kerwin,May wrote:[/quote]
Quote Those that believe Jesus is the one true God do not have case as they have abandoned reason when they claim Jesus is the one true God and he was also tempted even as common to men. Kerwin,
JESUS, THE ONE WHO WAS TEMPTED, WAS IN THE NATURE OF MAN SON OF MAN WHEN HE WAS TEMPTED!
HE WAS NOT THE SAME ONE IN ESSENCE, AS THE ONE WHO ENTERED THROUGH WALLS AND MANIFESTED THAT HE WAS
THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST
Kerwin,
JESUS,FROM THE TIME THAT HE CAME INTO THE WORLD AND LEFT IT, HE CHANGED HIMSELF SEVEN TIMES IN A DIFFERENT STATE
THOSE SEVEN TIMES ARE REPRESENTED IN THE SEVEN GOLDEN CANDLE STICKS MENTIONED IN REV. 1:12
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (jammin @ May 29 2014,21:41) i can say i created my computer but it does not mean i created myself.
Correct. So when it is said that all things in heaven were created by God, it doesn't mean God created Himself.Likewise, when it says all things in heaven were created THROUGH Jesus, it doesn't mean Jesus was created THROUGH himself.
Mark 13
18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.Jesus said it was GOD who created the world, jammin. Why don't you believe him?
Acts 4
24 When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.They prayed TO the one who made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. That one was called “GOD”.
30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
Then they clearly identified Jesus as someone OTHER THAN the “GOD” who made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. They called Jesus the “HOLY SERVANT OF” that God who made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.
And if Jesus is NOT the “GOD” who made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them, then Jesus has no choice but to BE one of the “everything in them” that was created BY the “GOD” they prayed to.
I realize that you WANT Jesus to be “God”. And you WANT Jesus to have existed from eternity. But scriptures simply don't bear this teaching out, jammin. These things are unscriptural, and were made up by men like you, who have a lot of WANTS when it comes to Jesus.
Quote (jammin @ May 29 2014,21:53) rt H. Gundry of Westmont College, Ca, USA wrote us: “As to the translation of John 1:1, “and the Word was a god” is grammatically possible but not grammatically favoured.”
Good. Now I have one more TRINITARIAN scholar to add to my list of people who say “a god” IS a possible way to translate John 1:1c. Thanks, jammin!
Whether or not any of those Trinitarians “FAVOR” that translation is of no serious consequence, since it should be obvious that people who WANT Jesus to BE the very God he is the Son, Messiah, Prophet, Word, Lamb, Priest and Servant OF aren't too bright anyway……. so who really cares what they “FAVOR”?
Quote (jammin @ May 29 2014,21:53) C.H.Dodd has also written The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole.”-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.(italics ours)
dont ever think that Dodd is accepting that version. you must read what dodd really meant by saying those words.
I don't need Dodd to ACCEPT the translation of “a god”, jammin. I only need him to say, “a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, 'The Word was a god'. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.”
And that is what he said. As for the rest of his comments, they fall under the things I said above.
(I am curious to know what he considers “Johannine thought”, and how he thinks “a god” runs counter to that thought. Because all throughout his gospel, John made it abundantly clear that Jesus was not God – but the SON and ANOINTED ONE of God. So you can see that his words don't even make sense, or agree with scripture. They are just words that Trinitarians like to say. They think words like that will convince people like you that it makes SENSE for Jesus to BE the very God he is the Son, Messiah, Servant, Priest, Prophet, Word, and Lamb OF. But those words have no real substance, jammin……… because “Johannine thought” never once taught that Jesus was “God”.)
Quote (carmel @ May 29 2014,23:57) mikeboll64,May wrote:[/quote]
Quote Most of those other christs and messiahs in scripture were also anointed with Holy Spirit, Charles. David, Moses, Samuel, etc. Mike,
PRODUCE SCRIPTURES PLEASE!
BOTH REGARDING JESUS CHRIST AND ALL THE REST!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Here Charles,You can do your own search. The highlighted word “anointed” is the Hebrew word we translate as “messiah”. (In Greek, it is “christ”.)
You'll see David as that “anointed one (messiah)” many times. You'll see Cyrus as God's messiah in Isaiah 45:1.
You see the entire nation of Israel as God's “messiahs” in a couple of them.
There's the info, do your own research.
Quote (carmel @ May 30 2014,08:38) I NEVER THROUGHOUT MY POSTS DENIED THAT GOD THE FATHER AND HIS SON ,WERE NOT TWO PERSONS!
Yep. One is “God”, and the other is God's “Son”, ie: not “God Himself”.Carmel,
What you write is not written in Scripture it is a answer given to try to make the claim that Jesus is the one true non-temptable God agree with the fact Jesus was tempted as is common to man and exhibited non true God like characteristics.
Your answer even goes beyond that of the general trinitarian as you claim he changed into seven different states. It seem by state you mean “essential nature”. Whatever you are saying I see little connection even to a misunderstanding of Scripture. I got the seven candlesticks reference but I have no hint how you see them as evidence Jesus existed in seven states nor am I interested.
The trinitarians answer similarity by given Jesus two essential natures. That is an absurd claim because no being is 100% of each of two kinds.
Quote (carmel @ May 30 2014,11:47) Mike, WHAT IF GOD WAS IN THAT FIRST EVER CREATURE WHATEVER IT MAY BE IN ORDER TO KEEP IT IN EXISTENCE,SINCE NOTHING EXIST WITHOUT GOD'S PRESENCE! NO MATTER HOW
WOULD ALSO GOD BE THE FIRST EVER CREATURE?
YES OR NO
Your wording is hard for me to follow. Are you asking if GOD would be a creature because He is IN His first creature?No.
But who do you think WAS the first creature God ever created, Charles? Satan? Michael? Gabriel? Who do YOU think was the first creature.
Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2014,12:10) Jammin, What you revealed to be is that some trinitarian translators and commenter are of the religious opinion that John 1:1 is about Christ. I firmly believe trinitarians and others have that opinion.
They just do not have a solid case to prove it.
The first chapter of John's gospel proves it clearly, Kerwin.Not just 1:14……… but the entire context of that first chapter. I mean, the combination of verse 15 (said about “the Word”) with verses 29-30 (where the same thing is said about “Jesus”) is enough to tell you “the Word” is “Jesus”.
The combination of verse 16 (said about “the Word”) and verse 17 (where the same thing is said about “Jesus”) should tell you that “the Word” is “Jesus”.
But you've already seen my list that shows how all the things said about “the Word” in John 1 are also said in scripture about “Jesus”, right?
The fact that you don't want to BELIEVE the plethora of proof in John 1 does not equate to “They just do not have a solid case to prove it”.
The solid case is there. You just refuse to believe it for personal reasons.
Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2014,12:10) Those that claim Jesus is a god have a better case as at least it is based on reasoned conjecture even though parts of their reasoning are not written.
Which parts, Kerwin? Is Jesus called a god elsewhere in scripture? YES. So which part about him being called a god in John 1:1 isn't written?Quote (carmel @ May 30 2014,13:04) Mike, THE ONLY SPIRIT WHICH IS WITHOUT A BODY IS GOD!
ALL THE REST HAVE A KIND OF BODY!
I agree with you that they all have bodies, Charles. But I believe God also has one.Quote (carmel @ May 31 2014,08:42) Kerwin, JESUS, THE ONE WHO WAS TEMPTED, WAS IN THE NATURE OF MAN SON OF MAN WHEN HE WAS TEMPTED!
Charles,The words you just wrote equate to: Jesus was NOT God while he was on earth.
Is that what you believe?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 01 2014,00:10) Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2014,12:10) Jammin, What you revealed to be is that some trinitarian translators and commenter are of the religious opinion that John 1:1 is about Christ. I firmly believe trinitarians and others have that opinion.
They just do not have a solid case to prove it.
The first chapter of John's gospel proves it clearly, Kerwin.Not just 1:14……… but the entire context of that first chapter. I mean, the combination of verse 15 (said about “the Word”) with verses 29-30 (where the same thing is said about “Jesus”) is enough to tell you “the Word” is “Jesus”.
The combination of verse 16 (said about “the Word”) and verse 17 (where the same thing is said about “Jesus”) should tell you that “the Word” is “Jesus”.
But you've already seen my list that shows how all the things said about “the Word” in John 1 are also said in scripture about “Jesus”, right?
The fact that you don't want to BELIEVE the plethora of proof in John 1 does not equate to “They just do not have a solid case to prove it”.
The solid case is there. You just refuse to believe it for personal reasons.
Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2014,12:10) Those that claim Jesus is a god have a better case as at least it is based on reasoned conjecture even though parts of their reasoning are not written.
Which parts, Kerwin? Is Jesus called a god elsewhere in scripture? YES. So which part about him being called a god in John 1:1 isn't written?
Mike,You claim that but you claim is not believable as your case is built on what you want instead of what is.
mikeboll64,June wrote:[/quote]
Quote But who do you think WAS the first creature God ever created, Charles? Satan? Michael? Gabriel? Who do YOU think was the first creature. Mike,
I ALREADY TOLD YOU WHO!
LUCIFER WAS THE FIRST EVER CREATURE !
THE FACT THAT HIS NAME SIGNIFY THE LIGHT OF THE MORNING! WHICH MEANS THAT AS THE LIGHT OF THE MORNING IS THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY, LUCIFER THE LIGHT, WISDOM, THE FEMALE FACTORIS THE BEGINNING OF CREATION
GOD 'S FIRST EVER ABODE!
BELIEVE IT OR NOT!
LUCIFER THEREFORE WAS CREATED EQUAL WITH GOD ALMIGHTY!
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS THAT LUCIFER WAS SUBJECT TO GOD!
LUCIFER FUNCTIONED ONLY WITH THE ACTUAL PRESENCE OF GOD WITHIN!
GOD CREATED ALL THE HEAVENLY BEINGS UP TO A CERTAIN TIME THROUGH LUCIFER
NOW!
WAS GOD CREATED?
SINCE GOD WAS ALSO THE FIRST BORN OF LUCIFER THROUGH HIS OWN SELF WITHIN?
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote Yep. One is “God”, and the other is God's “Son”, ie: not “God Himself”. Mike,
YES AND HOW!
Ephissians1:2 Grace be to you, and peace
……….FROM God the Father, and FROM the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed by THE God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, …………
MIKE THIS TIME IT IS SHORT!
I HOPE YOU ARE NOT SHORT AS WELL FROM YOUR WISDOM!
CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOD ALMIGHTY IN Ephissians1:2
AND
THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST IN Ephissians1:3
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (kerwin @ May 31 2014,12:18) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 01 2014,00:10) Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2014,12:10) Jammin, What you revealed to be is that some trinitarian translators and commenter are of the religious opinion that John 1:1 is about Christ. I firmly believe trinitarians and others have that opinion.
They just do not have a solid case to prove it.
The first chapter of John's gospel proves it clearly, Kerwin.Not just 1:14……… but the entire context of that first chapter. I mean, the combination of verse 15 (said about “the Word”) with verses 29-30 (where the same thing is said about “Jesus”) is enough to tell you “the Word” is “Jesus”.
The combination of verse 16 (said about “the Word”) and verse 17 (where the same thing is said about “Jesus”) should tell you that “the Word” is “Jesus”.
But you've already seen my list that shows how all the things said about “the Word” in John 1 are also said in scripture about “Jesus”, right?
The fact that you don't want to BELIEVE the plethora of proof in John 1 does not equate to “They just do not have a solid case to prove it”.
The solid case is there. You just refuse to believe it for personal reasons.
Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2014,12:10) Those that claim Jesus is a god have a better case as at least it is based on reasoned conjecture even though parts of their reasoning are not written.
Which parts, Kerwin? Is Jesus called a god elsewhere in scripture? YES. So which part about him being called a god in John 1:1 isn't written?
Mike,You claim that but you claim is not believable as your case is built on what you want instead of what is.
Really? Okay, then show me.Show me how verse 15 DOESN'T apply certain words John the Baptist said to “the Word”.
Show me how verses 29-30 DON'T apply those very same words to “Jesus”.
Show me how grace DIDN'T come through “the Word” in verse 16………. and how grace DIDN'T come through “Jesus” in verse 17.
Show me these things, Kerwin. Show me how these things are in the scripture solely because I WANT them to be there.
Also, I await your response to the second part of my post…… the part about Jesus being called a god in various scriptures.
I get TIRED of you running around posting that the things I teach “aren't in scripture”……. but then running AWAY when I ask you to support what you claimed against me.
You need to either back up the things you say with PROOF, or don't say them in the first place.
You now have an assignment:
1. Show me how my DESIRE is what allows those scriptural words be in John 1.
2. Show me why my reasoning about Jesus being a god isn't written in scripture.
Quote (carmel @ May 31 2014,13:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 01 2014,04:49) But who do you think WAS the first creature God ever created, Charles? Satan? Michael? Gabriel? Who do YOU think was the first creature. Mike,
I ALREADY TOLD YOU WHO!
LUCIFER WAS THE FIRST EVER CREATURE !
LUCIFER THEREFORE WAS CREATED EQUAL WITH GOD ALMIGHTY!
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS THAT LUCIFER WAS SUBJECT TO GOD!
So “Lucifer” was equal to God, but at the same time subject to God?
Anyway, since you believe “Lucifer” was the first creation of God, could we called him “the beginning of the creation by God”? YES.
Could we call him “the firstborn of every creature”? YES.
Could we say God created him as the first of His works? YES.
My point is if you PICK someone YOU think God created first, all of those things could be SENSIBLY said about that first creation. In fact, if those things were said about him, it would be accepted by everyone that the REASON those things were said about him was BECAUSE he was the first thing God ever created.
But in the real world, there are certain people want to believe Jesus existed from eternity. And other people want to believe Jesus began his existence on earth. And for these PERSONAL reasons, they don't believe it when those very clear things are said about Jesus.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 01 2014,01:47) Quote (kerwin @ May 31 2014,12:18) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 01 2014,00:10) Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2014,12:10) Jammin, What you revealed to be is that some trinitarian translators and commenter are of the religious opinion that John 1:1 is about Christ. I firmly believe trinitarians and others have that opinion.
They just do not have a solid case to prove it.
The first chapter of John's gospel proves it clearly, Kerwin.Not just 1:14……… but the entire context of that first chapter. I mean, the combination of verse 15 (said about “the Word”) with verses 29-30 (where the same thing is said about “Jesus”) is enough to tell you “the Word” is “Jesus”.
The combination of verse 16 (said about “the Word”) and verse 17 (where the same thing is said about “Jesus”) should tell you that “the Word” is “Jesus”.
But you've already seen my list that shows how all the things said about “the Word” in John 1 are also said in scripture about “Jesus”, right?
The fact that you don't want to BELIEVE the plethora of proof in John 1 does not equate to “They just do not have a solid case to prove it”.
The solid case is there. You just refuse to believe it for personal reasons.
Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2014,12:10) Those that claim Jesus is a god have a better case as at least it is based on reasoned conjecture even though parts of their reasoning are not written.
Which parts, Kerwin? Is Jesus called a god elsewhere in scripture? YES. So which part about him being called a god in John 1:1 isn't written?
Mike,You claim that but you claim is not believable as your case is built on what you want instead of what is.
Really? Okay, then show me.Show me how verse 15 DOESN'T apply certain words John the Baptist said to “the Word”.
Show me how verses 29-30 DON'T apply those very same words to “Jesus”.
Show me how grace DIDN'T come through “the Word” in verse 16………. and how grace DIDN'T come through “Jesus” in verse 17.
Show me these things, Kerwin. Show me how these things are in the scripture solely because I WANT them to be there.
Also, I await your response to the second part of my post…… the part about Jesus being called a god in various scriptures.
I get TIRED of you running around posting that the things I teach “aren't in scripture”……. but then running AWAY when I ask you to support what you claimed against me.
You need to either back up the things you say with PROOF, or don't say them in the first place.
You now have an assignment:
1. Show me how my DESIRE is what allows those scriptural words be in John 1.
2. Show me why my reasoning about Jesus being a god isn't written in scripture.
Mike,How can I show you if you do not want to see?
I have attempted to do so many times and yet you prefer to think of Jesus as being superior to human beings in his ability to overcome the world. In doing so you weaken your own faith that we can overcome the world even as he did. You are unable to fully believe he was tempted by even as thoroughly as any man but chose not to sin because his faith was enough to bring him near to God and God because of his nearness God gave him the Holy Spirit to live by.
When you truly believe that then you will know Jesus did not have to be an angel or any other being but a human being to overcome the desires of the flesh and that he is willing to teach you to do likewise by the Holy Spirit.
Quote (kerwin @ May 31 2014,13:58) Mike, How can I show you if you do not want to see?
Start with the John 1 verses I listed, Kerwin.Show me how John said very particular words about “the Word” in verse 15, said those SAME words about “Jesus” in verses 29-30, but “the Word” ISN'T “Jesus”.
Show me how grace came to us through “the Word” in verse 16, grace came to us through “Jesus” in verse 17, but “the Word” ISN'T “Jesus”.
Show me how Jesus ISN'T called a god in other scriptures, and can therefore NOT be called a god in John 1:1.
But more importantly, show me how MY BELIEF in these things makes it clear that my understanding is “not written in scripture”. THAT is the main one, Kerwin. Just because YOU don't understand certain scriptures the way I do is no reason for you to EVER say MY understanding is “not written” – because EVERYTHING I preach on this site was learned DIRECTLY FROM scripture.
Quote (kerwin @ May 31 2014,13:58) ………you prefer to think of Jesus as being superior to human beings in his ability to overcome the world. In doing so you weaken your own faith that we can overcome the world even as he did.
That describes the PERSONAL WISH that people like you, Gene, Marty, and Nick have.You can see from your own very words that you are going into this with the pre-conceived notion that Jesus must be a certain thing, or else stuff is harder for YOU personally.
Don't you see it, Kerwin? Your words basically say, BECAUSE I believe this and that about Jesus before even reading those scriptures you mentioned, I am FORCED to understand them in a way that aligns with that previous belief. So no matter how clearly the scripture might teach about Jesus' pre-existence, I won't be able to see it, because I went into those scriptures with my mind already made up for PERSONAL reasons.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
