- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Yes Marty, that is correct.
The firstborn of all angels = first angel ever created.
The firstborn of all dinosaurs = first dinosaur ever created.
The firstborn of all human beings = first human ever created.
And the first born of all creation = first creature ever created.
Do you think we can't see through your pretense Marty? All of us can see that you understand the concept well enough, but because it doesn't align with your own doctrine, you are willing to pretend that you don't understand what we know you do.
Marty! Don't you see what you are doing???
Quote In is through Jesus, the last Adam, that God had forseen the culmination and fulfillment of his plan for this world and for humanity and the world to come.
This is not what that Scripture in Col. 1:15 says You are adding, and that is npt good….
Read it again
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
THE FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE….
You have a firstborn? We have… and all other Sons of ours were born after Him……Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
FOR BY HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED….
Do you see that?
? Open your eyes and mind…..Peace Irene
Quote (942767 @ Aug. 14 2011,01:36) Is explained by the following scripture: Quote Colossians 1:18And He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence. He is not the “first creature created by God”. He is the “Last Adam”. God began in Genesis saying that he was making man in “his own image”. The first Adam was made a living soul. He was like God in that he had a mind, a will, and emotions, a living person. The last Adam is like God in this respect but through obedience to God's Word his character is like God in that God is a “spirit of love”. The scripture states that Jesus is “the express image of God's person”.
The last Adam is what God envisioned when he created the worlds. He is the culminnation of God's plan for humanity. He is the first of God's creatures to be perfected and raised from the dead with a spiritual body. In this, he is the beginning of the creation of God.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty …………..You have posted it right Brother.peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2011,21:22) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 11 2011,00:33)
Neither one of these scriptures has context inferring what the title “root” means.
Okay Kerwin. If you must go as far as pretending that you don't know what “root” means, I have gone as far as I can go with you.Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 11 2011,00:33)
In conclusion Jesus is before Abraham because Abraham believes in him.
The words are: Before Abraham was born, I have existed.If you can get “because Abraham believes in him” out of that, then your imagination is teaching you much more about the scriptures than the scriptures are.
I don't have time to chase your unscriptural imagination all over the place. I'm sorry.
peace,
mike
Mike,Are you implying that “all creation” means both the old and new creations?
Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 14 2011,01:50) Marty! Don't you see what you are doing??? Quote In is through Jesus, the last Adam, that God had forseen the culmination and fulfillment of his plan for this world and for humanity and the world to come.
This is not what that Scripture in Col. 1:15 says You are adding, and that is npt good….
Read it again
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
THE FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE….
You have a firstborn? We have… and all other Sons of ours were born after Him……Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
FOR BY HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED….
Do you see that?? Open your eyes and mind…..Peace Irene
Irene,You are adding old to the scripture while Marty is taking other scriptures that state Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and stating this Colossians 1:15 is a restatement of the same idea.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 14 2011,18:03) Mike, Are you implying that “all creation” means both the old and new creations?
Hi Kerwin,Let's see:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. 16 For through him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created through him and for him.
If it says that he is the firstborn of EVERY creature, and it says that ALL things were created through him, then why would I NOT understand it to mean he was the first creature created of ANY creation – past, present AND future?
Is there a VALID SCRIPTURAL reason for me to NOT understand it the way I do?
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 15 2011,08:35) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 14 2011,18:03) Mike, Are you implying that “all creation” means both the old and new creations?
Hi Kerwin,Let's see:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. 16 For through him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created through him and for him.
If it says that he is the firstborn of EVERY creature, and it says that ALL things were created through him, then why would I NOT understand it to mean he was the first creature created of ANY creation – past, present AND future?
Is there a VALID SCRIPTURAL reason for me to NOT understand it the way I do?
peace,
mike
Mike,Scripture differentiates between the old creation of which Adam is the first human and the new of which Jesus Anointed is the first man.
Quote 1 Corinthians 15
King James Version (KJV)22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
It is clear that God has not yet subjected all things to Jesus Anointed as even your five senses should tell you.
It is therefore also clear that all things do not consist (hold together) in him, see Colossians 1:17.
Instead we are told that in Adam all die while in Anointed all are made alive, 1 Corinthians 15:22.
Are all already alive because in Jesus the Anointed they consist? Obviously not yet, though the time will come when all the new creation will be made alive.
Mike,
Quote Okay Kerwin. If you must go as far as pretending that you don't know what “root” means, I have gone as far as I can go with you. You just made a personal attack without trying to use reason to explain why you believe other than what I wrote. Did you do that because you are unable to counter what I wrote?
I am sure you are well aware that David’s faith is rooted in Jesus because scripture testifies that David believed God when God promised him that he would have a son to sit on his throne forever. So why do you persist in disagreeing even though you should also know those Revelations is addressed to would also know Jesus is the root of David’s faith and the offspring of his body?
Quote The words are: Before Abraham was born, I have existed. I admit I suffered a memory failure since I forgot the word “was” in the King James Version. My understanding is correct for John 8:56 even though those who think in unspiritual ways though he was stating he preexisted his miraculous conception as verse 57 testifies. Because of my memory failure I wrongly concluded Jesus was speaking of faith and erroneously understood verse 58 according to that error. Still as I mediated on the matter it troubled me and I asked God to grant me his understanding.
This is what I have found:
Quote John 8
King James Version (KJV)58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Or
Quote John 8
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)58Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming — I am;'
To Paraphrase his words Jesus is stating:
Truly, Truly I say to you, I currently am before Abraham was.
Jesus is obvious not speaking of his preexistent stated “I am” which is current tense instead of the past tense “I existed” that you inadvertently replaced it with.
So it sounds as before Abraham was “what” and Jesus is currently the same? So what comparison was Jesus using with the Jews earlier in the conversation would with the idea expressed in John 8:58.
Here is a hint:
Quote John 8
King James Version (KJV)53Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.Quote I don't have time to chase your unscriptural imagination all over the place. I'm sorry. Please! What I have written is of the spirit of Scripture. If you understood it then would understand what I wrote. As it is, you but repeat the misunderstandings expressed by those Jews who did not believe who spoke in verse 57 of John 8.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 15 2011,11:07) Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 14 2011,01:50) Marty! Don't you see what you are doing??? Quote In is through Jesus, the last Adam, that God had forseen the culmination and fulfillment of his plan for this world and for humanity and the world to come.
This is not what that Scripture in Col. 1:15 says You are adding, and that is npt good….
Read it again
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
THE FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE….
You have a firstborn? We have… and all other Sons of ours were born after Him……Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
FOR BY HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED….
Do you see that?? Open your eyes and mind…..Peace Irene
Irene,You are adding old to the scripture while Marty is taking other scriptures that state Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and stating this Colossians 1:15 is a restatement of the same idea.
Kerwin! No Sir, I only compared those two Scriptures in Rev. 13 to show who Jesus is in John 1:1…. It plainly show that… I also asked you and Marty who that could be in Rev. 19 who that description of that verse is? You or Marty have not answered it….
IreneQuote (kerwin @ Aug. 15 2011,09:42) Mike, Scripture differentiates between the old creation of which Adam is the first human and the new of which Jesus Anointed is the first man.
And what part of the phrase “ALL creation” leads you to believe that Paul speaks ONLY of the “NEW creation”?Also, how could ALL THINGS in heaven and on earth have been created through someone who wasn't even around until most of those things had already been created?
See Kerwin? You scoff at me for not wanting to chase your fantasies. But you are unable to SENSIBLY address even these most simple scriptural words.
A wise person once noted that, by starting with any old belief you wanted, anyone could with time make the scriptures actually TEACH that belief in their own mind. This is what you are doing. Your personal agenda has caused you to come up with an only begotten from the Father that you can't even identify. Does that convince you that you are somehow on the right track?
Listen, if it said “the firstborn of all dinosaurs”, anyone in their right mind would assume they were talking of the first dinosaur even brought into existence.
But what it says is that Jesus is the “firstborn of ALL CREATION/ EVERY CREATURE”, Kerwin. To me, that means that of EVERY CREATURE, Jesus was the one brought forth FIRST.
You too agree that “firstborn” means “the one born first”. It's just that you have nonsensically and unscripturally changed the word in your own head to say “NEW creation” instead of “ALL creation”. Why? What would drive a sensible man to do such a thing?
What would drive a sensible man to rearrange John 1:14 in such a way that we now have an unknown only begotten from the Father? What would drive a sensible man to ignore the fact that ALL THINGS IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH, including the AGES (with an “S”), were created through Jesus? It is for these reasons that I posted what I did to you. Don't take offense, sir. I'm only being honest.
peace,
mikeQuote (kerwin @ Aug. 15 2011,19:28)
So why do you persist in disagreeing even though you should also know those Revelations is addressed to would also know Jesus is the root of David’s faith and the offspring of his body?
Does the scripture say “Root of David's faith”? Or “Root of David”?Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 15 2011,19:28)
Jesus is obvious not speaking of his preexistent stated “I am” which is current tense instead of the past tense “I existed” that you inadvertently replaced it with.
John 8:58 NWT
Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”From Greek expert and Professor Jason BeDuhn:
I AM
“The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of ‘I am’, and properly integrate the words into the context of the passages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate. All the translations except the LB and NWT also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English. Theses changes in the meaning of the Greek and in the normal procedure for translation point to a bias that has interfered with the work of the translators. No one listening to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression ‘I am’, which, if you think about it, is just about the most common pronoun-verb combination in any language. The NWT understands the relation between the two verbs correctly. The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to be found in the NWT.”Kerwin, this is from his book, “Truth in Translation”, where this non-biased professor dissected 9 different English translations of the Bible, and ranked them. The NWT, whose translation he gloats about, is the translation I quoted for you above.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 15 2011,19:28)
What I have written is of the spirit of Scripture. If you understood it then would understand what I wrote.
The “YOU DON'T HAVE THE SPIRIT TO UNDERSTAND” accusation doesn't work on me, Kerwin. I find it to be weak, flawed, and usually the last resort of a person who is losing a debate.peace,
mikekerwin
Quote I am sure you are well aware that David’s faith is rooted in Jesus because scripture testifies that David believed God when God promised him that he would have a son to sit on his throne forever. So why do you persist in disagreeing even though you should also know those Revelations is addressed to would also know Jesus is the root of David’s faith and the offspring of his body? please show scriptures
Pierre
Irene,
Quote Kerwin! No Sir, I only compared those two Scriptures in Rev. 13 to show who Jesus is in John 1:1…. It plainly show that… I also asked you and Marty who that could be in Rev. 19 who that description of that verse is? You or Marty have not answered it…. I have stated that Jesus is called the word of God in Revelations 19- while scripture states the Spirit is the Word of God. The Spirit being the Word of God therefore has a better claim to being the Word in John 1- than Jesus who is merely called the Word of God. You have yet to answer why you disregard the Spirit being the Word in John 1- even though you should know that the Spirit is God and is with God and was so from the beginning because it is God’s Spirit. You also should know that is comes from above and that no one but it knows God and thus can reveal God to man.
Colossians does not say old creation and the purpose of the New Testament is to teach of the new creation and not the old one as the old one is passing away and the new is being revealed. Jesus is the first born of the new creations and those that believe are the first fruits and they and all else will be created through him and by him and for him. This is clear from reading the New Testament. So to interpret Colossians 1- as speaking of the new covenant is in line with what the whole New Testament teaches about the relationship between Jesus and the new creation.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 17 2011,15:21) Irene, Quote Kerwin! No Sir, I only compared those two Scriptures in Rev. 13 to show who Jesus is in John 1:1…. It plainly show that… I also asked you and Marty who that could be in Rev. 19 who that description of that verse is? You or Marty have not answered it…. I have stated that Jesus is called the word of God in Revelations 19- while scripture states the Spirit is the Word of God.Spirit being the Word of God therefore has a better claim to being the Wo The rd in John 1- than Jesus who is merely called the Word of God. You have yet to answer why you disregard the Spirit being the Word in John 1- even though you should know that the Spirit is God and is with God and was so from the beginning because it is God’s Spirit. You also should know that is comes from above and that no one but it knows God and thus can reveal God to man.
Colossians does not say old creation and the purpose of the New Testament is to teach of the new creation and not the old one as the old one is passing away and the new is being revealed. Jesus is the first born of the new creations and those that believe are the first fruits and they and all else will be created through him and by him and for him. This is clear from reading the New Testament. So to interpret Colossians 1- as speaking of the new covenant is in line with what the whole New Testament teaches about the relationship between Jesus and the new creation.
Kerwin!How can the Holy Spirit become flesh?
Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER; FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH…
I only know one that was begotten of the Father and that is who became Jesus…..
Not only that God through The Word of God, created all, just like it says in. I am giving you all these Scriptures to show you that it is who became Jesus..
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
If God created all through Jesus< He had to be there….and He was….
Now to the New creation.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
After this happened it became the New Creation…. which we are part of , by God Holy Spirit.
Before that there was no new creation….You claim that John 1:1 is the Holy Spirit? And that Spirit became flesh?
Mm now you are talking trinity…. The Holy Spirit of God is not made flesh, and if you say through Jesus who was born of Maria and then the Holy Spirit is the Word of God??
makes no sense at all. The Holy Spirit is not first of all, the only begotten of the Father John 1:14 and cannot become flesh….. it lives in all born again Christians, the Church Col 1:18 where Jesus is the Head of….. No Church in this society is the true Church…. It has to come yet….Right now it is Spiritual by nature….I find it so ironic that in Rev. 19 you agree it is Jesus, but when it says the same in John 1:1 then it is the Holy Spirit, which is not the only begotten of the Father, or can it ever become flesh…..
Peace Irene
Mike,
Quote Does the scripture say “Root of David's faith”? Or “Root of David”? I see that as a useless question as I can with equal validity ask you ‘Does scripture sat “Root of David’s flesh or Root of David?” as the answer to either is inferred and not explicit.
Quote Kerwin, this is from his book, “Truth in Translation”, where this non-biased professor dissected 9 different English translations of the Bible, and ranked them. The NWT, whose translation he gloats about, is the translation I quoted for you above. “Unbiased”? He is a human being and so if a slave to sin he is biased towards sin but if a servant to righteousness he is biased towards God.
But as for his argument, it is weak at best.
The words would be better written as:
Ere Abraham made (ginomai), I am +(eimi)
I admit that the King James Version translated “eimi” to the past tense “was” 1 time out of 146 occurrences. It translates it to the present tense 138 times and I am uncertain of the last 7. Of course what is Jesus debating with the unspiritual Jews when he spoke these words.
Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman at the well to make the same point and the word “eimi” is translated to “am he”.
Quote John 4
King James Version (KJV)25The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.Quote The “YOU DON'T HAVE THE SPIRIT TO UNDERSTAND” accusation doesn't work on me, Kerwin. I find it to be weak, flawed, and usually the last resort of a person who is losing a debate. “Do you who say do not steal, steal?” Paul of Tarsus.
I quote those paraphrased words as I was responding to your own accusation by pointing out that you are in agreement with those Jews Jesus accused of being unspiritual. I on the other hand am in agreement with Jesus’ words that he is the Anointed and so is greater than Abraham and yet you accused me of having an unscriptural imagination. Test your beliefs and actions to make sure they are in tune with God’s spirit. I assure you that I test my own.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 17 2011,16:46)
Mike,Quote Does the scripture say “Root of David's faith”? Or “Root of David”? I see that as a useless question as I can with equal validity ask you ‘Does scripture sat “Root of David’s flesh or Root of David?” as the answer to either is inferred and not explicit.
What kind of answer is that? Actually is it quite explicit and says “The Root of David”, not “The Root of David's faith”.Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 17 2011,16:46)
I admit that the King James Version translated “eimi” to the past tense “was” 1 time out of 146 occurrences.
That's right Kerwin. I assume you speak of John 14:9. And look at how all of these translators render the PRESENT tense of “eimi”.
New International Version (©1984)
Jesus answered: “Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?English Standard Version (©2001)
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?International Standard Version (©2008)
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? The person who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus replied, “I have been with all of you for a long time. Don't you know me yet, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?King James Bible
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?American King James Version
Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Show us the Father?American Standard Version
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?Bible in Basic English
Jesus said to him, Philip, have I been with you all this time, and still you have no knowledge of me? He who has seen me has seen the Father. Why do you say, Let us see the Father?Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father?English Revised Version
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Shew us the Father?Webster's Bible Translation
Jesus saith to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me Philip? he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?Weymouth New Testament
“Have I been so long among you,” Jesus answered, “and yet you, Philip, do not know me? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can *you* ask me, 'Cause us to see the Father'?World English Bible
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, 'Show us the Father?'This is one of the Greek “idioms” that Professor BeDuhn was talking about. Because in John 14:9, almost every translator understands that Jesus was saying he HAD BEEN with Philip for a long time – and so they translate it that way into English. But like the Professor said, when it comes to 8:58, all of a sudden they forget how to translate, and end up with a sentence that makes absolutely no sense in English.
58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham came into existence, I am!”
Now think about the sentence as a whole, Kerwin. BEFORE ABRAHAM CAME INTO EXISTENCE, I…………………(what?)
The English present tense “AM” doesn't work in 8:58 any better than it works in 14:9. But because the Trinitarian scholars want this to be some “secret message” that Jesus was slipping in, they don't adjust the present tense for English like they do in 14:9.
Think about it. If the “I AM” part was supposed to be Jesus calling himself by God's Name, then the sentence is STILL lacking. For then it would say, “Before Abraham came into existence, Jehovah”. What?
Jehovah did WHAT? Jehovah was WHAT? Get it? And do you notice that because of the words “BEFORE ABRAHAM”, the rest of the sentence has no choice but to be PAST TENSE. Just like when I asked Jehovah DID (past tense) what? Or Jehovah WAS (past tense) what?So even for the Trinitarian botch-job to work, Jesus would have had to say, “Before Abraham existed, I WAS I am.” Or “I HAVE BEEN I am”.
It is simply a Greek idiom, where to the Greek speaking people, it made perfect sense to say, “Before I met my wife, I AM single for 20 years.” Now in English, that present tense would not make sense. We would say the same sentence using the words “I WAS single” instead of “I AM single”. The translators know this stuff and translate accordingly in 14:9. But because of their lame attempt to make Jesus be claiming that he is God Himself, they don't translate accordingly in 8:58.
Kerwin, do you understand all that I've just shown you? Does it make sense to you? Can you show me that I'm wrong about it?
mike
Mike,
Quote What kind of answer is that? I voiced my opinion that your questioning of what I believed was inferred in the two passages of Revelations calling Jesus the root of David was in itself based on your own beliefs and so was a loaded question.
Quote Actually is it quite explicit and says “The Root of David”, not “The Root of David's faith”. Your understanding is not explicit according to the Strong’s which defines root (rhiza) as:
Quote 1.a root
2.that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot
3.metaph. offspring, progenyNote: metaph.= metaphysical
Quote That's right Kerwin. I assume you speak of John 14:9. And look at how all of these translators render the PRESENT tense of “eimi”. I did not know but thank you for telling me. I have not looked into the matter much and so at first I was of the opinion Jesus used as a historic present similarly to how a historical chronicler uses such for a series of events. After more research I have come to believe it is more likely a present continuous use to show an incomplete action in progress at a specific time.
Quote Now think about the sentence as a whole, Kerwin. BEFORE ABRAHAM CAME INTO EXISTENCE, I…………………(what?) The English present tense “AM” doesn't work in 8:58 any better than it works in 14:9. But because the Trinitarian scholars want this to be some “secret message” that Jesus was slipping in, they don't adjust the present tense for English like they do in 14:9.
I translated “ginomai” to made as it is translated that way in John 1:14 and can fit both our understanding for John 8:58 while “came into existence” is a loaded translation. In John 1:14 you can see that the word “ginomai” flesh while in John 8:58 what Abraham “ginomai” is not explicitly written. You believe it infers “existent” while I believe it infers “great/anointed” and so the sentence becomes:
Before Abraham was made great/anointed, I am (either historical present or present continuous) great/anointed.
Quote It is simply a Greek idiom, where to the Greek speaking people, it made perfect sense to say, “Before I met my wife, I AM single for 20 years.” Now in English, that present tense would not make sense. We would say the same sentence using the words “I WAS single” instead of “I AM single”. The translators know this stuff and translate accordingly in 14:9. But because of their lame attempt to make Jesus be claiming that he is God Himself, they don't translate accordingly in 8:58. I see that by your example you are speaking of incorrect translations. I can certainly see the possibility that John 8:58 and John 14:9 are poor translations of either the historic present or the present continuous. In either case translating it to the past tense does not convey the actual meaning of the words. For example using the present continuous tense Jesus was telling Philip that he has been, is, and will be with him in seeable future. I believe that the use of the historic past tense is more straight forward as it speaks of the past as if it were presently occurring.
I am still looking into the matter.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 17 2011,15:21) Irene, Quote Kerwin! No Sir, I only compared those two Scriptures in Rev. 13 to show who Jesus is in John 1:1…. It plainly show that… I also asked you and Marty who that could be in Rev. 19 who that description of that verse is? You or Marty have not answered it…. I have stated that Jesus is called the word of God in Revelations 19- while scripture states the Spirit is the Word of God. The Spirit being the Word of God therefore has a better claim to being the Word in John 1- than Jesus who is merely called the Word of God. You have yet to answer why you disregard the Spirit being the Word in John 1- even though you should know that the Spirit is God and is with God and was so from the beginning because it is God’s Spirit. You also should know that is comes from above and that no one but it knows God and thus can reveal God to man.
Colossians does not say old creation and the purpose of the New Testament is to teach of the new creation and not the old one as the old one is passing away and the new is being revealed. Jesus is the first born of the new creations and those that believe are the first fruits and they and all else will be created through him and by him and for him. This is clear from reading the New Testament. So to interpret Colossians 1- as speaking of the new covenant is in line with what the whole New Testament teaches about the relationship between Jesus and the new creation.
Kerwin ………Your have it right, the SPIRIT (INTELLECT) is EXPRESSED through WORDS, the LOGOS is the SPIRIT WORD OF GOD EXPRESSED through JESUS to US, GOD and HIS WORD are one and the SAME and GOD, the SPIRIT LOGOS was (IN) JESUS and Spoke to us through Him first person. Jesus was not lying when He said the “FATHER WAS IN ME”. He (the FATHER) can also be (IN) us also through that same SPIRIT LOGOS that was in Jesus, just as Paladin brought out. IMOpeace and love to you and yours……………………………gene
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 18 2011,23:27) gene so do you believe Jesus when he says that he came from heaven
Pierre
Pierre,You are inadvertently asking a loaded question and so I will answer it with two questions that avoid the loaded characteristic.
Do you believe God who teaches us every good and perfect things comes from above?
If so then was Jesus' mortal human body good and perfect?
I believe that which is good and perfect in Jesus came from above while that which is not, did not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
