Preexistence

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 18 2011,00:40)

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, progeny

So the first and therefore most popular definition is “root”, just like it is always translated, huh?  

Also, see my last post to Gene in the incarnation thread.  For your understanding to be true, Jesus claims to be the Offspring AND the Offspring of David in Rev 22:16.

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 18 2011,00:40)

………and so the sentence becomes: Before Abraham was made great/anointed, I am (either historical present or present continuous) great/anointed.

I see.  So the words are “I AM”, the question becomes, “I AM WHAT?”, and we are just allowed to fill in any answer to that question?  Your version could be, “Before Abraham was made, I am”.  But there is no Greek word from which to get “great/anointed”, either referring to Abraham or Jesus.

In other words, you are just adding in whatever scripturally unsupported words you want to add.

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 18 2011,00:40)

For example using the present continuous tense Jesus was telling Philip that he has been, is, and will be with him in seeable future.

Okay then.  But you need to compare apples to apples, right?  So if in the case of Philip it means “has been, is, and will be”, then that is the same in the case of Abraham.  So it would mean that before Abraham was ginomai, Jesus “had been, is, and will be”.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 19 2011,14:40)

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.

Kerwin

it is not a loaded question it is so simple it could be answered by yes or no,

it become loaded if you do not believe the words of Christ as he said,or you looking to make your own interpretation to those words,

all the verses and many are there would be not true without your interpretation ??

Quote

Do you believe God who teaches us every good and perfect things comes from above?

yes i do,the strange thing is you do not,you see it is the same person Jesus that has given us the truth and the understanding of Gods word ,and it is you who refuse to believe his words,

you say you believe the scriptures but not the way it is written ,right ? Jesus is the channel that God as used to give us his grace straight from heaven in the person of Christ

Quote

If so then was Jesus' mortal human body good and perfect?

tell me Kerwin ;how can a mortal human body be mortal and perfect  at the same time ??

an perfect human  does not die or as a dead curse of sin in it ,

just as Adam did not have to die ,it was the sentence of his sin that killed him,

so your theory of not accepting the words of Christ are only for personal opinion or believes ,

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Hi Kerwin,

I almost forgot:  What do you make of all those scholars who translated “I AM” as “I HAVE BEEN” in John 14:9?  And do you suppose that if the Trinity was out of the picture, those same scholars would have also translated it as “I HAVE BEEN” in 8:58 – like the NWT does? I know they would have.  

Here's another example for you:

Last week I drove my car all the way to L.A.  Here I am, driving and driving………..not even noticing that my blinker was on the whole way.

Do you see how I used the words “I AM” when I really meant “I WAS”?  I even said “NOTICING” when I really meant “NOTICED”.

The more I thought about this, the more I remembered that even English speaking people do this a lot.  If you'd like, I'll find you some examples from the internet.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Kerwin,

I was reading a post t8 made a minute ago, and found this from him:

“The directors then face criminal charges because they take in investors who are under the impression that all is good and this is a good company to invest in.”

See?  He did it too.  The words “THEN face criminal charges” let's us know that t8 really meant to say “because they TOOK in investors who WERE under the impression that all WAS good and this WAS a good company to HAVE INVESTED in”.

It is what Professor BeDuhn calls an “idiom”.  Some people talk this way sometimes.  But because Jesus said, “BEFORE Abraham”, he could ONLY have meant “I WAS”………even if he said “I AM”, like he did in 14:9.

[Pastry]

Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 18 2011,09:16)

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

Kerwin! Again you did not answer this….Irene

[Proclaimer]

“I am” is a translation from Greek words “ego eimi”. Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh?

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

I see.  So the words are “I AM”, the question becomes, “I AM WHAT?”, and we are just allowed to fill in any answer to that question?  Your version could be, “Before Abraham was made, I am”.  But there is no Greek word from which to get “great/anointed”, either referring to Abraham or Jesus. In other words, you are just adding in whatever scripturally unsupported words you want to add.

Translators commonly add implied words to passages because such unwritten words occur in the Greek language.  They are also known to occur in the English language so you should know about them.  Calling the use of implied words unscriptural is therefore unsound.    To use one of T8’s examples when the translators translate ego eimi in Acts 10 to I am and then add a “he” they believe is implied.  The KJV translators did the same with John 14:9 by adding “Have I” to  “been”(eimi) as they believed those words were implied.   So instead of denying that implied words happen why don’t you discuss why you believe they did not happen in this case.

I have concluded Jesus is using implied words because I do not see any words in the sentence that tie it in with the point he was previously making with his listeners. That point was teaching them that he is continuously the Messiah and therefore greater than Abraham.  He did not mention anything about existing before Abraham in the whole conversation before v 58 and so why should one read it in that on verse.

Quote

Okay then.  But you need to compare apples to apples, right?  So if in the case of Philip it means “has been, is, and will be”, then that is the same in the case of Abraham.  So it would mean that before Abraham was ginomai, Jesus “had been, is, and will be”.

I have looked more into the matter and concluded that like in John 14:9, Jesus is using a present progressive to state I continuously am before Abraham was made.  

Quote

I almost forgot:  What do you make of all those scholars who translated “I AM” as “I HAVE BEEN” in John 14:9?  And do you suppose that if the Trinity was out of the picture, those same scholars would have also translated it as “I HAVE BEEN” in 8:58 – like the NWT does?  I know they would have\

The Scholars are aware of present progressives and therefore should have easily figured out that Jesus told Philip I continuously am so long with you…”  John 8:58 is more difficult whether it is being employed as a historic present or a present progressive.    I find the Trinitarian argument to be mystical in nature but not that which is from God.

Quote

Here's another example for you: Last week I drove my car all the way to L.A.  Here I am, driving and driving………..not even noticing that my blinker was on the whole way. Do you see how I used the words “I AM” when I really meant “I WAS”?  I even said “NOTICING” when I really meant “NOTICED”. The more I thought about this, the more I remembered that even English speaking people do this a lot.  If you'd like, I'll find you some examples from the internet.

You are using an historic present in that example as well is in your example of T8 using one in your next post.   That is different from the present progressive which also occurs in English.

[kerwin]

Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 19 2011,08:53)

Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 18 2011,09:16) 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 Kerwin!  Again you did not answer this….Irene

Irene,

I thought I was keeping up with the posts. I am sorry for the error but do not have sufficent time to make ammends at the moment. I will mention that the Spirit of God is made flesh when it incarnated into a human being. If you look up the definitions of incarnate the should tell you that.

As for the rest if the Lord is willing I will get back to you on it.

[kerwin]

Irene,

Quote

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….

We agree that Colossians 1:18 is speaking of the new creation.

But I wish to direct your attention to verse 17 and ask you if you believe that all the old creation holds together in Christ Jesus especially since the purpose of the new covenant, according to verse 18, is that in all things Jesus the Son of God might have supremacy.

Quote

You claim that John 1:1 is the Holy Spirit?  And that Spirit became flesh? Mm now you are talking trinity.

I am speaking of God dwelling in the human being Jesus through the holy spirit of God.   That trinity is not the trinity taught by Trinitarians as only God is God.    

Any son of God is a son because God dwells in him through the Spirit of God.  It is Jesus union with the Spirit that allows all others to also be united with God through the spirit and thus he is the way, the truth, and the light.

Quote

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??

Scripture declares that as of the flesh Jesus is the seed of David and to be the seed of David he must be created from a part of a descendent of David. Therefore the human being known as Jesus is indeed created from a part of Maria.  The spirit of God is directly incarnated into the human being Jesus making him the Son of God.

Quote

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 is true that the Spirit of God does not transform into a human being but it instead unites with a human to become one with him just as a man marries a woman and the two become one.  

What came from God before his own spirit?

Quote

….. it lives in all born again Christians, the Church Col 1:18 where Jesus is the Head of

I agree but I also will add that it first lives in Jesus and so he is the head of the church.

[kerwin]

Pierre,

Quote

it is not a loaded question it is so simple it could be answered by yes or no,

I am sure you do not see it as a loaded question and that I do and so I see no sense in debating it.

Quote

you say you believe the scriptures but not the way it is written ,right ?

Scripture is as it is written but words are malleable and so can be understood in different ways depending on different factors.  What I am saying therefore is I do not believe your understanding of scripture.

Quote

Jesus is the channel that God as used to give us his grace straight from heaven in the person of Christ

That sounds like an accurate description.

Quote

yes i do,

So we agree that all good and perfect things come from God.

Quote

tell me Kerwin ;how can a mortal human body be mortal and perfect  at the same time ??

God did not create human beings to be mortal.  It is through sin human beings were reduced from that state of perfection.

Scripture also instructs us that the body will be made perfect with these words.

Quote

1 Corinthians 15 King James Version (KJV) 54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

and

Quote

2 Corinthians 5:4 King James Version (KJV)  4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

A mortal body therefore does not come from heaven.

Dou you believe Jesus had a mortal body?

[Ed J]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 19 2011,16:18)

“I am” is a translation from Greek words “ego eimi”. Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh? Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In John 9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14. No Trinity here. Back to the drawing board.

Hi T8,

“i am” is a mistranslation and it also does NOT equate to Ex.3:14, [אהיה] translates into English as “I WILL”.

[אהיה אשר אהיה] translates into English as “I WILL BE what I WILL BE“. (Link)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Pastry]

Quote

We agree that Colossians 1:18 is speaking of the new creation. But I wish to direct your attention to verse 17 and ask you if you believe that all the old creation holds together in Christ Jesus especially since the purpose of the new covenant, according to verse 18, is that in all things Jesus the Son of God might have supremacy.

Kerwin!  Yes, is the answer, but that does not explain what soever John 1:14 where it says that The Word of God who was with God BTW is the only begotten of the Father

Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  

Jhn 1:2   The same was in the beginning with God.  

THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD, WHO WAS WITH GOD

Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.  

THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER….. HE WAS THERE WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING.   HE DID NOT BECOME A BEING WHEN HE BECAME A MAN…. HE WAS THERE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS AND THIOS SCRIPTURE ALSO PROOFS IT……

Jhn 17:4   I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.  

Jhn 17:5   And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with there before the world was.

You see what you are doing your putting your own twist with those Scriptures, it has nothing to do with Gods Holy Spirit, and all with THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER WHO BECAME JESUS……..

Lets go this far, and then we will go with the rest that You did not address, that is who is the firstborn of all creation….Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14

Peace Irene

[kerwin]

Mike,

I am going to try your method of breaking up various topics into separate conversations.

Quote

So the first and therefore most popular definition is “root”, just like it is always translated, huh?

So Jesus is the plant root of David?

Enough of reducing your argument to an absurdity as I believe you are trying to make the point that “Jesus is the root of David” cannot mean “Jesus is the root of David’s faith”.

So do you believe that “Jesus is the way” can mean “faith in Jesus is the way” and that “Jesus saves” can mean “faith in Jesus saves”?

I assume you do and so you should already know that stating Jesus is the faith root of David can be paraphrased as Jesus is the root of David for the same reasons.

Quote

For your understanding to be true, Jesus claims to be the Offspring AND the Offspring of David in Rev 22:16.

I do not believe these words of yours are true but I acknowledge that according to one definition of Strong’s that would be the case.    I do not see that definition fitting the context of the passage in question.

Instead I am convinced that Jesus is the faith root of David because Jesus believed that a time would come when the seed of his body would sit on his throne forever.  Having that knowledge from other scriptures I can see where it also fits the context of Revelations 22:16.

Quote

Also, see my last post to Gene in the incarnation thread.

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 18 2011,08:13)

Mike my question to you is why would you even see it any different then that, is it because of a “PREDISPOSED” Position you have and therefore tend to force the text to Meet those positions?

Gene is correct that you do have a predisposed position that you believe fits the context of Revelations 22:16 and other scriptures.  I believe you are convinced that position is based on ideas expressed in other scriptures.  The question is whether those ideas are from God or are they from mankind.

As for me, it is the ideas expressed by God through scriptures that I seek to understand.  

If you understand the works of lawyers then you know that the letter can support many ideas even though they are not those of the author.

[Pastry]

Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 19 2011,22:14)

Quote We agree that Colossians 1:18 is speaking of the new creation. But I wish to direct your attention to verse 17 and ask you if you believe that all the old creation holds together in Christ Jesus especially since the purpose of the new covenant, according to verse 18, is that in all things Jesus the Son of God might have supremacy. Kerwin!  Yes, is the answer, but that does not explain what soever John 1:14 where it says that The Word of God who was with God BTW is the only begotten of the Father Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   Jhn 1:2   The same was in the beginning with God.   THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD, WHO WAS WITH GOD Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.   THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER….. HE WAS THERE WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING.   HE DID NOT BECOME A BEING WHEN HE BECAME A MAN…. HE WAS THERE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS AND THIS SCRIPTURE ALSO PROOFS IT…… Jhn 17:4   I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.   Jhn 17:5   And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with there before the world was. You see what you are doing your putting your own twist with those Scriptures, it has nothing to do with Gods Holy Spirit, and all with THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER WHO BECAME JESUS…….. Lets go this far, and then we will go with the rest that You did not address, that is who is the firstborn of all creation….Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14 Peace Irene

Kerwin! I am patiently waiting for your answer…..Irene

[terraricca]

Kerwin

Quote

If you understand the works of lawyers then you know that the letter can support many ideas even though they are not those of the author.

i do not believe this ;the letter and words are used to say ? but letters and words are limited to what the expression of them means ;but also what they do not mean,and what was the intend for those letter and words,there limit of understanding

some people will stretch words be on there meaning or reduce the full meaning of the words and letters,some time people will not believe in simple words or letters expressed like ;

Jn 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
Jn 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

what do you think Nicodemus understood from those words Christ say to him ?

would it not be that Christ came from heaven ?or was Jesus tried to deceit Nicodemus by making up a story ? or was Jesus talking in a allegory way ?you see what i mean ?

some times you have to believe the words and letters the way they are ,because their are complete the way they are,

Pierre

[kerwin]

Pierre,

Quote

I do not believe this;

Never the less it is true because human languages need to be somewhat generic in order to fit many circumstances.  In addition, not all we mean is in what we write or say since we tend to assume our readers understand the basic concept we discuss.  

Quote

But letters and words are limited to what the expression of them means; but also what they do not mean

You are correct that there are broad meanings of words and letters and those words eliminate some possibilities but even that is dependent on the circumstances.

Quote

some people will stretch words be on there meaning or reduce the full meaning of the words and letters,some time people will not believe in simple words or letters expressed like ;

It is not the ideas that are complicated but the point of view necessary to understand them correctly.  Jesus even teaches Nichodemus that when he says “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”

He then goes on to speak of heavenly things by saying “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.”

I ask you to judge for yourself if Jesus was speaking of his physical body or the Holy Spirit within him as a heavenly thing.

Quote

would it not be that Christ came from heaven ?or was Jesus tried to deceit Nicodemus by making up a story ? or was Jesus talking in a allegory way ?you see what i mean ?

Jesus is speaking in spiritual words that the spiritual discerning can hear because they know “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.”

[kerwin]

Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 20 2011,02:28)

Quote (Pastry @ Aug. 19 2011,22:14) Quote We agree that Colossians 1:18 is speaking of the new creation. But I wish to direct your attention to verse 17 and ask you if you believe that all the old creation holds together in Christ Jesus especially since the purpose of the new covenant, according to verse 18, is that in all things Jesus the Son of God might have supremacy. Kerwin!  Yes, is the answer, but that does not explain what soever John 1:14 where it says that The Word of God who was with God BTW is the only begotten of the Father Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   Jhn 1:2   The same was in the beginning with God.   THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD, WHO WAS WITH GOD Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.   THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER….. HE WAS THERE WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING.   HE DID NOT BECOME A BEING WHEN HE BECAME A MAN…. HE WAS THERE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS AND THIS SCRIPTURE ALSO PROOFS IT…… Jhn 17:4   I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.   Jhn 17:5   And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with there before the world was. You see what you are doing your putting your own twist with those Scriptures, it has nothing to do with Gods Holy Spirit, and all with THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER WHO BECAME JESUS…….. Lets go this far, and then we will go with the rest that You did not address, that is who is the firstborn of all creation….Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14 Peace Irene Kerwin!  I am patiently waiting for your answer…..Irene

Irene,

Thank you for your answer. It concerns me that according to what you appear to be saying in regards to Colossians 1,, there was no reason for Jesus to appear in these last ages, to sacrifice himself, be resurrected, ascend, and mediate as he was already mediating in heaven. Of course that concern is not directly connected to John 1:1-

John 1:14 does not say “that The Word of God who was with God BTW is the only begotten of the Father”. If you reread the more accurate translations then you will find it instead says The Word made flesh has a glory like that of the only begotten of God. Please note that for their own reasons some translations drop the comparison word; even though it is clearly in the Greek manuscripts.

John 1:1+ does not state that the Word was a being prior to when it states the Word became flesh.

John 1:1 states that the Word of God is both with God and is God in the beginning. The Spirit of God fits those criteria as does the Wisdom of God and the literal Word of God.

Where does scripture state the only begotten of God became Jesus?

You accuse me of putting my own ideas in scripture and yet my conscious is clear on this matter as I know that I speak the truth when I state the Spirit of God was God and was with God in the beginning and was made flesh by being united with the human being Jesus. The same is true of both the Word and Wisdom of God as the Spirit of God carries out is Word and reveals it as it also does with his Wisdom. These things are clear in scripture and you have not disagreed.

[terraricca]

Kerwin

Quote

It is not the ideas that are complicated but the point of view necessary to understand them correctly. Jesus even teaches Nichodemus that when he says “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” He then goes on to speak of heavenly things by saying “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.” I ask you to judge for yourself if Jesus was speaking of his physical body or the Holy Spirit within him as a heavenly thing. Quote would it not be that Christ came from heaven ?or was Jesus tried to deceit Nicodemus by making up a story ? or was Jesus talking in a allegory way ?you see what i mean ? Jesus is speaking in spiritual words that the spiritual discerning can hear because they know “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.”

the question is not the flesh but the soul what is spirit ;this was the real Christ that came down from heaven. the flesh is the box

Pierre

[Pastry]

Kerwin, no the is not what I am saying.  
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:  

These verses have nothing to do with the scarifies of Jesus.  But with what Jesus was before the world was created…. And then through Jesus God created all… That is what it says… Just like it says in John 1:3 He was not a mediator then.  He came to die for us and that now makes Him a mediator between man and God…. Before they had to scarify an animal to have their sins forgiven,now w have Jesus who is the perfect Scarifies….we now go through Jesus….
That was not possible before He came down from Heaven to die for us….so that theory does not make sense….
John !:14 says that The Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us, as the only begotten of the Father…. Who is that Kerwin… I believe that is who became Jesus and not the Holy Spirit of God….

Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 19 2011,02:04)

I have concluded Jesus is using implied words because I do not see any words in the sentence that tie it in with the point he was previously making with his listeners.

The Jews:  What are you talking about, dude?    You are not even 50 years old!  How in the world could YOU have seen Abraham?  

Jesus:  Before Abraham ever existed, I have existed.  Therefore, because of this, I HAVE seen Abraham.

THAT is the point Jesus was making to his listeners, Kerwin.  And adding an implied “him” or “they” is one thing.  Adding an implied “great” or “anointed”, when there is nothing in the context from which to get those implied words, is something else altogether.

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 19 2011,02:04)

I have looked more into the matter and concluded that like in John 14:9, Jesus is using a present progressive to state I continuously am before Abraham was made.

Well then that seals the deal, Kerwin.  Because Jesus DID contiunously exist before Abraham was made.

So it seems that all your searching into the matter has landed you at the truth after all.    Now, hurry up and just ACCEPT what your searching has caused you to discover.  Accept it as it is, without trying to bend over backwards to find some non-sensical way to make this truth NOT mean that Jesus pre-existed.

mike

[Author]

Posts