Preexistence

Participant

Mike,

Quote

God is a spirit being, and would therefore beget, not Himself, but another, different spirit being. What you imply is that people would bow down and pay taxes to the infant child of King David, just because that child's FATHER is the King. The King of Israel would not beget other Kings of Israel, causing Israel to have many kings at one time. Likewise, the Omniscient Creator of all things would not beget the Omniscient Creator of all things, causing us to have two of them. Instead, God would beget a DIFFERENT spirit being who was NOT the Omniscient Creator of all things, and therefore NOT worthy of the worship we give only to the Omniscient Creator of all things.

You are mixing up kind and rank in what you wrote. Therefore it seems that you believe God himself is an angel with the rank of God and Jesus is an angel with the rank of Heir. You also seem to believe that, unlike flesh, all spirit is the same.

I disagree! God is the Alpha and Omega of his kind and he is the First and the Last of his kind. He is God because of whom and what he is as his kind, of which he is the only one, cannot be tempted by evil. On the other hand angels are tempted by evil and some have even fallen to it.

Quote

Actually, scripture doesn't specify that only “NEW things” are created through Jesus.

It is not explicitly written in that way but the idea is specifically expressed in scripture from the first fruits made in the image of Christ to the time God states “I make all things new” in Revelations 21:5.

Quote

Where exactly are you seeing “only the NEW things”?

God uses the words “all things” in regards to only the new things in Revelations 1:5.

Quote

Revelation 21:5
King James Version (KJV)

5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

August 29, 2011 at 9:58 pm#257305

Participant

Irene,

Quote

Does that make Jesus God to be worshiped???

This line of conversation began with Mike stating he believed Jesus was created from a part of God. I answered that God divided cannot stand. He did not seem to understand my response and so I added that making Jesus from a part of God would make two Gods worthy of being worshipped; just like one human being is made from another. That is where you came in. I and Mike have each made at least one addition post in that conversation since then. Feel free to follow it.

Quote

Scriptures state that only Jehovah God should be worshiped…

I agree.

Quote

When you understand that God and The Word of God are titles it becomes much easier to understand what Scriptures say..

I agree that Jesus holds both those titles.

Quote

It also states that God by Jesus created all….

I agree that God, by Jesus, has made; is making; and will make all things new for that is why Jesus sacrificed himself; was resurrected with power; and ascended to mediate the new covenant.

August 30, 2011 at 2:27 am#257340

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 29 2011,10:12)

You are mixing up kind and rank in what you wrote. Therefore it seems that you believe God himself is an angel with the rank of God and Jesus is an angel with the rank of Heir.

No Kerwin. I believe that God is a spirit being. Do YOU believe that?

Wouldn't a spirit being beget a DIFFERENT spirit being who is not himself?

And you have not addressed the fact that you apparently think it is impossible for God to have begotten a son unto Himself. Do you think this is impossible for God, Kerwin?

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 29 2011,10:12)

Of course it's not explicitely written that way, Kerwin. What IS explicitely written is that ALL things came through the Word, God's Son, AND our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm actually glad you brought up Rev 21:5. Maybe through that scripture, you can see that just because God is making NEW things doesn't mean He didn't also make ALL things.

Similarly, just because NEW things are created through Jesus doesn't mean that ALL things weren't also created through him.

If we applied YOUR logic to Rev 21:5, we could claim that ONLY the NEW things came from God, not ALL things. I hope this helps you to see what you're doing with Jesus.

mike

August 30, 2011 at 6:16 am#257353

Participant

Mike,

Quote

Of course it's not explicitly written that way, Kerwin. What IS explicitely written is that ALL things came through the Word, God's Son, AND our Lord Jesus Christ.

This remark sounds like you have no clue how language works. Whether that is true or not I figure that it is wisest to go over it in case it is.

Here is an essay challenge for students to teaching them that words can express messages that are both clearly stated and implied in meaning. Learning this fact is said to help them to better practice critical thinking. Scripture, like the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, has both implied and implicit ideas.

teachersdomain.org reads:

Quote

Overview

Students watch two video segments about the Fourteenth Amendment and then write an essay addressing where the amendment is explicit or implicit in meaning.

Why is this an important concept?

Understanding that language can present messages that are both clearly stated and implied in meaning is an important part of critical reading and reading comprehension strategies. When students are able to understand that language includes nuance and “gray” areas in meaning, they are better able to practice and apply critical thinking, ask “big concept” questions and in turn become more open to the possibilities of multiple interpretations in various issues and subject matters.

Quote

I see, Kerwin. So when Col 1:16 says that all things in heaven and earth were made through him, it means something different then when those same words are said in John 1?

From what you write here it seems best to go over context as well.

heinemann.com reads:

Quote

What is context?

Sometimes context has been conceptualized rather narrowly, as the words surrounding a particular word in question, within a sentence or phrase. In the last three decades, though, it has become increasingly evident that context means many things—even the context relevant to reading just an individual word. Context includes the grammar of sentences and the meanings of words; a paragraph; a whole story or other text. Context is also taken to include the reader's expectations and purposes for reading; various aspects of the location and situation in which the person is reading; and even the person's culture and times—in short, the reader's entire background of knowledge and experience (e.g. Brown, 1997). These various factors operate simultaneously for proficient readers; they usually operate quite unconsciously; and they can affect the identification of single words as well as the reader's understanding of an entire text. The automatic use of context—of multiple contexts—is a crucial part of the reading process, though most people don't realize it.

I hope these help. If not then perhaps we can both look into these matters some more.

Note 1: here is the source to my quote on implied and explicit ideas behind words.

Note 2:here is the source to my quote on the context of words.

August 30, 2011 at 10:06 pm#257398

Participant

Pierre,

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 28 2011,21:32)

you are speculating in your own mind, if you have inside show it do not say foolish thing based on your own feelings,

if scriptures says what it says and we have it wrong you would clearly be able to show your point in the way of truth ,of scriptures ,

so do it or do not say you know when you do not ,what you believe is also your personal acceptance of whatever you feel is true to you, this does not make it the TRUTH of God,…

You wrote that in response to these words.

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 29 2011,00:13)

Mike,

…

You are attempting to interpret “the word “Word” in John 1:1-18 symbolically when a literal interpretation of it is true.

To test if a literal understanding works for John 1:3, I tested if the statement made in it about the Word is true. Anyone that reads the story of creation in Genesis should know that it is true about the literal Word that:

Quote

John 1
King James Version (KJV)

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Did you read all of what I wrote before responding? I ask because I pointed out that Scripture explicitly states that all things were made by the literal Word of God in the creation account recorded in Genesis and you words imply you disagree with that. If really believe that is speculating then you do not believe God created the universe by his word.

Is this scripture also calling your speculative spirit being “the Word of God” or it calling the literal Word of God the “Word of God”?

Quote

Hebrews 11
King James Version (KJV)

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

It is not I who is basing my understanding on the desires of the flesh; which is why I tested if my understanding is true based on faith in God. I am convinced that if our understandings have any common ground that common ground must include believing that all things were created by the literal Word of God and without the literal Word of God nothing was created.

You also wrote the same words in response to this point.

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 29 2011,00:13)

Mike,
…
It is flawed reasoning to believe that John 1:3, Hebrews1:2, and Colossians 1:13-16 are all speaking of the same thing just because the words are the same. For example I can say “I made all of this” and at another time I can say “I made all of this” and yet be speaking of two different things. Therefore context is important.

So putting John 1:3 in the context of John 1:1-18 I will assure you that it speaks only of the old creation and not the new because it speaks of a time before the new creation began to exist. Both Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:13-16 speak of a time after the new creation began to exist.

…

Though I do not see how you can disagree with the idea that the context of John 1:3 speaking of a time previous to the new creation beginning; I do believe that such a debate, unlike discussions over whether or not the universe was created by God’s literal Word, is useful to correctly understand the good news.

If there are other conversations you believe that relates to the preexistence topic and are useful to understanding the good news then I believe they are good to be addressed in this thread. If you disagree with me on such an idea in my post that you just responded to and I failed to address it in this post then please let me know what it is. Thank you!

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 28 2011,21:32)

tell us Kerwin what are those scriptures are saying

I believe that what you accidentally implied earlier was the result of your haste to bring up your point based on Col 1;15 to 20, Heb 1:2, Jn 1:3, and Pr 8:22-24. That is why we are taught to be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry”, James 1:19.

The scriptures you name are scriptures whose true meaning is subject to debate between us and therefore do not make for sound proofs between us. The scriptures that make for sound proofs are those in which we have a common understanding. I believe Hebrews 11:2 and the creation story are such in regards to understanding John 1:3. If I am mistaken then that should be addressed before moving on to other things.

August 30, 2011 at 10:35 pm#257403

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 30 2011,00:16)

This remark sounds like you have no clue how language works.

Says the man who thinks the EXPLICITE word “ALL” actually means “NEW”.

Kerwin, address my point about Rev 21:5 please. Does the word “NEW” in that verse mean that God DIDN'T make ALL things?

Address whether or not you believe God is incapable of begetting a child unto Himself.

Answer the question about whether or not you believe God is spirit. And then address the point about whether or not a spirit being would beget a DIFFERENT spirit being who was NOT the one that begot him.

Your info about implications and context seem to be a red flag signalling the fact that you are unable to actually address the POINTS I'm making in my posts.

When Paul says that ALL things in heaven, on earth, visible or invisible were created through Jesus, where is the “context” or the “implication” that tells us only NEW things were created through him? Tell me what words IN THAT PARTICULAR PASSAGE let you know that “ALL” really means “NEW”. Perhaps I have missed something in Colossians 1.

mike

August 31, 2011 at 12:45 am#257410

Participant

Kerwin

Quote

Did you read all of what I wrote before responding?

I have the habit of taken in account all related scriptures so that the truth can be seen,

you only cut out what you see fit for the view that is acceptable to you,this is not how we end up with the truth of God,

Quote

Is this scripture also calling your speculative spirit being “the Word of God” or it calling the literal Word of God the “Word of God”?

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Jn 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
Jn 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
Jn 1:6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
Jn 1:7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
Jn 1:8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
Jn 1:9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
Jn 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
Jn 1:11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
Jn 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
Jn 1:13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Jn 1:15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”
Jn 1:16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.
Jn 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Jn 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

in those scriptures there are many “him” who is the HIM ?

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by 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 by him and for him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

here are more “HIM” who is HIM ?

Rev 19:13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.who is “HE”??

is this also the the “WORD OF GOD” ? or ??

you may study a elephant with a magnifying glass and go trough all his body and know all its little ,skin features and what not ,BUT YOU WILL NEVER KNOW HOW THE ELEPHANT LOOKS

Quote

THIS COMMENT IS RIDICULES ,YOU SAY YOU FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURES BUT NOW WE MAN HAVE TO DEBATE THE MEANING OF GODS WORDS ?? THE TRUTH IS WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES THE DEBATE IS DO WE ACCEPT SCRIPTURES OR NOT , HOW COULD SOME ONE HAVE SOUND PROOF IF HE REJECT WHAT SCRIPTURES SAYS,???

Pierre

August 31, 2011 at 5:11 am#257424

Participant

Mike,

Quote

Kerwin, address my point about Rev 21:5 please.

Why should I bother since you appear to deny how language works?

Quote

Says the man who thinks the EXPLICITE word “ALL” actually means “NEW”.

This is an example in point as what “all” means depends on the context of what you are speaking about. So the question is not about what the word “all” means but rather about what it is referring to. It is referring to the word creation which is also an explicit word but one that does not either state if it is teaching about the new, old, or both creations. The answer to that mystery is implied by the context of the particular teaching and of Scripture as a whole. You appear to choose to deny that context and arbitrarily chose an answer at you own risk.

If you actually wish to determine what the answer to the mystery is then you examine what the context of that scripture is in order to seek what that context infers.

Quote

Address whether or not you believe God is incapable of begetting a child unto Himself.

I have addressed it but you seem to choose to disregard that the spirit that God is composed of will not do evil and cannot be tempted by evil and thus Jesus, who was tempted, is not made from that type of spirit. Further communications on the issue is meaningless until we agree who God is.

Quote

Your info about implications and context seem to be a red flag signaling the fact that you are unable to actually address the POINTS I'm making in my posts.

Or it could indicate that you appear to be dodging the issues and I am calling you on it because I am getting tired of our communications being in a rut.

Quote

That is actually a good question and so what I am continuously looking for.

Here in verse 13, where the subject of the teaching is mentioned, is some evidence to consider. The question that reveals this evidence is “was it those of the old, new, or both creations that were ‘delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom Jesus Christ’?”

Quote

Colossians 1

King James Version (KJV)

13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

August 31, 2011 at 5:48 am#257426

Participant

Pierre,

Quote

I have the habit of taken in account all related scriptures so that the truth can be seen,

You claim that but I doubt your claim is true or you would have acknowledged that the old creation was in fact created by the literal Word of God. You have yet to acknowledge that the old creation was created by the literal word of God. Why is that?

Quote

you only cut out what you see fit for the view that is acceptable to you, this is not how we end up with the truth of God,

You choose to thus accuse me when I choose to dig down to bedrock and built my house on scriptures that are easily understand; as we agree on their meaning; while you choose to build your house on your own dubious understanding of scriptures that are open to debate; and thus by definition hard to understand by at least some. “Wisdom is known by her children.”

Quote

As it is written “some scriptures is hard to understand”. Is it really more ridicules to use such clearly hard to understand scriptures as proof of your beliefs or easier ones such as those stating that the universe was created by the literal Word of God. “Wisdom is known by her children.

Quote

in those scriptures there are many “him” who is the HIM ?

If you are speaking of John 1:1- 18 then you have asked a good question. To answer that question you have to determine what the context of the location the pronoun “him” is used.

If you are instead attempting to argue that the gender of the pronoun “him” indicated the individual being spoken of is a male then I must inform you that the personalization of non-persons such as in the case when a ship is call “she” and when I quoted the proverb that called Wisdom “her”.

Quote

is this also the the “WORD OF GOD” ? or ??

I believe I informed you elsewhere that Jesus is the manifestation of the Word of God and therefore deserves to be called “The Word of God”. That does not make him the literal Word of God and more than calling Wisdom a woman makes her one.

September 1, 2011 at 12:55 am#257455

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 30 2011,23:11)

God is Jehovah, the Most High God and the Creator of the heavens, the earth, and everything in them. God is a Spirit Being. And that Spirit Being brought forth other spirit beings known as angels, who CAN be tempted with evil even though they were spirit beings brought forth by God.

Now, how can you say that God couldn't have created a FIRST spirit being named Jesus, who was also able to be tempted by evil?

Kerwin, even in your understanding, where Jesus was first brought forth as a man on earth, was he not still fathered by God through His Holy Spirit? So whether he pre-existed or not, he is still the LITERAL offspring of God Almighty, right? And as the LITERAL offspring of God Almighty, Jesus WAS able to be temped with evil. Your point seems moot to me.

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 30 2011,23:11)

Or it could indicate that you appear to be dodging the issues and I am calling you on it because I am getting tired of our communications being in a rut.

As am I. You talk in mazes, Kerwin. You never come right out and state a point. Your points are always shrouded in mystery, and I have to GUESS what point you are even making with this scripture or that scripture. What have I dodged? Ask me a DIRECT and UNDERSTANDABLE question, and I will give you a DIRECT and UNDERSTANDABLE answer to it.

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 30 2011,23:11)

That is actually a good question and so what I am continuously looking for.

As were the other questions you chose not to answer.

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 30 2011,23:11)

And what is the answer, in your opinion?

Kerwin, consider this fake scripture:

We have been delivered from the power of darkness of the NEW CREATION by the Son of God, who was the firstborn of all creation because all other things, in heaven, on earth, visible things and invisible things were created through him.

Your claim seems to be that if the scripture clearly spelled out “NEW CREATION” in one part of the passage, then all of a sudden, the words “ALL CREATION” really mean “NEW CREATION” from there on out. But that is not the case at all. One mention of a new creation would not mysteriously change the meaning of “all creation” from that point forward. And IMO, it's just plain silly to think it would.

I contend that even in my fake scripture above, the “all creation” STILL means “all creation”, even though there was a previous mention of a “new creation”.

mike

September 1, 2011 at 3:58 am#257463

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 31 2011,23:48)

Pierre,

Quote

I have the habit of taken in account all related scriptures so that the truth can be seen,

Quote

you only cut out what you see fit for the view that is acceptable to you, this is not how we end up with the truth of God,

Quote

in those scriptures there are many “him” who is the HIM ?

If you are speaking of John 1:1- 18 then you have asked a good question. To answer that question you have to determine what the context of the location the pronoun “him” is used.

Quote

is this also the the “WORD OF GOD” ? or ??

Kerwin

you have not answered the questions ,I ask you

so please answer them

Pierre

September 1, 2011 at 4:52 am#257470

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 01 2011,09:58)

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 31 2011,23:48)

Pierre,

Quote

I have the habit of taken in account all related scriptures so that the truth can be seen,

Quote

you only cut out what you see fit for the view that is acceptable to you, this is not how we end up with the truth of God,

Quote

in those scriptures there are many “him” who is the HIM ?

If you are speaking of John 1:1- 18 then you have asked a good question. To answer that question you have to determine what the context of the location the pronoun “him” is used.

Quote

is this also the the “WORD OF GOD” ? or ??

Kerwin

you have not answered the questions ,I ask you

so please answer them

Pierre

Pierre,

Why should I bother as you do not seem interested in unstanding the Word of God as we are actually seeking to correctly understand John 1:3.

Do you agree that the universe was created by the litteral word of God?

September 1, 2011 at 6:11 am#257472

Participant

Mike,

Quote

Angels may well be created from nothing as scripture does not speak on the matter and so to speak of such is to speculate.

Quote

And you have not addressed the fact that you apparently think it is impossible for God to have begotten a son unto Himself. Do you think this is impossible for God, Kerwin?

Scripture states God is love. Can you divide love? If you take love and make it into something else then what do you make it into and what happens to the love you removed it from?

Quote

Kerwin, even in your understanding, where Jesus was first brought forth as a man on earth, was he not still fathered by God through His Holy Spirit?

The Spirit of God is his creative force and every human being is always created by God. Jesus creation was a wonder as it was done in an exceptional way. As God is the sire Adam’s body so is he the sire of Jesus’ body. The Holy Spirit also teaches and trains in righteousness and so God also sired the saintly seat of character within Jesus and thus Jesus became a spiritual son of God.

Quote

As were the other questions you chose not to answer.

That is not what I discerned as many of them are not and others I simply do not choose to wade through the rest in order to answer. I therefore felt a reset of communications was necessary.

Quote

And what is the answer, in your opinion?

My answer is a riddle that goes “it is the slaves to sin that require deliverance and not the servants of righteousness.” See Romans 6 to figure out what my answer means.

Quote

Kerwin, consider this fake scripture:

It does not match the theme of my question. This is the correct phrasing of what I understand as Colossians would have known they were the first fruits of the new creation and that all new things were created through Jesus Anointed.

We of the NEW CREATION have been delivered from the power of darkness by the Son of God, who is the firstborn of all creation because all new things, in heaven, on earth, visible and invisible were created through him.

Quote

I contend that even in my fake scripture above, the “all creation” STILL means “all creation”, even though there was a previous mention of a “new creation”

Actually “all both creations” works if you also hold that “first” means he exceeds all others “born” of either or both creations in authority.

September 1, 2011 at 2:42 pm#257481

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 01 2011,17:11)

Kerwin……….Another Accurate statement IMO.

peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene

September 1, 2011 at 7:49 pm#257489

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 01 2011,22:52)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 01 2011,09:58)

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 31 2011,23:48)

Pierre,

Quote

I have the habit of taken in account all related scriptures so that the truth can be seen,

Quote

you only cut out what you see fit for the view that is acceptable to you, this is not how we end up with the truth of God,

Quote

in those scriptures there are many “him” who is the HIM ?

If you are speaking of John 1:1- 18 then you have asked a good question. To answer that question you have to determine what the context of the location the pronoun “him” is used.

Quote

is this also the the “WORD OF GOD” ? or ??

Kerwin

you have not answered the questions ,I ask you

so please answer them

Pierre

Pierre,

Why should I bother as you do not seem interested in unstanding the Word of God as we are actually seeking to correctly understand John 1:3.

Do you agree that the universe was created by the litteral word of God?

Kerwin

Quote

Do you agree that the universe was created by the litteral word of God?

before I answer your question ,I ask you this ;is God a spirit being ? if yes did he has a body or form ? if yes ,then tell me who is the first thing that God created ?

when you answer those question you will have your answer from me,

Pierre

September 2, 2011 at 3:32 am#257504

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 01 2011,00:11)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

Now, how can you say that God couldn't have created a FIRST spirit being named Jesus, who was also able to be tempted by evil?

Angels may well be created from nothing as scripture does not speak on the matter and so to speak of such is to speculate.

WHAT?!? Created from nothing? What does that have to do with my point? My point was that angels ARE spirit beings who were created by God. And those spirit beings CAN BE tempted with evil. And my question, which remains unanswered, was:

How can you say that God couldn't have created a FIRST spirit being named Jesus, who was also able to be tempted by evil?

Will you answer the question this time, please?

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 01 2011,00:11)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

And you have not addressed the fact that you apparently think it is impossible for God to have begotten a son unto Himself. Do you think this is impossible for God, Kerwin?

Scripture states God is love. Can you divide love? If you take love and make it into something else then what do you make it into and what happens to the love you removed it from?

WHAT?!? When I begot my son, I didn't “divide” myself, Kerwin. I'm still the same exact being I was before I begot my son. It seems to me that you are trying to avoid giving clear, sensible and direct answers to my questions. That in itself is answer, Kerwin. It shows you to be lacking when it comes to logically defending your doctrine.

Kerwin, I feel I have been sidetracked many times and in many ways during this discussion. I will now make a DIRECT point, and I really want you to DIRECTLY address it:

Kerwin, are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to have brought forth a spirit Son unto Himself? YES or NO?

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 01 2011,00:11)

My answer is a riddle……

I am not interested in your “riddles” anymore. I want you to make DIRECT claims, and show me CLEARLY how the scriptures you quote support those claims. And when I make DIRECT claims or ask DIRECT questions, I expect them to be addressed DIRECTLY from now on.

Can you do this for me?

peace,
mike

September 2, 2011 at 3:39 am#257506

Participant

Kerwin

Quote

who is the WE of the new creation ?

Pierre

September 2, 2011 at 5:24 am#257511

Participant

Pierre,

Quote

Before I answer your question

How long would you like to wander in the wilderness before answering whether or not you believe that God created the universe by his literal word?

Quote

Is God a spirit being

These are the only scriptures I know that touch on that issue and therefore going beyond them would be speculation. If you know others then perhaps you will share them for a later conversation as I would like to continue looking into John 1:3 first.

Quote

John 4:24
King James Version (KJV)

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Jesus appears to be teaching us that God is the same kind of spirit that his worshippers must worship him in.

Quote

1 John 4:16
King James Version (KJV)

16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

John appears to be paraphrasing what Jesus teaches in John 4:24.

Quote

If yes did he has a body or form ?

He does not consist of the same thing as angels since God is not created and therefore we should not think of him as a created being.

From what those two scriptures say the answer to your question, beyond what I just wrote, is in the answer to the question “Does the spirit of love have a body?”

Quote

If yes, then tell me who is the first thing that God created?

What does possessing a body have to do with the act of creation?

While ignoring that irrelevant part of your question, the female personification of Wisdom claims it is her in Proverbs 8.

Quote

Who is the WE of the new creation ?

Anyone that Jesus Anointed has set truly free from slavery to sin.

September 2, 2011 at 6:10 am#257515