- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,04:35) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,11:16) 1) The Word (WHICH WAS IN JESUS) became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Whoa, whoa, whoa……………let me stop you before you even get started.The scripture says the Light was IN THE WORD. It does not say the Word was IN THE LIGHT.
Your conclusion cannot possibly be accurate, because you have started off by switching around the scriptural words.
Please try again using the correct words, ie: The Light was IN THE WORD – not the other way around.
Hi Mike,“Father, (thou) art in me, and I in thee” (John 17:21)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,04:37) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,11:29) It speaks of both.
Wrong. Hebrews 7 says NOTHING about the origins of the being of Jesus. It speaks of the appointing of Jesus to the position of High Priest.
Hi Mike,You are making a “Reductive Fallacy” error.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,12:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,04:35) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,11:16) 1) The Word (WHICH WAS IN JESUS) became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Whoa, whoa, whoa……………let me stop you before you even get started.The scripture says the Light was IN THE WORD. It does not say the Word was IN THE LIGHT.
Your conclusion cannot possibly be accurate, because you have started off by switching around the scriptural words.
Please try again using the correct words, ie: The Light was IN THE WORD – not the other way around.
Hi Mike,“Father, (thou) art in me, and I in thee” (John 17:21)
God bless
Ed J
That's a beautiful scripture, Ed. Thanks for posting it.
Now, back to the matter in question:
Does John 1 say the Word is IN THE LIGHT? Or does it say the Light was IN THE WORD?
Which one, Ed?
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,12:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,04:37) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,11:29) It speaks of both.
Wrong. Hebrews 7 says NOTHING about the origins of the being of Jesus. It speaks of the appointing of Jesus to the position of High Priest.
Hi Mike,You are making a “Reductive Fallacy” error.
God bless
Ed J
No I'm not, Ed.I'm pointing out how easy it is for some people to transform scriptures to fit around what they already believe, instead of letting their beliefs be formed around the scriptures.
In this case, you WANT the scripture to say Jesus was CREATED by the Word. And you WANT that so badly that you are oblivious to the obvious meaning of the teaching, which is: Jesus was appointed as High Priest by the oath that God swore to him.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,07:03) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,12:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,04:35) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,11:16) 1) The Word (WHICH WAS IN JESUS) became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Whoa, whoa, whoa……………let me stop you before you even get started.The scripture says the Light was IN THE WORD. It does not say the Word was IN THE LIGHT.
Your conclusion cannot possibly be accurate, because you have started off by switching around the scriptural words.
Please try again using the correct words, ie: The Light was IN THE WORD – not the other way around.
Hi Mike,“Father, (thou) art in me, and I in thee” (John 17:21)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
(1)That's a beautiful scripture, Ed. Thanks for posting it.(2)Now, back to the matter in question:
(3)Does John 1 say the Word is IN THE LIGHT? Or does it say the Light was IN THE WORD?
Which one, Ed?
Hi Mike,1) Your welcome, you do understand why I posted it; don't you?
2) OK
3) In him(The Word) was life(Jesus); and the life(Jesus) was the light of men. (John 1:4)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,14:17) In him(The Word) was life(Jesus);
Correct. So life/light/Jesus was in the Word, and not the other way around, right?So please go back a few posts, where your #1 started out with “the Word was in Jesus”, and re-address my point with your corrected understanding. (It was the fifth post on page 193 – please start over with the correct premise that the Light was in the Word, and not the other way around.)
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,07:08) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,12:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,04:37) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,11:29) It speaks of both.
Wrong. Hebrews 7 says NOTHING about the origins of the being of Jesus. It speaks of the appointing of Jesus to the position of High Priest.
Hi Mike,You are making a “Reductive Fallacy” error.
God bless
Ed J
No I'm not, Ed.(1)I'm pointing out how easy it is for some people to transform scriptures to fit around what they already believe, instead of letting their beliefs be formed around the scriptures.
(2)In this case, you WANT the scripture to say Jesus was CREATED by the Word. And you WANT that so badly that you are oblivious to the obvious meaning of the teaching, which is: Jesus was appointed as High Priest by the oath that God swore to him.
Hi Mike,1) Do you not even consider that your words may in fact apply to you?
2) No, I understand that is true as well.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgAnd that's your choice, Ed. Just like you are the only person I know who disputes that Jesus is the Word of God in Revelation, you are also the only one who thinks Heb 7 speaks of Jesus' creation.
Have it your way – but know that:
1. You are alone in your beliefs.
2. The rest of us have no trouble seeing that you are willing to interpret scriptures in whatever way forms around your own understanding.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,07:22) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,14:17) In him(The Word) was life(Jesus);
Correct. So life/light/Jesus was in the Word, and not the other way around, right?So please go back a few posts, where your #1 started out with “the Word was in Jesus”, and re-address my point with your corrected understanding. (It was the fifth post on page 193 – please start over with the correct premise that the Light was in the Word, and not the other way around.)
Hi Mike,Don't you mean the seventh post?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,04:35) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,11:16) 1) The Word (WHICH WAS IN JESUS) became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Whoa, whoa, whoa……………let me stop you before you even get started.The scripture says the Light was IN THE WORD. It does not say the Word was IN THE LIGHT.
Your conclusion cannot possibly be accurate, because you have started off by switching around the scriptural words.
Please try again using the correct words, ie: The Light was IN THE WORD – not the other way around.
“The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but
(are) the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me
that I(life) in the Father(The Word), and the Father(The Word) in me(life):
or else believe me for the very works' sake. (John 14:10-11)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,07:35) And that's your choice, Ed. Just like you are the only person I know who disputes that Jesus is the Word of God in Revelation, you are also the only one who thinks Heb 7 speaks of Jesus' creation. Have it your way – but know that:
1. You are alone in your beliefs.
2. The rest of us have no trouble seeing that you are willing to interpret scriptures in whatever way forms around your own understanding.
Hi Mike,1) Your attempts to prove me wrong have FAILED!
2) And exactly how does that not apply to you instead?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Dec. 03 2011,14:38) Hi Mike, Don't you mean the seventh post?
No Ed,I mean the 5th post. The one where you started your whole list of explanations with a flawed #1. Please address the same post of mine that you attempted to address in the 5th post – this time starting off with the CORRECT fact that the Light was in the Word, and not the other way around.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,01:34) Okay Ed, 2. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
This is still speaking of the Word. So it would mean that the Word (IN WHICH JESUS WAS) was what had the glory of God's only begotten.
It would not mean that the Light that was IN the Word had the glory of God's only begotten.
Hi Mike,I assume you mean this point.
My answer is: why not?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgWhy not?
Because the scripture says the Light was in the Word. It does NOT say the Word was in the Light.How can you just ASSUME the opposite of what the scripture says, Ed?
If scripture says “God is in us”, do you just ASSUME that we are in God?
Even if the latter was true, you cannot come to that conclusion from “God is in us”.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,08:45) Why not? Because the scripture says the Light was in the Word. It does NOT say the Word was in the Light.How can you just ASSUME the opposite of what the scripture says, Ed?
If scripture says “God is in us”, do you just ASSUME that we are in God?
Even if the latter was true, you cannot come to that conclusion from “God is in us”.
Hi Mike,Are you saying that we are not allowed to use other Scripture
to explain the meaning and intent of a specific verse in question?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,07:35) And that's your choice, Ed. Just like you are the only person I know who disputes that Jesus is the Word of God in Revelation, you are also the only one who thinks Heb 7 speaks of Jesus' creation. Have it your way – but know that:
1. You are alone in your beliefs.
2. The rest of us have no trouble seeing that you are willing to interpret scriptures in whatever way forms around your own understanding.
Mike……….That is not true i also depute that Jesus himself is the WORD of GOD, that is like saying the fireman is the fire or or a man of fire, that calling a cowboy is a boy cow. A title is not the actual thing now is it. It is a title reflecting what a person does, Jesus speaks God's word to us but they are GOD'S WORD< Not HIS WORDS. So there is no way he himslef could be those words he spoke. Just becasue it say Jesus is "CALLED" that does not make he himself that. IMOpeace and love…………………………………………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 04 2011,11:40) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 04 2011,07:35) And that's your choice, Ed. Just like you are the only person I know who disputes that Jesus is the Word of God in Revelation, you are also the only one who thinks Heb 7 speaks of Jesus' creation. Have it your way – but know that:
1. You are alone in your beliefs.
2. The rest of us have no trouble seeing that you are willing to interpret scriptures in whatever way forms around your own understanding.
Mike……….That is not true i also depute that Jesus himself is the WORD of GOD, that is like saying the fireman is the fire or or a man of fire, that calling a cowboy is a boy cow. A title is not the actual thing now is it. It is a title reflecting what a person does, Jesus speaks God's word to us but they are GOD'S WORD< Not HIS WORDS. So there is no way he himslef could be those words he spoke. Just becasue it say Jesus is "CALLED" that does not make he himself that. IMOpeace and love…………………………………………….gene
Hi Gene,Where does it even say that Jesus is called that?
Only in fellow members interpretive posts.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEdj………..> i think they are referring to Rev 19:13. One thing i have noticed is that where you see the WORD of GOD written you also see “AND THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS” , i noticed it will say ' the Word of God (And) the “testimony” of Jesus Christ. Notice they are separated from each other. Interesting.
peace and love to you and yours………………………………………………………………..gene
Okay guys……………once again from the top!
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So far, the only subject mentioned is “the Word”.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
We know that the pronoun “He” must refer back to “the Word”, because “the Word” is the only subject thus far mentioned, right?
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The pronouns “him” must be still speaking of “the Word”, because he is still the only subject thus far mentioned.
I assume that both Gene and Ed are in agreement with me up until this point – that all the pronouns refer back to the subject “the Word”.
Now compare:
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Again, “the Word” is the subject, and therefore the pronoun “his” must be referring back to that subject. Remember, this is the same “Word” that was with God in the beginning. It is the same “Word” through whom all things were made. It is the same “Word” without whom nothing at all was made.
Are we still in agreement?
We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The pronoun “his” in this line must still be speaking of “the Word”, because no other subject has been introduced since “The Word became flesh…….”. So it is “the Word” who had the glory God's only begotten. It is “the Word” who dwelled among us on earth.
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.’”
Now we have the introduction of a different subject. “John” is the new subject, and so we have to decide if the pronoun “him” refers back to “John” – as if he testified concerning himself; or if it refers back to the former subject – “the Word”. Fortunately for us, it is a no-brainer because of the following words, “This was he of whom I said”. Those words make it clear that the pronoun “him” doesn't refer back to the new subject, “John”, but to the previous subject, “the Word”.
Ergo, the underlined words were said about “the Word”.
There really is no two ways about it, guys. You can either accept this teaching or deny it. But you can't possibly refute it, because it is irrefutable.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 05 2011,01:41) Okay guys……………once again from the top! 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So far, the only subject mentioned is “the Word”.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
We know that the pronoun “He” must refer back to “the Word”, because “the Word” is the only subject thus far mentioned, right?
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The pronouns “him” must be still speaking of “the Word”, because he is still the only subject thus far mentioned.
I assume that both Gene and Ed are in agreement with me up until this point – that all the pronouns refer back to the subject “the Word”.
Now compare:
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Again, “the Word” is the subject, and therefore the pronoun “his” must be referring back to that subject. Remember, this is the same “Word” that was with God in the beginning. It is the same “Word” through whom all things were made. It is the same “Word” without whom nothing at all was made.
Are we still in agreement?
We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The pronoun “his” in this line must still be speaking of “the Word”, because no other subject has been introduced since “The Word became flesh…….”. So it is “the Word” who had the glory God's only begotten. It is “the Word” who dwelled among us on earth.
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.’”
Now we have the introduction of a different subject. “John” is the new subject, and so we have to decide if the pronoun “him” refers back to “John” – as if he testified concerning himself; or if it refers back to the former subject – “the Word”. Fortunately for us, it is a no-brainer because of the following words, “This was he of whom I said”. Those words make it clear that the pronoun “him” doesn't refer back to the new subject, “John”, but to the previous subject, “the Word”.
Ergo, the underlined words were said about “the Word”.
There really is no two ways about it, guys. You can either accept this teaching or deny it. But you can't possibly refute it, because it is irrefutable.
peace,
mike
MIke…………..God is not a HE, God is a SPIRIT thats an (IT)there are SEVEN SPIRIT (ASPECTS) or DISTINCT (ITS) (intellect's) not a HE or SHE. Yahweh is the HE Who is composed of all seven of those (IT'S)and the POWER that GOES with Them. Making Him the one and “Only “TRUE” GOD”.“HEAR O Israel the LORD (YAHWEH) Our GOD is (ONE) LORD (YAHWEH”)
Mike until you learn what a Spirit (IS) you will keep stalling in your understanding. IMO
Agreed Mike.
He/She/It is not distinguished in Greek, but is understood by the context.
So yes IT is possible.However, the context is the Word, so if we go for “It” then when it clearly references Jesus without using his name it is thus still speaking of the Word. So if the Word is doing things and being described as Jesus, then the conclusion is that the Word that is being referenced is Jesus and it is not as if this is the only evidence for such.
In case there was any doubt, it is elsewhere written that God made all things through and for his son and who would doubt that Jesus was the son of God.
When you start of with an honest attitude and look at the facts, you can only draw the conclusion that Jesus is
- The Word
- The Son
- The Messiah
- The image of the invisible God and the first-born of all creation.
Any attack on who Jesus is, is a direct attack on God because anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
