Proverbs 16:4 with Colossians 1:17

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

I believe in a literal Son of God and you don't.

Kathi,
Since you believe that Jesus was a “literal” Son then you must accept that God has a penis. Again, you need to cast off your modern, western ideas about sonship in reference to Jesus and start all over again.

Self-existence is self-existence. The Father ascribed self-existence to the Son. This necessarily means that the Son exists on His own.

You have unwittingly denied that God is a spirit and have attributed to Him a male reproductive organ. Your “literal” approach is absurd!

thinker

[Lightenup]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2009,21:00)

That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link: Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/ Click “Theology” (on the left of the page) Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity” Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” section Blessings

Hi Is and WJ,
Your James White puts a whole lot of theology in the word “was” as it is found in John 1:1. In fact, it seems that he bases the Greek “case” of the word to mean always was when used in conjunction with creation.
The word “was” with this case spelling and use is used 315 times in 289 verses in the NT, 96 times just in John, and obviously does not mean always was or else a whole mess of things always were.

If you follow James White's reasoning, (these two following verses have the same Strong's word, #2258, translated as “existed” in bold, with the same case endings except these are plural and in John 1:1 it is singular) then the heavens always existed and also all things existed.

2 Peter 3:5-6
5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
NASU

Rev 4:11

11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they
existed, and were created.”
NASU

So you can see that James White's theology regarding the term “was” to imply “always was” falls apart.IMO

LU

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,13:06)

Lightenup said: Quote I believe in a literal Son of God and you don't. Kathi, Since you believe that Jesus was a “literal” Son then you must accept that God has a penis. Again, you need to cast off your modern, western ideas about sonship in reference to Jesus and start all over again. Self-existence is self-existence. The Father ascribed self-existence to the Son. This necessarily means that the Son exists on His own. You have unwittingly denied that God is a spirit and have attributed to Him a male reproductive organ. Your “literal” approach is absurd! thinker

Thinker,
God gave to man male parts to procreate, who knows what God needed to have in order to produce a son from His own being before creation. How do you know that He would need flesh male parts to produce a son? Where do you read that God couldn't reproduce? I am not referring to the conception within Mary but to the time in the beginning of the world.

BTW, your trinitarian brothers do not seem to agree that the verse we were discussing about the Son being “given” life referred to the ascribing of self-existence.
Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,05:09)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2009,21:00) That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link: Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/ Click “Theology” (on the left of the page) Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity” Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” section Blessings Hi Is and WJ, Your James White puts a whole lot of theology in the word “was” as it is found in John 1:1.  In fact, it seems that he bases the Greek “case” of the word to mean always was when used in conjunction with creation. The word “was” with this case spelling and use is used 315 times in 289 verses in the NT, 96 times just in John, and obviously does not mean always was or else a whole mess of things always were.   If you follow James White's reasoning, (these two following verses have the same Strong's word, #2258, translated as “existed” in bold, with the same case endings except these are plural and in John 1:1 it is singular) then the heavens always existed and also all things existed. 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU So you can see that James White's theology regarding the term “was” to imply “always was” falls apart.IMO LU

Hi LU

The emphasis is not on the word was, it is on the word “In” 'en'.

You have a problem with your view for it contradicts itself.

For the Word was always before that which was in the beginning.

All things came into being through Him, and “apart from Him nothing came into being” that has come into being. John 1:3

Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him.

And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and God is an “Eternal being”!

WJ

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,05:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2009,21:00) That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link: Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/ Click “Theology” (on the left of the page) Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity” Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” section Blessings Hi Is and WJ, Your James White puts a whole lot of theology in the word “was” as it is found in John 1:1.  In fact, it seems that he bases the Greek “case” of the word to mean always was when used in conjunction with creation. The word “was” with this case spelling and use is used 315 times in 289 verses in the NT, 96 times just in John, and obviously does not mean always was or else a whole mess of things always were.   If you follow James White's reasoning, (these two following verses have the same Strong's word, #2258, translated as “existed” in bold, with the same case endings except these are plural and in John 1:1 it is singular) then the heavens always existed and also all things existed. 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU So you can see that James White's theology regarding the term “was” to imply “always was” falls apart.IMO LU Hi LU The emphasis is not on the word was, it is on the word “In” 'en'. You have a problem with your view for it contradicts itself. For the Word was always before that which was in the beginning. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! WJ

Hi Keith,
The word in question is “en” which is translated “was” in John 1:1 not “in.”

You wrote:

Quote

Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him.

Contextually the Word had to exist before anything came into being, it did not have to always exist before anything came into being.

Quote

And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh!

Very true, He did not make himself and also very true that the “word was God” before He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  However the Word was not the GOD that the Word was with…He was God from GOD.

God bless,
Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,06:31)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,05:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2009,21:00) That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link: Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/ Click “Theology” (on the left of the page) Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity” Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” section Blessings Hi Is and WJ, Your James White puts a whole lot of theology in the word “was” as it is found in John 1:1.  In fact, it seems that he bases the Greek “case” of the word to mean always was when used in conjunction with creation. The word “was” with this case spelling and use is used 315 times in 289 verses in the NT, 96 times just in John, and obviously does not mean always was or else a whole mess of things always were.   If you follow James White's reasoning, (these two following verses have the same Strong's word, #2258, translated as “existed” in bold, with the same case endings except these are plural and in John 1:1 it is singular) then the heavens always existed and also all things existed. 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU So you can see that James White's theology regarding the term “was” to imply “always was” falls apart.IMO LU Hi LU The emphasis is not on the word was, it is on the word “In” 'en'. You have a problem with your view for it contradicts itself. For the Word was always before that which was in the beginning. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! WJ Hi Keith, The word in question is “en” which is translated “was” in John 1:1 not “in.” You wrote: Quote Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. Contextually the Word had to exist before anything came into being, it did not have to always exist before anything came into being. Quote And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! Very true, He did not make himself and also very true that the “word was God” before He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  However the Word was not the GOD that the Word was with…He was God from  GOD. God bless, Kathi

Hi Kathi

I like the way you took out the bold part of the verse I quoted (John 1:3) and then just skipped over it and then say…

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,06:31)

Contextually the Word had to exist before anything came into being, it did not have to always exist before anything came into being.

The scripture disagrees with you…

All things came into being through Him, and “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being“. John 1:3

What part of nothing came into being that has come into being do you not understand?

You say that Jesus came into being. John says that nothing came into being without him.

BTW read James Whites writings again with an open mind and you will see that he is talking about the tense of the word “In”.

Keith

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Kathi

I appologize for being so rasp. My statement…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 22 2009,06:44)

What part of nothing came into being that has come into being do you not understand?

It was uncalled for. I am sorry!

I still think John in my opinion disagrees with you!

Anyway my Love to you in Christ.

WJ

[KangarooJack]

WorshipingJesus said to Kathi:

Quote

You say that Jesus came into being. John says that nothing came into being without him.

Amen! One does not need a degree in rocket science to undertsand such a simple statement.

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,06:31)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,05:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2009,21:00) That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link: Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/ Click “Theology” (on the left of the page) Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity” Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” section Blessings Hi Is and WJ, Your James White puts a whole lot of theology in the word “was” as it is found in John 1:1.  In fact, it seems that he bases the Greek “case” of the word to mean always was when used in conjunction with creation. The word “was” with this case spelling and use is used 315 times in 289 verses in the NT, 96 times just in John, and obviously does not mean always was or else a whole mess of things always were.   If you follow James White's reasoning, (these two following verses have the same Strong's word, #2258, translated as “existed” in bold, with the same case endings except these are plural and in John 1:1 it is singular) then the heavens always existed and also all things existed. 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU So you can see that James White's theology regarding the term “was” to imply “always was” falls apart.IMO LU Hi LU The emphasis is not on the word was, it is on the word “In” 'en'. You have a problem with your view for it contradicts itself. For the Word was always before that which was in the beginning. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! WJ Hi Keith, The word in question is “en” which is translated “was” in John 1:1 not “in.” You wrote: Quote Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. Contextually the Word had to exist before anything came into being, it did not have to always exist before anything came into being. Quote And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! Very true, He did not make himself and also very true that the “word was God” before He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  However the Word was not the GOD that the Word was with…He was God from  GOD. God bless, Kathi

Gees Kathi

I just realized you clipped out part of my post…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22)

And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and God is an “Eternal being”!

You clipped out “and God is an “Eternal being”!

Why would you do this?

WJ

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

BTW, your trinitarian brothers do not seem to agree that the verse we were discussing about the Son being “given” life referred to the ascribing of self-existence. Kathi

Kathi,
Jesus did not say that the Father gave “life” to Him. He said that the Father gave Him to “have life IN HIMSELF.”

This is self-existence!

Quote

For as the Father has life in Himself so He has given the Son to have life in Himself

Come on! Self existence cannot be imparted. This would be an oxymoron. It can be given only in the sense that is is ascribed. And anyone who disagrees with this has abandoned common sense.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
No it is having life IN oneself.
We need to know it is the life of God
After all it is the life we hope to inherit

Of course if the Father gave him any form of life then the trinity is proven to be a myth.

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,15:22)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,06:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,05:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2009,21:00) That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link: Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/ Click “Theology” (on the left of the page) Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity” Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” section Blessings Hi Is and WJ, Your James White puts a whole lot of theology in the word “was” as it is found in John 1:1.  In fact, it seems that he bases the Greek “case” of the word to mean always was when used in conjunction with creation. The word “was” with this case spelling and use is used 315 times in 289 verses in the NT, 96 times just in John, and obviously does not mean always was or else a whole mess of things always were.   If you follow James White's reasoning, (these two following verses have the same Strong's word, #2258, translated as “existed” in bold, with the same case endings except these are plural and in John 1:1 it is singular) then the heavens always existed and also all things existed. 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU So you can see that James White's theology regarding the term “was” to imply “always was” falls apart.IMO LU Hi LU The emphasis is not on the word was, it is on the word “In” 'en'. You have a problem with your view for it contradicts itself. For the Word was always before that which was in the beginning. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! WJ Hi Keith, The word in question is “en” which is translated “was” in John 1:1 not “in.” You wrote: Quote Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. Contextually the Word had to exist before anything came into being, it did not have to always exist before anything came into being. Quote And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! Very true, He did not make himself and also very true that the “word was God” before He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  However the Word was not the GOD that the Word was with…He was God from  GOD. God bless, Kathi Gees Kathi I just realized you clipped out part of my post… Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22) And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and God is an “Eternal being”! You clipped out “and God is an “Eternal being”! Why would you do this? WJ

Hi Keith,
I hope you believe me in this, I can understand that you might think that I clipped out part of your post as I look through this trying to figure out what you are referring to.  All I did was hit the quote button on the post and I have no idea how that last part came up missing.  I didn't even realize it till you mentioned it.  Truly, I am innocent of intentionally clipping your post Keith, I am sorry that it happened, but I tell you the truth, I just hit the quote button at the top.  Do you think that I can edit it somehow without messing it up?  I would really like to fix it if I can.
Love,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 21 2009,16:15)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,15:22) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,06:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,05:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2009,21:00) That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link: Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/ Click “Theology” (on the left of the page) Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity” Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” section Blessings Hi Is and WJ, Your James White puts a whole lot of theology in the word “was” as it is found in John 1:1.  In fact, it seems that he bases the Greek “case” of the word to mean always was when used in conjunction with creation. The word “was” with this case spelling and use is used 315 times in 289 verses in the NT, 96 times just in John, and obviously does not mean always was or else a whole mess of things always were.   If you follow James White's reasoning, (these two following verses have the same Strong's word, #2258, translated as “existed” in bold, with the same case endings except these are plural and in John 1:1 it is singular) then the heavens always existed and also all things existed. 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU So you can see that James White's theology regarding the term “was” to imply “always was” falls apart.IMO LU Hi LU The emphasis is not on the word was, it is on the word “In” 'en'. You have a problem with your view for it contradicts itself. For the Word was always before that which was in the beginning. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! WJ Hi Keith, The word in question is “en” which is translated “was” in John 1:1 not “in.” You wrote: Quote Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. Contextually the Word had to exist before anything came into being, it did not have to always exist before anything came into being. Quote And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! Very true, He did not make himself and also very true that the “word was God” before He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  However the Word was not the GOD that the Word was with…He was God from  GOD. God bless, Kathi Gees Kathi I just realized you clipped out part of my post… Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22) And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and God is an “Eternal being”! You clipped out “and God is an “Eternal being”! Why would you do this? WJ Hi Keith, I hope you believe me in this, I can understand that you might think that I clipped out part of your post as I look through this trying to figure out what you are referring to.  All I did was hit the quote button on the post and I have no idea how that last part came up missing.  I didn't even realize it till you mentioned it.  Truly, I am innocent of intentionally clipping your post Keith, I am sorry that it happened, but I tell you the truth, I just hit the quote button at the top.  Do you think that I can edit it somehow without messing it up?  I would really like to fix it if I can. Love, Kathi

Keith,
The possible mishap was this, look at the times of your unedited post and then you edited it. Did you add those last words while editing it? I might have pushed the quote button before you had edited it. I am truly curious…it is a mystery to me but that would make sense to me. I posted that initial response just a few minutes after you edited it.
Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:15)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,15:22) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,06:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,05:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2009,21:00) That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link: Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/ Click “Theology” (on the left of the page) Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity” Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” section Blessings Hi Is and WJ, Your James White puts a whole lot of theology in the word “was” as it is found in John 1:1.  In fact, it seems that he bases the Greek “case” of the word to mean always was when used in conjunction with creation. The word “was” with this case spelling and use is used 315 times in 289 verses in the NT, 96 times just in John, and obviously does not mean always was or else a whole mess of things always were.   If you follow James White's reasoning, (these two following verses have the same Strong's word, #2258, translated as “existed” in bold, with the same case endings except these are plural and in John 1:1 it is singular) then the heavens always existed and also all things existed. 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU So you can see that James White's theology regarding the term “was” to imply “always was” falls apart.IMO LU Hi LU The emphasis is not on the word was, it is on the word “In” 'en'. You have a problem with your view for it contradicts itself. For the Word was always before that which was in the beginning. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! WJ Hi Keith, The word in question is “en” which is translated “was” in John 1:1 not “in.” You wrote: Quote Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. Contextually the Word had to exist before anything came into being, it did not have to always exist before anything came into being. Quote And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! Very true, He did not make himself and also very true that the “word was God” before He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  However the Word was not the GOD that the Word was with…He was God from  GOD. God bless, Kathi Gees Kathi I just realized you clipped out part of my post… Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22) And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and God is an “Eternal being”! You clipped out “and God is an “Eternal being”! Why would you do this? WJ Hi Keith, I hope you believe me in this, I can understand that you might think that I clipped out part of your post as I look through this trying to figure out what you are referring to.  All I did was hit the quote button on the post and I have no idea how that last part came up missing.  I didn't even realize it till you mentioned it.  Truly, I am innocent of intentionally clipping your post Keith, I am sorry that it happened, but I tell you the truth, I just hit the quote button at the top.  Do you think that I can edit it somehow without messing it up?  I would really like to fix it if I can. Love, Kathi

Hi Kathi

No it didnt mess up the original post.

Its no problem I just thought it was interesting how that part of the post was missing and the highlighted bold was missing on my John 1:3 quote.

I believe you. Its easy to get the top box and the bottom box mess up especially when we click preview.

In fact now that I think about it Kathi, I could have edited the post and added the last part after you had already started your response. We were probably typing at the same time. In fact that is probably what happened on the bold part.

LOL My appology!

Blessings Keith

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Kathi

And we are typing at the same time again.

LOL

Keith

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 22 2009,08:42)

Hi Kathi And we are typing at the same time again. LOL Keith

Hi kathi

Well not at the same time. But I didnt see your last post when I typed mine.

WJ

[NickHassan]

Hi,
The Son was given to have life in himself.
He became for us the source of that life from God.

1Jn5
And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

20And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Hebrews 5:9
And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:44)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,06:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,14:22) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,05:09) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 20 2009,21:00) That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link: Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/ Click “Theology” (on the left of the page) Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity” Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” section Blessings Hi Is and WJ, Your James White puts a whole lot of theology in the word “was” as it is found in John 1:1.  In fact, it seems that he bases the Greek “case” of the word to mean always was when used in conjunction with creation. The word “was” with this case spelling and use is used 315 times in 289 verses in the NT, 96 times just in John, and obviously does not mean always was or else a whole mess of things always were.   If you follow James White's reasoning, (these two following verses have the same Strong's word, #2258, translated as “existed” in bold, with the same case endings except these are plural and in John 1:1 it is singular) then the heavens always existed and also all things existed. 2 Peter 3:5-6 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASU Rev 4:11 11 “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” NASU So you can see that James White's theology regarding the term “was” to imply “always was” falls apart.IMO LU Hi LU The emphasis is not on the word was, it is on the word “In” 'en'. You have a problem with your view for it contradicts itself. For the Word was always before that which was in the beginning. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! WJ Hi Keith, The word in question is “en” which is translated “was” in John 1:1 not “in.” You wrote: Quote Contextually the Word has always existed because “nothing came into being” without him. Contextually the Word had to exist before anything came into being, it did not have to always exist before anything came into being. Quote And he didn't make himself. John clearly was setting forth that the “Word was God” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh! Very true, He did not make himself and also very true that the “word was God” before He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  However the Word was not the GOD that the Word was with…He was God from  GOD. God bless, Kathi Hi Kathi I like the way you took out the bold part of the verse I quoted (John 1:3) and then just skipped over it and then say… Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,06:31) Contextually the Word had to exist before anything came into being, it did not have to always exist before anything came into being. The scripture disagrees with you… All things came into being through Him, and “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being“. John 1:3 What part of nothing came into being that has come into being do you not understand? You say that Jesus came into being. John says that nothing came into being without him. BTW read James Whites writings again with an open mind and you will see that he is talking about the tense of the word “In”. Keith

Keith,
I'm sorry if you are having a bad day and I accept your apology. I don't intentionally skip over what you post to be manipulative or deceitful. I was just quickly addressing your post which WAS quoted in my post in its entirety, btw.

Now, please don't get mad but after doing what you suggested and rereading what James White wrote, it is very clear that he is talking about the verb was as written as a form of the verb “eime”

Read this and note the bold print:

From James White:

Quote

The Little Word “Was” The English word “was” is about as bland a term as you can find. Yet in Greek, it is most expressive. The Greeks were quite concerned about being able to express subtleties in regard not only to when something happened, but how it happened as well. Our little word “was” is poorly suited to handle the depth of the Greek at this point. John's choice of words is deliberate and, quite honestly, beautiful. Throughout the prologue of the Gospel of John, the author balances between two verbs. When speaking of the Logos as He existed in eternity past, John uses the Greek word h@n, en (a form of eimi). The tense1 of the word expresses continuous action in the past. Compare this with the verb he chooses to use when speaking of everything else – found, for example, in verse 3: “All things came into being through Him,” ejgevneto, e geneto.

Note that JW is talking about a verb and not a preposition.

NT:1510

NT:1510
ei)mi/
eimi (i-mee'); the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):

NT:2258
h@n
en (ane); imperfect of NT:1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were):

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

I hope this helps…truly I do,
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 22 2009,07:39)

Hi TT, No it is having life IN oneself. We need to know it is the life of God After all it is the life we hope to inherit   Of course if the Father gave him any form of life then the trinity is proven to be a myth.

Nick,
Jesus clearly said that the Father has attributed the Son to have life IN HIMSELF. This is self-existence!

thinker

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 21 2009,16:44)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 22 2009,08:42) Hi Kathi And we are typing at the same time again. LOL Keith Hi kathi Well not at the same time. But I didnt see your last post when I typed mine. WJ

Very funny experience Keith. I am glad that is cleared up “Mr. Anonymous?”.
Love, K

[Author]

Posts