The Word

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2014,05:31)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 13 2014,17:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2014,03:43) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 13 2014,12:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2014,23:41) Consider the King of Abyssinia, who also has a spokesman called “The Word”.  Tell me if “the word” means the same thing in both of the following examples: 1.  The Word of the King showed up late to work Saturday, so the king had to speak directly to some of his subjects. 2.  By the word of the king, the opposing nation was invaded. 1.  Can you see that the phrase “the word” means different things in the two examples?   2.  Would you ever use #2 to prove that #1 doesn't refer to a living, breathing BEING?   3.  Would you ever use #2 to prove that the Word and the King from #1 are the same, identical person or being? Mike, Why would I stop using a comparison if I do see things as you see them? Kerwin, Please address the part in the quote box above.  This is the third time I've had to post those questions. Mike, Is the Word acting as the kings agent when he shows up late? Not unless the king ordered him to do it. The word acting as an agent of the king ordered the king's servant to show up on time.   The king ordered using his agent the word ordered the king's servants to show up on time.  These can shortened up to be the word ordered the king's servants to show up on time and the king ordered the king's servants to show up on time. The king invaded the opposing nation is equivalent to the king's armies invaded the opposing nation as the armies serve as the king's proxy for the purpose of invading the opposing nation.  If they act on their own then they are not the king's proxy.   In neither 1 or 2 does the subject serve as a proxy for the king. Another proxy situation for 2 would be the word of the king ordered the troops to invade the opposing nation as it can also be said the king ordered the troops to invade the opposing nation. I might be mistaken about 2 not being a proxy. Note:  Some say George Bush invaded Iraq. Here Kerwin, I've made the question part of it really big and bold, so you can now see it. Please answer the three questions with DIRECT answers.  Thank you.

Mike,

Your examples are poor which is why I pointed out how they could be changed to better reflect the point I am making. I also included the comment about George Bush invading Iraq to reinforce my point.

My point does not apply to 1 as the word is disobeying his king. The only way it would seem to be relevant is if the Word was serving as the king's proxy in arriving at work late.

2 has more going for it but you way of writing it confuses me. If I changed it to be “The opposing nation was invaded by the word of the king” then I see more clearly that it is a proxy situation as the “word of the king” serves as a proxy for the king and therefore can be replaced by “the king” in the sentence.

Actually I have forgotten why I was making this point and so I will have to look back before answering your questions.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2014,23:41)

1.  Can you see that the phrase “the word” means different things in the two examples?   2.  Would you ever use #2 to prove that #1 doesn't refer to a living, breathing BEING?   3.  Would you ever use #2 to prove that the Word and the King from #1 are the same, identical person or being?

Mike,

This is where the conversation started.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 06 2014,06:26)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 03 2014,20:21) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 04 2014,06:08) Kerwin, WHO speaks through Jesus in these latter days? Mike, God speaks his word through Jesus. = God's word speaks through Jesus No Kerwin. Those two things do NOT equal each other.  Either “God” spoke through Jesus, or “God's Word” spoke through Jesus. Which one of those is the scriptural truth?

My point is that the reason “God speaks his word through Jesus. = God's word speaks through Jesus” is true is because “God's word” is a proxy for God.

1) Yes
2) Since being late to work infers that the word is being used as a title, probably not.  I don't think I am trying to disprove that the word “is a living, breathing BEING at the current time”. Instead I think I am explaining my own beliefs.
3) Probably not though if the Word was capitalized in both such a link would become more heavily inferred.   Some do that when they attempt to use Revelations 19:13 to prove that the word is John 1 is Jesus.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 13 2014,18:44)

Hi MB, You ask “So WHO exactly became flesh and dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son?” You imply the WHO is a person, a sentient being. Scripture does not say so, so it is not a good idea to presume so.

Don't you also imply “WHO”, Nick? Don't YOU say that “the Word” was actually God Himself? Isn't “God Himself” a WHO, Nick? Or is God a “WHAT”?

But I will change it for you, to eliminate your “wiggle room”…….

Who or what actually BECAME flesh and dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wakeup @ Mar. 13 2014,20:47)

Mike's logic: If God's Word is speaking on earth;how can Gods Word be also in heaven.This does not make any sense to him.

Wakeup,

You are confused about what I believe.  That doesn't surprise me, since you are also confused about what YOU believe.

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
If God does not make things clear by our standards of logic should we stress?
The Word was God is what scripture says not what I say

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 13 2014,23:48)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2014,23:41) 1.  Can you see that the phrase “the word” means different things in the two examples?   2.  Would you ever use #2 to prove that #1 doesn't refer to a living, breathing BEING?   3.  Would you ever use #2 to prove that the Word and the King from #1 are the same, identical person or being? 1) Yes 2)……probably not…….   3) Probably not……..

Thank you for FINALLY answering my questions.

Now go and apply that common sense reasoning with the scriptures.

The commonly called “Ten Commandments” are literally “the ten words” in Hebrew.

Don't go using an example of ten LITERAL words (or “teachings/instructions”) of God to prove or disprove things about the spokesman of God, who has been given the METAPHORICAL title “The Word of God”.

In other words, don't try to use scriptures that speak of LITERAL words God has spoken to teach us things about “The Word of God” who rides a white horse. Because clearly, LITERAL words of God don't ride a white horse, Kerwin. A PERSON rides the white horse. Don't confuse his TITLE “The Word of God” with LITERAL words God has spoken.

You cannot just mix and match the word “word” – when there are many different meanings and contexts to also consider.

You can't take the word “word” in one particular context, and say that its meaning fits ALL other contexts. Because it doesn't.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2014,13:53)

Hi MB, If God does not make things clear by our standards of logic should we stress? The Word was God is what scripture says not what I say

Okay.  You think the Word was the actual being of God Almighty Himself.  Is “God” a person?  If so, then the Word is a person.  This doesn't take rocket science.

If, on the other hand, the Word was a THING, then either “God Himself” is a THING, or the Word is something OTHER THAN God.  Again, this doesn't take rocket science to figure out.

I have asked you a simple question, and have subsequently wasted much time jumping through your hoops as you play games instead of answering that question.   So let me try it another way, and see if it's a question that you can actually answer this time.

WHO alone dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Actual being?
Who said that?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Do you know what the ACTUAL BEING of God is?
If not then you have no foundation for your theories

[mikeboll64]

This is the current question awaiting an answer from you, Nick:

WHO alone dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son?

Perhaps that one is also too hard for you?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
The Word who was with God and was God.

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
So why do you want to make the anointed man another god?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2014,14:40)

Hi MB, The Word who was with God and was God.

And what was the NAME of this only begotten Son of God when he was on earth, Nick?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
The Word became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth at the Jordan.
Thence he became Jesus Christ

We seem to have done this before.
Concentrate

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 16 2014,01:57)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 13 2014,23:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 09 2014,23:41) 1.  Can you see that the phrase “the word” means different things in the two examples?   2.  Would you ever use #2 to prove that #1 doesn't refer to a living, breathing BEING?   3.  Would you ever use #2 to prove that the Word and the King from #1 are the same, identical person or being? 1) Yes 2)……probably not…….   3) Probably not…….. Thank you for FINALLY answering my questions. Now go and apply that common sense reasoning with the scriptures. The commonly called “Ten Commandments” are literally “the ten words” in Hebrew. Don't go using an example of ten LITERAL words (or “teachings/instructions”) of God to prove or disprove things about the spokesman of God, who has been given the METAPHORICAL title “The Word of God”. In other words, don't try to use scriptures that speak of LITERAL words God has spoken to teach us things about “The Word of God” who rides a white horse.  Because clearly, LITERAL words of God don't ride a white horse, Kerwin.  A PERSON rides the white horse.  Don't confuse his TITLE “The Word of God” with LITERAL words God has spoken. You cannot just mix and match the word “word” – when there are many different meanings and contexts to also consider. You can't take the word “word” in one particular context, and say that its meaning fits ALL other contexts.  Because it doesn't.

Mike,

I do not see where your points apply to what I believe but I do see where you have used one use of the word logos in Revelations in attempt to prove that John 1 is speaking of a person. I have not seen you do it lately.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 15 2014,15:11)

Hi MB, The Word became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth at the Jordan. Thence he became Jesus Christ We seem to have done this before. Concentrate

I know we've been here before, Nick. But it's just so much fun for me to keep pushing you farther and farther back into that corner – until you have no choice but to say what it is you really believe. And that is that the Word came to be IN Jesus of Nazareth.

You can't ADD the word “IN” into John 1:14, Nick. By doing so, you alter not only John's words, but the entire MEANING of what he taught.

For example, “The Holy Spirit CAME TO BE IN King David” does NOT mean the same thing as, “The Holy Spirit BECAME King David”.

Those two are completely different teachings, right? So we can't eliminate the word “IN” from the first one, or add the word “IN” to the second one, without entirely ALTERING the meaning of the statement.

Surely you understand these things, right?

So, what understanding would you come to if you were PROHIBITED from adding the word “IN” into John 1:14? What does it mean that the Word actually BECAME the flesh being who dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son?

That's the understanding I have – because I don't add the word “IN” into 1:14, thereby completely ALTERING the meaning of what John was inspired by God to write.

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Is the role of a leader here to try to have fun at the expense of the members?

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 15 2014,15:50)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 16 2014,01:57) In other words, don't try to use scriptures that speak of LITERAL words God has spoken to teach us things about “The Word of God” who rides a white horse.  Because clearly, LITERAL words of God don't ride a white horse, Kerwin.  A PERSON rides the white horse.  Don't confuse his TITLE “The Word of God” with LITERAL words God has spoken. Mike, I do not see where your points apply to what I believe but I do see where you have used one use of the word logos in Revelations in attempt to prove that John 1 is speaking of a person.  I have not seen you do it lately.

Kerwin,

Let me explain what I'm saying:

The worlds were framed by the word of God.

Now, you can understand that to be LITERAL words God spoke or commanded.  But IF you understand that “word of God” to be a group of LITERAL words that God spoke, then you CAN'T use that verse to prove anything, one way or the other, about “the Word of God” in Revelation 19:13.  Because it is obvious that the PERSON who rides the white horse is NOT a group of LITERAL words that God spoke.

So, do John 1:1 and 1:14 speak about a PERSON who is called “The Word of God”?  Yes, obviously, because it was a PERSON who dwelled as a flesh being on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son.

So in that case, I am able to link the uses of “Word of God”, because Rev 19:13, John 1:1, and John 1:14 all speak about a PERSON who is metaphorically titled “The Word of God”.

What I CAN'T do is link those three scriptures with, say, “the ten words” that God gave to Moses on the mountain.  Because “the ten words” are NOT a PERSON, but are instead literal words or sayings that God spoke to someone.

And that is what YOU try to do.  You try to take a scripture that speaks about LITERAL words God spoke, and use it to prove something, one way or the other, about the PERSON who is metaphorically called “The Word of God”.

So don't do that anymore, okay?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 16 2014,12:55)

Hi MB, Is the role of a leader here to try to have fun at the expense of the members? God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

I take much pleasure from making fun of the silly doctrines of people who are unable to adequately explain, or scripturally support those doctrines – but go on teaching them as truth anyway.

Now, I asked you what conclusion you would come to if we PROHIBITED you from adding the word “IN” into John 1:14.

What if you HAD TO take it as it was written, and come to an understanding of what it meant for the Word to actually BECOME the flesh being who dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son?

In other words, how would your current understanding CHANGE if you weren't allowed to add your own extra words into John 1:14?

Perhaps it would be more in line with the way I understand it, huh?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Are your views the gold standard??

The Word was God. The Word was made flesh

[Author]

Posts