- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi MB,
It would be more in keeping with your role, I would have thought, to concentrate on scriptural understanding than to attack members.Hi MB
“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?”You want the becoming flesh to relate to the conception of the man Jesus?
Mike,
Quote 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”.
At least you seem to understand Jesus was metaphysically called by the name of the word of God in Revelations 19:13 but your argument that John 1:1 is speaking about a person is based on trinitarian translation of Koine Greek pronouns and the fact John stated John was not the light but came to bear witness to the light.
There is no real way that I know of where we can be for sure that John was saying the word or the light were male creatures as the Koine Greek does not work like English. To tell you need to know what he is speaking of before reading his words. It is a place where preconceived bias will affect the translation.
You claim that the words of description are true about Jesus but the Old Testament testify those same words are true about God's word and yet does mention that the Messiah that was to come had those traits at the time the OT was being written. So all you have evidence of is after the word was made flesh Jesus had the characteristics of the word. No one disagrees with that. You also have evidence that John saw Jesus being called by the name of the word in his prophecy of the future a number of years after Jesus ascended to heaven. Your case is deeply flawed but the teaching it supports is what you are used to and so you do not want to abandon it.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2014,18:04) Your case is deeply flawed but the teaching it supports is what you are used to and so you do not want to abandon it.
MY case is flawed?
These are the things you listed that I have on my side:
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 16 2014,18:04) 1. So all you have evidence of is after the word was made flesh Jesus had the characteristics of the word. No one disagrees with that. 2. You also have evidence that John saw Jesus being called by the name of the word in his prophecy of the future a number of years after Jesus ascended to heaven.
1. First of all, the phrase “the Word BECAME flesh” most LOGICALLY refers to something or someone called “the Word” actually and literally BECOMING FLESH. It is FAR LESS LIKELY that the phrase “the Word BECAME flesh” speaks of an already flesh man taking on “characteristics” of something or someone called “the Word”.Once again, you search high and low for ANYTHING that can change the logical meaning or outcome of the written scriptural words. And once again, your alternative understanding is not only lacking in cohesiveness, but is FAR from the most LOGICAL way the words could be understood.
This is you, Kerwin:
Grapes are purple, and cherries are red.
Now, the most LOGICAL understanding of that last part is that the FRUIT known as a “cherry” is red in color. But you will search high and low, and eventually find something on Google that tells you that new recruits coming into Viet Nam were called “cherries” by the veterans who had already served a few terms over there. And you will point out that “red” is an English idiom for someone who is embarrassed….. ie: he turned red with embarrassment.
So even though the most LOGICAL meaning of that last line, when taken in its CONTEXT, refers to the color of the fruit of the cherry tree, you will offer us the NONSENSICAL claim that the writer was talking about new recruits being embarrassed.
That is how you ALWAYS do things, Kerwin. Like I keep telling you, you have no shortage of “answers” for everything. It's just that your answers suck. They don't fit the context, and they are mired in quasi-metaphysical philosophies that ask us to believe the most improbable scenario possible. But at least you get an A for effort. And it's clear that you are not afraid to “red” yourself while positing these “cherry” ideas of yours.
2. So I have evidence of Jesus being called “the Word of God”. And I have evidence that the Word who BECAME flesh was the actual BEING of Jesus, since he is the ONLY one who EVER dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son.
And what do YOU have? The claim that some unnamed attribute of God “BECAME flesh” – which nonsensically means that a flesh being took on some of the attributes OF this attribute of God? And then this unnamed attribute of God rode a white horse and wore a robe which has on it King of kings and Lord of lords? Oh, and this attribute has eyes of blazing fire also – just like Jesus has? (Rev 1:14, 2:18) I suppose you could say that the masculine pronouns used in Revelation 19:11-16 are only due to the fact that the Greek words for “king” and “lord” are masculine.
)I'm sorry Kerwin, that might be all YOU have, but that's NOT all that I have.
3. I also the fact that this so-called “Word of God” was the LIGHT John the Baptist came to testify about. And which LIGHT of the world, exactly, did John the Baptist testify about?
4. I have the fact that God made all things through this so-called “Word of God” – a thing that is said about JESUS in Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6, and Heb 1:2.
5. I have the fact that those who believed in the NAME of this so-called “Word of God” were granted to become children of God. WHOSE is the ONLY name under heaven that is given to us by which we can be saved, and become children of God, and brothers to His firstborn Son? JESUS, right? Surely the name by which we can become children of God is not “The Unnamed Attribute of God”, right?
6. I have the fact that John the Baptist said these words about the so-called “Word of God” in verse 15…….
“This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”
……. and said those same exact words about JESUS in verse 30.
7. I have the fact that verse 16 tells us that grace came to us through the so-called “Word of God”, while verse 17 tells us that grace came to us through JESUS CHRIST.
So the next time you have the audacity to trash-talk my “deeply flawed case” – make sure you take ALL of that case into consideration.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 16 2014,15:18) Hi MB
“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?”You want the becoming flesh to relate to the conception of the man Jesus?
That's not an answer to the question I asked, Nick.If I was God; I can give my word a form in my image.
And I can do all the talking through him.
I just think what to say,and he/my word,can do the talking.
I and my word are one.
He says what I say in my mind.wakeup.
some people never going to get it THAT WORDS ARE ONLY COMMUNICATION TOOLS AND SO ARE USED BY THOSE THAT HAVE PRIVILEGE TO KNOW THEM,
GOD'S WORDS ARE NO DIFFERENT ;IF WE READ THE BIBLE FROM ONE PAGE TO THE OTHER ,THAT IS HOW HE COMMUNICATE WITH ADAM ALL AWAY THROUGH THE PATRIARCH ,PROPHETS ,AND HIS SON JESUS CHRIST ,MEN HAVE WRITTEN THOSE WORDS DOWN AND SO WE CAN ALL USE THEM ,
WE DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THE WAY WORDS ARE MADE INSIDE OF MEN MIND TONGUE ,LIPS,AND VOCAL CORDS LETTER BY LETTER SOUND ;THIS IS NOT WHAT IS TALKED ABOUT
Mike,
Quote 1. First of all, the phrase “the Word BECAME flesh” most LOGICALLY refers to something or someone called “the Word” actually and literally BECOMING FLESH. It is FAR LESS LIKELY that the phrase “the Word BECAME flesh” speaks of an already flesh man taking on “characteristics” of something or someone called “the Word”. No, that is not the most logical accept to those that are looking for it to mean that. There are three possible definitions of “was” and you favor the condition of a person while I see it as speaking of the qualities of thing. John 1:14 does not support the the claim the Christ existed before he was made of a woman.
Mike,
If you think other verses support your teaching better and John 1 is neutral to it then use those teachings. They are not really the topic of this thread.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 18 2014,11:12) Mike, Quote 1. First of all, the phrase “the Word BECAME flesh” most LOGICALLY refers to something or someone called “the Word” actually and literally BECOMING FLESH. It is FAR LESS LIKELY that the phrase “the Word BECAME flesh” speaks of an already flesh man taking on “characteristics” of something or someone called “the Word”. No, that is not the most logical accept to those that are looking for it to mean that.
It is not only the “became flesh” part, Kerwin. It is the rest of John 1, which tells us MANY things about this “Word” – things that are said elsewhere about JESUS in many other scriptures.So taking just “the Word became flesh”, from just verse 14, I say it refers to someone or something that literally “became flesh” – because that's the most logical understanding of “something/someone BECAME FLESH”.
You say that the words “became flesh” are more apt to refer to abstract qualities that metaphorically became flesh – meaning that a flesh person was endowed with these qualities.
Okay, so far we are at a standstill. I like mine better, you like yours better. But what happens when we add the rest?
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
This seems to support my understanding that the one who dwelt among them was a PERSON….. but maybe I'm just reading that into it.
What is your understanding of that bolded part? That some abstract qualities dwelt among John and the others? I'm not sure what that would even mean.
Let's continue:
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Again, I presume that the “only begotten SON” would be a PERSON.
Also, we know that God's only begotten Son came “from the Father”.
And we already KNOW who the only begotten Son that came from the Father is, right? We know that JESUS is the ONLY one who would even fit that description, right?
So, “the Word” was the only begotten Son who came from the Father……. and “Jesus” was the only begotten Son who came from the Father.
What does that tell us? That these “abstract qualities” TURNED INTO the Son of God when the flesh being Jesus of Nazareth took on those qualities? And which is “the Son”? The flesh being? Or the spiritual abstract qualities?
And finally, this Word came to us “full of grace and truth”, right? Read verse 17, Kerwin. Through WHOM did grace and truth come to us? Abstract qualities? Or Jesus Christ?
So it's not just a matter of you saying that my understanding of “The Word became flesh” is NOT the most logical meaning of the words “became flesh”.
It is also a matter of you following through with your understanding for the rest of verse 14, and the rest of John 1.
So I ask you, does “abstract qualities” fit the rest of 14, and the rest of the chapter? If you think so, then please break down verse 14 into segments, and point out how each part aligns with your “abstract qualities” scenario.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 18 2014,13:26) Mike, If you think other verses support your teaching better and John 1 is neutral to it then use those teachings.
Oh, there are many other scriptures that support it, Kerwin. In fact, a group of us listed over 50 of those verses in the “Pre-existent Scriptural Database” thread.But we've barely even scratched the surface of John 1, which perfectly supports my teaching all by itself. So we can remain here for the moment.
Mike,
Quote It is not only the “became flesh” part, Kerwin. It is the rest of John 1, which tells us MANY things about this “Word” – things that are said elsewhere about JESUS in many other scriptures. They are all said about Jesus after the word was made flesh.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
