The Word

[kerwin]

Mike,

The creation story in Genesis explicitly declares God made all things through his word.  It does not declare he made anything through another being.

To idea that the Christ was there to have heaven and earth created through him is a teaching that some derive from certain passages of the NT and then look for those in the OT that can be interpreted as hinting at there conclusions.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 04 2014,10:11)

Mike, The creation story in Genesis explicitly declares God made all things through his word.  It does not declare he made anything through another being.

Ahh, but if Jesus IS the one called “God's Word” – as we KNOW to be the case from Rev 19:13 – then saying God made all things “through His Word” is the SAME as saying God made all things “through Jesus”.

Secondly, you yourself agree that “the Word” in John 1:1 is NOT actually God Almighty Himself, but something or someone OTHER THAN God, right?  And that means that God made all things through something/someone OTHER THAN Himself, right? Why can't that “something/someone other than God Himself” be God's firstborn Son – the beginning of the creation by God?

And finally, there are other scriptures that CLEARLY tell us that God made all things through His Son Jesus Christ, right?

So give me a SCRIPTURAL reason why these following three statements………

1.  God made all things through His Word.

2.  God made all things through His Son.

3.  God made all things through Jesus.

………can not ALL refer to the one through whom God made all things.

Are you able to SEE your double standard, Kerwin?  

You understand John 1:3 to be saying God made all things through His Word BEFORE the Word became flesh……. but when the same exact statement is made about “God's Son Jesus Christ”, you understand it to mean that God created CERTAIN NEW THINGS through him AFTER he was flesh.

And I want to know WHY you have such a huge double standard concerning this, when the words said in John 1:3 are virtually identical to the words said in Colossians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Hebrews 1:2.

[kerwin]

Mike,

Joshua is the Hebrew translation of Jesus and yet to say that Joshua let the people into the promised land does not mean Jesus did so. Never the less Joshua is a type of Jesus for the later also leads the people into a greater promised land.

The utterance of God became Jesus but it was not Jesus before the later was conceived. There is no where in the OT he is called the word. It is a teaching of the new covenant and not before.

Your chosen teaching places the creation of angels previous to the creation of heaven or denies heaven was even created. Neither of those really work with Scripture,

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 08 2014,17:34)

Mike, Joshua is the Hebrew translation of Jesus and yet to say that Joshua let the people into the promised land does not mean Jesus did so.

Kerwin,

That statement is simply a diversion, and the kind of thing I was hoping I WOULDN'T have to deal with in this private thread.  (The reason I went private with you is so other people couldn't post unrelated things, giving you a REASON to divert from the points of the matter.)

I could also say that there were other people named “Jesus” in the NT, and they weren't the Messiah sent from God.

What does that have to do with anything?  

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 08 2014,17:34)

The utterance of God became Jesus but it was not Jesus before the later was conceived.

That is very close to the truth of the matter, Kerwin.

1.  Are you saying that when “Jesus” said he came down from heaven, it was a LITERAL statement, because he was indeed a being called “the Word” who literally came down from heaven?

2.  Your CLAIM that he wasn't “Jesus” before Jesus was conceived of flesh doesn't really amount to anything if the SCRIPTURES say differently.  And the scriptures say that all things were created through JESUS as well as through THE WORD.

So if you BELIEVE that God created all things through “the Word” – why do you NOT believe those same scriptures when they tell you that God created all things through “His Son Jesus Christ”?   WHY the double standard?

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 08 2014,17:34)

Your chosen teaching places the creation of angels previous to the creation of heaven or denies heaven was even created.  Neither of those really work with Scripture.

And what is YOUR chosen teaching?  That God formed a being/entity OTHER THAN Himself, and then created all things – INCLUDING THE HEAVENS – through that being/entity OTHER THAN Himself, right?

So how is my teaching different, really?  The only difference I see is that I realize that being/entity OTHER THAN God was Jesus Christ.  And you see it as an unnamed thing or being that later BECAME “Jesus Christ”.

So it seems that we're really not that far away from each other on this.

The bottom line is that we BOTH believe the Word was something or someone OTHER THAN God, and that the Word was the only thing with God when God started to create all things through it/him.

So either way, a being/entity existed alongside God BEFORE God started to create the heavens.

Agreed?

[kerwin]

Mike,

My teaching is that the utterance of God had the aspect of Jesus added to it after he was conceived in his mother's inner self.

[mikeboll64]

Your teaching is that this “utterance” of God was NOT actually God Almighty Himself, but a DIFFERENT entity that was WITH God before God created all things, INCLUDING THE HEAVENS, through him/it.

Is that part correct?

[kerwin]

Mike,

I believe that the word was not a creature until it became Jesus. I believe that heaven was created through it then the angels were created of heaven.

[mikeboll64]

Okay Kerwin,

Forget “creature” for a minute. Do you believe this “Word of God” was a BEING, or an ENTITY other than God Himself before all things were created through it/him?

[kerwin]

Mike,

No, it was not.

[mikeboll64]

If “the Word” was not God Himself, and was not an entity other than God, then what was it?

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

a manifestation of the mind and will of God

My source: Word of God

[mikeboll64]

That definition is VERY confusing to me. Walk me through what exactly that means, using laymen's terms.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2014,06:05)

That definition is VERY confusing to me. Walk me through what exactly that means, using laymen's terms.

Mike,

It is my understanding that is what a dictionary is supposed to do.

1) 'An indication of the presence' of the mind and will of God
2) 'The form in which' the mind and will of God 'is revealed.'

I believe that is the simplest it can be put.

It is a summary. Are you looking for more detail?

Note:

manifestation

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 15 2014,12:09)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2014,06:05) That definition is VERY confusing to me. Walk me through what exactly that means, using laymen's terms. 2) 'The form in which' the mind and will of God 'is revealed.'

And what “form” did this thing take? To whom was it “revealed”?

[mikeboll64]

Wakeup,

This is a private thread for now.

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2014,22:24)

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 15 2014,12:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2014,06:05) That definition is VERY confusing to me. Walk me through what exactly that means, using laymen's terms. 2) 'The form in which' the mind and will of God 'is revealed.' And what “form” did this thing take?  To whom was it “revealed”?

Mike,

It depends on the time and situation how God reveals his mind and will. When Jesus was conceived God's mind and will revealed for him in part. When he chose to sacrifice himself it was also revealed. It was again revealed when he was raised from the dead and then one more 40 day later when he ascended to heaven. The mind and will of God for Jesus is still being revealed to this day even though some that is being revealed has been written in Scripture from time it was written.

[mikeboll64]

So “JESUS” was one of the forms this “indication of the presence of the mind and will of God” took?

And “JESUS” was one of the forms through which “the mind and will of God was revealed”?

Is that correct?

And also, what other “forms” did this thing take on? Is “JESUS” the ONLY one?

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2014,23:20)

So “JESUS” was one of the forms this “indication of the presence of the mind and will of God” took? And “JESUS” was one of the forms through which “the mind and will of God was revealed”? Is that correct? And also, what other “forms” did this thing take on?  Is “JESUS” the ONLY one?

Mike,

The first two points sounds correct.

The only other form is the word that Jesus took on the likeness of.

Jesus is the Heir of God so no one takes on the likeness to the extent he does.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 16 2014,22:48)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 16 2014,23:20) So “JESUS” was one of the forms this “indication of the presence of the mind and will of God” took? And “JESUS” was one of the forms through which “the mind and will of God was revealed”? Is that correct? Mike, The first two points sounds correct.

So if we had to connect “the Word” to a known form, it would be the form of Jesus Christ, and none other?

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 16 2014,22:48)

The only other form is the word that Jesus took on the likeness of.

So then this “Word” did in fact have a form of its own when it was with God in the beginning?

[kerwin]

Mike,

It has a form though it is probably not what you are thinking of as a form as it did not have the attribute of a body. In form it lacked being a person before it was made flesh.

[Author]

Posts