- This topic has 3,120 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
We have two different perceptions here.
Very far apart from each other.There is a deep gulf in between.
Believer1. The Word of God is just words spoken by some creature God created.
He is the beginning of God’s creation. And not to be worshipped.
Believe that God’s own image is created. Meaning God’s own image is some creature.
How can one’s image be some other than the person?This is mind warping.
Yet believe that all scriptures are focused on him?
And to walk in Him; and have the spirit of Him. I see this as worship.
Believer2. God’s Word is a living being brough out of God in the image of God; not created.
Simply brought from inside of God to outside of God; and to be worshipped as in rev 21:22
Scripture also says that: you have the Son ;you have the Father; you have the father;you have the Son.
Still this is refused by believer 1. For the sake of some false doctrine that contradict it self.
wakeup.
Mike,
Everything you say amounts to: “The Word was Jesus on earth”. And this is also what I believe.
We both agree that Jesus Christ was the word after the word was given the characteristics of a person but we disagree that the word was a person before Jesus Christ originated in his mother’s womb.
Mike,
So the fact that Philo, on occasion, used metaphorical language is proof to you that all the above things he said about the logos being person really mean the logos WASN’T a person?
Why do you reach for ANYTHING except for the most logical and sensible way words can be understood? No matter, Philo and I believe that the Word WAS INDEED God’s first begotten Son. And as such, he was a second lesser god who was nevertheless still superior to the many other gods (angels) that God then created through that firstborn one.
The most reasonable and sensible way Philo’s writings can be understood as allegorical. But it is possible that Philo spoke clearly at times as Jesus both used metaphorical language and spoke clearly. Even in Scripture there are some places where the word is spoken of in metaphysical language and other places it is not. In some way we have to be able to tell which use,if not both, gives the more truthful understanding.
when it says all humans have been created through Adam this is true but this is from ADAM and beyond ,so not including Adam
But if it said that the definition of a man was that who was created through Adam and that all who were not created through Adam are not man, then by that definition, Adam would not be a man.
Similarly, if all that was made was made through the Word and NOTHING that was made was made without the Word, then the Word cannot be made either.
To t8
The only thing I see in your thinking is that you make things complicated , Christ has been created, made, born, bring forth, to me it is all the same , what is to me a reality is that at one time Jesus The Word did not exist , and that God created all things through him ,
That is my scriptural understanding , the fact that we really do not understand God s creation process or the way he as made all things , is a good reason not to waist our time on what we do not and can not comprehend, at the least not now,
There are better things to do on things we should know and do
Wakeup wrote:We have two different perceptions here.
Very far apart from each other.There is a deep gulf in between.
Believer1. The Word of God is just words spoken by some creature God created.
Hi Wakeup,
You are confused about what I believe. I don’t believe the Word of God is words spoken by a creature. I believe the Word of God is called the Word of God because he is God’s main spokesman. It has nothing at all to do with him being a LITERAL word that God ever spoke.
Wakeup wrote:He is the beginning of God’s creation. And not to be worshipped.
And no, I don’t believe Jesus, who is the Word of God, is to be worshipped.
Wakeup wrote:Believe that God’s own image is created. Meaning God’s own image is some creature.
I do know for a fact that creations like mankind were indeed created in God’s own image, so I don’t see your problem with that one.
Wakeup wrote:How can one’s image be some other than the person?This is mind warping.
Man is also the image of God. Is man another person? Or is man God Himself?
kerwin wrote:We both agree that Jesus Christ was the word after the word was given the characteristics of a person but we disagree that the word was a person before Jesus Christ originated in his mother’s womb.
Not quite, Kerwin. I don’t believe the Word was “given the characteristics of a person”, because that lame nonsense isn’t stated anywhere in scripture. What IS stated, and therefore what I believe, is that the Word BECAME flesh and dwelled on earth as Jesus of Nazareth.
And I have shown you, verse for verse in John 1, why that is the truth of the matter.
kerwin wrote:The most reasonable and sensible way Philo’s writings can be understood as allegorical.
Hogwash. He thought of the logos as a lesser god, Kerwin. He thought of the logos as God’s first Son, who was superior to the angels.
In short, he apparently understood it the most logical way it could be understood from John 1 and many, many other scriptures. Your idea of “reasonable and sensible” is clearly different than mine.
t8 wrote:But if it said that the definition of a man was that who was created through Adam and that all who were not created through Adam are not man, then by that definition, Adam would not be a man
Eve is called in scripture “the mother of all living”, right? (Gen 3:20) So let’s try it this way:
All human beings came into existence through Eve. Without her, not one human being came into existence.
Is it a true statement, based on the SCRIPTURE Gen 3:20? Absolutely.
But does it mean that Eve herself DIDN’T come into existence? No.
Do the words automatically PROHIBIT Eve from being a part of the creation that came into existence THROUGH her? No.
And for Ed, does the statement show TWO exceptions, ie: Adam AND Eve herself? Yes.
And for t8, would it matter if we translated “came into existence” in that statement to “were made through Eve”, or “were created through Eve”, etc? No. We can say the same thing, using the word “created” instead of “came into existence”, and we would STILL NOT be prohibiting Eve from being a part of creation, right?
Mike,
Not quite, Kerwin. I don’t believe the Word was “given the characteristics of a person”, because that lame nonsense isn’t stated anywhere in scripture. What IS stated, and therefore what I believe, is that the Word BECAME flesh and dwelled on earth as Jesus of Nazareth.
That lame nonsense is stated more than one place in Scripture but you do not want to believe that definition of certain terms is correct.
Merriam-Webster online dictionary tells us “was” is “the past 1st & 3d singular of be”.
It also states “be” can mean ‘used to describe the qualities of a person or thing” but you do not believe that’s what it means when used in John 1:14.
Hi Mikeb.
Jesus could have been black,white, brown, short, tall, fat,skinny.
That is not what the image is all about.
It is the person inside Him.The spirit.
No one is as Holy as God but Jesus. No one is from everlasting in God, but the word of God.
Adam was created in the image of God but then,he changed that image spiritually.
He became in opposition to God.
If you dont worship Jesus ,you can not worship God.
No man come to the Father but by ME.
Mike, you are forcing your way in,which is a waste of time.
You are creating your own system;going against the grain.
wakeup.
Wakeup,
My understanding takes all of the scriptures into account, and doesn’t rely on one shred of nonsense. You cannot say the same about your understanding. You go ahead and worship the creation if you want. I will worship the same one that creation himself worshipped.
Hi Mikeb.
Tell me that the Hs is not alive and can not teach.
Tell me that the Word of God is not alive and can not appear as a man.
wakeup.
Mike,
I wrote:
That lame nonsense is stated more than one place in Scripture but you do not want to believe that definition of certain terms is correct.
Merriam-Webster online dictionary tells us “was” is “the past 1st & 3d singular of be”.
It also states “be” can mean ‘used to describe the qualities of a person or thing” but you do not believe that’s what it means when used in John 1:14.
You wrote:
And to which word “was” would you like to apply that definition? Which verse are you talking about?
John 1:14 is the one I mentioned.
Hi Mike.
Did we engage in a setup debate regarding Jesus being begotten vs created? If so, do you know where it is?
Eve is called in scripture “the mother of all living”, right? (Gen 3:20) So let’s try it this way:
All human beings came into existence through Eve. Without her, not one human being came into existence.
Is it a true statement, based on the SCRIPTURE Gen 3:20? Absolutely.
But does it mean that Eve herself DIDN’T come into existence? No.
Do the words automatically PROHIBIT Eve from being a part of the creation that came into existence THROUGH her? No.
And for Ed, does the statement show TWO exceptions, ie: Adam AND Eve herself? Yes.
What you say can fairly be compared to the following, but of course is not conclusive:
All things were made by him;
However, the next part of the verse goes even further and it makes your view hard to defend.
and without him was not any thing made that was made.
This would be comparable to “Eve the mother of all living” and “without her not anything living is living”. Simply put, Adam and Eve negate the second part and when we consider God and the Angels we also know they are living and not the offspring of Eve right? So the latter part leads to a problem.
If we were debating Eve as the mother of all living and if scripture actually said “without her not anything living is living”, then the only conclusion would be that Eve begat all that is living. And the definition of living could include anything that has life. Such a statement would lead to all manner of ideas such as Eve being God. So it would clearly be wrong to say that and hence why we do not see anything like that in scripture regarding Eve. But for the Logos, we do see such a statement.
and without him was not any thing made that was made.
And for t8, would it matter if we translated “came into existence” in that statement to “were made through Eve”, or “were created through Eve”, etc? No. We can say the same thing, using the word “created” instead of “came into existence”, and we would STILL NOT be prohibiting Eve from being a part of creation, right?
In that instance it wouldn’t matter in as far as changing a truth regarding existing just as when it rains the ground gets wet. But a wet ground doesn’t mean it was rain and this is where we need to be careful. So when we are created we come into existence, but not all that exists was created. And regarding the fact that we were created, it is actually possible that God knew us prior to being sown into the womb. In what way I cannot say, but this is another topic.
If the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus was begotten or the only begotten, then it is reckless to give that a meaning of ‘created’ when the word ‘created’ is not used. It is not hard to imagine that the word ‘begotten’ was chosen for a special reason rather than ‘created’ which we see regularly applied to man, animals, and the cosmos. Why is it that Jesus is begotten while we are created. Perhaps there is a deeper meaning here. The example I have given a few times before proves what I am saying regarding using the scriptural word. Scripture says that Jesus is the only begotten right? If begotten always meant created as you seem to be saying, then Jesus is the ONLY created/creation. Clearly there is a flaw here.
Here are two questions I would like you guys to answer. Make it simple with a yes and a no. Should take less than 30 seconds to answer.
1) Is Jesus the only begotten?
2) Is Jesus the only created?
Are your answers different. If so, my point is valid. I await your two answers.
t8
your two questions are not clear and so present multi answers,
1) is Christ the only begotten son of God as the only first of his creation ;yes
2) Is Christ the only direct creation of God ? yes
none other than Jesus can claim the supremacy after his father ,
You have validated my point.
your two questions are not clear and so present multi answers,
Does this not prove to you that ‘begotten’ and ‘created’ do not entirely mean the same thing?
So if it is not clear that you can just think of ‘begotten’ as ‘created’ then you agree with my point. They are different words with different meanings. Like many words there may be crossover meanings that are the same or similar, but there are also differences.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
