John 8:58 - "Before Abraham was, I am"

Sophrosyne · #11 27th May 2012, 08:20 PM

Stoning someone for being greater than the greatest man (prophet) but not God is not something Jews would do. What you are equating here is the Jews just go around stoning anyone they feel like for insulting remarks and that is not the case as they would them be sinning via murder as that would not be a stonable offense unto itself. In other words if they were to stone Jesus it was equated to breaking the commandments and from what words are written you have a problem coming up with anything else but blasphemy as the reason.

Phantasman · #12 27th May 2012, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

Agreed. I don't know if you saw it, but I posted a thread showing that the early church did not believe in the Trinity doctrine. You can search the Unorthodox threads with the terms: "Nicene Crisis History Uncut" and it should come up. It is documented. Really lays the historical argument to rest in my opinion.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

And I agree with you.

Before 200 AD there may have been no big alluding to the trinity idea. The Catholic Church under Tertullian made a lot of changes:

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD),[1] was a prolific early Berber Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa.[2] He is the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was a notable early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy. Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity"[3] and "the founder of Western theology."[4] Though conservative, he did originate and advance new theology to the early Church. He is perhaps most famous for being the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin trinitas),[5] and giving the oldest extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology.

Remember that the Catholics held the Bible hostage for about one thousand years by only allowing it to be published in Latin and held by the Bishops and Cardinals. It was William Tyndale, who in 1525, eventually was charged with heresy by the church and eventually executed for translating the Latin Bible into English.

Even the King James Bible was taken mostly from the Tyndale Bible. So you have translation after translation and Tertullian in the mix. One verse has the "Word" being God. So many other verses, Jesus says his Father is greater than he, and the word "and" is used between them (of the Father, and of the Son...), yet many follow Tertullian.

Go figure.

2ducklow · #13 27th May 2012, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

Hello,

I went through a period of time when I thought that Christ probably did not exist prior to his taking on of the body. I really had hangups on John 1 though.

there are no hangups on john 1, if one takes logos to mean what it means everywhere else in the bible, which is the word of god, or God's words. In that case , What God said was God is what "the word was God' means. and since all would agree that God's words are not literally God, the meaning would have to be something like saying "your words Gettingtallents, is you", No one would take that statement literally , and no one can take "the word was God' literally , unless they change the meaning of logos to something it doesn't mean, such as preexistant christ or as some say, a sentient being.

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

Furthermore, some passages show Christ coming from heaven, such as:
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13)

yes one can take that literally, in which case a literal interpretation would contradict scripture that says Jesus was begotten and conceived. Jesus came down from heaven because God who is in heaven begat him. That's my figurative interpretation, which fits in with Jesus being begotten and coonceived and generating a new generation, and being the beginning of a new creation.

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

"He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all." (John 3:31)

Yes Jesus is the spiritual man because he overcame, just as we are called to be spiritual men and not carnal men., Our spirituality comes from heaven not of our ownselves.

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38)

same as above. the bible also says that Jesus is that mana that came down from heaven. mana represents the word of god, Jesus is not literally mana, Jesus is figuratively mana because the words he speaks are mana, and those words come from God his Father.

it was the word of God that came down to man and cluminated in the birth of Jesus Christ who figuratively is that word of god. Jesus is figuratively god's words because he is the fulfillment of them and because he always speaks the words of god his Father, who gives him those words to speak. It's just like someone always talking about say the chicago bears, one might call that person a chicago bear cause thats seemingly all that person talks about.

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

"[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (John 6:62)

Jesus was the word before, figuratively, and Jesus did ascend from whence he came, which is where God is.

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" (Hebrews 10:5)

God has also sent all christians into the world as well. wWe are told to be in the world but not of the world.

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

"John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." (John 1:15)

before me in what? position? time? it doesn't say. So it can't be clearly saying that Jesus preexisted, by a long shot in my estimation.

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

I honestly tried to reconcile the Bible with the belief that Christ began at his conception. I do not believe that is the correct interpretation. Is there any particular passage that you belileve excludes the possibility that these texts could indicate a preexistent Christ?

All the ones that say Jesus was begotten and conceived preclude that, unless one takes those verses figuratively.. I take them literally, I believe Jesus is the literal son of
God because I believe God literally created new human male seed that he begat Jesus with.

I can see how one might conclude that I'm strretching it a bit with my interpretations here listed, but the obviouls meaning isn't always the correct meaning, And when the obvious meaning contradicts other clear scripture it is time to search for a less obvious interpretation.

but there is also the beginning of one of the gospels that says "the generation of Jesus Christ", well that word can also mean 'beginning". And I did run into one translation that does translate it as 'the beginning of Jesus Christ'.

Here is Strongs definition of the word in math .1.1

Originally Posted by Strongs

New Testament Greek for ' of the generation '
1078 genesis {ghen'-es-is}
from the same as 1074; TDNT - 1:682,117; n f
AV - generation 1, natural 1, nature 1; 3
1) source, origin
1a) a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or
progeny are enumerated
(strong's number 1078)

So mat. 1.1 reads "the origin of Jesus Christ". That according to Strongs is the primary meaning of the greek word genesis 1078. Natrurally no one is going to translate it according to it's primary meaning because that would utterly destroy the preexistant christ theory. In fact strongs doesn't even list generation as a definition of the word.

Gettingtalents · #14 28th May 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sophrosyne

Stoning someone for being greater than the greatest man (prophet) but not God is not something Jews would do. What you are equating here is the Jews just go around stoning anyone they feel like for insulting remarks and that is not the case as they would them be sinning via murder as that would not be a stonable offense unto itself. In other words if they were to stone Jesus it was equated to breaking the commandments and from what words are written you have a problem coming up with anything else but blasphemy as the reason.

Where is the stipulation that says they could stone a man for claiming to be God? What makes this acceptable? Would this be murder? Is it not murder because it was considered blasphemy?

It is not that they are stoning someone who is merely insulting them. Rather, they took his statement as making greater claims than that of Abraham and the prophets. Since Abraham and the prophets gave the Jews their teachings about God, they did not merely take a claim to be greater than the prophets and Abraham as simple insults. This was, in their mind, a statement in opposition to their religion/God. After all, it was not their stature or wealth, etc. that made the prophets "great" in the mind of the Jews, but it was their interaction with God and the conveyance of his will. If someone said their teachings were greater tha that of the Bible, would you feel as if it was a simple insult to you? Or would you feel as if his words were in opposition to God? It is merely a book, but it conveys God's teachings.... So did Abarham and the prophets.

It would be one thing to say, "Abraham had ugly hair," it is another thing to live your whole life based upon teachings handed down from Abraham and the prophets, given to them by God, and then hear someone claim that they had something better.

Furthermore, you assume that they would not commit murder. I would argue that they would commit murder. Look what Jesus says to them right before the statements about living forever and about Abraham:

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. (John 8:40)

Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44)

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

RINO 72 · #15 28th May 2012, 06:15 PM

Getttingtalents posted "The best translation of the Greek in John 1:1 would actually not say "with God," because "pros ton theon" indicates "toward God" in one sense or another. In this instance, the Word points back to God inasmuch as he is the image of God. Being the Word, or expression, of God, this is what he does. He reveals God to us. Why else would he even be called "the Word"?

It is my understanding that this terminology speaks of a personal relationship. Paul uses this term in 1 Cor 13: when he says:For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to (pros) face. The Word was eternally face to face with God. No monotheistic Jew like John would think that there are two eternal beings.

Gettingtalents "The manner in which he "was God" is in relation to him being the image of God. If I show you an image of myself, like a photograph, and ask you, "Who is that?" You could say, "That is you." And it is me, but only by expression. There are not two of me, nor one of me divided into two. Rather, there is one me, and the image of me is me by expression. Likewise, Christ is the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15). When we see Christ, we see the Father (John 12:45), and yet, "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18). We have not seen God himself, but we see God when we see Christ, imasuch as the person of God is reflected through his obedient, Spirit filled Son."

This is FF Bruce's comments on this passage: The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation "the Word was God". Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God". What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God.

Colossians 1:15-17
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. NASB

I dont mean to be obvious man, but Trinitarians do not believe the Father and the Son are the same Person. The Son can be the "exact representation of His nature" (Hebrews 1:3),reflect the nature of God, and be the perfect image of the Father because, like the Father, He is eternal and unlimited in His deity.
A lot of folks believe "Firstborn" must mean at some point He was created. Maybe the term means first created. But the Bible also speaks of another aspect of this term and that is it's preeminence. It refers to a position rather than being the first created:
EXODUS 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.
Now Israel was not the first nation God created but it was the nation that was chosen to be in a special relationship with Him.But surely this is the Psalm Paul had in mind when he pinned colossians: Psalm 89:27 "I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. So, I believe "firstborn of all creation" implies priority over all creation and sovereignty over all creation.
Colossians 2:8-9
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

The KJV rendering is "godhead" the same as in Romans 1:20, but lexical sources say the word we have at Col 2:9 is not the same, this is what Richard trench said on these two renderings: found in Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament:

...yet they (theiotes and theotes) must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; theotes being from theos, and theiotes, not from to theion, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to theos, but from the adjective theios ...But in the second passage (Col. ii.9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son;...4

So my question to you is how can a non eternal,creature contain the very Deity of God?

Gettingtalents · #16 28th May 2012, 09:01 PM

Hey brother,

Originally Posted by RINO 72

It is my understanding that this terminology speaks of a personal relationship. Paul uses this term in 1 Cor 13: when he says:For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to (pros) face. The Word was eternally face to face with God. No monotheistic Jew like John would think that there are two eternal beings.

Every time the phrase, "pros ton theon" (unto the God) is used, it never indicates "with God." It generally is used as something directed at God, like "prayer to (pros) God," (Acts 12:5, etc.) or "blasphemy against (pros) God," (Revelation 13:6). In some fashion, the Word was "toward" God. I believe it refers to the Word, being the expression of God, pointing us back to God. I do not know of anything that would prohibit the meaning that the Word was "toward" God as in facing God in the beginning. It seems a bit odd to me, though. However, we do see a view of intimacy between the Father and the Son in John 1:18, where we read that he is "in (Greek - en) the bosom of the Father." This is akin to John 13:23, "Now there was leaning on (Greek - en) Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." To me, the focus is on the Word being the expression of God, and in this way being God, which I believe the immediate context supports.

This is FF Bruce's comments on this passage: The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation "the Word was God". Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God". What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God.

I agree with him all the way up until he says, "What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God." This is conjecture. The word is God in some sense, a lesser sense than would be indicated by the presence of the direct article. We see the direct article used in the first mention of God, "the Word was pros (unto) ton (THE) theon (God)," but it is left out when he says, "the Word was thoes (God)."As he said, this was to show that the Word was not God in an unqualified sense.

I dont mean to be obvious man, but Trinitarians do not believe the Father and the Son are the same Person. The Son can be the "exact representation of His nature" (Hebrews 1:3),reflect the nature of God, and be the perfect image of the Father because, like the Father, He is eternal and unlimited in His deity.

I understand. I would say that Hebrews 1:3 doesn't have to be understood of "nature." I believe the focus is on who God is, not what he is. I like the NLT, which reads, "The Son radiates God's own glory and expresses the very character of God." This is the manner in which God was revealed in Christ, even more so than in the prophets, which is the contrast being made. The hupostasis ("person" KJV) is the "underlying principle" but this can refer to the "character of God" that underlies his actions.

A lot of folks believe "Firstborn" must mean at some point He was created. Maybe the term means first created. But the Bible also speaks of another aspect of this term and that is it's preeminence. It refers to a position rather than being the first created:
EXODUS 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.
Now Israel was not the first nation God created but it was the nation that was chosen to be in a special relationship with Him.But surely this is the Psalm Paul had in mind when he pinned colossians: Psalm 89:27 "I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. So, I believe "firstborn of all creation" implies priority over all creation and sovereignty over all creation.
Colossians 2:8-9

This is a long study. I argue that "firstborn" always carries the literal meaning. Now, in Exodus, God speaks of Israel as his firstborn, and then says that he will slaythe firstborn of Pharaoh.

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, [even] thy firstborn." (Exodus 4:22-23)

It was literally Pharaoh's firstborn son that was slain, and I believe that Israel was literally God's firstborn son. How is this so? Well, the explanation has to do with what it means to be a "son of God" and also how Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and yet how we are said to be begotten of God as well (1 John 5:1, etc.).

Son of God refers to the attributes of the Father revealed in a person, similar to how the Jews were called children of the devil in John 8:44. It has to do with the character expressed through an individual. Now, the character of God is expressed solely in Christ, and when Christ is in turn revealed in us, the character of God is revealed through Christ in us as well. In this way, Christ is the only begotten of God, but we partake of his sonship (that is, the character of God revealed in him) as the character of Christ is revealed in us. I attribute the sonship of Israel a partaking of the sonship of Christ. If not, how was Christ God's firstborn at that time if Israel was?

In Psalm 89:27, "David" refers to Christ (as in Ezekiel 34:23, 37:24, Jeremiah 30:9).

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

The KJV rendering is "godhead" the same as in Romans 1:20, but lexical sources say the word we have at Col 2:9 is not the same, this is what Richard trench said on these two renderings: found in Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament:

...yet they (theiotes and theotes) must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; theotes being from theos, and theiotes, not from to theion, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to theos, but from the adjective theios ...But in the second passage (Col. ii.9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son;...4

So my question to you is how can a non eternal,creature contain the very Deity of God?

This word in particular is only used once in the NT. I take it a similar to what we read in Acts 17:29:

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." (Acts 17:29)

Here, theios is an adjective that means "divine ____" hence we see some translations read "divine being" or "divine nature." I believe Paul was vague inasmuch as he was explaining "the unknown God" (Acts 17:23) and was leading off with, "the unidentifed divine _____." Simply making the argument that that which is divine, although unkown, should evidently be greater than idols made of gold, silver, etc. That is what I believe about that text.

Now, in Colossians 2:9 the word used is theotēs, this is a noun, so instead of a "divine ____" we see something that is itself identified as divine. The definte article is used as well. I believe a proper translation would be, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the divinity bodily." This is to say, as I understand it, that the fulness of the one who is divine was in Chirst bodily. By comparison, Paul says we may "be filled with all the fulness of God." (Ephesians 3:19) In relation to Christ, and in relation to those who are filled with all the fulness of God, this is not to say that God is not elsewhere. In other words, his fulness is not his complete and contained being, but rather the completeness of his character.

"Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

daq · #17 29th May 2012, 06:59 AM

Perhaps the following might help?

John 1:1 TUA
1. En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai theos en ho Logos.

''In [the] arche-commencement was the Logos, and the Logos WAS-TO-IN THE SIDE OF the Theon, and theos-deity was the Logos''…

Original Strong's Ref. #4314
Romanized pros
Pronounced pros
a strengthened form of GSN4253; a preposition of direction; forward to, i.e. toward (with the genitive case the side of, i.e. pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, i.e. near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated):
KJV--about, according to , against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-])by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), X together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with(-in). In comparison it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.

Genesis 6:12-16 KJV
12. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Deuteronomy 31:22-26 KJV
22. Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.
23. And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee.
24. And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25. That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26. Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

John 10:1-9 KJV
1. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Gettingtalents · #18 29th May 2012, 10:23 AM

Hey Brother Daq,

Hope all is well with you today.

I noticed your post highlighted the meaning of pros when used in conjunction with the dative or genitive case. Theon in John 1:1 is in the accusative case.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

daq · #19 29th May 2012, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Gettingtalents

Hey Brother Daq,

Hope all is well with you today.

I noticed your post highlighted the meaning of pros when used in conjunction with the dative or genitive case. Theon in John 1:1 is in the accusative case.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

The same thing happens with 2 Peter 3:8 which is why the same is so hotly debated in its meaning amongst the futurists and prophecy buffs in the modern 'prophets' forum:

2 peter 3:8 KJV
8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with [GSN#3844 para] the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Original Strong's Ref. #3844
Romanized para
Pronounced par-ah'
a primary preposition; properly, near; i.e. (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local [especially beyond or opposed to] or causal [on account of]:
KJV--above, against, among, at, before, by, contrary to, X friend, from, + give [such things as they], + that [she] had, X his, in, more than, nigh unto, (out) of, past, save, side...by, in the sight of, than, [there-]fore, with. In compounds it retains the same variety of application.

Yet the KJV once again here translates para-''BESIDE'' as ''WITH'' because perhaps when too many minds were involved they could not come to any definitive conclusion. Thus we have all of the arguing and infighting about such things as we do today, and since language has evolved so much since that time most do not even recognize the underlying truth that this passage has nothing to do with how time passes for the Creator but rather for the individual who is BESIDE the Creator, (see any thread which has the word 'MILLENNIUM' in its topic of discussion).

2 Peter 3:8 TUA
8. Hen [GSN#1520 heis] de touto me lanthaneto humas, agapetoi, hoti mia [GSN#3391 mia] hemera para [GSN#3844 para] Kurio hos chilia ete kai chilia ete hos hemera mia [GSN#3391 mia].

Original Strong's Ref. #1520
Romanized heis
Pronounced hice
(including the neuter [etc.] hen); a primary numeral; one:
KJV--a(-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also GSN1527, GSN3367, GSN3391, GSN3762.

Original Strong's Ref. #3391
Romanized mia
Pronounced mee'-ah
irregular feminine of GSN1520; one or first:
KJV--a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

2 Peter 3:8
8. But one [heis] thing let not be hidden from you beloved; that the first [mia] day BESIDE [the] Lord is as a thousand years; and a thousand years is as the first day.

It is primarily about walking BESIDE the Lord rather than a literal one thousand year millennium. Therefore the literal truth literally and abruptly changes the focus completely. The mindset now, from the perspective of the writer, (which hopefully should be the same for the reader) is that one day BESIDE the Creator might as well be a thousand years because to truly pass from death into life is to awaken into the eternal.

As for John 1:1 the rules also for that word [pros] appear to be more constrictive than what the author must have originally intended because it is obviously speaking in terms of Scripture and what the Word states elsewhere as shown in the passages which were quoted in my previous post. Have you heard or read of Beyth ha-'Etsel? the 'House of the Side'?

Micah 1:11 KJV
11. Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir, having thy shame naked: the inhabitant of Zaanan came not forth in the mourning of Bethezel; [HSN#1018 Beyth ha-'etsel] he shall receive of you his standing.

Original Strong's Ref. #1018
Romanized Beyth ha-'etsel
Pronounced bayth haw-ay'-tsel
from HSN1004 and HSN0681 with the article interposed; house of the side; Beth-ha-Etsel, a place in Palestine:
KJV--Beth-ezel.

However, you will not find the full answer to its meaning there in Micah 1:11 because it is the result of a combination of passages, including the ones posted previously above, and several other passages including Zechariah 14, (the mountain valley, in the race that we all run, reaches unto 'Atsel wherein is the 'House of the Side').

Zechariah 14:5 KJV
5. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: [HSN#682 'Atsel] yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Original Strong's Ref. #682
Romanized 'Atsel
Pronounced aw-tsale'
from HSN0680; noble; Atsel, the name of an Israelite, and of a place in Palestine:
KJV--Azal, Azel.

Original Strong's Ref. #680
Romanized 'atsal
Pronounced aw-tsal'
a primitive root; properly, to join; used only as a denominative from HSN0681; to separate; hence, to select, refuse, contract:
KJV--keep, reserve, straiten, take.

Original Strong's Ref. #681
Romanized 'etsel
Pronounced ay'-tsel
from HSN0680 (in the sense of joining); a side; (as a preposition) near:
KJV--at, (hard) by, (from) (beside), near (unto), toward, with. See also HSN1018. [Beyth ha-'etsel]

John 19:34-35 KJV
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

Yet how is it that anyone may positively know and believe these things just because it was written here in John 19:34-35? One will not believe it unless and until the Master reveal it concerning himself and lead that one to the truth of his own accord in the Word. Therefore it will be necessary to seek out in prayer and careful study to find the passages of Scripture which describe in more fullness the meaning of the 'House of the Side' if one truly desires to understand why genitive, dative, and accusative cases are not so cut and dry as the translators and modern scholars would have us to believe. Most of the time when you find heated debate concerning a topic, passage, verse, or statement, you will generally also find an instance where modern interpretive rules have taken precedent, or liberty, over the remainder of substantive Scripture information available on any particular topic. Sorry for another long post but be assured that all of this concerns our understanding of John 1:1 and the reasons why I understand it the Way that I do.

daq · #20 29th May 2012, 06:51 PM

Thought it best to go ahead and post this here allowing you to commence the top of the next page, (unless someone else beats you to it).

Ephesians 5:30-32 KJV
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Genesis 1:26-28 KJV
26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Yet there is neither male nor female in the kingdom of heaven. Understand that this is typology and all written for our understanding and learning of things supernal and spiritual concerning our Creator and his divine ways. Thus mankind was created in the beginning as PART and COUNTERPART in the supernal sense. And they were first created as ONE UNIT before Adam was put into a deep sleep, (which is obviously intentional and part of the intended plan). And where was the 'counterpart' taken from? Was Eve taken from 'TOWARD' the side of Adam or was Eve taken from 'IN THE SIDE' of Adam? Perhaps this is why Paul quotes from Genesis 2:23-24 and states that it is a great mystery concerning Christ and the body-church:

Genesis 2:21-24 KJV
21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23. And Adam said, This is now [HSN#6470-71 pa`am] bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Original Strong's Ref. #6471
Romanized pa`am
Pronounced pah'-am
or (feminine) pa`amah {pah-am-aw'}; from HSN6470; a stroke, literally or figuratively (in various applications, as follow):
KJV--anvil, corner, foot(-step), going, [hundred-]fold, X now, (this) + once, order, rank, step, + thrice, ([often-]), second, this, two) time(-s), twice, wheel.

Original Strong's Ref. #6470
Romanized pa`am
Pronounced paw-am'
a primitive root; to tap, i.e. beat regularly; hence (generally) to impel or agitate:
KJV--move, trouble.

Genesis 2:23 TUA
23. Wayo'mer ha'adam, Zo't hapa`am `etsem me`tsamayuwbasar mibsariy lzo't yiqare' 'ishah kiy me'iyshluqachah- zo't.

Genesis 2:23
23. ''And said the 'adam; This beating-agitation bone is from my bones, and flesh from my flesh: this shall be called 'ishah; for out from 'iysh was taken this!''

And as the Scripture says; it is a mystery, and there is neither male nor female in the kingdom of heaven, and Yeshua came forth in the same way: from WITHIN THE SIDE of the Theou Father. If one perceives Yeshua as the fulfillment of the typology of a rib bone, beating and alive, taken out from the side of the Father: then Yeshua is just as much deity issuing forth from the Father as Eve was humanity being taken from within the side of Adam.

Therefore, according to the typology of the creation of man and woman, part and counterpart created in the very image of 'Elohiym as one united; Then in the beginning was the Word; and the Word was 'IN THE SIDE' of the Theou Father; like a living beating rib-bone which was taken from the side of the Father, yet neither male nor female: but rather SPIRIT for which a body was prepared.