>>After the Word became Flesh, who was the Word?
The Holy Spirit doesn't fit inside a single human being, but it can enlighten *ALL* human beings.
BUt that isn't what John says.. John said the Word (person or thing) became Flesh (a living person). So, who now is the living person that the Word became?
>>According to you Miachel, the Holy Spirit became a man... hmm...
No, according to me, a man became embued with the presense of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit doesn't fit inside a single human being, but it can enlighten *ALL* human beings.
Aren't the RSv, TEV, TLB and MOFFAT recognized Bibles too? What truth are you saying is layed out before me?
Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said that God is Spirit? Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said he is a
man? Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said that the Father is the only true God? Wasn't Jesus saying the
truth when he said a spirit (God is spirit, remember) doesn't have flesh and bones as he has?
You say Jesus is God. If that is true, aren't you sying Jesus LIED when he said the Father is the only true God?
Your version of Zechariah 12:10 cannot be true because if Jesus was God whom they pierced, then there would
have been two Gods. One, the God whom they pierced and mourned for and wept over, and two, the God raised
Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9). And the Bible does not support this false idea of two Gods. Moreover, Jesus
would have been lying when he said that God is spirit (John 4:24) and therefore could not be pierced.
You seem to want me to say that the "Word" takes on the form of Jesus Christ. Does that make you happy?
Where does that leave the Bible then, for surely it too cannot also be the "Word"?
Sure the Word is made manifest through Jesus, but this is not the same as suggesting Jesus is God.
You on the other hand have been clinging to the bible being the living "Word". Which is it? Is the Holy Spirit the Word, or is a book the Word?
Holy Spirit is the living Word of God.
It is the idea that no one else can achieve this union with God that goes directly against the teachings of Jesus himself.
In the end, as I've said, the true "trinity" is God(1)->, breathing life into creation through the Holy Spirit(2)-> into each of Us(3).
Not really. I hear a lot of "fundies" refer to the bible as the "word" of God. It's certainly not the "WORD" that created physical reality, or the WORD the John refers to. The idea it's flawless therefor seems more than a little like bible worship to me.
The idea it's flawless therefor seems more than a little like bible worship to me.
Why does John also call Jesus, God's SON?
He does not come the conclusion that Jesus is God, only that the "Word" is Jesus through the presense of the Holy Spirit which decended upon Jesus at baptism.
Why do you portray it as infallible? How is that not simply idol worship?
It's one thing to put your faith in the living "WORD" of God, the Holy Spirit, but it's quite another to suggest a human created thing is "infallible".
More threats? Were you tired tonight or what? You have spent days of my time trying to convince me some human written book is somehow a flawless work havent' you, or was that someone else?
Even the passage in question suggests the WORD existed before Jesus was born. What was it then?
It does suggest that Jesus is somehow so different from us as to be on some unattainable pedestal.
This is not what Jesus taught. He refered to himself as a man, and God as the source of all his strength and abilities. He also insisted that we too are capable of this union with God.
No, it's definitely not the party line, but it's the only "trinity" I believe in.
Josephus,
I had asked over on the thread titled "Is John 17:3 True" if you were reading the actual Hebrew or the words below the Hebrew in the bible you have shown.
I mean no disrespect. If you are reading the Hebrew, I applaude you. But on the other hand, if you are reading the words below the Hebrew, are you not reading someone's interpretation of what the Hebrew said.
Just curious.
If you did not "worship" the bible, you would not have any trouble noting that it is *NOT* a flawless document, nor does it even come close to all being the will of God. The fact you can't do these things suggests to me that you are still bible worshipping. Books are not "perfect".
If you believe this book to be flawless, then indeed you must accept that you are bible worshiping as well.
but you are saying two things here which contradict one another.
You hold the bible to be infallible, and yet claim this is not bible worship.
I don't see how you rationalize that contradiction.
Just another guy with another opinion, just like you.
You've elevated a book to the status of "perfection" and claim that's not bible worship.
Why will you not believe Jesus himself when he says we can all achieve this same union with God?
Fortunately he provides on in John 17
John also makes it abundantly clear that he believes Jesus to be the son of God, not God.
You seem to accept only *PART* of his message whereas I'm accepting the *WHOLE* thing.
>>It isn't idol worship becasue I do not worshpi it. Now, answer my question. When have I ever said that the bible is the Living Word of God. You said I did.. show me. If you don't, I assume you madew a statement about me that isn't true.
I'm not going back through months of posts now looking for the best example I can fi
It's pretty clear to everyone that you'd rather believe that genocide is God's will rather than to entertain the idea that Joshua
You *WILL NOT* give me a definition of what constitutes "divine inspiration" in any useful was which might allow us to test this theory of yours, and then you claim this is not artificially lifting a book up to the status of godhood.
What can I say here?
The bible is just a book is it not?
A direct part how?
Through the presense of the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit insists to me that God is love.
John agrees with me.
Genocide is not a loving act.
How do you explain this?
You've called it the "word" of God. The WORD as defined by the Bible is the Holy Spirit which manifest this creation. The bible is man's word.
He called the Holy Spirit the only begotten son of God in fact.
Jesus *doesn't* say this however.
Jesus said that we could achieve this same union with God that he enjoys.
To deny this is to deny his teachings. I won't do that. Whatever status you elevate Jesus to based on "union with" God, you must allow for all beings to achieve this state. That is what Jesus said.
"Divinity" is really more of an intangible. How can you measure that within Jesus directly in the absense of the Holy Spirit for instance? I have no idea how you'd begin to define that in terms unrelated the the Holy Spirit with him, but there is an element of Jesus the man here who allowed this to happen, in fact cooperated with it. This unique "soul" is indeed "divine" IMO too, but it is not "GOD" the "FATHER".
IIt gets to the heart of what the relationship between ouselves and God is really all about.
We all seem to agree it involves the presense of the Holy Spirit, but you seem to believe that the Holy Spirit can descend upon it's own source.
What have I not answered you - repeatedly?
I do *NOT* deny that. What are you trying to suggest?
You however are trying to go a step further and suggest that Jesus was also "divine" in the sense of "being" God. This isn't what Jesus said though, nor is it in alignment with his own experience of fear the night before his death.
Ok, but let's leave some room for honest research shall we? If it turns out that there is convincing evidence some of these writings are not his, then we should listen
And depending on how you choose to interpret that statement, I can accept these things.
Are we talking about John the disciple here, or John the Baptist however?
>>And since he already said that the Word was God, Jesus, therefore, is God in flesh.
Jesus IMO resided in the consciousness of the Holy Spirit pretty much his whole life. I have no idea if he lived a "perfect" life (as in never made a mistake), nor do I care. It is an irrelevant point. I can even accept a very human and "flawed" Messiah. It really doesn't matter to me. His teachings are what matter to me.
I never brought up the concept of Logos. That's only going to complicate the discussion. As to pinning labels on me, you know how I resent the idea of *ANY* label in the first place.
The Holy Spirit is *OF* God, as sunlight is from a sun. A plant absorbs sunlight, but it does not become a sun. If you were to contain a sample of sunlight in some way, the sample would still not be the sun itself.
He most certainly is the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the most part
The WORD existed before Jesus was born. Jesus existed before Jesus was born.
The WORD is not a person. It is the flow of energy through creation, the conscious and directed flow of energy through creation. Jesus was one with this force, emersed in this force.
>>Also, if Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped?
I "worship" what he has done for me. He has shown me the way to the Holy Spirit. For this I am *ETERNALLY* grateful.
I can love my grandparents and my parents and my brothers and sisters without regard to status and hierarchy.[/quoe]
You lost me... Oh and what do you think about Jesus not rebuking anyone for worshipping Him?
>>If Jesus is not God, then why He not correct Thomas when He was called God by Thomas who said to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God."
If Jesus is God, why doesn't he just say so? If Jesus is God, why does John call him t
I was looking for a quote from Jesus himself refering to God in the first person. A simple "I AM GOD" would work nicely. Other peoples opinions about God don't count. Who wrote Hebrews? Was it even Paul? Paul believed women should not speak in church too. Shall we believe everything he says?
Huh? According to the writers of the gospels, God called Jesus his *SON* after baptism.
Some of these opinions were inspired. Others were less than inspired.
To bad you can't back this up with proof eh?All things attributeable to the Holy Spirit made flesh in the form of the Messiah.
Well guess what, "I am" too. Did you fall over yet?
So much for preexistence being a "heresy" eh? Before I was in this body ZC, I AM too. So are you.
I'm not sure which John you are refering to here, whether you mean John the baptist now, or John the disciple. I think it's clear they believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and filled with the presense of the Holy Spirit. The trinity doctrine however wasn't started till hundreds of years later.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?