Jesus and the Trinity

[2ducklow]

hello harlin'

Believing that Jesus was just a man robs people of the understanding of what the one tue God actually gave up for fallen humanity.......His own Son......"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:16. That is what scripture says, that is what I believe. I know many dispute the word begotten and what it actually means and so on, well I don't buy it, they don't agree most of the time either.

Jesus was begotten of god. god provided the human male seed that he created to fertilize Mary's egg with . thus making god and Mary the parents of Jesus. a person is the father of someone because they provide the seed not because they have sex with a woman . God provided the seed which he created, man provides the seed which he produces though physical means. both are fathers for the same reason. Jesus is not just a man he is the son of god. a man can have his seed, and this does happen, put in a woman through invetro fertilization. that makes him the biological father even if he never ever sees or has seen the woman.
So I too take begotten literally.

 

[Harlin]

Hi 2ducklow,

All too often scripture that is used to prove trinity or that Jesus is God has been tampered with or translated wrongly. All one can do, when there are conflicting translations of verses is to examine the evidence and decide for oneself which translation is the most correct. That is what I do. My experience here in CF is that you guys don't want to hear about alternate translations. you guys don't want to know that any translation that proves trinity or that Jesus is god could possibly be incorrect. I gave quite extensive explanations why I belieived the YLT translation was correct and the KJV translation was incorrect in daniel 3:25. I got no response. you guys don't want to hear it.

It is the job of the holy spirit to determine what is truth and what is not, so I believe that all should examine prayerfully the scriptures, I do examine the evidence for myself and seek Gods guidance, which He promises to us. The KJV makes perfect sense to me........it is all the others that take down the diety of the Son of God that send alarms bells ringing in my brain. If the scripture has been "tampered with", what makes you so sure that what you are believe is even credible?. I know you gave plenty of detailed descriptions about Dan 3:25, but I believe that all the modern bibles have "been tampered" with too. They have changed so much from the "outdated" KJV that I can't use them, God's Word never changes. In fact not one jot or tittle and there are new theories and translations coming out all the time!!...I can't figure that one out.

Well then if oldest is best , which genreally it is, then you should trust the newer translations than the kjv for they are based on older manuscritps than the KJV scholars had available, such as aleph, A. B.C.
many more reliable manuscripts have come to light since the time of the kjv. They conflict many times with the kjv. such as 1` john 5:7.
The kjv is not a very literal translation and at times they play fast and easy with the scriptures for the sake of eloquence. they even say so in their prologue. The kjv is not a very good translation.

I don't trust those who translate them, not the originals themselves. I know that 1 John 5:7 is supposed to be spurious, Matt 28:19, is also considered that way. Soon all the bible will be spurious and many many changes will have to be made....oops that is already happening. The JW's New World bible also makes these same claims....Sorry, it just doesn't ring true with me.

yes there is . And I explained it you just ignored it like everyone else does.I offered an explaintion that is perfectly logical , fits with scirpture and you gusy ignore it for the illogical contradictory nonsenseical explanations.
the word logos is being personified. Gods' word did not literaly turn into to a clump of flesh sans blood and bone and human spirit and human soul. The word of god took on a fleshly form in the man christ Jesus because Jesus spoke what his father , who is the only true god, gave him to speak. Jesus spoke the word of god. thereby the word became flesh. in a figurative sense. you guys pooo pooo any figurative interpetation of this verse, but even you don't take it comepletely literally. you believe the word became jesus but it says the word became flesh. so you are taking flesh in a figurative sensee to represent Jesus. and of course you don't take luke 1:23 literally either, 'that which was concieved in her was of the holy spirit" Jesus was conceived which means a male human seed, which god created, fertillized Mary's egg. If Mary's egg was not fertillized then Mary is not the literal mother of Jesus. she would be like an incubator of Jesus only, called a surogate mother. it takes human male seed to do that , monkey seed or anyother seed but that will not fertilize a HUman female egg. I take it literally, you take it to mean god changed into a 2 celll embrio and swoooped down and depoited himself in Marys womb. which is ridiculous. And to make even further ridiculous you say god remained the same when he changed. which is a contradiction. you guys poo poo any figurative interpertaion of this john 1:14 verse but you yourselfs, as does everyone, have figurative interpretations of many versese, as I have just shown

Yes God's Word did turn into flesh, and it dwelt among us, I haven't ignored you, I just don't agree with your translation of that scripture. Our opinions are obviously set.

Mary is the literal mother of Jesus, and God is the literal Father of Jesus. The human seed came from David, on Mary's side and the divine side of Jesus came from the Father. I don't understand how the human blended with the divine, it is past my understanding, but that is what happened, the Word became flesh. ie: Emmanuel, God with us. It doesn't only say God speaking through Jesus, it says God with us. Yes, Jesus is our Mediator, and I too believe that He only spoke the words of the Father, but He couldn't do that if He was just a man because God gave His only begotten Son, not just another created human, He is the Son of God. That is the only way He could fill that role.

I find it degrading to god to claim he turned himself into a mere man. god is omnipotent,and omnipresent. man is much more lowly than that

"Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." Phil 2:6-7

It is all there, it is sad that you don't believe it.

And what pray telll is so strange about the description? I see you don't care to say how it is strange . you just condemn it as strange without any explanation. Is it strange that God could and would create a human male seed to fertilize Mary's egg with? Tell me what is strange about that. Scripture teaches it.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

the LORD, or Yahweh created a human male seed thus enabling Mary to conceive and bypass or go around or compass a man to become fertile. And Jesus is the first-born of this this new thing god created and one day the only creation (human creation that is, Jesus is human creation not rock or earth or animal creation) that there will be will be this new creation of god. we are new creations in christJesus and one day that will be the only human creation there will be and Jesus will be the first-born of all creation (HUman) at that time. the old man is dieing and one day the first adam or old man of sin will be completely dead, when we all get our new bods.

It is strange because you don't have biblical support for your theory, that is from a human standpoint. You are trying to explain how God took on humanity, to make him only human like us. The angel talking of Jesus said "that holy thing" to Mary even when in the womb. Even when clothed in humanity, all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily. The fullness of the Godhead was still rightfully His. ie, God with us. Where is your scripture to say otherwise, that is your own description?. Are you not a JW, because your theology seems awfully close?.

you are making no sense here harlin. Are you aware that that verse says nothing about Jesus being God? It says Jesus is the son of God, read it again.
I have always calimed Jesus is the son of g od. this verse says nothing in no shape or form that Jesus is god. and yes I believe Jesus is the literal son of god, unfortunately you do not . you think god turned himself into a fetus. that doesn't make jesus the son of god , it makes god a controtionist.

I'm sorry 2ducklow, but you are trying to make the Son of God, completely human, while still claiming Him to be the Son of God. That doesn't make sense to me. I am enjoying this discussion though, I would still like to hear an explaination of John 5:26, from anyone who believes Jesus is just human, I put it forward to Balthasar, but I haven't heard anything as of yet. Jesus says HE is the resurrection and the life, how can that be if He is a mere human.

God Bless,

Harlin

 

[gort]

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
This verse shows god considered Jesus decision to go to hell in our place good enough.

I showed you scripture where john the baptist had the knowledge that Jesus was the messiah taken away from him, there are other scirptures. there i s a theological word for it that escapes my memory at present.


You have no scripture stating god is a trinity, yet you believe that.

You still have no Scripture whatsoever to show your beliefs. None.

Try re-reading the Acts Scripture you quoted. You'll find Peter is repeating what DAVID SPOKE, and not Jesus regarding "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".



Regarding Jesus being God, several here have shown you. But here's one more. even the Jews understood what He was claiming.


Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.

Jhn 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jhn 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

<><

 

[TheGreatBongChicken]

Wow.... this conversatoin is still goin' on?

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,



It is the job of the holy spirit to determine what is truth and what is not, so I believe that all should examine prayerfully the scriptures, I do examine the evidence for myself and seek Gods guidance, which He promises to us. The KJV makes perfect sense to me........it is all the others that take down the diety of the Son of God that send alarms bells ringing in my brain. If the scripture has been "tampered with", what makes you so sure that what you are believe is even credible?.

Are you aware that no two greek manuscripts are exactly alike? If no two are alike then the original has to have been tampered with, either intentionally or through error. these manuscripts are bibles of their day. Aleph, I believe , is the oldest full bible we have it dates from the 4th century. It was not available to the KJV scholars, it does not agree in many points with the KJV. Why is the kjv translation from the early 17th century to be prefered over a bible from the 4th century?

Most of the differences are minor, there are about only 50 verses that have variant readings that effect doctrine. One can usualy determine which is correct through various different means, such as I employed in daniel. 3:25,(although that was really a matter of mistranslation and not variant readings but the principles are the same. You have to dig on certain scirptures , not all, to find the truth. but it is there to be found as the holy spirit leads and we follow. but if we ignore what our brains tell us, I do not believe the holy spirit can lead us.

I know you gave plenty of detailed descriptions about Dan 3:25, but I believe that all the modern bibles have "been tampered" with too. They have changed so much from the "outdated" KJV that I can't use them, God's Word never changes. In fact not one jot or tittle and there are new theories and translations coming out all the time!!...I can't figure that one out.

Yes, no one version of the bible, including the kjv is 100 percent correct. all bibles err in some verses and get some correct. sometimes a very poor translation will be corrrect when a very literal and dependable one will be incorrect. I don't rely on any one version although I have some i hold in higher regard than others. such as rothham, asv, ylt, and the new catholic bible, jw bible. but like i said all of these better ones are wrong at times.

I don't trust those who translate them, not the originals themselves. I know that 1 John 5:7 is supposed to be spurious, Matt 28:19, is also considered that way. Soon all the bible will be spurious and many many changes will have to be made....oops that is already happening. The JW's New World bible also makes these same claims....Sorry, it just doesn't ring true with me.

the jw bible's main error is substituteing jehovah for theos, and there are some other things , but genrerally it is very correct and literal. there are two directions bible translations are going, and I feel you are combinding the two. one is towards a more literal and faithfull reflection of the original texts, such as rotherham, asv, ylt, and surprisingly to me the american standard by the catholic church. the other direction is towards apostasy, such as making the bible gender neutral, calling god a she, etc.
you don't trust those who translate them , well the other side of that coin is do you give them the oportunity to be proven right or wrong? if they translate a verse different than the KJV do you examine the evidence to see if they are correct? or do you dismiss it cause the kjv says different.? why don't you apply the same standard to kjv scholars, and see if they are correct by examining the evidence? If you do you will find out the kjv is very often at odds with older manuscripts.

Yes God's Word did turn into flesh, and it dwelt among us, I haven't ignored you, I just don't agree with your translation of that scripture. Our opinions are obviously set.

did the word turn in to a clump of flesh? or did it turn into Jesus? Jesus is more than just flesh. flesh is the meaty part of a body.

Mary is the literal mother of Jesus, and God is the literal Father of Jesus. The human seed came from David, on Mary's side and the divine side of Jesus came from the Father. I don't understand how the human blended with the divine, it is past my understanding, but that is what happened, the Word became flesh.

Well if you don't understand then you don't know. god does not have seed. he is a spirit and doesnt have male genetalia that he procreates with. he had to create a male seed. the human seed did not come from mary as you assert, because women do not have seed they have egggs. men have seed, what you are essentially asserting is that god's heavenly seed fertilized marys egg, thus jesus is the son of god and mary. but that would result in someone who would be half god and half man. Jesus is 100 percent body soul and human spirit man. if a horse causes a female donkey to conceive , the offspring is half horse and half donkey, it is called a mule.. the mule is not 100 percent horse and 100 percent donkey. there is no such t hing as 200 percent, except in hyperbolic statements perhaps.

ie: Emmanuel, God with us. It doesn't only say God speaking through Jesus, it says God with us.

the bible says god was in christ so everywheree jesus went he brought god with him, thus when jesus is around god is with us. your way you have several gods , jesus and god the father, who you call one god, which doesn;;t make sense, and since scripture is suppose to make sense, neh 8:8you have to be wrong.

Yes, Jesus is our Mediator, and I too believe that He only spoke the words of the Father, but He couldn't do that if He was just a man

God gives me words to speak and I am just a man. hasn't god ever given you words to speak?

because God gave His only begotten Son, not just another created human, He is the Son of God. That is the only way He could fill that role.

wrong, i just showed you that god gives me words to speak and I am a created human being.
even if you don't believe in modern day prophets , you at leasst believe in ot prophets whom, god gave words to speak, they were created human beings.

"Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." Phil 2:6-7

It is all there, it is sad that you don't believe it.

once again a poor translation is used to prove trinity or that Jesus is god, I'm suire you don't want to know whay that is wrong.

]


It is strange because you don't have biblical support for your theory, that is from a human standpoint.

do to, I gave the scriptural support jer. 31:32 everyone igonred it as usual.

You are trying to explain how God took on humanity, to make him only human like us.

you are trying to change what I said, which is that Jesus is the new created man into Jesus is just another man like us. he is not, he is the 2nd adam the new creation of god, he is not just another man. you're twisting my words and aren't being honest with what I said.

The angel talking of Jesus said "that holy thing" to Mary even when in the womb. Even when clothed in humanity, all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily. The fullness of the Godhead was still rightfully His. ie, God with us. Where is your scripture to say otherwise, that is your own description?. Are you not a JW, because your theology seems awfully close?.



I'm sorry 2ducklow, but you are trying to make the Son of God, completely human, while still claiming Him to be the Son of God.

God had a human son not another god for a son. there is only one god and god doesn't procreate other gods,

That doesn't make sense to me. I am enjoying this discussion though, I would still like to hear an explaination of John 5:26, from anyone who believes Jesus is just human, I put it forward to Balthasar, but I haven't heard anything as of yet. Jesus says HE is the resurrection and the life, how can that be if He is a mere human.

God Bless,

Harlin

EASy god was speaking in Jesus saying he is the resurrection and the life. jesus said he that believes in me doesn't believe in me but in him that sent me because Jesuss is just saying what his father gives him to say, so if you believe the words of Jesus you are really believing the words of god. if jesus had chosen not to submit to god totally , and Jesus said things of his own accord, which he did not, then we would be believing in Jesus and not god. Jesus said he is the light of the world but he isn't god is the light of the world and Jesus is the lamp that that light shines through. rev. 21:23. Jesus said he is the resurrection but he isn't god is Jesus is a man and has no power to resurect anyone. only god can. but we aare resurrecvted because we believe in Jesus which is the same and only way we can beleive in god.

 

[2ducklow]

You still have no Scripture whatsoever to show your beliefs. None.

Try re-reading the Acts Scripture you quoted. You'll find Peter is repeating what DAVID SPOKE, and not Jesus regarding "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".

it is also a messianic prophecy.

AC 2:2929-36. David . . . is . . . dead and buried,
Peter, full of the Holy Ghost, sees in this sixteenth Psalm, one Holy Man, whose life of high devotedness and lofty spirituality is crowned with the assurance, that though He taste of death, He shall rise again without seeing corruption, and be admitted to the bliss of God's immediate presence. Now as this was palpably untrue of David, it could be meant only of One other, even of Him whom David was taught to expect as the final Occupant of the throne of Israel. (Those, therefore, and they are many, who take David himself to be the subject of this Psalm, and the words quoted to refer to Christ only in a more eminent sense, nullify the whole argument of the apostle). The Psalm is then affirmed to have had its only proper fulfilment in JESUS, of whose resurrection and ascension they were witnesses, while the glorious effusion of the Spirit by the hand of the ascended One, setting an infallible seal upon all, was even then witnessed by the thousands who stood listening to Him.

Jamesion Fauset and Brown commentary.

Regarding Jesus being God, several here have shown you. But here's one more. even the Jews understood what He was claiming.


Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.

Jhn 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jhn 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

<><

none of these verses say Jesus is god. none of them mean Jesus is god.

 

[2ducklow]

Wow.... this conversatoin is still goin' on?

Yea this is "Die Hard III"

 

[hybrid]

none of these verses say Jesus is god. none of them mean Jesus is god.

2dl,

but in this verse, jesus thinks he was (existed) already before abraham, as a mater of fact, in john, He thinks he was with god even before the world began.

this seemed to contradict your beliefs that the life of Jesus started only the moment the sperm god created fertilized mary's egg.

how do reconcile that?


h

 

[gort]

it is also a messianic prophecy.
Jamesion Fauset and Brown commentary.

none of these verses say Jesus is god. none of them mean Jesus is god.

Yes, it's a messianic prophecy, and I pulled the fatal error in not reading enough in context. You are correct. Reading further....

Act 2:31 seeing this beforehand, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor would His flesh see corruption,

Regarding the other verses, the Jews were gonna stone him saying He was God.

It also shows His pre-existence, a clear separate entity prior to taking on the flesh.

<><

 

[2ducklow]

Yes, it's a messianic prophecy, and I pulled the fatal error in not reading enough in context. You are correct. Reading further....

Act 2:31 seeing this beforehand, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor would His flesh see corruption

I don't really see the significance of your highlights. jesus was not allowed to see corruption by God. which I take to mean that God would not allow Jesus to rot in hell, which thing Jesus agreed to do for us, but because Jesus was the jedidiah of God, the beloved spotless lamb of god, God considered Jesus willingness to fullfill the requirement the same as actually doing the requirment for remiting mans sin. the second death, not the first is the wages of sin, and it is because Jesus paid that price, that we don't have to go to the second death. Jesus paid the price of the second death for us by agreeing togo to the second death for us because he obeyed his father who asked it of him.
,

Regarding the other verses, the Jews were gonna stone him saying He was God.

Depends on how you interpert it. depends on whether it is "I AM' or "I am he". At any rate Jesus did not say he was god, people merely interpret it that way. NOt everyone interpets it that way. for me a correct interpretation is one that fits with all the scriptures, and makes sense. that is priority one. saying jesus is god doesn't fit with all the scritpures. it contradicts tons of scritpure, IMO.

It also shows His pre-existence, a clear separate entity prior to taking on the flesh.

<><

depends on how you intepret it. the verse says nothing about preexistance, that is an interpretion. there are other possible interpretations.
preexistance is a nonsensical concept, IMO.

 

[PreacherMan4U]

If you look at John 1:1 you will find that it is very similar to Gen. 1:1. E.G. , Gen. 1:1 begins "In the beginning God..." Jonh 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (NASB) John 1:14 states, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (NASB)
This passage shows the preexistance of Jesus, as well as that Jesus and God are from the same substance.

 

[2ducklow]

If you look at John 1:1 you will find that it is very similar to Gen. 1:1. E.G. , Gen. 1:1 begins "In the beginning God..." Jonh 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (NASB) John 1:14 states, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (NASB)
This passage shows the preexistance of Jesus, as well as that Jesus and God are from the same substance.

actually it shows the word cannot be god . God is eternal without beginning or end. "In the beginning was the word". If the word was god literally, then it should read "For all eternity was the word". you interpet it to mean Jesus exsited before he existed,,which is nonsesnical. god's word makes sense not nonsense.

Nehemiah 8:8 And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading.

if you give the correct sense of scripture people will understand it. No one understands how jesus is god and god the father is god and there is only one god, and Jesus isn't his father. IMO, a lot of false doctrines such as that nonsensical one would disapear and the church whould have a lot more unitry if people were careful to make sense out of what God says instead of portraying gods' word to the world as a book of nonsense with beliefs like the one I just stated.

 

[gort]

I don't really see the significance of your highlights. jesus was not allowed to see corruption by God. which I take to mean that God would not allow Jesus to rot in hell, which thing Jesus agreed to do for us, but because Jesus was the jedidiah of God, the beloved spotless lamb of god, God considered Jesus willingness to fullfill the requirement the same as actually doing the requirment for remiting mans sin. the second death, not the first is the wages of sin, and it is because Jesus paid that price, that we don't have to go to the second death. Jesus paid the price of the second death for us by agreeing togo to the second death for us because he obeyed his father who asked it of him.
,
Depends on how you interpert it. depends on whether it is "I AM' or "I am he". At any rate Jesus did not say he was god, people merely interpret it that way. NOt everyone interpets it that way. for me a correct interpretation is one that fits with all the scriptures, and makes sense. that is priority one. saying jesus is god doesn't fit with all the scritpures. it contradicts tons of scritpure, IMO.
depends on how you intepret it. the verse says nothing about preexistance, that is an interpretion. there are other possible interpretations.
preexistance is a nonsensical concept, IMO.

There is no other way to interpret what Jesus said. He said, "Before Abraham was, I am."

If as you say, there are other interpretations, then kindly show us what they would be.

<><

 

[2ducklow]

2dl,

but in this verse, jesus thinks he was (existed) already before abraham, as a mater of fact, in john, He thinks he was with god even before the world began.

It does not say he existed or was already before abraham, that is your interpretation of the scritpure.
My interpetation is that it means Jesus was prophesised of even before abraham. I believe also that the correcttranslation is "before abraham Iam he." as many translations have it.
' the word was god ' is the same grammatical construction as 'god is love' in 1 john. God is not the emotion love but rather the meaning is that love is an attribute of god, the car is red. the car is not the color red , rather red is an attribute of car. same with the word was god. god is an attribute of the word. god backsup his word, god always performs his word. something like that would be the correect meaning. otherwise you have a contradiction in the verse. the "word was with god" would contradcit 'the word was god." if the meaning is that god is literally his woird. IMO people need to stop interpreting gods word to result in contradictions . god does not contradict himself. so we shouldn't interpet his word and come up with a bunch of contradictions since god doesn't contradict himeself. am I right? yea baby.

this seemed to contradict your beliefs that the life of Jesus started only the moment the sperm god created fertilized mary's egg.

how do reconcile that?

I just did above.
As a side note I would like to say that people tend to have myopic vision with reference to interpretations of scirpture used to prove the diety of Christ. they tend to believe there is only one possible interpetation of those scriptures. I disagree. most scriptures can be interpreted many ways. the correct way makes sense and fits in with the rest of the bible. the incorrect way makes no sense, contradicts other scripturess in the bible, and is illogical, either one or all of the threee.

 

[hybrid]

It does not say he existed or was already before abraham, that is your interpretation of the scritpure.
My interpetation is that it means Jesus was prophesised of even before abraham. I believe also that the correcttranslation is "before abraham Iam he." as many translations have it.
' the word was god ' is the same grammatical construction as 'god is love' in 1 john. God is not the emotion love but rather the meaning is that love is an attribute of god, the car is red. the car is not the color red , rather red is an attribute of car. same with the word was god. god is an attribute of the word. god backsup his word, god always performs his word. something like that would be the correect meaning. otherwise you have a contradiction in the verse. the "word was with god" would contradcit 'the word was god." if the meaning is that god is literally his woird. IMO people need to stop interpreting gods word to result in contradictions . god does not contradict himself. so we shouldn't interpet his word and come up with a bunch of contradictions since god doesn't contradict himeself. am I right? yea baby.

Hi austin powers, 2dl i mean

Rev 19:13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

I don't have to interpret scriptures because,

Scriptures interpreted itself already for its readers. i think you are the one stretching out a little bit too far the interpretation of scriptures.

Jesus is the word of god period
and if the bible said god created everything by his word, it means
Jesuschrist created everything.
scriptures are not really that hard to understand, really.

 

[2ducklow]

There is no other way to interpret what Jesus said. He said, "Before Abraham was, I am."

If as you say, there are other interpretations, then kindly show us what they would be.

<><

Joh 8:56Your father Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced.


Abraham saw Jesus day by faith. Abraham had been dead for quite some time when Jesus day arrived.

Joh 8:24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

If one does not believe that Jesus is he that Abraham saw by foresight, the promised messiah, that person will die in their sins. I believe that is the meaning of "before Abraham was, I am (he). the sentencehas no clear meaning without 'he'. "before abraham was, I am" I am what? it doesn't say. you assume it means 'before abraham was , i existed (past tense)" but it doesn't say that, it is your interpetation. and it is an interpetation based on the false assumption that "I am" means "I existed".

 

[2ducklow]

Hi austin powers, 2dl i mean

I prefer to think of myself as something akin to a memeber of the mission Impossible team, or secret agent man. Never saw the movie austin powers.

Rev 19:13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

I don't have to interpret scriptures because,

Scriptures interpreted itself already for its readers.

would giving the sense of scritpure qualify as an interpretation?

Nehemiah 8:8 And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading.

ok i interpret scripture by giving the sense of scripture, actually its the same thing.

i think you are the one stretching out a little bit too far the interpretation of scriptures.

like what? like making sense out of scripture is stretching out a little bit too far?

Jesus is the word of god period

No verse says Jesus is the word, I thought you didn't need to interpet scripture but here you are interpeting 'the word was flesh to mean the word is Jesus. what gives? double standard?
and if the bible said god created everything by his word, it means

Jesuschrist created everything.

It doesn't it says all things were created though or in him. by him is an incorrect translation. ex.

Colossians 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;ASV
all things wre not literally created in Jesus. it is figurative meaning jesus is the reason for everything.

scriptures are not really that hard to understand, really.

most scriptures are pretty straightforward. but some are enigmas. some things are hard sayings.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

[Harlin]

Hi 2ducklow,

[QUOTEthe jw bible's main error is substituteing jehovah for theos, and there are some other things , but genrerally it is very correct and literal. there are two directions bible translations are going, and I feel you are combinding the two. one is towards a more literal and faithfull reflection of the original texts, such as rotherham, asv, ylt, and surprisingly to me the american standard by the catholic church. the other direction is towards apostasy, such as making the bible gender neutral, calling god a she, etc.
you don't trust those who translate them , well the other side of that coin is do you give them the oportunity to be proven right or wrong? if they translate a verse different than the KJV do you examine the evidence to see if they are correct? or do you dismiss it cause the kjv says different.? why don't you apply the same standard to kjv scholars, and see if they are correct by examining the evidence? If you do you will find out the kjv is very often at odds with older manuscripts.
[/QUOTE]

Who says that the modern day bibles are a more "literal and faithful reflection of the original text?, the scholars? well I don't believe they don't have a religious agenda of their own. Who actually has these "original texts" are they available to anybody who is searching? Who is to say they are telling the truth even, when they say they are better translations. Why so many conflicting ideas amongst the translators? Bible study should be easy and beneficial, not on a par with a University assignment as some would have it be.

Of course the main problem with the jw bible to you, would be the subsituteing of Jehovah for theos, this makes it possible to prove that Jesus is God according to the jw bible. You say I am using an outdated bible, but you only look for translations that suit what you want to believe. Whenever they don't you label them incorrect translations. That is nonsensical.

did the word turn in to a clump of flesh? or did it turn into Jesus? Jesus is more than just flesh. flesh is the meaty part of a body.

The Word became flesh, just what the bible says. I understand this as He dwelt among us as a human, with like flesh. It is not that hard to understand, it is you that makes everything nonsensical trying to make sense of it. Now your saying I am interpreting it to mean the word became a clump of flesh????...A literal clump. Would you actually understand it better if it said flesh and bone and arteries and organs, etc............What do you think this "flesh" represents then?.

Well if you don't understand then you don't know. god does not have seed. he is a spirit and doesnt have male genetalia that he procreates with. he had to create a male seed. the human seed did not come from mary as you assert, because women do not have seed they have egggs. men have seed, what you are essentially asserting is that god's heavenly seed fertilized marys egg, thus jesus is the son of god and mary. but that would result in someone who would be half god and half man. Jesus is 100 percent body soul and human spirit man. if a horse causes a female donkey to conceive , the offspring is half horse and half donkey, it is called a mule.. the mule is not 100 percent horse and 100 percent donkey. there is no such t hing as 200 percent, except in hyperbolic statements perhaps

I agree with Timothy on this one. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" 1 Tim 3:16

God manifest in the flesh seems like one of the mysteries of godliness to me. I am not for a moment going to try to understand what God deems to be a mystery.

the bible says god was in christ so everywheree jesus went he brought god with him, thus when jesus is around god is with us. your way you have several gods , jesus and god the father, who you call one god, which doesn;;t make sense, and since scripture is suppose to make sense, neh 8:8you have to be wrong.

It makes perfect sense to me, I never said that Jesus and the Father were two Gods but just one, Never. What I did say however, was that the Father is the one true God, and seeing as Jesus came forth from the Father, he too is God by virtue of his coming forth or birth. (And I am not talking about the human birth here) There is a difference, not that hard to understand though. Jesus has been exalted to equal with the Father, (Phil 2:6), that is not hard to understand either. We have one true God, the Father, and Jesus His Son, also God because He is His Son, just like my son is human, because he came forth from me and I am human. This doesn't however make my son the parent, only human. Not that hard to understand either. I am not wrong just because you say so.

God gives me words to speak and I am just a man. hasn't god ever given you words to speak?

Are you able to mediate between God and man the way Jesus does?. Are you our great High Priest?. The bible doesn't say there are many mediators between God and man, it say one, the man Christ Jesus. There were many prophets of old, did they mediate like Jesus?. Did any of them die for our sins?..........Could you die for our sins?...........it's a whole package deal with Jesus, not just speaking the words of the Father alone.

wrong, i just showed you that god gives me words to speak and I am a created human being.
even if you don't believe in modern day prophets , you at leasst believe in ot prophets whom, god gave words to speak, they were created human beings.

No, you didn't. If you can mediate like Jesus, well then yes you did, until you can, No you didn't.

do to, I gave the scriptural support jer. 31:32 everyone igonred it as usual.

Sorry, don't understand how the above scripture is talking about Mary's conception. Perhaps a typo.

you are trying to change what I said, which is that Jesus is the new created man into Jesus is just another man like us. he is not, he is the 2nd adam the new creation of god, he is not just another man. you're twisting my words and aren't being honest with what I said.

Sorry, that is what I thought you were saying. I too believe that Jesus is the second Adam. I believe He is also the Son of God as well, Adam wasn't, Adam was always completely human.

God had a human son not another god for a son. there is only one god and god doesn't procreate other gods,

I never said God had to procreate to form a Son. Limiting God to be bound by the laws of humanity takes away His creative attribute. You believe that He can create human seed to fertilize Mary's egg, but, you can't believe that He can form a divine Son from His own substance. Who says He can't?.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11. I, even I, am the LORD: and beside me there is no Saviour" Isaiah 43:10-11

EASy god was speaking in Jesus saying he is the resurrection and the life. jesus said he that believes in me doesn't believe in me but in him that sent me because Jesuss is just saying what his father gives him to say, so if you believe the words of Jesus you are really believing the words of god. if jesus had chosen not to submit to god totally , and Jesus said things of his own accord, which he did not, then we would be believing in Jesus and not god. Jesus said he is the light of the world but he isn't god is the light of the world and Jesus is the lamp that that light shines through. rev. 21:23. Jesus said he is the resurrection but he isn't god is Jesus is a man and has no power to resurect anyone. only god can. but we aare resurrecvted because we believe in Jesus which is the same and only way we can beleive in god.

John 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"

This is the Father speaking through the Son to tell the disciples that He has given His Son life in himself. Life in oneself is an attribute of divinity. The Son does not rely on the Father for His life, like created beings do. This is how the Son can resurrect the righteous and the wicked at the resurrections. How else could Jesus declare that He was the resurrection and the life. That is not the Father saying that He is the resurrection and the life, that is the Father speaking through the Son declaring that the Son is the resurrection and the life. Remember, Jesus stated, noone comes to the Father, but by me.

The Son has the same attributes as the Father, these have all been given to Him. You want to make the Son of God, a human only.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[gort]

2dl quotes:

If one does not believe that Jesus is he that Abraham saw by foresight, the promised messiah, that person will die in their sins. I believe that is the meaning of "before Abraham was, I am (he). the sentencehas no clear meaning without 'he'. "before abraham was, I am" I am what? it doesn't say. you assume it means 'before abraham was , i existed (past tense)" but it doesn't say that, it is your interpetation. and it is an interpetation based on the false assumption that "I am" means "I existed".

So I'm incorrect? and to show that you have to add to the text to show my understanding wrong? specifically: I believe that is the meaning of "before Abraham was, I am [B](he)[/B]

thanx for the dance, Jesse.....

<><

 

[Harlin]

Hi 2ducklow,

[QUOTE
actually it shows the word cannot be god . God is eternal without beginning or end. "In the beginning was the word". If the word was god literally, then it should read "For all eternity was the word". you interpet it to mean Jesus exsited before he existed,,which is nonsesnical. god's word makes sense not nonsense.

Nehemiah 8:8 And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading.

if you give the correct sense of scripture people will understand it. No one understands how jesus is god and god the father is god and there is only one god, and Jesus isn't his father. IMO, a lot of false doctrines such as that nonsensical one would disapear and the church whould have a lot more unitry if people were careful to make sense out of what God says instead of portraying gods' word to the world as a book of nonsense with beliefs like the one I just stated.[/QUOTE]



John 1:1 does not say the beginning of eternity, it says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2. the same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him: and without him was not anything made that was made"

This is the beginning of creation, not the beginning of the Word, as this Word already was in the beginning. The Word was with God in the beginning. Now, if it was with God, and was God, it must be separate from the Father because it was "with" Him. Otherwise this would not make sense, this would be saying that the Father was with Himself. There we have Father and Son, both God.

The same as "in the beginning " in Genesis is the beginning of creation, it says that God created all things. We are told that the Word created all things, this plainly proves that the Word is God. It doesn't prove that this was the beginning of the Word, at all. It proves that the Word created all things in the beginning.

The Bible shows that the Son of God existed as the Word, before He became flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus. There is nothing non-sensical about that doctrine, it is very easily understood. It is only when you bring in the Jesus is just a man doctrine, you have to then come up with another description for what the Word of God actually is. But to do that one can just blame the translation.

You keep quoting Nehemiah 8:8 and yet you fail to see the non-sense in your own doctrine.

God Bless

Harlin