No one can see the Kingdom of God unless...

[marks]

The Word took that form; but there was a time when "it" or "he" had not yet emanated from God. God conceived of how He wished to do things, created (made something out of nothing) and then the "Word" or "Logos" went forth, emanating from God.

Are you saying here that the Word had a beginning?

much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

We're shifting gears again. No longer is the assertion that Jesus is the Word -- now it's that his name is the Word of God.

Meh...Jesus is called by many names - the Word, the Light, Everlasting Father, Mighty Counselor, the Bread from heaven, etc., etc. Whether you say Jesus is the Word of God or His name is the Word of God, or whether you say He is I Am or His name is I Am, I don't see it as a huge shifting of gears.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Are you saying here that the Word had a beginning?

much love!

We have to be patient with each other here as we talk this out and work this out. We have to be patient with each others finite minds. And some of us think out loud as we learn.

 

[ScottA]

Yes. . . in the beginning . . . before this world was. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of this world. God knew in advance what kind of problems might crop up; and the Lamb would be the solution. God would not have created this world if problems could arise so big they couldn't be handled. God has the solutions before the problems are posed.

That verse raises another question. If Jesus was God when he was in human flesh, how is it that he lacked glory? That rather implies the Father and the Son are not equals.

That is certainly easy and of course popular to summarize it that way. But with God there is no beginning or end, no "in advance" scenario. As hard as it is to imagine, the timeline of the world is simply a story line of revelations, not of what was, and what will be, but rather of what "is." This is the "I am" nature and reality of God. On the contrary, what is written in the books...is not real time at all. History is just His story revealed in story form, which simply means we are last to know.

In His story, Jesus the Son descended and also ascended again, but always was and is.

 

[ScottA]

You're completely off your rocker!
You equated eternal with forever as the dictionary did, not as scripture did, ...where in world are you coming from...?
...oh yes, as you told me, from one who believes that he speaks on behalf of the Holy Spirit.
You are out there?

No...I did both, quoted both the dictionary and the scriptures.

And you mock both.

 

[ScottA]

You're not well Scott, ...horrible defense, horrible exegesis, shocking delusion and audacity.

Are you sure you don't want to accuse me of having a demon too?

Typical.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

That verse raises another question. If Jesus was God when he was in human flesh, how is it that he lacked glory? That rather implies the Father and the Son are not equals.

And another thought on this Guiliano - rather than thinking it implies that God is greater than Jesus, it implies that Jesus should be magnified MORE than God (of course, I'm using your thought that one is greater than the other rather than my thought that they are the same God), but to use your own thinking on it, which should be magnified more - the one who gave up all He had to redeem you, or the one who didnt? So Jesus should be magnified above all, and we read that God says so too.

But maybe I should not have gone here because you do not see that Jesus IS God and so you think God is greater than Jesus and that God should be magnified above Jesus and should not be equal...

 

[stunnedbygrace]

OK, so then if I understand you correctly you are speaking of an inner perception rather than by the sight of the eyes, is that right? That is of course aside from such visions like Stephen or Peter or John, specific sensory experiences for specific times and purposes, but not as the everyday walk. Am I understanding you correctly?

Much love!

We are now so weak that I don't know if we can even guess as to what a "normal, everyday walk" should be. We can only see what is currently "normal." Not what we should be. We say miracles like raising the dead and healing of physical infirmities are not the "normal, everyday walk" but we base that on what we see happening, not on what the early church saw happening.

What if what we call "normal" is in fact just weak and close to dying out?

 

[DNB]

No...I did both, quoted both the dictionary and the scriptures.

And you mock both.

You're unreasonable.
For, you quoted scripture, then went to the dictionary and looked up the wrong word, and applied the definition to the verse that you quoted, despite it not having the same word in it?
It's quite humorous actually, ...but not really!

 

[ScottA]

We have to be patient with each other here as we talk this out and work this out. We have to be patient with each others finite minds. And some of us think out loud as we learn.

That is a very loving and cool thing to say!

 

[DNB]

Are you sure you don't want to accuse me of having a demon too?

Typical.

Not necessary, ...but somewhat optional all the same?

 

[ScottA]

You're unreasonable.
For, you quoted scripture, then went to the dictionary and looked up the wrong word, and applied the definition to the verse that you quoted, despite it not having the same word in it?
It's quite humorous actually, ...but not really!

So?

The actual record is written here for anyone to see the truth. Post #214, 237, 273, and then 310.

Nonetheless, "forever" is used in the scriptures to describe both God the Father and Jesus the Son. Therefore, both are "eternal."

 

[DNB]

That's fine. You don't have to see it as John saw it.

That was very presumptuous SBG, for, we are saying that we don't agree with how you see it, in that, John doesn't even agree with you.
You can isolate as many verses as you like. But, the thing is, when you are forced to exclusively use ambiguous and unclear passages to make your point, especially one of such magnitude, it would be safe to say that it is you, who are not seeing eye to eye with the Biblical authors. Who's emphasis and precision in speech, was so prevalent on much lesser issues. Do you think that they would refrain from being explicit and didactic on such a critical doctrine, as they way that they are in your proof text, and everyone else's that hold your position?

 

[DNB]

So?

The actual record is written here for anyone to see the truth. Post #214, 237, 273, and then 310.

Nonetheless, "forever" is used in the scriptures to describe both God the Father and Jesus the Son. Therefore, both are "eternal."

Scott, you're out of your mind! Many terms are used to describe both God and Jesus, and God and humans. As in, righteous, holy, patient, wise, compassionate, etc... It does not equate them ontologically!
Why did I have to explain this?
But, I must thank you all the same, for it's nice feeling justified. For, as I said, it's always the ones who say that they're speaking through the Holy Spirit, that are the worst exegetes.

 

[bbyrd009]

I simply equated "forever" with "eternal" just as the scriptures do.

to your hearing anyway, yes, but when other Scriptures dealing with the term suggest differently, will you be willing to hear then?

ps, havent found the dictionary yet that equates aeon with forever, myself

 

[stunnedbygrace]

That was very presumptuous SBG, for, we are saying that we don't agree with how you see it, in that, John doesn't even agree with you.
You can isolate as many verses as you like. But, the thing is, when you are forced to exclusively use ambiguous and unclear passages to make your point, especially one of such magnitude, it would be safe to say that it is you, who are not seeing eye to eye with the Biblical authors. Who's emphasis and precision in speech, was so prevalent on much lesser issues. Do you think that they would refrain from being explicit and didactic on such a critical doctrine, as they way that they are in your proof text, and everyone else's that hold your position?

For the second time in as many days I have no idea what you just said. Literally, no idea.

John calls Jesus the Word and the light and he says Jesus was with God in the beginning and that Jesus WAS God. John is talking about Jesus. You keep insisting John was not talking about Jesus but you never bother to explain who John WAS talking about while at the same time running around shrieking about how we are all full of shocking audacity, naivety, presumptuousness and lack of understanding. You keep complaining about me using obscure and hard to understand verses to show Jesus is God when, according to you, He is not God and is not to be worshiped as God, but you do not present any verses to support your shrieking and armflapping.

You ask if I think John would have not been so obscure And would have been explicit. I think John could not have BEEN more explicit.

If you would like to lay out your argument for why Jesus should not be worshiped and for why He is not God, with a tying together of a plethora of verses, then do so, no one is stopping you. But if you cannot do so, don't expect anyone to be impressed or give your opinions any weight.

I don't know what else to say to you. Lay out your argument. To keep speaking about how shocked you are at our audacity, naievety and craziness is not laying out your argument with many scriptures. It is just hot air and flailing about.

 

[Jenniferdiana3637]

For the second time in as many days I have no idea what you just said. Literally, no idea.

John calls Jesus the Word and the light and he says Jesus was with God in the beginning and that Jesus WAS God. John is talking about Jesus. You keep insisting John was not talking about Jesus but you never bother to explain who John WAS talking about while at the same time running around shrieking about how we are all full of shocking audacity, naivety, presumptuousness and lack of understanding. You keep complaining about me using obscure and hard to understand verses to show Jesus is God when, according to you, He is not God and is not to be worshiped as God, but you do not present any verses to support your shrieking and armflapping.

You ask if I think John would have not been so obscure And would have been explicit. I think John could not have BEEN more explicit.

If you would like to lay out your argument for why Jesus should not be worshiped and for why He is not God, with a tying together of a plethora of verses, then do so, no one is stopping you. But if you cannot do so, don't expect anyone to be impressed or give your opinions any weight.

I don't know what else to say to you. Lay out your argument. To keep speaking about how shocked you are at our audacity, naievety and craziness is not laying out your argument with many scriptures. It is just hot air and flailing about.

He is the incarnated son of God? Right?

 

[DNB]

For the second time in as many days I have no idea what you just said. Literally, no idea.

John calls Jesus the Word and the light and he says Jesus was with God in the beginning and that Jesus WAS God. John is talking about Jesus. You keep insisting John was not talking about Jesus but you never bother to explain who John WAS talking about while at the same time running around shrieking about how we are all full of shocking audacity, naivety, presumptuousness and lack of understanding. You keep complaining about me using obscure and hard to understand verses to show Jesus is God when, according to you, He is not God and is not to be worshiped as God, but you do not present any verses to support your shrieking and armflapping.

You ask if I think John would have not been so obscure And would have been explicit. I think John could not have BEEN more explicit.

If you would like to lay out your argument for why Jesus should not be worshiped and for why He is not God, with a tying together of a plethora of verses, then do so, no one is stopping you. But if you cannot do so, don't expect anyone to be impressed or give your opinions any weight.

I don't know what else to say to you. Lay out your argument. To keep speaking about how shocked you are at our audacity, naievety and craziness is not laying out your argument with many scriptures. It is just hot air and flailing about.

No SBG, my first approach was just to show the flaw in your understanding of the antanaclasis that John uses.
But you know very well that i explained the chronological mystery of Christ, that is, that his anticipated coming was not due to the Davidic promise, or to Adam's sin, or the Abrahamic covenant, but God's divine plan to have all creation under one head, namely Christ. Thus for John to explain this phenomenon in the opening of the Gospel, is elucidating that Jesus was not an after thought, even though chronologically, it would appear that way.
THis principle, is also what Jesus is clarifying by stating, Before Abraham was born, I am. He is saying that the Patriarch of the Jewish faith, actually was not the beginning of God's chosen people, it was Christ, even though History and circumstance appears to say otherwise.

I explained this already SBG...and I've only just begun, but you accused me of making hollow accusations, and calling names just for the sake of it.
I don't know how you come to such a radical and implausible conclusion like god-man or trinity, without, at least, the terminology, let alone the comprehension, let alone the offense ....God was humiliated, abused and then killed by his own creation, how does this redeem man and glorify God?
I don't know why you keep saying that you don't understand me?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

No SBG, my first approach was just to show the flaw in your understanding of the antanaclasis that John uses.

Uh...no, you did not attempt to show my flaw in not understanding the literary device John was using. You stated that I did not understand but you did not explain it. You did not show how John meant different meanings with any of His repeated words. Stating that something is flawed is not showing how it is flawed.

In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

If you want to attempt to show that John was using the literary device of anatanaclasis, give His intended meaning for all three of his uses of the word "word." They all must have a different meaning.

 

[Helen]

That verse raises another question. If Jesus was God when he was in human flesh, how is it that he lacked glory? That rather implies the Father and the Son are not equals.

I think some people get confused between Jesus that was for 33 years , and He who was before those 33 year and is after those 33 years...

Is there a verse somewhere that mentions Him 'laying aside His glory' to come to earth....or did I just make that up ...to brain-tired to look for it now