Can you explain?

[riverman]

You are welcome Molly!

Peace,

RM

[Taffy]

SOunds Familier RM
Fine post.
Consider the work of the second day....one bears witness to another as two represents....both Cs.

More to be said on the THIRD DAY also Bro :Sparkletooth:

[Roy Monis]

1 . . .never did I say I cornered the market on understanding all things . . . so if things I say are not clear, chances are it's because I didn't share them clearly . . . I started out by saying "I don't know how to put this . . ."  Notice that?  The whole point to that line of questioning was stemming from how often it sounds like people fall back on their religious backgrounds.  And yes, the nitpicking thing was in the same time frame and I don't know that your apology to Taf came out yet . . .not that it matters, I'm not trying to pin you on anything here . . .it was just a question trying to test the waters a bit about the idea as to how much law was still out there . . .thus the question about giving a guy a beer . . .obviously, there is no issue in this arena.

2.  The comments about what transpired in church are related in the sense that no matter how long one is in the kingdom perspectives, one still has boundaries based on personal standards.  When other's cross those boundaries, law manifests in us and we try to "correct" the other person to come back into our standards . . that was what happened with those reacting negatively to the choice of wording I used.  It was quickly evident there still are areas where freedom had not yet been let in.

3.  The issues that continue to rise up on this forum, people want proof . .biblical proof that what is being seen has already been written.  My response is . .what is faith?  Is it not beleiving in what you don't understand and accepting what you can not see?  But people fall back on the "written" passages where it talks about testing spirits and reproofing with the Word . .so that nobody trusts anyone . . and the ability to see things that are beneath become a struggle to all because you just can't prove it scripturally . . at times I do throw passages out, but it's not the passage that's the issue, it's the recipient of what's being said.  People have already drawn their conclusions, and if they think I'm a nutcase .  . then no matter whether I quote or not quote, they still choose not to recieve.

Then I went to Molly who posed the question about the husband stuck in porno . . .

Does any of this help?

Brother Nathan

Are you sure you and I are in the same world?

1.....I never said anything about you cornering the market.

2.....In what way did I fall back on my religious background? My father and mother were Catholic and not very good ones. My background, in my opinion, was based on good solid social etiquette in all areas of social behaviour including appropriate discipline, and though I didn't like it at the time, I am now regretting that it's gone out of fashion. Just my opinion. 

3.....In what way do I fall back on the OT law? I am fully aware of the fact that, that has been done away with. But we are under a new law, the law of Christ, the law of liberty and it is an enlargement of and not a reduction of the old law of commandments. Faith has a lot to do with it but we can't throw the commandments out the window. It is called the law of liberty but we can't take liberties with it and do as we please, we do have to obey them and the written word in the Bible tells us how.

4.....You give me to understand that I haven't apologized to Taffy. I agree Taffy corrected me in connection with the context of that Scripture I quoted, and I accepted his correction, but there is another aspect to that verse. We cannot always take the Scriptures in context, context, context which is literal. There is a spiritual side to it to be considered in view of the subject in hand with regard to the two words honour and respect. But, I accept that it is not for me to judge, the capitalization is my option and not necessarily yours, this I termed nitpicking. Let's not forget that the Bible, all of it, is signified, in symbols, parables and literal.

5......Are you suggesting that we should not rely on the Bible teachings, such as, testing of spirits; knowing them by their fruits etc.etc? If so, then what's the point of the Bible, let's throw it through the window and be done. Why waste our time, faith and grace will increase and cover us as our transgressions increase. Eat, drink and make merry we're covered, like the  Babylonian Pentecostals "Once saved always saved."

Keep things simple brother, I'm a very simple minded person. "Lord the ocean is such an enormous span of water, and this boat I'm in is so very, very small."

Peace!(http://dl.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1551/1551031u6k25jgwzu.png)

Roy   UK

[Craig]

2.  The comments about what transpired in church are related in the sense that no matter how long one is in the kingdom perspectives, one still has boundaries based on personal standards.  When other's cross those boundaries, law manifests in us and we try to "correct" the other person to come back into our standards . . that was what happened with those reacting negatively to the choice of wording I used.  It was quickly evident there still are areas where freedom had not yet been let in.

2.....In what way did I fall back on my religious background? My father and mother were Catholic and not very good ones. My background, in my opinion, was based on good solid social etiquette in all areas of social behaviour including appropriate discipline, and though I didn't like it at the time, I am now regretting that it's gone out of fashion. Just my opinion. 

Roy,

Let me explain what is going on here. What is happening in this reply to you is guilt by association. It is just a cheap trick of people who cannot handle the fact that their belief systems have no knowledge attached to them. They can't find any valid reason to disagree with you and so they fall to a fallacy to discredit you rather than actually refuting what you said in a civil, reasonable fashion. Believing that Jesus died on the cross and rose on the third day is from a religious background, so if you proclaim this does this mean you are falling back on your religious background? No, of course not. "Falling back on religious background" or "Traditional Christianity" or "Western Thinking", all these are not valid objections to anything, they are fallacies used by those who lack understanding and looking for someway to look important. It seems to be a persistent problem, and usually proclaimed by people who believe they are more spiritual than you are.

Remember we still are unable to judge the heart of any man, because only God and that man knows what is going on in their heart; but, I wouldn't put much clout on those who need to use fallacy to support the knowledge of the Truth, because the Truth does not need fallacy to defend it. I find it sad that true good behavior (behavior that is not done for show, but out of sincerity) is condemned as not being spiritual and those who claim to spiritual need to use lies to defend the truth. There is some irony however in telling you that you are religious because you are correcting him, and he is correcting you saying that those who correct each other are religious and falling back to the Law. So what does that mean, he too has fallen back to the Law? See, no knowledge whatsoever of what they are doing and saying.

[riverman]

SOunds Familier RM
Fine post.
Consider the work of the second day....one bears witness to another as two represents....both Cs.

More to be said on the THIRD DAY also Bro :Sparkletooth:

Thank you Taffy,

My present understanding is that the six "days" of creation is also a prophecy of Christ's first and second coming, the first 3 days a prophecy of the earthly ministry and subsequently the establishment of the church and the second 3 days the true spiritual Kingdom beginning.

A two part work.

We have the second day of creation as preparing the way for the third or John the Baptist and water baptism preceeding the fruit bearing tree (Christ) where the fruit has the seed within (elect).

This could get real involved, if there is any interest in discussing and sharing perhaps we could start another thread, we are really veering off topic now!  :laughing7:

Peace to you,

RM 

 

[CHB]

Hi! CHB

Yes! I admit that the Christ/Word/Son was the firstborn before creation, the Creator of all creation and that Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all the dead. Yes Jesus Christ was the first to be born, the Creator. Jesus Christ is first of all things, He is the head, He is the Creator of all things, so it stands to reason that He must be first.

Peace!(http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/913/913823shy6qui595.gif)

Roy   UK       

If you agree that Christ is the first, then he was part of a series. After first comes second, right?  If he was first he had a beginning, just like the second, third, and fourth. I don't mean he was made out of clay or anything, he came from God. Jesus was part of the creation, he was first. Jesus was the creator of all things except himself. But it says he was God the Father's first creation.

CHB

[CHB]

Thank you Taffy,

My present understanding is that the six "days" of creation is also a prophecy of Christ's first and second coming, the first 3 days a prophecy of the earthly ministry and subsequently the establishment of the church and the second 3 days the true spiritual Kingdom beginning.

A two part work.

We have the second day of creation as preparing the way for the third or John the Baptist and water baptism preceeding the fruit bearing tree (Christ) where the fruit has the seed within (elect).

This could get real involved, if there is any interest in discussing and sharing perhaps we could start another thread, we are really veering off topic now!  :laughing7:

Peace to you,

RM 

Hi riverman,

I would really like to hear what you have to say on this topic but I will be gone after today until next Wednesday. Will get back to you then. If you start a new thread, I will catch up when I get back.

CHB

[Molly]

I'd like to see riverman start a new thread on this study.  It answers a question I've had recently about why God is always creating during the daylight in Genesis 1.

He separated light from darkness 5and named the light "Day" and the darkness "Night."

Evening came and then morning--that was the first day.
--Gen 1

The Jewish day went from sundown to sundown.  Ours goes from midnight to midnight.

But God's day in Genesis 1 seems to start at daybreak, at which point he starts creating, with the night being a throwaway. He doesn't create at night.  He creates at dawn. if that makes sense lol.


"morning"

H1242
בּקר
bôqer
bo'-ker
From H1239; properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: -  (+) day, early, morning, morrow.

[Taffy]

Molly much of this ive talked about for ages..much shared on the 1000YR THREAD SIS....

Christ is called the MORNING star which rises in our HEARTS .correlate that to what you posted :icon_flower:

[Molly]

Christ --the morning star--yes!

You talked about it on the 1000 year thread?  I don't remember that.

Just goes to show--you can't see it until you're ready. lol

[Molly]

BTW, Nathan is talking about reading the Bible spiritually--the day of rest which we are now in.

But I can't see the spiritual unless I first read it literally--as we can see in this example--because every word is so important.

The spiritual is tied to every word of the literal, embedded in --as Jesus said--every jot and tittle.

[Taffy]

lol Molly tis true.

RM please start another thread matey :icon_flower:

[Nathan]

Molly . . .THANK YOU that's exactly EXACTLY what I am saying.  I never said throw the Bible away, never said reading it literal was wrong . . .all I've ever said was that there's just so much more than the literal piece and that by "living" by the literal, you miss the spiritual truth . ..so as a result . . .let go of the idea of applying the literal . . . of course you must read it . . .if you don't read it . .it's just as you say, you won't see the spiritual meaning beneath it.  

To see spiritual truth, you really need to be walking in the spirit realm . . .seeing with spiritual eyes . . . can't see spiritually when walking by your natural reasoning.  Pursuing Christ is walking spiritually.

Thank you again Molly . . .you may not agree with me on everything and I'm cool with that . .but I totally agree with you on this . . . 1000%

[Craig]

I can demonstrate differently, continuing in looking at Scripture and everything in God's Will as spiritual. We read in Genesis that on the Seventh Day He rested from His work, but at the same time we see God has not yet rested from His work.  Spiritual things are believed on by faith, faith because it isn't a present reality but something that yet is to come. Therefore what read in Genesis, has yet come to pass because the seven days were a full account of God's creation of which we are still a part of. We trust in the completed work, and can rest presently, in the now, because God does not fail.

I already explained earlier, but will reiterate, God has yet to finish the work He started, this too is spiritual understanding. Paul called it a race to the finish line, and that we are all still running. We have not arrived yet to God's Rest, but by faith we rest now knowing He is faithful to complete the work He has started within us. The definition of resting, is also in dispute. When Jesus said rest in Him, it meant do not worry about tomorrow and do not look at yesterday's mistakes but push forward with both hands firm on the plow because we were created to do good works.

Prior to the understanding of UR/CU, the understanding of good works conflicted with the doctrine of salvation that said we were saved by grace through faith. The conflict of grace and works became a constant battle because by the old standard, I always saw it relating to our salvation. However, now I am beyond that line of thinking, since I recognize my salvation is by grace, and good works concern things which accompany salvation.

Scripture begins to unfold properly for those who did not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the doctrine of eternal judgment has changed in their minds, does not change the doctrines repentance from acts which lead to death, of faith in God, or baptisms, of laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead. But like most people, they throw out everything they ever learned growing up with Christianity and hang solely on to this new revelation of Universal Salvation believing that it is the all and all of what Jesus and the apostles were talking about. That is not the full truth, in fact Salvation is only the milk, it is not the meat and those who are accustomed to milk are still infants, and like infants will be tossed to and fro by every wind of teaching and the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming because they have not held on to what is True. So if idea that you are saved and all mankind is saved is where you have stopped your growth, you are stunted and not free in anything.

If people need Scripture to support what I said above, I can provide in multitude. There is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, those who follow not after the flesh but the spirit.

[Roy Monis]

It has been interesting to watch this thread veer from one area to another, I thought I might throw another thought out there that might be worthy of consideration in light of the original topic that was presented.

I have come to believe that virtually anything taught by the denominations is wrong, it is so leavened as to have lost it's true meaning or it is just out and out dung. Certainly I do not suggest to have all the answers, maybe a few, maybe none.

But consider this for a minute;

Joh 8:12  Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Joh 9:5  As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Keeping that in mind let's go back to Genesis;

Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I do not believe everything came about in six literal days (another church teaching) but rather in ages or periods or stages. With this in mind and with scripture telling us the sun was created on the fourth day what or should I say Who was the Light created on Day One?

A couple more things to consider;

Joh 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.

Joh 20:19  Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Another huge first day, the day that gives us our hope! In Genesis we see Light before the sun, in Revelation we see Light with no need for the sun!

Rev 22:5  And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign forever and ever.

Peace to you all,

RM 

Hi! Brother RM

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the established denominational Churches , dung indeed. I do believe that is why you and I and the rest of us here have made the wise move to obey the call and "Come Out Of Her"

It is a  very interesting thought you have thrown in and, yes, the original topic seems to have got lost, so let us remind ourselves as to what that was; "Was Jesus Christ begotten/ born or was He created?"

Before we get into the meat let me say that I also believe that the six days of creation were more than the literal six days, it is more like six ages or eons.

At a period before the command went out; "Let there be light" we must of necessity consider the very beginning where we are told; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being...........No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (Jn.1:1-3 & 18).

Now let us establish some facts;  1...In the beginning was the Word.    2....The word was with God.    3.....The Word was God.      4.....He was in the beginning with God.    5.....He was the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father.  Here we have five crucial and undeniable facts.

Start with (3), the Word was God.  Now (2) the Word was with God.   Now (1&4), both Gods were from the very beginning.  Last of all let us take (5) the only begotten God was in the bosom of the Father. But we are told that there is only the ONE GOD.
"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';" (Isa.46: 9-10) But in (Vs.18) we are told that the Word/God is in the bosom of the Father/God. Now we can identify the two Gods; one is the Father and the other is the Word in the Father's bosom. So there is still just the ONE GOD. 

Now let us progress to your question about: "Let there be light." Where did it come from? We are told; "This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." (1Jn.1:5). Jesus tells us that God/Father is Light and there is no darkness in Him.

Next we are told that the Word/Son is the image pf the Father "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."  (Col.1:15). He is the image of the Father and the Father is Light, and He is the FIRSTBORN and NOT as some would have it CREATED[/color][/b]

Now "LET THERE BE LIGHT" at this command the Son who is Light comes forth/begotten/ born of the Father and the process of creation commences. Light is energy and it is with this energy drained from the Father that the Son/Word accomplishes His Father's will.

From this point on it is the Word/Son before He came to earth in the body of Jesus that did the rest of the creation work. On day one light was not created, the light was the begotten God. (vs18)

When the Messiah was due, the Word/Son took possession of the body that was prepared for Him; "Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure. "Then I said, 'Behold, I have come (In the scroll of the book it is written of Me) To do Your will, O God.' " (Heb.10:5-7).

The Holy Spirit of the Father then implanted the body containing the Word/Son into Mary and commanded Joseph to name Him Jesus. "But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matt.1:20-21).

In Rev. there will be no need for light because we will all be the begotten sons of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, "Born Again." (not created) and the Father of Lights will be our illumination.

I hope this helps brother, it is but my understanding of the Scriptures.
(http://dl.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1551/1551031u6k25jgwzu.png)
Peace!

Roy   UK

[martincisneros]

Scripture begins to unfold properly for those who did not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the doctrine of eternal judgment has changed in their minds, does not change the doctrines repentance from acts which lead to death, of faith in God, or baptisms, of laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead. But like most people, they throw out everything they ever learned growing up with Christianity and hang solely on to this new revelation of Universal Salvation believing that it is the all and all of what Jesus and the apostles were talking about. That is not the full truth, in fact Salvation is only the milk, it is not the meat and those who are accustomed to milk are still infants, and like infants will be tossed to and fro by every wind of teaching and the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming because they have not held on to what is True. So if idea that you are saved and all mankind is saved is where you have stopped your growth, you are stunted and not free in anything.

Yup!

[Molly]

In Rev. there will be no need for light because we will all be the begotten sons of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, "Born Again." (not created) and the Father of Lights will be our illumination.

Yes!  Jesus as the unique Son of God is the spirit of prophecy.


Revelation 19:10
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

[Pierac]

Hi Roy,

Hi! I'm Roy Monis

I am new on this site and I've had my very first post blocked. Everything that I've posted was perfectly valid and supported by Scripture, so I don't understand why discussion on a perfectly valid Scriptural question such as " Was Jesus Created or Born?" blocked. Is it the purpose of this forum to discuss Scripture or not? I have not brought any of my own teachings or ideas in as far as I'm aware, so why?

According to my Webster dictionary on e-sword, Created or Born mean the same. 

Begotten
BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, pp. of get.  Procreated;   generated.

Now let us establish some facts;  1...In the beginning was the Word.    2....The word was with God.    3.....The Word was God.      4.....He was in the beginning with God.    5.....He was the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father.  Here we have five crucial and undeniable facts.

Start with (3), the Word was God.  Now (2) the Word was with God.   Now (1&4), both Gods were from the very beginning.  Last of all let us take (5) the only begotten God was in the bosom of the Father. But we are told that there is only the ONE GOD.
"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';" (Isa.46: 9-10) But in (Vs.18) we are told that the Word/God is in the bosom of the Father/God. Now we can identify the two Gods; one is the Father and the other is the Word in the Father's bosom. So there is still just the ONE GOD.

My thoughts on John 1 differ from yours some what, so allow me to share my studies. Here's my research on John 1

John 1:1

I have another train of thought for you to think about. For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament,  "the Word" (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he"  in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation.  Did John write concerning "the word" that "he" was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning "the word" that  "it" was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use "he" to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make "the word" a "he" here?

The English translations of the Greek text before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way:   (notice Him and He are now  "It").

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde  was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1  In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2  The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3  All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made.  4  In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1  In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2  This same was in the beginning with God. 3  All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4  In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John.  And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same.  Logos is variously translated as "statement" (Luke 20:20), "question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to.  In all cases logos is an "it." 

In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an "it" not a "he."  On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13.  This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus.  "And the Word became flesh."  A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled.  Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh. There is even strong evidence suggest the John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world.  When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a "who" he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life"

Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". It is not as some would have you believe Jesus' middle name. Jesus is not called Jesus Logos of Nazareth. This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God."

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing. Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?

Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea
(New American Bible  (footnote) & Vine's Expository Dictionary).

According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:

Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.

I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"

"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."

The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:

"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).

So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:

"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."

With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.

You decide which definition is correct, Greek philosophy's or John's Jewish definition.


So why did John write his Gospel? To teach us that Jesus is God, or something else? Well, he tells us in John 20:31

"but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (anointed one), the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

So are we going to believe John's inspired writings, that Jesus is the "Son of God", or the tradition of men who teach Jesus is "God the son." 

It was the 1611 Kings James bible that began to change the way we read John 1, and tradition is a hard thing to overcome!

Paul

[Roy Monis]

2.  The comments about what transpired in church are related in the sense that no matter how long one is in the kingdom perspectives, one still has boundaries based on personal standards.  When other's cross those boundaries, law manifests in us and we try to "correct" the other person to come back into our standards . . that was what happened with those reacting negatively to the choice of wording I used.  It was quickly evident there still are areas where freedom had not yet been let in.

2.....In what way did I fall back on my religious background? My father and mother were Catholic and not very good ones. My background, in my opinion, was based on good solid social etiquette in all areas of social behaviour including appropriate discipline, and though I didn't like it at the time, I am now regretting that it's gone out of fashion. Just my opinion. 

Roy,

Let me explain what is going on here. What is happening in this reply to you is guilt by association. It is just a cheap trick of people who cannot handle the fact that their belief systems have no knowledge attached to them. They can't find any valid reason to disagree with you and so they fall to a fallacy to discredit you rather than actually refuting what you said in a civil, reasonable fashion. Believing that Jesus died on the cross and rose on the third day is from a religious background, so if you proclaim this does this mean you are falling back on your religious background? No, of course not. "Falling back on religious background" or "Traditional Christianity" or "Western Thinking", all these are not valid objections to anything, they are fallacies used by those who lack understanding and looking for someway to look important. It seems to be a persistent problem, and usually proclaimed by people who believe they are more spiritual than you are.

Remember we still are unable to judge the heart of any man, because only God and that man knows what is going on in their heart; but, I wouldn't put much clout on those who need to use fallacy to support the knowledge of the Truth, because the Truth does not need fallacy to defend it. I find it sad that true good behavior (behavior that is not done for show, but out of sincerity) is condemned as not being spiritual and those who claim to spiritual need to use lies to defend the truth. There is some irony however in telling you that you are religious because you are correcting him, and he is correcting you saying that those who correct each other are religious and falling back to the Law. So what does that mean, he too has fallen back to the Law? See, no knowledge whatsoever of what they are doing and saying.

Thank you SOtW

I was beginning to think I was going round the bend. Thanks for putting me straight. God bless you brother.

Peace! 
(http://dl.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1551/1551031u6k25jgwzu.png)


Roy   UK.

[Roy Monis]

Hi! CHB

Yes! I admit that the Christ/Word/Son was the firstborn before creation, the Creator of all creation and that Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all the dead. Yes Jesus Christ was the first to be born, the Creator. Jesus Christ is first of all things, He is the head, He is the Creator of all things, so it stands to reason that He must be first.

Peace!(http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/913/913823shy6qui595.gif)

Roy   UK       

If you agree that Christ is the first, then he was part of a series. After first comes second, right?  If he was first he had a beginning, just like the second, third, and fourth. I don't mean he was made out of clay or anything, he came from God. Jesus was part of the creation, he was first. Jesus was the creator of all things except himself. But it says he was God the Father's first creation.

CHB

Hi! CHB

Look at the wording CHB. The firstborn of God, not firstcreaton of God. He came into being   before creation started, He is the Creator. He started the series as you prefer to call creation that.

Peace!(http://dl.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1551/1551031u6k25jgwzu.png)

Roy  UK

[Molly]

So are we going to believe John's inspired writings, that Jesus is the "Son of God", or the tradition of men who teach Jesus is "God the son."  

That Jesus is God is in the Bible--it is not the tradition of men.

But, they don't want us to discuss this here, so I won't, but I want to put in my voice against what you are teaching.

He is the wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6)

[pneuma]

Hi Roy,

Hi! I'm Roy Monis

I am new on this site and I've had my very first post blocked. Everything that I've posted was perfectly valid and supported by Scripture, so I don't understand why discussion on a perfectly valid Scriptural question such as " Was Jesus Created or Born?" blocked. Is it the purpose of this forum to discuss Scripture or not? I have not brought any of my own teachings or ideas in as far as I'm aware, so why?

According to my Webster dictionary on e-sword, Created or Born mean the same. 

Begotten
BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, pp. of get.  Procreated;   generated.

Now let us establish some facts;  1...In the beginning was the Word.    2....The word was with God.    3.....The Word was God.      4.....He was in the beginning with God.    5.....He was the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father.  Here we have five crucial and undeniable facts.

Start with (3), the Word was God.  Now (2) the Word was with God.   Now (1&4), both Gods were from the very beginning.  Last of all let us take (5) the only begotten God was in the bosom of the Father. But we are told that there is only the ONE GOD.
"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';" (Isa.46: 9-10) But in (Vs.18) we are told that the Word/God is in the bosom of the Father/God. Now we can identify the two Gods; one is the Father and the other is the Word in the Father's bosom. So there is still just the ONE GOD.

My thoughts on John 1 differ from yours some what, so allow me to share my studies. Here's my research on John 1

John 1:1

I have another train of thought for you to think about. For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament,  "the Word" (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he"  in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation.  Did John write concerning "the word" that "he" was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning "the word" that  "it" was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use "he" to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make "the word" a "he" here?

The English translations of the Greek text before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way:   (notice Him and He are now  "It").

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde  was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1  In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2  The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3  All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made.  4  In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1  In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2  This same was in the beginning with God. 3  All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4  In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John.  And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same.  Logos is variously translated as "statement" (Luke 20:20), "question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to.  In all cases logos is an "it." 

In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an "it" not a "he."  On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13.  This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus.  "And the Word became flesh."  A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled.  Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh. There is even strong evidence suggest the John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world.  When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a "who" he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life"

Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". It is not as some would have you believe Jesus' middle name. Jesus is not called Jesus Logos of Nazareth. This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God."

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing. Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?

Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea
(New American Bible  (footnote) & Vine's Expository Dictionary).

According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:

Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.

I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"

"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."

The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:

"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).

So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:

"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."

With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.

You decide which definition is correct, Greek philosophy's or John's Jewish definition.


So why did John write his Gospel? To teach us that Jesus is God, or something else? Well, he tells us in John 20:31

"but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (anointed one), the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

So are we going to believe John's inspired writings, that Jesus is the "Son of God", or the tradition of men who teach Jesus is "God the son." 

It was the 1611 Kings James bible that began to change the way we read John 1, and tradition is a hard thing to overcome!

Paul

I enjoyed that, thanks

[Roy Monis]

Molly much of this ive talked about for ages..much shared on the 1000YR THREAD SIS....

Christ is called the MORNING star which rises in our HEARTS .correlate that to what you posted :icon_flower:

Yes Taffy

Good thread, I'm interested, start it or let riverman do the necessary.

Peace!
(http://dl.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1551/1551031u6k25jgwzu.png)


Roy.

[Roy Monis]

Molly . . .THANK YOU that's exactly EXACTLY what I am saying.  I never said throw the Bible away, never said reading it literal was wrong . . .all I've ever said was that there's just so much more than the literal piece and that by "living" by the literal, you miss the spiritual truth . ..so as a result . . .let go of the idea of applying the literal . . . of course you must read it . . .if you don't read it . .it's just as you say, you won't see the spiritual meaning beneath it. 

To see spiritual truth, you really need to be walking in the spirit realm . . .seeing with spiritual eyes . . . can't see spiritually when walking by your natural reasoning.  Pursuing Christ is walking spiritually.

Thank you again Molly . . .you may not agree with me on everything and I'm cool with that . .but I totally agree with you on this . . . 1000%

Hi! Nathan

Forgive me for disagreeing but that's not what I gathered by your posts. If it was what you were contriving to say then I just didn't get it. It could have been presented in a less unobtrusive way. If I have offended please forgive.

Peace!(http://dl.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1551/1551031u6k25jgwzu.png)


Roy   UK

[Nathan]

I've spent about 3 hours trying to respond to you Roy . . .you wouldn't believe what I've been going through in trying to get this out . . .I've started a new thread that is directed to you due to our conversation . .not because I want to set you straight . . .so please don't think that's my motive.  But I do think you're honestly asking . . .and that's why I do wish to respond.   I can't even remember what I titled the stupid thing already and I just sent it. :msealed: