Need a hand here folks: The Word?

[Gabbylittleangel]

So, MEC, what do you think it means? ...

... I have a question: what then do you think the Logos had to do with Christ in the flesh (vs. 14) if the the Logos is not Christ himself? Was the Logos just a mystical 'part' of Christ like the Gnostics thought?

Hint #1:
1Ti 3:16 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.

Hint #2:
1Ti 3:16 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.

 

[DanR]

So, MEC, what do you think it means?

...Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Nothing could be plainer than the above. John personified Christ as the WORD.

CHRIST=THE WORD. End of story.

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Dan, Gabby and Josh. It really is that simple, as Dan said. Any alternate interpretations undermine the intent of the writer and denies Jesus of His deity. He was fully God, the Son, while on earth and at the same time, God, the Father was in Heaven. Heaven was NEVER void of the LORD. That's foolishness.

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

[handy]

Hi MEC, stepping in here from the other thread.

Well, there are some fairly clear statements for you, MEC, regarding the fact that it is crystal clear that John 1:14 is speaking of none other than Christ Himself, and that John 1 taken in whole makes it crystal clear that Jesus is the Creator.

I submit MEC, that if you are going to say that John 1:14 isn't referring to Christ, then the burden is upon you to show just who/what the word in flesh is.

One of the keys to correct interpretation of God's word is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. If you are going to theorize that John 1:14 is referring to any one or anything other than Jesus Christ, then you should be able to provide some solid Biblical texts to show who or what you are saying the word that became flesh is.

You have already been referred to Revelations 19:11-16, which clearly shows that "His name is the Word of God" (vs 13); the He being referred to is the "KING OF KING AND LORD OF LORDS". And, if you have any doubts that "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" is referring to Jesus Christ, you may check out 1 Timothy 6:15, and if you have any further question that Jesus is not only the Christ but God, you may also check into Deuteronomy 10:17 which shows that God is the Lord of Lords. So, either their are two Lord of Lords, or else Jesus is God.

You might also want to study Hebrews 1 which also affirms that the world was created through Jesus. Do read the whole chapter, not just the first 3 verses. In particular, study verse 8 which states, "But of the Son, He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." And also, verse 10 which states, again of the Son, "Thou, Lord, in the Beginning didst lay the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the works of Thy hands."

(Or are you going to suggest that Hebrews has been mistranslated for us as well as John's gospel and Revelations. Oh yes, also that section of 1 Timothy that Gabby shared.)




No, it doesn't make me go "hmmmmm" at all that John is the only one who so clearly indentifies Christ as the Word; God incarnate, simply because it is clear from other texts in the Scriptures that Jesus is indeed God Incarnate. What makes me go 'hmmmmm' is why some try to somehow twist things around so to make it appear that John didn't say what he so clearly said, or try to hint that there is something wrong with either John or the translation of John's gospel or that the Bible isn't very reliable.

 

[tim-from-pa]

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

I believe this prophesied the coming of Christ (Messiah) because of the mention of the throne of David. Notice the names he is called. (The Hebrew translation for the word "called" suggests this describes his position.) I think this passage, like the one in John 1 is very straightforward.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

...

I submit MEC, that if you are going to say that John 1:14 isn't referring to Christ, then the burden is upon you to show just who/what the word in flesh is...

Also, to show us when and where God was manifested in the flesh, if not Christ. Also, how the Son that is given is also the Everlasting Father, if not Christ.

 

[Vic C.]

Agree with you all on all accounts. I'd just like to clarify something, so we don't mix up our theology.

Everlasting father is better translated as father of the everlasting or as Young translated it; Father of Eternity.

This way we don't suggest Jesus is the Father, which may contradict triune doctrine. 8-)

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

I believe this prophesied the coming of Christ (Messiah) because of the mention of the throne of David. Notice the names he is called. (The Hebrew translation for the word "called" suggests this describes his position.) I think this passage, like the one in John 1 is very straightforward.

Agree with you all on all accounts. I'd just like to clarify something, so we don't mix up our theology.

Everlasting father is better translated as father of the everlasting or as Young translated it; Father of Eternity.

This way we don't suggest Jesus is the Father, which may contradict triune doctrine. 8-)

Vic, I don't see the difference
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: ... and his name shall be called ... The mighty God, The everlasting Father,....

The child that is born, the son that is given is called Father of the everlasting
The child that is born, the son that is given is called Father of Eternity

Comes out pretty much the same way, don't ya think?

 

[Vic C.]

Uh, no! LOL, otherwise I would be contradicting myself (Lord knows I do that enough already).

Q: Is Jesus the Father or the Son in our doctrine of the Trinity?

Oneness Pentecostals and the JWs use this verse to "prove" their doctrinal view. If it was translated the more literal way, they wouldn't have a case. :-D

http://www.carm.org/oneness/Father.htm
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/jesusnotfather.htm

Both the Jehovah’s Witnesses (who deny the deity of Christ) and the United Pentecostals (also known as “Apostolics†or “Jesus Onlyâ€Â), who affirm the deity of Christ, teach erroneously about the two separate personages of the Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus. The Jehovah’s Witnesses misrepresent Christians who believe in the Trinity by saying that we teach Jesus is the Father; while the United Pentecostals will argue that the Father and Son are the same person. Much doctrinal confusion, to say the least, has been created by these groups and their teachings.

It doesn't make a difference to us who are able to discern the difference, but it makes a big difference when explaining this to those who believe otherwise.

Sorry for being so simple minded. I thought it was self explanatory. 8-)

 

[mutzrein]

Some 'words' to consider which I have posted elsewhere in time past.

We, in our human ‘wisdom’ cannot conceive the majesty of God, nor can we with our intellect comprehend the things of the spirit of God. Of course we always tend to reduce them to parallels or analogies which are tangible and humanly grasped, but God in reality cannot be defined or analysed in such a way. So I am not about to expound on the nature of God because these things are too wondrous for us to speak of or even behold in human terms. Some things are beyond knowing but what I do know is that God has given me keys of understanding to certain things. Of course I can only understand the things He has shown me since I have neither studied these things nor analysed them intellectually. It is revelation of the spirit of God.

Jesus is the Word of God. He is the ‘conduit’ through which God has spoken and has brought everything into being.

Since it is God’s word that we are hearing we can say that the word itself is the conduit through which God speaks. And just as my word reflects who I am, so God’s word reflects God. As my word comes from my heart and therefore shows who I am so I can say that my word is me. And as the Word of God emanates from the heart of the Father so it is absolutely correct to say that the Word is God. Because it is the word (which is the reflection of the Father) that shows us God. But this is different to saying that Jesus is God.

But just as the word that proceeds out of my mouth reflects me, it (the word) is not actually me because I am the one who is causing it to be spoken. The word is created in obedience to my will. So there are two entities. Me AND my word. So it is again with God. There are two entities. One is God and the other is his Word. And so we can also say that the Word is WITH God.

So as John says, the Word IS God (in the sense that is represents or reflects Him) and the word is WITH God (in the sense that God is one entity and His Word is another.)

So Jesus, being the Word of God, can rightly proclaim, “before Abraham was I AM†And likewise in other passages that Trinitarians use to attempt to differentiate between an entity they call God the Father and another they call God the son there is no inconsistency either.

The real issue is that those who cling to this doctrine cannot see or perceive scripture in any other way, than that in which they have been taught. Furthermore, this leads to a major problem and that is that many who accept the doctrine, believe it because they are told that its acceptance is necessary for salvation. And therefore as a consequence many are taught that not to accept it, is tantamount to losing ones salvation.

But my contention is (and this is at the root of what God has shown me) our salvation is based on righteousness imputed by God, through faith in Christ. And this faith is a gift. So if God gives man this faith, and this faith does not ALLOW him to see the Trinitarian doctrine, do we blame God who is the giver or man who is the recipient? Of course we can do neither because in either case salvation would not be by faith.

Now I am not denying that those who accept OR reject the trinity are necessarily lost or ‘saved’. I am merely saying that a gospel that requires adherence to a doctrine in order for a person to be saved, is not a gospel based on faith and therefore it can only lead to self righteousness – which in God’s sight is filthy rags.

 

[handy]

Mutz, you said, "Now I am not denying that those who accept OR reject the trinity are necessarily lost or ‘saved’. I am merely saying that a gospel that requires adherence to a doctrine in order for a person to be saved, is not a gospel based on faith and therefore it can only lead to self righteousness – which in God’s sight is filthy rags."

The thing is that our faith must have as it's object the true God of Scripture, the great "I AM". If we fashion a god to our own understanding, rather than have faith in the true God, then our 'god' is no better than the golden calf. So, your statement here works both ways: If the Scriptures do not reveal a God who is Three in One, a Father separate from the Son, who is separate from the Holy Spirit, then my faith is what you say. But, if the Scriptures do indeed reveal that God is Three, Father, Son and Spirit, separate yet still One, then it is your faith that is but 'filthy rags'.

Which is why it is good to delve into the Scriptures together and learn from one another, like we do here on this forum. (Or hopefully do!)

It all boils down to what the Scriptures truly reveal regarding God. Now, for me, before I ever went to church, before I ever heard the word Trinity, I prayerfully asked God to reveal Himself to me as I sat down and read the Bible for the first time. And, the very first words that I read was John 1. By the end of the chapter, before ever going to church, I was a Trinitarian, and by the end of the Gospel, I was born-again. (I stayed up all night reading the Gospel, the night that changed my life for all eternity!)

I add my testimony here, because it seems that those who deny the Trinity, seem to be under the impression that those who believe in the Trinity are somehow brainwashed into believing it by creedial churches. Not so. Sometimes just an honest, faithful, and totally unbiased approach to reading the Scritpures makes it crystal clear.

A number of Scriptures that clearly show that Jesus is God, and that Jesus is separate from the Father have been shared. Really, after almost 30 years of reading through the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New, I find the Triune nature of God to be one of the most clear revelations of God's nature in the Bible. Sometimes, the reason why so many who love God and want to be faithful to His word embrace a concept (like the Trinity) is because it's Truth.

 

[mutzrein]

Mutz, you said, "Now I am not denying that those who accept OR reject the trinity are necessarily lost or ‘saved’. I am merely saying that a gospel that requires adherence to a doctrine in order for a person to be saved, is not a gospel based on faith and therefore it can only lead to self righteousness – which in God’s sight is filthy rags."

The thing is that our faith must have as it's object the true God of Scripture, the great "I AM". If we fashion a god to our own understanding, rather than have faith in the true God, then our 'god' is no better than the golden calf. So, your statement here works both ways: If the Scriptures do not reveal a God who is Three in One, a Father separate from the Son, who is separate from the Holy Spirit, then my faith is what you say. But, if the Scriptures do indeed reveal that God is Three, Father, Son and Spirit, separate yet still One, then it is your faith that is but 'filthy rags'.

Which is why it is good to delve into the Scriptures together and learn from one another, like we do here on this forum. (Or hopefully do!)

It all boils down to what the Scriptures truly reveal regarding God. Now, for me, before I ever went to church, before I ever heard the word Trinity, I prayerfully asked God to reveal Himself to me as I sat down and read the Bible for the first time. And, the very first words that I read was John 1. By the end of the chapter, before ever going to church, I was a Trinitarian, and by the end of the Gospel, I was born-again. (I stayed up all night reading the Gospel, the night that changed my life for all eternity!)

I add my testimony here, because it seems that those who deny the Trinity, seem to be under the impression that those who believe in the Trinity are somehow brainwashed into believing it by creedial churches. Not so. Sometimes just an honest, faithful, and totally unbiased approach to reading the Scritpures makes it crystal clear.

A number of Scriptures that clearly show that Jesus is God, and that Jesus is separate from the Father have been shared. Really, after almost 30 years of reading through the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New, I find the Triune nature of God to be one of the most clear revelations of God's nature in the Bible. Sometimes, the reason why so many who love God and want to be faithful to His word embrace a concept (like the Trinity) is because it's Truth.

Thanks for that. We obviously have a different understanding of faith. Mine does not depend on an academic interpretation of scripture but on relationship with the God who inspired it. For the word of God is not just written on the pages of a book, but on the fleshy tablets of my heart.

May I ask, does your view of the trinity give each member of it, equality in all respects?

 

[handy]

May I ask, does your view of the trinity give each member of it, equality in all respects?

Yes. For although Jesus emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant and humbled Himself by being obedient to the point of death on the cross, this was nonetheless a temporary humility. As He is now, He is equal to the Father, recieving the worship of men (Matthew 2:11) and of angels (Hebrews 1:6).

 

[mutzrein]

May I ask, does your view of the trinity give each member of it, equality in all respects?

Yes. For although Jesus emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant and humbled Himself by being obedient to the point of death on the cross, this was nonetheless a temporary humility. As He is now, He is equal to the Father, recieving the worship of men (Matthew 2:11) and of angels (Hebrews 1:6).

So are you saying that when Jesus said:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

that this was just a temporary condition - that he now knows?

 

[handy]

I'm not sure that anyone could answer this question, because we don't know to what extent the Son's knowledge of the Father's will changed after the ascension. However, it really doens't matter one way or another. Just because the Son may not know the Father's will regarding the Second Coming doesn't bespeak any inequality between the Father and the Son. Rather, it bespeaks differing roles. Just as there isn't inequality between husband and wife in marriage, yet there are differing roles. As a wife, I know that I am my husband's equal, even when I (willingly) submit to his will.

Truly, if we hadn't become so tainted by sin, and if human marriage hadn't dwindled to the mess it now is, I think God's original plan of marriage (the two becomming one, yet still maintaining the separate identities) would have been an illustration of the relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit. As it is now though, no so much.

 

[mutzrein]

I'm not sure that anyone could answer this question, because we don't know to what extent the Son's knowledge of the Father's will changed after the ascension. However, it really doens't matter one way or another. Just because the Son may not know the Father's will regarding the Second Coming doesn't bespeak any inequality between the Father and the Son. Rather, it bespeaks differing roles. Just as there isn't inequality between husband and wife in marriage, yet there are differing roles. As a wife, I know that I am my husband's equal, even when I (willingly) submit to his will.

Truly, if we hadn't become so tainted by sin, and if human marriage hadn't dwindled to the mess it now is, I think God's original plan of marriage (the two becomming one, yet still maintaining the separate identities) would have been an illustration of the relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit. As it is now though, no so much.

Of course one cannot answer it, because the scripture immediately before it denies it.

This is what Jesus said – and it is immediately before the text that trinitarians like to use to bolster their argument:

“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.â€Â

And then he says:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

Why is it that when Jesus emphatically states that the things he says will NOT change, trinitarians, to bolster their position, want to use a fallacious argument to imply that he was only speaking of the time when he was on earth. Either his words don’t pass away or they do.

Now you mentioned marriage. And I am surprised you did in this context because this cannot support the notion that Jesus is God which ever way you look at it. Yes, Jesus and the Father are one. And you too are one with your husband. But being one does not make you the same as your husband. Yes you have different roles but your husband will ALWAYS be the head irrespective of your submission to him.
And for Jesus to be one WITH God does not make Him God. God is above Christ – past (as He was WITH God from the beginning AND as he walked the earth) and present (as He is seated at the right hand of the Father AND remains subject to the Father). If it were not so, scripture lies, but as it is, scripture plainly makes a distinction in terms of authority. It makes a distinction in terms of roles. It makes a distinction in terms of relationship. And it makes a distinction between God and Jesus.

You also mentioned equality. You actually state that Jesus is equal to the Father. This is not scriptural. Please note what it says in scripture with regard to the equality which you use to link Jesus to God. Jesus is equal WITH God which is far different from being equal TO God. I am equal WITH Christ but I am certainly not equal TO Christ. Do you see the difference? I am also one WITH Christ but this does not make me Christ. I am made one because the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwells within me.

Blessings

 

[Imagican]

So, MEC, what do you think it means? ...

... I have a question: what then do you think the Logos had to do with Christ in the flesh (vs. 14) if the the Logos is not Christ himself? Was the Logos just a mystical 'part' of Christ like the Gnostics thought?

Hint #1:
1Ti 3:16 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.

Hint #2:
1Ti 3:16 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.

Gabby,

We KNOW that Christ was GIVEN the words that He brought to us. And in the sense of Spirit, Christ would INDEED have BEEN 'the Word of God'. And we have that this 'Word' was OBVIOULSLY a 'gift' that Christ was UNABLE to 'give to others', (so far as the authority as was given to HIM). For He offered that The Spirit would be SENT to us AFTER He departed.

So, the Word of God WAS manifest 'in the flesh'. But you would have me take this to mean that the Word was NOTHING other than Christ. NOT SO. For Christ, even if given the title of The Word, was NOT the Word of God itself for Christ STATED that the words that He offered were NOT HIS OWN, but GIVEN Him BY THE FATHER.

So, the Word could NOT have BEEN Christ Himself, but the MESSENGER or AGENT of God SENT to us to offer us that which HE GAVE THE SON to GIVE TO US.

It's really not as complex as it seems when we try to put it in words. NOT NEAR as complex as attempting to make Christ GOD HIMSELF. And even those that 'created trinity' NEVER 'meant' for 'trinty' to BE understood as many NOW would have it.

Why did Christ NOT teach us to PRAY TO HIM? Why did HE specifically TELL us to pray to The Father? And even the apostles stated that we are to PRAY IN THE NAME Of, but TO God, the Father.

Yes, till Kingdom Come I guess it will be.

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

Oh, good grief, Charlie Brown! :-D He's our Intercessor, every prayer is to Him. :crazyeyes:

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

 

[Imagican]

My replies are bolded:

Hi MEC, stepping in here from the other thread.

Well, there are some fairly clear statements for you, MEC, regarding the fact that it is crystal clear that John 1:14 is speaking of none other than Christ Himself, and that John 1 taken in whole makes it crystal clear that Jesus is the Creator.

I submit MEC, that if you are going to say that John 1:14 isn't referring to Christ, then the burden is upon you to show just who/what the word in flesh is.

One of the keys to correct interpretation of God's word is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. If you are going to theorize that John 1:14 is referring to any one or anything other than Jesus Christ, then you should be able to provide some solid Biblical texts to show who or what you are saying the word that became flesh is.

That's just IT. I'm not claiming the Word to be anything other than what was offered: The Word. It is YOU that insist upon personification of The Word. For IF I take the Capital W off The Word and simply offer it as written WORD or word, it becomes apparent that the word is the means of God's communication to His Creation. And His Word DID become 'flesh' in that the 'message', (communication of God), sent, WAS Christ Jesus. Whom told us from His OWN mouth that the words that He offered were GIVEN Him By The Father, (God Himself).

You have already been referred to Revelations 19:11-16, which clearly shows that "His name is the Word of God" (vs 13); the He being referred to is the "KING OF KING AND LORD OF LORDS". And, if you have any doubts that "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" is referring to Jesus Christ, you may check out 1 Timothy 6:15, and if you have any further question that Jesus is not only the Christ but God, you may also check into Deuteronomy 10:17 which shows that God is the Lord of Lords. So, either their are two Lord of Lords, or else Jesus is God.

Ok, If your explanation of understanding is indeed correct, then explain to me and others HOW it is that the ONE and ONLY God did NOT reveal Himself to His OWN chosen People? How God, who lived in the Holy of Holies was masquarading as ONE THING while in TRUTH was 'something else'? Explain how Christ NOW 'is the temple' and that lives in the hears of those that ACCEPT HIM, transforming the TEMPLE into OUR OWN HEARTS?

You might also want to study Hebrews 1 which also affirms that the world was created through Jesus. Do read the whole chapter, not just the first 3 verses. In particular, study verse 8 which states, "But of the Son, He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." And also, verse 10 which states, again of the Son, "Thou, Lord, in the Beginning didst lay the foundations of the earth and the heavens are the works of Thy hands."

(Or are you going to suggest that Hebrews has been mistranslated for us as well as John's gospel and Revelations. Oh yes, also that section of 1 Timothy that Gabby shared.)

Firstly. I have NEVER offered ANYTHING other than Christ BEING 'a part' of God. For the Son is MOST definitely a 'part of the Father'. But the Father and Son are SEPARATE entities. And this IS apparent in ALL that Christ offered.

Guys, God IS Love. Can you grasp this? This is NOT a 'man-made' CONCEPT. This is NOT some 'idea'. This IS TRUTH. God IS Love. That simple. There is NO LOVE except that which God IS. And the ONLY Love on this planet exist BECAUSE we were CREATED in HIS IMAGE.




No, it doesn't make me go "hmmmmm" at all that John is the only one who so clearly indentifies Christ as the Word; God incarnate, simply because it is clear from other texts in the Scriptures that Jesus is indeed God Incarnate. What makes me go 'hmmmmm' is why some try to somehow twist things around so to make it appear that John didn't say what he so clearly said, or try to hint that there is something wrong with either John or the translation of John's gospel or that the Bible isn't very reliable.

Perhaps I can offer an understanding that MANY 'seem' to utterly LACK. Observe:

Jesus Christ = The Lamb of God. A simple statement right? WRONG. Is Jesus Christ ONLY The Lamb of God. Is that ALL that Christ IS? Of course NOT. For Christ was A. a man, B. The Son of God, C. Filled with the Spirit of God, D. The Redeemer, E. The Messiah,,,,,,,ect, ect, ect.... NOt a SINGLE one of these is EVERYTHING that Christ IS. Yet, when it comes to 'The Word', most of you would offer that this IS what Christ IS. See how EASY it is to get 'caught up' in words, instead of the TRUTH that the 'words' represent?

God IS Love. Is that ALL that God IS? His ESSENCE perhaps but dependant upon the perspective of the one who wishes to, (or DOES), understand, God is MANY MANY 'things'. God IS The Creator, God IS Our Father, God IS Love, God IS the Alpha, God IS The Omega, and on, and on, and on.

Christ IS The Word of God in that it was 'given' Christ to BRING us the Word. So, if what Christ has stated CONCERNING The Word IS TRUTH, (The words that I offer are NOT mine own but GIVEN me of the Father), then He OBVOUSLY is NOT The Word itself but a 'representative' OF The Word, sent to deliver this Word to mankind through His apostles, and the Gospels.

And even The Word itself is SO MUCH MORE than a 'simple title'. It IS: God's communication to mankind from beginning to end, God's Love offered to mankind, God's essence, God's desire, etc, etc, etc,,,,,

So, if one IS able to 'come to any understanding', it is THOUGH The Word that this understanding is POSSIBLE. And we MUST go THROUGH Christ to REACH the Father. Hmmmmmm. Is this a TRUE statement? Was this NOT offered by Christ Himself and His apostles? That we MUST go THROUGH Christ to REACH the Father? And WHO IS THE FATHER?

It becomes apparent to ANY that are able to separate themselves from the carnal nature of man that God is MORE than we can imagine. The LESS carnal we BECOME the MORE we 'SEE' that HE IS. Thus, the 'mystery of Godhead'. And Godhead, my friends, is a much MORE accurate description of The relationship of Father, Son And Spirit. For this WAS offered by the Representatives of Christ.

And The Father IS the HEAD of The Godhead. As Christ IS The Head of man, and Man IS the Head of Woman. Quite simple really. And with each succession of understanding that comes along with the understanding of WHAT each IS, the offering also points to the ORDER in which they EXISTED. Think about it.

MEC

 

[tim-from-pa]

esus Christ = The Lamb of God. A simple statement right? WRONG. Is Jesus Christ ONLY The Lamb of God. Is that ALL that Christ IS? Of course NOT. For Christ was A. a man, B. The Son of God, C. Filled with the Spirit of God, D. The Redeemer, E. The Messiah,,,,,,,ect, ect, ect.... NOt a SINGLE one of these is EVERYTHING that Christ IS. Yet, when it comes to 'The Word', most of you would offer that this IS what Christ IS. See how EASY it is to get 'caught up' in words, instead of the TRUTH that the 'words' represent?

So, Christ is all those things? That's the point I made earlier with the Isaiah passage:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

I believe this prophesied the coming of Christ (Messiah) because of the mention of the throne of David. Notice the names he is called. (The Hebrew translation for the word "called" suggests this describes his position.) I think this passage, like the one in John 1 is very straightforward as to who Jesus is.