Need a hand here folks: The Word?

[handy]

That will do handy. John 17:8 is as good as any.

MEC

Very good, I'll work on a response.

 

[handy]

That will do handy. John 17:8 is as good as any.

MEC

Very good, I'll work on a response.

 

[DanR]

Ok handy, (Dora),


Oh, and this question is NOT only open to handy, ANYONE, please feel 'free' to 'step right up' and offer an answer. PLEASE.

JOHN answers:

logos = khristos. John 1:14

.

 

[mutzrein]

Mutz, you said in your last post that you had a response "to the Scripture that (I) posted". I had assumed you would give it and yet now you are going back to John 1. Frankly, we need to deal with John 1 in the light that Hebrews 1 shows. The two passages are both concerning the nature of the Son and should be studied together. This is not cobbling doctrine by joining Scriptures that have no bearing upon each other. This is examing the word by the light of the word. When one is studying a particular subject, in this case the nature of the Son, one should never just read one part of one chapter of one book and that's it. One should always look up everything the Scriptures has to say regarding the subject. Scripture never contradicts itself. Therefore, when John makes the claim that the Word, who was God, became flesh and dwelt among us, we can and should wonder, "Is John saying that Jesus is God?" So, we can and should look to see if the Scriptures refer to the Son as God in other places and we find that it surely does, especially in Hebrews 1. And we see in Hebrews 1, the writer referring to an Old Testament source which also points to God calling the Son God.

So, Mutz, I really want to see your thoughts on Hebrews 1:8 which states emphatically and without any veiling,
"But of the Son, He (God) says, "Thou throne, O God, is forever and ever."

and sure, I'll add verse 9 here as well which says:

"Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee."

Who was anointed? The Son, of whom God said, "Thou throne, O God, is forever and ever."
Who called the Son God? God did.
Who anointed Him? God.
God anointed God.

Why are we going back to what we've already discussed without dealing with this text?

For the record, the post that I posted before this one, the one addressed to MEC, contains exactly what I believe regarding the Word, as God's expression to us.

Dora

Apologies for the delay. Too much to do and too little time to do nothing!

There is a reason for asking about my comments on the ‘Word’ in John 1 – and it ties in with Hebrews 1.

Hebrews 1 makes two references to the son which shows direct relationship with the ‘Word’ in John 1. You, I trust will agree that all of these scriptures are speaking of Jesus. MEC – have you noted this also?

Hebrews 1:2 ‘ . . . Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; . . .’
Hebrews 1:10 ‘ . . . And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: . . .’

John 1:3 ‘ . . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . .’

In Hebrews in different places we see the description given of Jesus as being both the ‘son’ and ‘God’.
Likewise in John, we see the description given of the Word being ‘with God’ and ‘God’.

It is the revelation that God gave me regarding the Word in John 1 that has given me understanding of the relationship between God and the son.

Blessings

 

[Imagican]

Yes Mutz, I have. And I have also read that all things were created FOR Christ. And as we know, scripture will not contradict scripture. If it does, then there is simply a matter of not understanding it. I could NEVER understand ALL things. But that there ARE 'things' that we ARE able to understand goes without the need for confirmation. And in the SAME statement that you offer, it states that Christ is HEIR to ALL things. Indicating that they were NOT His until GIVEN this. For my heir, (sons and daughters), will NOT be the inheritors UNTIL a 'certain time'. Christ's KINGDOM, (his earthly Kingdom), is NOT YET.

I am not convinced as some be that Christ IS the Creator. This has NOT been revealed to me in Spirit. It may well be, but what I have been shown is that, regardless of wording, that at times seems to the contrary, The Father IS God Himself, and the Son IS The Son. One HAVING preimmenence over the other. Regardless of the 'few' places that this is indicated to be DIFFERENT than what I have stated, the simple FACT that we have Father and Son shows PLACE.

That Christ may well have been 'instrumental' in the Creation does not, in my mind or heart', take away FROM the Father BEING the Creator.

And when we read these statements of scripture that you offer, MANY seem unaware that MOST of what the Word speaks of IS SPIRITUAL. So ALL things may VERY WELL have a meaning DIFFERENT than that which those who read it INTERPRET it to mean. All 'things' may have absolutely NOTHING to do with what we 'think' that it does. All 'things' may VERY well have a 'specific' meaning that has LITTLE to do with what WE seem to 'think' is important. Most seem to 'think' that ALL things is LITERALLY refering to ALL things that we KNOW. We have NOT reason to believe this. For there are things in heaven that we KNOW nothing about. And these things could NOT be contained within what we HAVE been offered. For THESE 'THINGS' have NEVER been mentioned.

These are simple speculations. That there ARE and WILL be those unable to accept ANYTHING other than what they have been taught or have learned goes without question. For I TOO am one of the 'same'; with one difference than most. I have been 'taught' LITTLE by 'other men'. Whether that be of significance, only time will tell. For eventually we ALL WILL KNOW the TRUTH as pertains to The Spirit.

I am confident in that the Father is the HEAD of Christ as Christ IS the Head of the Church, (man). There would be NO reason for us to be GIVEN this information if it had NO significance. And the Father IS the Father of Christ, Christ IS The Son. And this information too would be useless unless it was offered in TRUTH for a 'purpose'.

Since my 'coming to the Lord', and especially since coming to this forum, I have read MUCH concerning 'men's doctrines'. Everything from 'oneness' to 'trinity' to 'universalism'. and I have found that, to me, it ALL falls short of THE Truth. Bits and Pieces of EACH seem reasonable until one comes down to their TOTALITY in 'concept'. EACH falls SHORT.

Therefore I have chosen to simply allow The Spirit to guide. If I take THIS 'road' there is ONLY one that I could possibly 'hold responsible' for my understanding, (or lack thereof).

But I can offer this: Upon judgement, there will BE no excuses concerning 'false beliefs'. Christ WILL be our 'mediator'. But at THAT time, there will BE NO EXCUSES. It will matter little if you attempt to use the excuse: "Well,,,,,,, that's what they TOLD me". Or, "I trusted THEM". For our Salvation is NOT based on 'what' someone TEACHES us, it is based on WHAT we ACCEPT into our hearts.

And let me offer this: Guys and Gals, from what we have been offered, it is ALL but IMPOSSIBLE to BE that which we ARE TO BE 'without' following in TRUTH. We are UNABLE to 'learn' that which scripture 'teaches' without FOLLOWING it in TRUTH.

Does that mean that we MUST 'understand' EVERY word written within the page of a 'book'? NO. But it DEMANDS that we learn the PRINCIPLE that these pages reveal.

Lost, Found? These are but 'words'. The truth lies in the hearts of those that HAVE learned what Christ offered in Example. IS Christ GOD? I guess it depends upon the perspective in which we USE the word God. But we MOST CERTAINLY KNOW that Christ IS The Son of God. Never have we been offered that Christ IS God-The Son. Only in the limited understanding of mankind has this been INTRODUCED into The Word.

And so far as The Word is concerned. The Word is NOT simply a 'title'. Even if 'used' in this respect, it STILL conotates a DEFINING characteristic. For NEVER do we SEE a 'title' that is NOT a 'description' of said title. Father, God, Lord, Alpha, Omega, ALL these portray a MEANING that goes BEYOND a 'simple TITLE'. these are NOT 'just' titles. They are NAMES of descriptions of WHAT the words entail. I AM even offers the MEANING of; I AM, the ONE AND ONLY, the BEGINNING and ENDING. The SUPREME. The TRUE. Not simply I AM.

What we seem to struggle with here are 'concepts' of MEN rather than that offered through The Word. And it becomes obvious in OTHER misunderstanding what happens when we follow that which is NOT TRUTH to 'begin' with. For to START with a 'false assumption or belief' will MOST CERTAINLY lead to a 'further misunderstanding' of what has been offered.

There is ONE purpose of The Word. That is to 'instruct in TRUTH'. To place a 'different' emphasis ON IT, is to follow an incorrect premiss to START with. And HOW do you suppose one CAN follow truth if their 'beginning' is fraught with misconception from it's onset?

I attempt to 'subvert' NO ONE. I ONLY offer that which I 'understand'. Compare it to scripture and discern for yourself if I offer ANYTHING that takes AWAY from what we have been offered. If a simpleton such as myself can 'punch holes' in a 'belief' or doctrine THROUGH The Word, then I would propose that this doctrine ISN'T EVEN CLOSE to The Truth.

I am NOT a 'scholar' by ANY means. I am NOT versed in Baptist, Methodist, SDA, JW, Catholocism, or ANY denomination. i HAVE studied each of these in a basic sense. Only to find that they are ALL 'man-made'. And what I find compelling is that ALMOST every MAJOR denomination FOLLOWS a 'set' of VERY similar beliefs. And the MAJORITY of these are THOSE created by 'men'. NOT in 'tune' with the 'simple' words offered through The WORD. Each offering almost a DUPLICATE understanding that 'cannot' be 'proven' through scripture.

I don't believe I'm alone here. For the SIMPLE FACT that non-denominationals are the FASTEST growing group of 'denominationism' on the planet offers PURE PROOF of my statement here. Yet even these seem to FOLLOW little other than what's already been offered through the PARENTS that they 'splintered from'. And HOW many of these are absorbed in their OWN honor and glory? How many of these are out there HELPING their brothers and sisters WITHOUT the aspiration of the GLORY received HERE ON EARTH for their deeds. Which one is DOING without BRAGGING and letting the WORLD KNOW what they are doing? Hmmmmm, seems like they have ALREADY received thier 'reward', huh?

So many are so insistant that The Word is JUST another "name" of Christ that they seem to FAIL to consider the significance of the USE of THIS particular 'word'; Word. Insisting that it is PROOF of 'something' other than what it was USED for in John's offering. For 'trinity', (the concept of it), DIDN'T even exist at the time that it was written. HOW could one POSSIBLY 'believe' that it took three Hundred years and a 'people' DIFFERENT than those chosen to BE apostles to TEACH us something as IMPORTANT as 'trinity'? Is there even the POSSIBILTY that there COULD be those that 'believe' that the teachings of the APOSTLES was or is "Not ENOUGH"?

MEC

 

[handy]

Sorry about the delay in my reply MEC, we had a power outage yesterday that lasted into the evening. Fortunately we heat our house with a wood-stove, so we didn’t freeze!

Anyway, back to the subject:

John 17 answers your question regarding when Christ received God’s word to give to us. When studying the passage, it’s important to note that there is a difference in the word “word†as used in John 17 than the “Word†in John 1. In John 1, the “Word†logos does indeed equal “kristos†as Dan pointed out. Logos is also used when speaking of God’s direct commandments and instructions to us, as it is used in John 17:6, when Jesus said, “they have kept Thy word.â€Â

In John 17:8 we are dealing with the word, “rhema†which is a word that means what is said of matters or topics. Rhema is used regarding things that God desires us to know regarding His will as opposed to any direct utterance of command.

One can compare the way “word†is used in John 1:1 and John 17:6 with the way “word†is used in John 17:8 in the same way that one can compare the way Jesus uses the word “light†in John 17:7 (as the One who manifests God’s will to us) with the way “light†is used in Matthew 5:15 when Jesus said that a candle and would give “light†to all in the house.

I include this so that we don’t make the mistake of thinking that the “words†God gave to Jesus to give to us, as spoken of in verse 8 is the same as the “Word†of John 1.

Your question is when did Christ receive the words of God to give to us? I believe that the context in which Jesus is speaking shows that He received these words when He was with the Father before the world was. Jesus is praying to the Father here regarding “the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the worldâ€Â. In John 6, Jesus is also speaking of those whom the Father gave to Him. As He states in John 6:37-38:

All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me; and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down out of heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

In John 6, Jesus is telling us what the Father sent Him down from heaven to accomplish, and in John 17, Jesus is telling the Father that He has accomplished the task. So, it seems clear to me that Jesus received the ‘words’ the Father gave Him in heaven before He was born of Mary.

 

[Imagican]

Ok handy,

I ANYTHING BUT agree with your offering but what you have offered is sufficient for the purpose of this conversation.

Now, IF The Father and Son ARE the SAME God, then HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that The Son did NOT have these 'words' to BEGIN WITH. If Christ IS God and has ALWAYS BEEN, and, Christ IS the 'CREATOR', then what you have offered is FAR short of ANY kind of legible answer. For if there is NOTHING that exists, that was NOT created BY Christ, then there is NOTHING that God could have GIVEN Him that He didn't ALREADY possess. For the CREATOR MUST be the possesor in order to CREATE.

So, you can NOW plainly SEE that this 'idea' of Christ BEING all in all and God Himself CANNOT hold water. There IS 'a Father' and there IS 'a Son' and that these two have different NAMES at different TIMES does NOT negate the FACT that they ARE INDEED 'two SEPARATE' entities. One HAVING preimmenence OVER the OTHER.

And just a 'sprinkling' of argument towards your definition of words of 'different' meanings. The WORD in english is WORD PERIOD. And it HAS definition. What you propose is that The Word signifies TITLE. What I would offer that the SIMPLE use of THIS particular WORD has a MEANING. That it was NOT randomly chosen to signify Christ, but is a direct offering so far as WHAT God offered mankind.

And NO amount of ATTEMPT at translation or interpretation can change what has been offered THROUGH The Word. For, whether I capitalize it or not, it is STILL that knowledge offered to us, whether THROUGH His Son, or through the apostles, it is STILL His Word. For we have ALREADY been TOLD that the Father IS the Head of Christ. And we have ALSO been told that God is Christ's God as well as ours.

MEC

 

[handy]

Mutz, I've read your post, but will deal with it later if you don't mind. I want to respond to MEC first. If I try to answer both of you at the same time, I wind up looking like :crazyeyes: .


MEC,

I'm going to ask you a question, and bear in mind that I am in no way straying from the topic at hand:

How do you think false prophets arise?

 

[Imagican]

That is an exellent question. And handy, you can rest assured that I am grounded on a 'foundation' that has wrought 'unbelievable' change in my life so it would be difficult to shake it. And I AM a 'fool' for Christ so accusation or inuendo means little as well. So, with these things in mind, let's continue shall we?

We have NOT only The Word that explains WHO many would BE. And, we have MANY MANY instances of 'others' that have arisen over the centuries that we could use for EXELLENT example.

So, HOW? Some arise from inspiration, (a 'better term' may be possession). Some arise from false interpretation. Some arise from 'self LOVE'. Some arise from the PEOPLE. All are ABLE to BECOME and succeed as 'false prophets' through the WILL of those that follow them. Otherwise they are relatively obscure and of little effect on the LARGER scale of things.

But, regardless of what I have offered so far, one of the BIGGEST factors IS 'religion'. The masses have been 'taught' that 'religion' is of utmost importance. Not PARTICULAR 'beliefs', in this respect, but BELIEF period. So many are ill prepared to follow ANYTHING other than what they FIRST find 'fulfillment in'. Not TOO often do we find those that are ABLE to alter their habits once they are ingrained in their psyche.

We were WARNED that there were false prophets and the spririt of 'anti-Christ' ALREADY present at the time of the apostles. And it would ONLY get worse.

Not only were we warned of these, but there would be MANY that would 'follow' such. That these would introduce 'damnable' heresies so that those that followed them would learn to follow THEIR own desires rather than those of the Father as offered through His Son.

And, in the end, that even the very elect might be led astray.

So, I hope that this has been informative. There is MUCH more to it and I could go on for DAYS on this subject.

I have NO problem with variance from an OP that I have started so long as there IS edification that can be obtained, (and agreement is NOT ALWAYS edification, rarely in fact).

You may find my attitude and deliverance to be a 'bit crude and depressing'. Sorry. But I'm NOT here to play 'footsie' with people. What I offer I offer out of the HOPE that there MAY be 'a few' that are able to 'put aside' what the 'churches' have fed them and instead seek 'food' that is able to 'fill' the heart and bellies of those that hunger for the TRUTH. NO, you are right, not the 'truth' that has been force fed to the masses for centuries. I am most CERTAINLY not here for that. For that is NOT what has 'brought me to the truth' and each time I confront it I find that, though enticing, I would NOT give up what I HAVE to follow anything else.

So handy, though relatively NEW at this, I have had opportunity that few are ever willing to 'take advantage of' in this day and age. I have NO affiliation with 'churches', (denominations), but I DO have a 'bond' and 'place' in The Church of Christ. Don't like labels and refuse to offer the 'name' Christian to those that would ask my affiliation. Don't want to be confused with the groups that make such claims.

I am a 'lowly servant', with PERHAPS too much pride, (we've been workin' on that one you can be assured), but with NOTHING but CONFIDENCE in my God and His Son. I AM a 'fool for Christ' and have no shame in this statement whatsoever. I get 'knocked down' and 'get right back up' to get 'knocked down again'. Like I said 'we're still workin' on that one. But I can assure ANYONE that so desires, they TOO can have 'confidence' in The TRUTH. But FIRST you have to SEEK The TRUTH. IF what you 'seek' is to 'fit in' with churches and such, so be it. But I can assure you of this as well. Christ offers his statement towards the churches in Rev. and it's NOT pretty. Most got an 'F'. And you can EVEN read the REASONS why.

False prophets are HERE and they are HERE TO STAY for a 'time'. The ancient churches used 'scare tactics' in order to subvert many AWAY from the 'true prophets' for CENTURIES and have MOSTLY succeeded in their goal. For now the TRUTH will rarely be heard, and even LESS often, accepted.

MEC

 

[handy]

MEC and Mutz, please forgive me, but I'm forced to bow out of this discussion. We're rather busy here this afternoon, and we've promised a game night with the kids tonight, and I've been called in to work all this week. So, I just won't have the time to give this topic the study it deserves. It's been a good discussion, and even though nothing's really been resolved, I do believe that the discussion itself has shed light on the reasons for the differing opinons.

Maybe next week, when I'm not working (if I'm not working) I might revisit it again.

 

[A-Christian]

but the indication from The Word is that the apostles were for a 'time' and for a 'purpose'. And that time is past and the purpose fulfilled.

MEC, show me where the WORD states this, I must have missed it.

Peace

 

[Imagican]

but the indication from The Word is that the apostles were for a 'time' and for a 'purpose'. And that time is past and the purpose fulfilled.

MEC, show me where the WORD states this, I must have missed it.

Peace

You must have. So here is your answer. In EVERY letter address by Paul. He does NOT address the apostles in these places, but those 'called to BE Saints. If that is not a 'clear indication' that the aposltles themselves WERE THE apostles, how about this: We are ALSO told that there were called FIRST apostles, or this: that prophecy and tongues were for a time and that they would CEASE. There are MANY things stated that give CLEAR indication that apostleship WAS for a purpose and for a time. And not JUST purpose and time, but WHAT the purpose was and for WHAT Time.

The apostles were selected to START the Church. To begin the work that the Saints would 'carry on'. Show ME where there is mention of apostleship in Revelation. Show me where apostleship was mentioned, (other than in the teachings of the CC), concerning ANY other than the original apostles. NO, I am not asking for any information considering the power given to another AT THAT TIME. But any information offered through scripture that there WERE any other known by the title apostle than the original.

Apostleship was AN office. Meant to DO 'something'. And that something was the FORMATION of The Church of Christ. There was NO NEED for any to 're-start' The Church for we have been offered that ALWAYS a 'remnant would remain'. A remnant of the TRUE Church of Christ.

So, though your teachers have 'taught' you that apostleship IS something other than that offered in The Word, that doesn't change the FACT that we have NO scriptural evidence of this BEING so. EVERY indication and ALL the information that we do have concerning this office IS that it would END. And the OBVIOUS ending was upon the FORMATION of the Church. For there is NO information given concerning the CONTINUATION of this office or HOW it was to be performed.

And we also have the indication that the apostles were gifted with the gift of tongues. So that these were able to spread The Word to those of different languages. Since we KNOW that the apostles were mostly ignorant Galileans, it was NEEDED to communicate to those that they came in contact with in the places that they traveled. And ONCE the Church was 'established' there was NOT longer a NEED for this gift.

Why is it that the CC no longer receives the 'gift of tongues'? The SAME reason that NO members of the 'TRUE' Church of Christ NEED this gift any longer. Why is it that there are NOT those that are 'truly' able to heal by the laying on of hands? Because this was NEEDED to establish The Church. Faith MUST 'begin' SOMEWHERE. But once that faith is ESTABLISHED, the means by which it is established are NO LONGER NECESSARY. We HAVE the accounts of the apostles in The written Word. That is ENOUGH to allow FAITH to persevere.

So, while the CC teaches that THE POPE is an apostles. The Bible itself offers evidence that is CONTRARY to their teachings. And NOT ONLY the CC, but there are others that offer this false teaching as well.

MEC

 

[MarkT]

I am rather pressed for time right now and don't have time to do an extensive study of this matter. I am hoping that some of you may be able to help.

The question is concerning The Word. I am looking for direct scriptural reference to Christ BEING The Word. If anyone can direct me to said scripture I would be greatly appreciative.

Like I said, I am able to read but don't have the time, right now, to do an adequate study.

Thanks,

MEC

Hi Imagican.

Let me clarify this.

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. Gen. 1:24

'then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground' Genesis 2:7

See the difference?

God 'said'.

The LORD God 'formed'.

God is the One who 'said'. The LORD God is the one who 'formed'.

One is the Father; the One who 'said'.

One is the 'hand' of God; the workman, the One who created. Also known as the Word.

The Word did.

 

[Imagican]

Mark,

I most certainly see the difference that you indicate. But I can take you BACK to the first chapter where the LORD part is non-existant. Even in the beginning of the second chapter it ends with reference to GOD and no; Lord God.

I think that it's NEAT that there is the ability to 'read into' the Word what we "BELIEVE". But I don't know if this is the case here.

There is little doubt that Christ was instrumental in 'creation'. I just don't know if your offering actually depicts what you choose to 'believe' that it does. For 'let US' is inference enough to indicate that there was a 'plurality', (at LEAST), involved in the 'Creation'.

So, it is YOUR contention that it was NOT God the Father that walked in the garden, but God the Son?

MEC

 

[MarkT]

I most certainly see the difference that you indicate. But I can take you BACK to the first chapter where the LORD part is non-existant. Even in the beginning of the second chapter it ends with reference to GOD and no; Lord God.

Exactly. There was no 'us' until he made the light. The 'Day' is existent. Each 'day' comes from Him. The LORD God is God in his name. That's exactly who the Word was.

I think that it's NEAT that there is the ability to 'read into' the Word what we "BELIEVE". But I don't know if this is the case here.

There is little doubt that Christ was instrumental in 'creation'. I just don't know if your offering actually depicts what you choose to 'believe' that it does. For 'let US' is inference enough to indicate that there was a 'plurality', (at LEAST), involved in the 'Creation'.

So, it is YOUR contention that it was NOT God the Father that walked in the garden, but God the Son?

That's right. However, I wouldn't say the Son, since the appearance of God walking in the garden was the light. The Word was, "Let there be light". The light did. Everything was created by the light and for the light. The appearance or the image of God Almighty appeared to Abraham. In one form, he was the pillar of fire, and in another, he was the pillar of cloud that led the Israelites out of Egypt. In another form, he was the burning bush that God spoke from. The idea is that the light was obedient to God and that he had an existence with God in heaven. Words are spirit. I guess when God said, "Let there be light", he created the first spirit apart from himself. And then the Father rewarded him by making him his Son, that is giving him life as the Father has life, that is life in himself.

 

[Imagican]

Wow, Mark. Are you suggesting that The Son was 'created'? For such a comment is bound to cause dissention. For in the past when I have made such inference, I have been 'wildly' attack for offering even the possibility.

When and where and why I have little understanding of. But the Word DOES indicate that there was a 'time' when The Son was NOT. I know. If one IGNORES the scripture that indicates this and simply focuses on that which states such things as 'always' and 'all things', and 'alpha and omega', and 'I am', it can be 'seem' as if Christ has ALWAYS been. But there ARE statements and even words offered by Christ Himself that offer PLAIN indication that He has NOT 'always been'. Even the name SON and 'only begotten' offer the indication that Christ was indeed a 'created being'. It takes a pretty healthy imagination to come up with answers to these statements in order to attempt to negate them.

And I agree with a bit of what you offer. That in the beginning WAS the Word, (the power of God to 'create'). And that word was with God for it WAS a PART of God Himself. And at one point, (of which we have NOT been given a complete understanding of), the word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us. Yet we also have to take into consideration the words of Christ Himself that offer that; the words that He gave us were NOT His OWN, but given Him of the Father. That would most certainly indicate that Christ was NOT 'The Word' but the 'representative' of God's Word to be offered to mankind BY Christ, the Son of God.

Let us, in our image, are indications that God was NOT alone in 'creation', (at least that of mankind). And if one dismisses a 'literal' six day creation, (all evidence of ancient history indicates that the earth is MUCH more than 9000 years old), we have NO idea how much 'time' transpired between the 'creation' of earth, and the creation of mankind. It is quite possible that Christ may very well have been 'created' in this 'gap' of 'time' between the two creations. For we know that mankind was CREATED 'for' Christ. That Christ IS the Head of man, as God IS the Head of Christ.

Interesting stuff but most is of little import so far as 'speculation' is concerned. There are many that insist that UNLESS they have a 'perfect understanding' of that which has NOT been offered, they are NOT satisfied until they 'make up' or 'accept' that which is able to 'please' their 'desires'.

What 'perfect understanding' that DOES matter is a 'perfect understanding of LOVE'. THAT is what it's ALL about. The Word, the example, what God ACTUALLY IS; Love.

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

*sigh*

When and where and why I have little understanding of. But the Word DOES indicate that there was a 'time' when The Son was NOT. I know. If one IGNORES the scripture that indicates this and simply focuses on that which states such things as 'always' and 'all things', and 'alpha and omega', and 'I am', it can be 'seem' as if Christ has ALWAYS been. But there ARE statements and even words offered by Christ Himself that offer PLAIN indication that He has NOT 'always been'. Even the name SON and 'only begotten' offer the indication that Christ was indeed a 'created being'. It takes a pretty healthy imagination to come up with answers to these statements in order to attempt to negate them.

Christ, as in Savior, Messiah, is not a created being. Jesus, as man, is a created being. :-? You and I are created. He is Divine; we are not.

You know by now that we here are led to believe contrary to your beliefs. I don't see the significance of this thread and we don't appreciate your accusations that we are making things up. People come here teaching things we deem as unscriptural or extremely unorthodox at best and then cop an air of self-righteousness.

This needs to stop. It will stop, one way or another. We allow those with beliefs which may differ from ours; beliefs some may even consider heretical; add errant behavior to that and it becomes almost intolerable.

So, which is it; does it end or do we, the staff, end it? :-?

 

[golfjack]

The problem with many Christians is they think way to much, which causes confusion. The Bible says that God is not the author of Confusion. Let's have more faith then trying to be so darned intellectual.



Peace, Golfjack

 

[francisdesales]

The problem with many Christians is they think way to much, which causes confusion. The Bible says that God is not the author of Confusion. Let's have more faith then trying to be so darned intellectual.

There is no reason to separate faith from reason. If Christianity is true, then it will pass being submitted to a test of reason. Many Christians, including myself, have come in a large part because we don't have to leave our reason at the door of the church when we enter and worship God.

The problem is NOT "intellectualism", but people not submitting their will to the Lord.

Regards