The Word was with God, and the Word was A god

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

The problem you have is you need to use your words and avoid the Bible because it doesn't back up what you say, it's empty tradition and a corruption of the Spirit of the letter of the Word of God to equate Jesus with God. After all he denies equality himself many times, so you may believe what you say but can't claim the Bible agrees.

I do use my own expression with my own choice of words. If i do not use my own expression and words then I always use the proper quotes and credits. I am not a thief nor try to use persuasive untruths in any of my posts.

I have also posted the biblical source of John the first chapter several times to you but have yet to read your response. If my tradition is empty then the scriptures are also empty as what I have posted is in the scriptures. Do yourself justice and read John the first chapter. In that you will see that Jesus preexisted in the celestial world as the celestial Word and yes He was and is now the only Begotten image and Son of the Most High El.. He is and was God and is the Creator of this Universe and the Celestial creation. That is the mystery that you have as yet not measured in your mind. John 3:16 tells us also that whosoever believes this report will have everlasting life. I hope that one day you will understand.

All well and good for you, I care not about your personal opinions and beliefs.

I am concerned with the fact that Jesus denied being God and the Bible never says he is, says he isn't.

When you want to show me the verses you think are proof I will gladly show you they aren't and have been deliberately misinterpreted for over 1500 years.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

I am concerned with the fact that Jesus denied being God and the Bible never says he is, says he isn't. When you want to show me the verses you think are proof I will gladly show you they aren't and have been deliberately misinterpreted for over 1500 years.

Theology has no facts. Do you need to be told that numerous times? If theology were facts then it would not be facts but there are facts present that are in conjunction with theology such as archeology.

I am weary of telling you to read the apostle John's first chapter. If you are truly interested you will find your answer in that MS.

In that you will see that Jesus preexisted in the celestial world as the celestial Word and yes He was and is now the only Begotten image and Son of the Most High El.. He is and was God and is the Creator of this Universe and the Celestial creation.

I did not say that Jesus was God as He was Jesus but I did say that He was God in His preexistence [as He was the Word before birth in the flesh] and is now [once again ] the Word. If you live long enough you may understand that mystery. As it stands now, you do not understand that mystery.

While you are in your braggadocious state show me your certification of literary accomplishments as a translator of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew and which Greek you are so well versed in to become a interpreter of liturgy. I have read your untruths before and cannot believe you have any understanding of the languages including the Kings English. You seem to have a very confused life.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

I am concerned with the fact that Jesus denied being God and the Bible never says he is, says he isn't. When you want to show me the verses you think are proof I will gladly show you they aren't and have been deliberately misinterpreted for over 1500 years.

Theology has no facts.

That's good that you admit that.

However I meant fact in the sense of the actual existence of words in the Bible.

And lack of a single instance where Jesus claimed to be God, while we have instances where he denies it outright.

You are right, theology has no facts and sometimes it is not even based on facts in evidence but the say so of men.

As in the instance of believing Jesus is a God in a Trinity of 3 equal Gods.

Do you need to be told that numerous times? If theology were facts then it would not be facts but there are facts present that are in conjunction with theology such as archeology.

I am weary of telling you to read the apostle John's first chapter. If you are truly interested you will find your answer in that MS.

This thread has provided that. I agree with its premise.

In that you will see that Jesus preexisted in the celestial world as the celestial Word and yes He was and is now the only Begotten image and Son of the Most High El.. He is and was God and is the Creator of this Universe and the Celestial creation.

We must be reading different books.

I did not say that Jesus was God as He was Jesus but I did say that He was God in His preexistence [as He was the Word before birth in the flesh] and is now [once again ] the Word. If you live long enough you may understand that mystery. As it stands now, you do not understand that mystery.

That clears up everything! No. You are complicating a simple matter, provide any quote from the 4 Gospels that has Jesus saying he is God or prexistent, I will show you it is not the case if you can and let me save you the trouble, "Before Abraham, was I AM" could mean many things besides the assumed meaning of "I existed prior to the world" and open to interpretation.

Such a matter demands clarity not cryptic, obscure statements of uncertain meaning that certainly don't equal " I am divine" or especially "God."

You will need to do better.

While you are in your braggadocious state show me your certification of literary accomplishments as a translator of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew and which Greek you are so well versed in to become a interpreter of liturgy.

I have read your untruths

Such as...?

before and cannot believe you have any understanding of the languages including the Kings English. You seem to have a very confused life.

You don't have enough information to even conclude the correct amount of understanding I have for anything and I could not care any less about a King James Bible, I use a much better non Masoretic dependant though it uses every version including the Scrolls and fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek, Latin and some Syriac and Samaritan Pentateuch.

The footnotes make the book 3 inches thick along with introductions and it is Catholic so it has the Septuagint "Apocrypha" adding the books of Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, 1,2 Esdras, Bel and the Dragon, 1-4 Maccabees, Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the three Jews, Greek Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Prayer of Manasseh,. Susanna and Psalm 151.

I have read it twice at least, and sporadically over the past 20 years as well as all of the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha of Judaism, Christianity and much of other religions of Asian or Egyptian origin.

You won't shame me by calling my knowledge and understanding innadequate without being sternly and soundly rebuked and/or shown otherwise and you just need to say it so you can look like you are putting up some kind of fight in this debate about the Gospels.

LOOK. And hope that it works because you are the one you talk about when you insult me, it's your subconscious fighting to let you know you are what you accuse others of being and your concious trying to fight the truth.

That your theology is not in the Bible regarding Jesus and God's relationship.

It doesn't take a diploma to understand any of this and reading the writings of people with the ability to translate is enough, though certainly they are more learned than I in languages I can understand English and read their thoughts on the subject and learn from them what I can not myself.

As for the rest I am very well versed in the Bible and the history surrounding it as well as the myths that are used in the Bible from other cultures like Canaan and Babylon as well as Persian theology and oral traditions, now written.

Do you speak and read Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament in the oldest fragments and manuscripts?

Or Hebrew and Aramaic? Paleo-Hebrew? Syriac? Latin?

You constantly resort to personal attacks that are unwarranted even in all my "braggadocio" which is actually just confidence in my knowledge and the truthful and correctness of what I say.

Which to a person being on the side of error would mistake for bragging, if said person was used to being on the side of error and sick of it but unwilling to be reasonable and learn anything.

The hallmark of Pauline Roman Christianity is that exact attitude of complete obliviousness to logic or reality and baseless assumption that everything they say is correct without ever learning anything that disagrees with their interpreted-for-them faith no matter how provable or true and abundant that knowledge is.

And when confronted with such evidence or proof, disregarding it on the grounds that it disagrees with Orthodoxy, inventing meta physical or just ridiculous excuses for obvious and legitimately controversial and potentially devastating passages, contradictions and denying that Paul was a liar about his posthumous conversations with Jesus and new "gospel" that went in the opposite direction of what Jesus actually said and taught because they never actually met and Paul didn't know word 1 of Jesus teachings when writing, attributed his garbled nonsense to Jesus and started a pagan Jewish mystery cult.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Starting from your statements after "1)" I recognize almost nothing as being taught by the bible. Even where you referred to bible verses I cannot see what you seem to imply it says or your explanation of what it means (perhaps next time you can use a few more full quotations as well so you can address whatever may seem different from what you're saying about it cause occasionally you refer to a text and seem to say something about it that actually contradicts what I'm reading when I'm looking up the text, and on other occasions it simply doesn't support your explanation of it). I'm not sure how best to respond to this but I did notice one glaring behavioural pattern regarding the conflation of "spirit" (which is invisible to human sight) and "soul":

Hebrew: neʹphesh
English: soul

Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. Neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refers to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

This is all related to the doctrine and myth of the immortality of the soul that you've been taught (like most religions in this world, this also connects to Satan's lie that humans won't die, the same lie he told Eve, actually even his follow-up lie that he told Eve reminds me of things you've said about the subject). That's probably why the writers of the article I linked in the thread One myth leads to another, start with that myth. My comment there to Seede sums up what's going on here regarding the conflation 'game'; not saying either of you is playing it intentionally, but that it has been played on you, by humans passing on their traditions and traditional views/philosophies/ideas/beliefs/opinions, which you can trace back to Babylon > Egypt > Greece (Plato is a keyfigure in the thinking patterns of all of humanity, massive influence that spread wide and far). To get the whole detailed picture I recommend reading more of my comments on page 3 and 4 in that thread (without skipping the article linked in the OP regarding Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal.

a reply to: whereislogic

The NT makes a clear distinction between Soul and Spirit.

What is your interpretation of Psalm 82:6?

Death means separation, not annihilation.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Maybe this video can help regarding your Trinitarian (and Binitarian: hypostatic union) interpretations or 'understanding' (I actually mean "view") of Scripture (or that which you expressed in your commentary so far related to that concept). I't's all related to how Trinitarians interpret the verse where Jesus says that he and the Father are "one", but another crucial verse in the bible where he also uses that expression shows how he really meant that (and it has nothing to do with a "hypostatic union", Binitarianism or Trinitarianism):

The Bible book of Revelation mentions a symbolic harlot named “Babylon the Great.” (Revelation 17:5) What does this harlot represent? The evidence points to its being a religious entity.

Ancient Babylon was an extremely religious city, having over 50 temples dedicated to various deities. The Babylonians believed in trinities of gods and an immortal soul that at death would descend to a dark netherworld. There, “human existence beyond the grave is at best only a dismal, wretched reflection of life on earth,” says Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia.

In time, those teachings spread throughout the world. Today they, or modified versions of them, can be found in the religions of Christendom [whereislogic: and the one about an immortal soul can also be found in pretty much every other major religion, religious movement, or philosophical movement, everyone is constantly arguing that when you die, you don't really die, cause something of you survives death, it's just a passage to another kind of life as the Babylonian theologians would explain it, and this "something", usually claimed to be the "soul", you equate and conflate with the divine, a divine nature or even spirit when you use the word "soul" when it sounds like you're referring to "spirit", something that is invisible to human sight. And then you seperate the concepts again by talking about it as if it's not the same, you're all over the place, can't make heads or tails of it. Pardon me for saying it, but you sound like Plato]. Together, these religions make up a major part of the global religious entity Babylon the Great!

Source: Babylon in Bible History | A Book You Can Trust—Part 3: Awake!

“The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

Source: Soul, Reasoning from the Scriptures
That Babylonian religious philosophy boils down to "Death" = "life".
“You certainly will not die,...and you will be like God...” said Satan (Genesis 3:4,5). "Divine nature" you said instead of "like God" (if I remember correctly, that's the impression I got from your explanation and following your logic or argumentation through to it's logical conclusion; well, trying to make sense of your many switches and interpretations between terminology). Also explained in more detail in my discussion with Seede, you seem to do the same thing I quoted several times in that thread:

...using concepts borrowed from ancient philosophers in order to explain their beliefs.

Here's why you remind me of Plato (sources are listed in my conversation with Seede, not gonna do it again cause the source is actually mentioned in the text below):

The ancient Greek writers applied psy·kheʹ [English: soul] in various ways and were not consistent, their personal and religious philosophies influencing their use of the term. Of Plato, to whose philosophy the common ideas about the English “soul” may be attributed (as is generally acknowledged), it is stated: “While he sometimes speaks of one of [the alleged] three parts of the soul, the ‘intelligible,’ as necessarily immortal, while the other two parts are mortal, he also speaks as if there were two souls in one body, one immortal and divine, the other mortal.”—The Evangelical Quarterly, London, 1931, Vol. III, p. 121, “Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature,” by A. McCaig.

You did the same thing to Jesus, just leave out "immortal" and swap out "mortal" with "human nature". And you didn't directly talk about "two souls in one body", but said "two natures". Swapping out "souls" with "natures" but then afterwards teaching the same Platonic concept about it.

a reply to: whereislogic

that was a horrible video... but, it is correct none the less...

Issue being... why couldn't the person that made the video keep it straight?

it almost made me dizzy...

Augustine said "one that attempts to understand said trinity is in danger of losing his mind"... not even...

its simple... said trinity is all but absent in the bible save two passages that were additions to the texts

Anyone would lose their mind trying to find something that isn't there, yet not coming to that realization

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: whereislogic
What is your interpretation of Psalm 82:6?

See 2nd and 3rd video in this comment.

Or perhaps I should have gone with the more succinct explanation:

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

Source: God: Insight, Volume 1
The videos simply elaborate on that subject and provide the evidence and correct understanding for the word ʼelo·himʹ. Which is not limited to that meaning described above (click the link to see other applications, context is everything here).
Ok, one example, since it's one aspect of the word that applies at John 1:1c as well (even though the Greek equivalent is used):

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8.

They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
...you will see that Jesus preexisted in the celestial world...He is and was God ...

I did not say that Jesus was God as He was Jesus but I did say that He was God in His preexistence [as He was the Word before birth in the flesh] and is now [once again ] the Word. If you live long enough you may understand that mystery.

I must have lived long enough cause I immediately recognize it as a variant on modalism. When you say "He" after just talking about Jesus then you are claiming that "Jesus... was God", let's consider that you explain that that is when he "preexisted in the celestial world", then you don't say anything definitive about who Jesus was when he was on earth "in the flesh" (Was Jesus God at this point? Or a man? In what kind of mode was he at this point?), but presumably not God (given what you say at "I did not say..."), and then he becomes God again later it seems from your conflation of the term "the Word" with "God", where the capital G is clearly implying a very specific God whose real name you don't like using cause it shows the contradictions in your speech about 2 different individuals, Jesus (the firstborn Son of God) and Jehovah (God). Like I mentioned, "a variant on modalism", not exactly the same but some of the same concepts in use here...
The Paradox of Tertullian

A crucial issue among professed Christians at that time was the relationship between God and Christ. Some among them, particularly those of Greek background, found it difficult to reconcile belief in one God with the role of Jesus as Savior and Redeemer. Praxeas attempted to solve their dilemma by teaching that Jesus was just a different mode of the Father and there was no difference between the Father and the Son. This theory, known as modalism, alleges that God revealed himself “as the Father in Creation and in the giving of the Law, as the Son in Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.”

Tertullian showed that the Scriptures made a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. After quoting 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28, he reasoned: “He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected—must necessarily be two different Beings.” Tertullian called attention to Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) Using portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Psalm 8:5 [whereislogic: see my comment above], he showed how the Bible describes the “inferiority” of the Son. “Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son,” Tertullian concluded. “Inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.”

Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went “beyond the things that are written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula “one substance in three persons.” Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.

Jesus did not cease being "the Word" (meaning Spokesman) when he was on earth preaching and teaching about his Father and his God Jehovah, whose name he also made known; you seem to imply Jesus wasn't when he was on earth since you said "He was the Word before birth in the flesh and is now once again the Word." So I take it in between he wasn't "the Word" according to you?

For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.

Source: The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

There's nothing mystical, mysterious or ambiguous (unclear) about John's usage of "the Logos". It simply means that Jesus was Jehovah's Spokesman (also when he was doing exactly that when he was on earth, teaching people about Jehovah and speaking on behalve of Jehovah). No need to invoke Pagan Greek philosophy and attach all sorts of other meanings to it and switch between them whenever it's convenient in the story/myth about that subject.

Talking about Tertullian who became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit...

Here we see that the Father is calling the Son God. Note not a god but "O God".

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

a reply to: whereislogic

All things cease to be complicated upon the realization that no God can be man without giving up being God and leaving Heaven without a King.

More simply put Jesus, if he existed, was a man.

Posthumously by people who didn't know him the pagan dying ressurected, descending into Hades and ascending to the Heavenly throne, i.e. Tammuz, Ishtar, Adonis, Mithras, were simply grafted onto Jesus and made his story history instead the regular mythology it had always been, literal beliefs in gods aside the ancient world was not stupid.

Until superstition was forced to be believed as history under penalty of death and the world soon plunged into the dark ages, generational Stockholm syndrome has 2 billion people believing an allegorical myth actually happened, against common sense, because a book exists with a Church and some men who earn their living by telling people it is.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
I wonder why you didn't quote verse 9...check that, I know exactly why you didn't quote verse 9. Or verse 1 for that matter, but that's a little less obvious.

Hebrews 1:8:

RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

Source:Trinity: Reasoning

But the King James Only movement does everything it can to discredit this particular Trinitarian scholar I think. I think they (Westcott&Hort) were also on 'the evil' side of your picture. What a surprise, not singing the party line concerning every subject.

a reply to: whereislogic

the placement of Grammar points, i.e. periods, commas, colons and semi-colons are very important in the English. Now the AV uses those to show us where things start and begin and end, the period is not the only place where thoughts, ideas and subject matter change. a colon and a comma both serve as a place of to begin new subject matter or additional matter or even a separation of time. Commas represent a pause in the Bible a pause that can be seconds in a breath of the language or a period of time in the subject matter.

Do you understand what the subject matter of the first three Chapters of the book of Hebrews, as well as most of the teaching in the book of Hebrews is speaking of and for? the first three chapter lay forth the context for the rest of the book. If you have not established the subject matter and the context of the Book of Hebrews then the rest of it could be used to deceive men. Which it has because men fail to establish an immediate context for the book.

Also read Chapter one, do you not understand what the express image of his person means? Mark the commas if it was all of one subject or noun no need for them. God though through his word has said he will preserve his words to every generation. So when preserving it into English for us to better understand his words and in order in to preserve it inot English he inspired all the point of grammar and linguistics needed to preserve it all to this generation You see, no one knows to day how to speak Koine Greek and all we have are unverifiable copies of incomplete texts (meaning not one is a whole and complete text men had to piece them together to get a whole). So God preserved it as his word says he would. Now by comparing spiritual things with spiritual as the Holy Ghost teaches in 1Cor 2 let's compare the scriptures and see if a pattern immerges.

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. '
John 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.
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, [b]lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 2:6-9 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This Word is the light manifested in the flesh, the fullness of the godhead bodily, who is one. Jesus is that manifestation who is the light who is the image of God, who in fact is God.

I don't trust men nor there words, I trust God and his word's which he is said will preserve them to every generation for ever. Stick to God's words and he will enlighten thy path and then you can never go wrong.

Stick with men's words and you will be led astray by every wind of doctrine of men and their philosophies and vain deceits

Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalms 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

edit on 5-1-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·himʹ; Greek, the·oiʹ, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

From the same source as my previous comment and the comment before that reminds people what "the Logos" means.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
The King James Only movement...isn't it convenient, you can ignore all evidence regarding what the bible really says, including the evidence that unambiguously demonstrates a certainty/truth/fact, with the same line of argumentation over and over. With no regards for the facts and pretend it's unclear/vague because it's supposedly a "dead language" and the KJV, rebranded to AV, is supposedly infallible and inspired, superior to all Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (and ignoring all evidence to the contrary regarding that subject as well).

It seems to me that there's no reasoning with someone adhering to such a way of thinking and arguing, not to mention since the KJV/AV does not agree with your Trinitarian teachings either, even with the additions (everything you quoted requires a Trinitarian philosophical interpretation to read a Trinity into it, for example, from reading John 1:1 in the KJV without Trinitarian preconceptions, I don't come away thinking that "the Word" is the same "God" as he's already "with". None of the other verses seem to convey anything Trinitarian and even 1 John 5:7 as you quoted it from the KJV doesn't suggest that these are 3 persons in 1 God as Trinitarians interpret and teach it, the KJV also mentions Jesus appealing to God in prayer for Christians to be "one" with Jesus and his Father, so that's clearly showing that that expression doesn't mean multiple persons in 1 God, or making up 1 God). What you bolded from Hebrews 1:3 and Col.1:15 actually shows the exact opposite to Trinitarian philosophy and interpretation. If you're the image of God, you're not the God mentioned in that sentence there now are you? Works similarly to normal logical processes regarding John 1:1. Nothing to suggest he's the same God as he's already with. Play around with capitals all you want to obscure or confuse (or complain about me using a capital there; the God he was with is called Jehovah, even in the KJV. Jehovah = The Father, and as Trinitarians claim "Jesus is not the Father" or "the Son is not the Father", than Jesus is also not Jehovah, unlike the titles I've seen from Trinitarians putting up videos on youtube claiming "Jesus is Jehovah").

Please don't watch the video below, just demonstrating the last point I made before the video above:

a reply to: whereislogic

I am not a King James only as many of those are not real believers that the AV is the Preserved. They label it inspired, infallible but then always have to go back to dead Koine Greek and dead Hebrew languages with manuscripts that cannot be verified to be accurate because they may be in the language of the originals they are not originals they re copies.

The corruption o f the religious schools is you must learn the languages and the get the diploma in order to be a leader in today Christian society. Why do you think we have over 350 English versions of the bible?

I trust that God preserved it. I discovered this after Bible college and a waist of $44,000 plus.

It is the only Bible with all the verses in it, it is the only Bible that defines every word by its context giving you the meaning inn the language of today, it I the only Bible which has a supernaturally built in Cross references (I like the TSK for cross reference but I don't trust the notes and comments.), it is the only Bible that has the English word equivalent to the original languages, it is also the versions to lead more people to Christ than all other English, the Koines Greek versions combined.

a reply to: whereislogic

Im really much more interested in your personal understanding of the Bible, and less of the prepackaged opinions cited in the commentaries and videos. We all have our sources, but how do you integrate them?

Spare me the Youtube card tricks, please.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Not to knock you, but your statement "I'm really much more interested in your personal understanding of the Bible". It is when we want to know some man's understanding that it is exactly what we get "men's understanding.

Now take that statement and go to God with it as I have and do, and stick to the Bible alone nothing else that is when God will show you things.

It took me about ten years as a Christian before getting to a Bible that on its own showed me more truth than the rest ad about three more to realize I had in my hands the Bible God had preserved just as the Bible says he will.

I ask you as I asked, whereislogic, can you find the context and purpose of the book of Hebrews?

Hint it is found in the first three chapters. becomes more clear by chapter three. But it is a progression and everything after that builds upon that context.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I'm not asking WhereIsLogic to teach me. I'm asking for his/her opinion for the purpose of debate. Regurgitating youtube videos is not debate.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

OK I didn't know your motive.

But my point still stands, it is the opinions and understanding of men that other men look to more than asking God to show them his truth and give them understanding of what his word says.

This is why there is radical Islam