The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.
- Thread starter Brasspen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Colossians 3:16
Thank you for the inspiration! I hope you and yours are well .
....
-
1
- Show all
Phase:
Webster's 1913 Dictionary says "beget" means, "To procreate, as a father;"
WordNet Dictionary says "beget" means, "Make children; "Abraham beget Isaac";
Begotten means beget:
Beget means to "be the father of" or to "procreate":
The Oxford English Dictionary says that "beget" means: "to bring (a child) into existence."
What about the Greek? Well, in Abbott and Smith's New Testament Greek (published in 1922) we learn that μονογενής (monogenēs) is defined as "only begotten."
One year before Strong's was published, the Middle and Liddell New Testament Greek (1889) was printed.
It defines μονογενής (monogenēs) as "only-begotten.":
No Early Christian Writers quote "uniegenitus Deus" (only-begotten God) for John 1:18:
Dean Burgon warned us about the change in John 1:18 in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus saying "begotten God" in the Greek. Burgon teases Westcott and Hort for not putting this ridiculous reading into the body of the text for John 1:18. Burgon was saying that they were embarrassed to put into their English Revised Version (RV or ERV) as the actual main reading.
George Vance Smith (a Unitarian who worked on the Revised Version with Westcott and Hort) wrote a book celebrating the changed doctrines that favor Unitarianism in the Revised Version. Smith commented on the footnote for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus saying, "only-begotten God" in John 1:18:
Sources used:
https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Beget
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/begotten
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/beget
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=beget
https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/John_1:18
https://www.lexilogos.com/english/greek_ancient_dictionary.htm
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/μονογενής
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3439/kjv/tr/0-1/
-
1
- Show all
Keep in mind that James Strong (who created the Strong's Concordance that is tied to a Lexicon at BlueLetterBible) was a Reviser and he worked on the Revised Version with Westcott and Hort. As a result of the revisers, many new Modern Greek dictionaries have the Westcott and Hort new definition on μονογενής (monogenēs).
...
...
In addition, the Greek word "gennaō" (γεννάω), which means "to beget" or "to give birth to," is related to the root from which we derive the English word "gene." The connection lies in the concept of generation and origin. In both cases, "gennaō" and "gene" are tied to the idea of producing or passing on life, inheritance, or characteristics from one generation to the next. The word "gene" in English, of course, refers specifically to the unit of heredity passed down biologically.
monogenēs (μονογενής) is another Greek word where the "genes" root plays a key role. The word "monogenēs" is often translated as "only begotten" or "unique" and is derived from two parts: "monos" (meaning "only" or "one") and "genēs" (related to "gennaō," meaning "to beget" or "to give birth").
Again, only Modern Greek dictionaries that have been influenced by the Revisers from the Westcott and Hort Bible movement emphasize that monogenēs (μονογενής) as erroneously meaning, "one of a kind or unique" when used in the Bible now (When such an interpretation was never held to before by any conservative Bible believers previously).
Mono = one.
Genes = genetics (which is obviously tied to people procreating).
So only Christ's body was begotten. There is no way that the spiritual essence of the Living Word (the Eternal Logos) was ever begotten or born into existence as a new god. Only the body was begotten or born into this world. Even Jesus referred to His own body as a temple (See: John 2:19-21).
....
....
monogenēs (μονογενής) is another Greek word where the "genes" root plays a key role. The word "monogenēs" is often translated as "only begotten" or "unique" and is derived from two parts: "monos" (meaning "only" or "one") and "genēs" (related to "gennaō," meaning "to beget" or "to give birth").
Again, only Modern Greek dictionaries that have been influenced by the Revisers from the Westcott and Hort Bible movement emphasize that monogenēs (μονογενής) as erroneously meaning, "one of a kind or unique" when used in the Bible now (When such an interpretation was never held to before by any conservative Bible believers previously).
Mono = one.
Genes = genetics (which is obviously tied to people procreating).
So only Christ's body was begotten. There is no way that the spiritual essence of the Living Word (the Eternal Logos) was ever begotten or born into existence as a new god. Only the body was begotten or born into this world. Even Jesus referred to His own body as a temple (See: John 2:19-21).
....
....
@vassal and @Dino246
My apologies to poster Genez. Poster Genez admitted to me that he is not a liberal Leftist. I said that's good.
Are either of you for the Liberal Left in regards to politics? I am asking because I do not know your positions on that issue.
I am not looking to just smear a person or pigeon hole them by any means. Usually when a person is against Trump, they are usually for the Liberal Left agenda (although I realize that this is not always the case). Do you like Trump or hate him? Are you for Liberalism or the Left in politics? This will help to explain a lot for me in your approach on the Bibliology issue or topic.
In any event, may God bless you both (even if we disagree on the Bible and politics).
....
@Dino246
I also noticed you gave a negative rep on my post #398. To give you a flavor of the problems in Modern Bibles that I have not told you before, they actually subtly teach a different version of God than the trusted Bible (the KJV) that existed for hundreds of years before the Revisers showed up. Here is my brief 19 point write-up that shows how Modern Bibles teach a subtly different version of God.
A Different Version of God is Taught in Modern Bibles:
I also noticed you gave a negative rep on my post #398. To give you a flavor of the problems in Modern Bibles that I have not told you before, they actually subtly teach a different version of God than the trusted Bible (the KJV) that existed for hundreds of years before the Revisers showed up. Here is my brief 19 point write-up that shows how Modern Bibles teach a subtly different version of God.
A Different Version of God is Taught in Modern Bibles:
- 1 John 5:7 in the KJV and the word "Godhead" (Meaning Trinity) in the KJV are removed in Modern Bibles. The Trinity is not clearly taught in Modern Bibles but it is more of an inference or deduction off indirect verses on the Trinity.
- John 1:18 in some Modern Bibles falsely say Jesus is the Begotten God and Micah 5:2 teaches that Jesus was not from everlasting (in modern Translations).
- Can God be deceived? Well, according to the NASB 1977, NASB 1995, NET, and ISV He can be deceived. The NASB 1995 says that the children of Israel deceived God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him(See here to learn more).
- In the John 4:24 New King James Bible, it wrongfully states: “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” In the KJV, God is A Spirit. God is a Spirit being. He is a Spirit above all spirit beings. But in Modern bibles, this is changed to how God is like the essence of all Spirit or all spiritual things by removing the indefinite article of “a” in the KJV.
- Proverbs 8:22 says in CSB that the Lord acquired me (i.e., the Lord acquired wisdom) instead of the Lord our God already possessing wisdom in the beginning (KJV).
- The NLT says in Philippians 2:7 that Jesus gave up His divine privileges. So Modern Bibles falsely teach Jesus did not have power during Earthly ministry when there are verses that say that He did have and use His power during His earthly ministry (See: John 5 as one example).
- In Modern Bibles, Hebrews 2:9 falsely teaches that Jesus was made lower than the angels (man) for a little while. This implies that He is not man (or flesh and blood today). In Modern Bibles, Ephesians 5:30 removes the words “flesh and blood” to suggest that Jesus no longer has these things.
- Hebrews 2:16 says that Jesus (Who is God) does not give aid to angels in Modern Bibles when it is talking about He did not take on the nature of angels in context of when He came to save mankind (i.e. He tasted death for every man - Verse 9).
- 1 Timothy 3:16 - The Mystery of Godliness: KJV: "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." Modern Translations: Many modern versions, such as the NIV, change "God was manifest in the flesh" to "He appeared in the flesh." The removal of the word "God" can be seen as weakening the clear assertion of Christ's divinity, which directly impacts the understanding of the Incarnation and the nature of God being revealed in Jesus.
- John 3:13 - The Omnipresence of Christ: KJV: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." Modern Translations: The phrase "which is in heaven" is omitted in many modern translations. The KJV suggests the omnipresence of Christ (being on earth and in heaven simultaneously), while the omission in modern translations can affect the reader's understanding of Jesus' divine nature and His unique relationship with the Father.
- In Modern Bibles, God and Satan can share similar names (or be referred to as a pagan like deity when He is glorified in Daniel 3:25).
- The Word is magnified above His own name is removed in Modern Bibles.
- Modern Bibles make Jesus appear to sin at certain times.
- Modern Bibles in Revelation 11:17 falsely teach that God began to reign at a certain point in time. (Source).
- Acts 15:18 says, “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” This truth is removed in Modern Bibles.
- God does not take away life (2 Samuel 14:14) (NKJV) (Source)
- In Genesis 22:2, “offer him up” (KJB) is changed to: “sacrifice” in Modern Bibles (CEV, ERV, GW, TLB, MSG, NOG, NIV, NLT). God told Abraham to offer up Isaac and not to sacrifice him. So if certain Modern bibles are correct, the dilemma here is that either:
- Abraham did not obey God or:
- God went back on His Word.
For example, in the Old Testament, the Israelite could offer an animal sacrifice to the priest, but that does not mean they would have to make the actual sacrifice themselves. The Jew would just be offering their sacrifice to the priest. This is what Abraham was told to do. He was merely to just offer his sacrifice to God and not to actually sacrifice his offering. Of course, Abraham misunderstood God, but his obedience was all a part fulfilling the future type of Christ’s sacrifice.
18. Hosea is told to marry a prostitute in select Modern Bibles (See Hosea 1:2). On the other hand, the KJV is simply telling us that Hosea is to marry a woman among people who are into idolatry.
19. Acts 15:18: The KJV retains God's omniscience in Acts 15:18, which is altered in modern versions. (A Subtle Watering down of God’s Omniscience in Modern Bibles).
...
-
1
- Show all
Webster's 1913 Dictionary says "beget" means, "To procreate, as a father;"
WordNet Dictionary says "beget" means, "Make children; "Abraham beget Isaac";
Begotten means beget:
Beget means to "be the father of" or to "procreate":
The Oxford English Dictionary says that "beget" means: "to bring (a child) into existence."
What about the Greek? Well, in Abbott and Smith's New Testament Greek (published in 1922) we learn that μονογενής (monogenēs) is defined as "only begotten."
One year before Strong's was published, the Middle and Liddell New Testament Greek (1889) was printed.
It defines μονογενής (monogenēs) as "only-begotten.":
No Early Christian Writers quote "uniegenitus Deus" (only-begotten God) for John 1:18:
Dean Burgon warned us about the change in John 1:18 in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus saying "begotten God" in the Greek. Burgon teases Westcott and Hort for not putting this ridiculous reading into the body of the text for John 1:18. Burgon was saying that they were embarrassed to put into their English Revised Version (RV or ERV) as the actual main reading.
George Vance Smith (a Unitarian who worked on the Revised Version with Westcott and Hort) wrote a book celebrating the changed doctrines that favor Unitarianism in the Revised Version. Smith commented on the footnote for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus saying, "only-begotten God" in John 1:18:
Sources used:
https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Beget
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/begotten
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/beget
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=beget
https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/John_1:18
https://www.lexilogos.com/english/greek_ancient_dictionary.htm
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/μονογενής
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3439/kjv/tr/0-1/
WordNet Dictionary says "beget" means, "Make children; "Abraham beget Isaac";
Begotten means beget:
Beget means to "be the father of" or to "procreate":
The Oxford English Dictionary says that "beget" means: "to bring (a child) into existence."
What about the Greek? Well, in Abbott and Smith's New Testament Greek (published in 1922) we learn that μονογενής (monogenēs) is defined as "only begotten."
One year before Strong's was published, the Middle and Liddell New Testament Greek (1889) was printed.
It defines μονογενής (monogenēs) as "only-begotten.":
No Early Christian Writers quote "uniegenitus Deus" (only-begotten God) for John 1:18:
Dean Burgon warned us about the change in John 1:18 in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus saying "begotten God" in the Greek. Burgon teases Westcott and Hort for not putting this ridiculous reading into the body of the text for John 1:18. Burgon was saying that they were embarrassed to put into their English Revised Version (RV or ERV) as the actual main reading.
George Vance Smith (a Unitarian who worked on the Revised Version with Westcott and Hort) wrote a book celebrating the changed doctrines that favor Unitarianism in the Revised Version. Smith commented on the footnote for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus saying, "only-begotten God" in John 1:18:
Sources used:
https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Beget
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/begotten
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/beget
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=beget
https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/John_1:18
https://www.lexilogos.com/english/greek_ancient_dictionary.htm
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/μονογενής
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3439/kjv/tr/0-1/
You still don't get it.
How could the son be eternal?
If he were something created?
He even created the body that was born of Mary before the foundations of the earth.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all things have been created through him and for him." Colossians 1:6
The body He entered, to became as a man? That He created.
What entered that body (Himself) was not created, but eternal.
Now? If in your eyes?
Jesus was merely a man?
Then, your long winded, redundant, post might have been applicable.
Do you not realize that He had created Mary who's ovum was used to produce a sinless human body?
The real Son of God is eternal.
Keep it short .....
Actually, I believe you are the one who is not getting it by rejecting dictionaries, and early church fathers, and the corruptions by the Revisers. Do I really need to go to Phase 3?
The Bible speaks in two ways in regard to the Son.
#1. The Living Word who is spirit and who is the second person of the Trinity or Godhead always existed from eternity’s past with the title of “the Son.” Why? Well, John 3:17 says, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world”.
Meaning, the Living Word was referred to as the Son before He was sent into the world by taking on the flesh of man.
So how could He be called a Son before being sent into the world?
Well, I believe this would have been a prophetic name.
After all, God declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).
#2. Jesus is also called the begotten Son of God. Begotten means one was born into this world by flesh (unless you want to argue against English dictionaries, Greek dictionaries, and early Christian writers). Meaning, the Living Word was made flesh (John 1:14). The Word took on a flesh and blood body via through the birth of a virgin named Mary. This was a unique one time event in human history. There was not another pre-incarnate event of Jesus taking on human flesh before this point in time. Granted, there were pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (under the title called, “the Angel of the Lord”), but I believe this was Jesus taking on the empty soulless skin of angels (kind of like a body suit) to house His glory to appear to certain OT saints. In the Incarnation through Mary, He did not take on the nature of angels (Hebrews 2:16). So when we read about the angel of the Lord in the New Testament, this is no longer a reference to Jesus anymore.
Second, Colossians 1:16 does not teach that Jesus created His own body that was born of Mary before the foundations of the world.
It doesn’t say that, and neither does any other verse in the Bible.
When Colossians 1:15 says Jesus is the “firstborn” of creation it is metaphorical (and also possibly prophetic).
1. Psalm 89:27 (KJV)
"Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth."
2. Exodus 4:22 (KJV)
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn."
Three, saying Jesus had a body of Mary before the Incarnation is heretical because it undermines the unique even in history. The idea of time travel like in movies is foreign to the Bible. But these kinds of films do fill our minds with false ideas when we read the Scriptures. Nowhere will you see time travel actually take place in God‘s Word. You may see predictions of the future or future visions, but no actual time travel. I know. I have had this conversation more times than I care to count. You will not see any terminators traveling back in time to wipe out Moses and or other OT saints.
The body of Jesus is just a shell or a temple or an empty husk. Yes, He had a real flesh and blood body that got tired, and hungry, etcetera. But this was a temple just as He said it was. It was not the core of who He was. The core or essence of the Living Word is that He is the second person of the eternal Trinity or Godhead (which is a spirit being). Jesus is now forever joined to a flesh and blood body to make intercession for us. Jesus is forever the God-man.
….
The Bible speaks in two ways in regard to the Son.
#1. The Living Word who is spirit and who is the second person of the Trinity or Godhead always existed from eternity’s past with the title of “the Son.” Why? Well, John 3:17 says, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world”.
Meaning, the Living Word was referred to as the Son before He was sent into the world by taking on the flesh of man.
So how could He be called a Son before being sent into the world?
Well, I believe this would have been a prophetic name.
After all, God declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).
#2. Jesus is also called the begotten Son of God. Begotten means one was born into this world by flesh (unless you want to argue against English dictionaries, Greek dictionaries, and early Christian writers). Meaning, the Living Word was made flesh (John 1:14). The Word took on a flesh and blood body via through the birth of a virgin named Mary. This was a unique one time event in human history. There was not another pre-incarnate event of Jesus taking on human flesh before this point in time. Granted, there were pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (under the title called, “the Angel of the Lord”), but I believe this was Jesus taking on the empty soulless skin of angels (kind of like a body suit) to house His glory to appear to certain OT saints. In the Incarnation through Mary, He did not take on the nature of angels (Hebrews 2:16). So when we read about the angel of the Lord in the New Testament, this is no longer a reference to Jesus anymore.
First, this is Colossians 1:16, and not Colossians 1:6.Second, Colossians 1:16 does not teach that Jesus created His own body that was born of Mary before the foundations of the world.
It doesn’t say that, and neither does any other verse in the Bible.
When Colossians 1:15 says Jesus is the “firstborn” of creation it is metaphorical (and also possibly prophetic).
1. Psalm 89:27 (KJV)
"Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth."
- This verse refers to David (and by extension, the Messianic line through Jesus) being designated as the "firstborn." Though David was not the firstborn of his family, this is about his elevated status and preeminence among kings, signifying his God-given authority and leadership role.
2. Exodus 4:22 (KJV)
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn."
- In this verse, Israel is metaphorically called God's "firstborn." This highlights Israel’s special status as God's chosen people, not that Israel was the first nation to exist.
Three, saying Jesus had a body of Mary before the Incarnation is heretical because it undermines the unique even in history. The idea of time travel like in movies is foreign to the Bible. But these kinds of films do fill our minds with false ideas when we read the Scriptures. Nowhere will you see time travel actually take place in God‘s Word. You may see predictions of the future or future visions, but no actual time travel. I know. I have had this conversation more times than I care to count. You will not see any terminators traveling back in time to wipe out Moses and or other OT saints.
The body of Jesus is just a shell or a temple or an empty husk. Yes, He had a real flesh and blood body that got tired, and hungry, etcetera. But this was a temple just as He said it was. It was not the core of who He was. The core or essence of the Living Word is that He is the second person of the eternal Trinity or Godhead (which is a spirit being). Jesus is now forever joined to a flesh and blood body to make intercession for us. Jesus is forever the God-man.
….
Think, why would the angels and prophetic Scripture be making a big deal of the Messiah coming into the world through a virgin if He was already running around prior in that same body via by time travel? It would not make any sense and it would undermine the unique event of the Incarnation. Time travel like in the movies is only in the movies. It's not a biblical concept.
Nowhere does Scripture suggest that time operates like in the same way we see in Hollywood films. While God certainly has the power to exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously, in our space time I just do not see that is how things are revealed when we read the Scriptures. I do not see any mention of how God is now existing in some past dimension while also existing in the present and the future. If this was the case, then God could not have technically rested on the seventh day from his creating everything in six days. Also, Jesus made one sacrifice forever according to Hebrews 10:12. This means Jesus is not existing in some past dimension right now reliving the events of the cross over and over and over and over again. God operates in real time or linear time. God is simply aware of the future with pinpoint precision. Yes, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. But this is God speaking from His foreknowledge and He is not declaring all His saints to be saved before many of them would live a life of sin before accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior.
The only thing that might be a possibility is that God exists outside of our space time dimension. This means, that He is not traveling back in time or anything, but He simply exists in another plane or dimension of space time that is different from ours. I only say this because of the triadic declaration in Revelation 16:5 (Which is attacked in Modern Bibles) (Note: The triadic declaration is also seen in the three "I AM" statements in Exodus 3. The "I AM" statements in this chapter are saying the same thing in Revelation 16:5 (i.e. a past, present, and future declaration of God's existence). So He may exist all at once in the past, present, and future but it would only be outside our space time. For the Lord existing past, present, and future in all points inside our space time is not something that has been clearly revealed in Scripture. If such were the case, there would be several contradictions in various parts of Scripture.
....
....
...
Nowhere does Scripture suggest that time operates like in the same way we see in Hollywood films. While God certainly has the power to exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously, in our space time I just do not see that is how things are revealed when we read the Scriptures. I do not see any mention of how God is now existing in some past dimension while also existing in the present and the future. If this was the case, then God could not have technically rested on the seventh day from his creating everything in six days. Also, Jesus made one sacrifice forever according to Hebrews 10:12. This means Jesus is not existing in some past dimension right now reliving the events of the cross over and over and over and over again. God operates in real time or linear time. God is simply aware of the future with pinpoint precision. Yes, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. But this is God speaking from His foreknowledge and He is not declaring all His saints to be saved before many of them would live a life of sin before accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior.
The only thing that might be a possibility is that God exists outside of our space time dimension. This means, that He is not traveling back in time or anything, but He simply exists in another plane or dimension of space time that is different from ours. I only say this because of the triadic declaration in Revelation 16:5 (Which is attacked in Modern Bibles) (Note: The triadic declaration is also seen in the three "I AM" statements in Exodus 3. The "I AM" statements in this chapter are saying the same thing in Revelation 16:5 (i.e. a past, present, and future declaration of God's existence). So He may exist all at once in the past, present, and future but it would only be outside our space time. For the Lord existing past, present, and future in all points inside our space time is not something that has been clearly revealed in Scripture. If such were the case, there would be several contradictions in various parts of Scripture.
....
....
...
I just love it when people do not read what you wrote and then criticize you for what you did not say...
I did not say that Jesus "was/is just His body" - He is body, soul, and spirit.
I did not say that "the real you" of Jesus was/is His body - it is His soul and spirit.
And, it is for us as well. He is body, soul, and spirit. We are body, soul, and spirit.
God begat Jesus the person into the human race by/through the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary.
I did not say that Jesus "was/is just His body" - He is body, soul, and spirit.
I did not say that "the real you" of Jesus was/is His body - it is His soul and spirit.
And, it is for us as well. He is body, soul, and spirit. We are body, soul, and spirit.
God begat Jesus the person into the human race by/through the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary.
No - you don't get it.
No one has said that He is not eternal.
No one has said that He was created.
No one has said that He was merely a man.
He still had a human body - formed in the womb of Mary - like any human - only, from a conception in Mary by the Holy Spirit.
He did not acquire the sin nature that only comes through human males. The 'male' side of His conception came from the Holy Spirit.
No one has said that He is not eternal.
No one has said that He was created.
No one has said that He was merely a man.
He still had a human body - formed in the womb of Mary - like any human - only, from a conception in Mary by the Holy Spirit.
He did not acquire the sin nature that only comes through human males. The 'male' side of His conception came from the Holy Spirit.
I just love it when people do not read what you wrote and then criticize you for what you did not say...
I did not say that Jesus "was/is just His body" - He is body, soul, and spirit.
I did not say that "the real you" of Jesus was/is His body - it is His soul and spirit.
And, it is for us as well. He is body, soul, and spirit. We are body, soul, and spirit.
God begat Jesus the person into the human race by/through the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary.
I did not say that Jesus "was/is just His body" - He is body, soul, and spirit.
I did not say that "the real you" of Jesus was/is His body - it is His soul and spirit.
And, it is for us as well. He is body, soul, and spirit. We are body, soul, and spirit.
God begat Jesus the person into the human race by/through the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary.
Before He was provided that human body by Mary?
Was he being a person? A soul in union with God?
He did proclaim that before Abraham was born He (his person) was eternally existing.
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:5
He was saying He was the Great, "I am."
He was being who He is before entering the body provided by Mary's womb.
You got to take your time with this......
I do not wish to compete with you.
We tend to grab verses and make stuff up when we get in a competitive mode.
I wish to reveal what you have yet to see and to realize..
grace and peace ...........
While I am sure some of the info. I posted is available in book form, I actually posted the info. from websites. Surely you have lived on planet Earth long enough to know the difference between what a website looks like vs scanned images from a book.
Furthermore, you said that I need to know what I am doing when utilizing this information I had shown to you. Well, the information I presented is pretty straight forward or self explanatory. You are acting like the information I posted is some kind of complex computer code that needs to be deciphered by experts when it is simple basic English. I am sure even children can read what I wrote and understand it with no problems.
What were your grades in English over the years?
Also, no verse in Scripture suggests Jesus traveled back in time before the Earth was created with the body He received from Mary.
Again, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense if He did that in light of what we read in Scripture. Why would Scripture prophetically speak of His coming (in bodily form) if He was already in existence back in the past with the same body? Why would angels make a big deal of His coming if He was already present on the Earth with a physical body or He already had it by time traveling before the creation of the world? Again, it doesn't add up or make any logical sense. Its more likely you are simply misreading Scripture on this point. What verse actually says clearly He had a physical flesh and blood body from Mary before the world was created? If you cannot give one, then it does not exist and you are simply assuming things. Colossians 1:15-16 does not qualify. Nowhere does that passage say anything of the sort. While the word "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 can be literal, it has been used metaphorically several times in Scripture, as well. Here are two more verses to prove my point.
Deuteronomy 21:17 – "But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."
....
....
Furthermore, you said that I need to know what I am doing when utilizing this information I had shown to you. Well, the information I presented is pretty straight forward or self explanatory. You are acting like the information I posted is some kind of complex computer code that needs to be deciphered by experts when it is simple basic English. I am sure even children can read what I wrote and understand it with no problems.
What were your grades in English over the years?
Also, no verse in Scripture suggests Jesus traveled back in time before the Earth was created with the body He received from Mary.
Again, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense if He did that in light of what we read in Scripture. Why would Scripture prophetically speak of His coming (in bodily form) if He was already in existence back in the past with the same body? Why would angels make a big deal of His coming if He was already present on the Earth with a physical body or He already had it by time traveling before the creation of the world? Again, it doesn't add up or make any logical sense. Its more likely you are simply misreading Scripture on this point. What verse actually says clearly He had a physical flesh and blood body from Mary before the world was created? If you cannot give one, then it does not exist and you are simply assuming things. Colossians 1:15-16 does not qualify. Nowhere does that passage say anything of the sort. While the word "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 can be literal, it has been used metaphorically several times in Scripture, as well. Here are two more verses to prove my point.
Deuteronomy 21:17 – "But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."
- This verse discusses the rights of the firstborn, symbolizing authority and inheritance, which are more about position and privilege than birth order. The firstborn of Joseph was Manasseh. This is recorded in the following verse: Genesis 41:51 (KJV) – "And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house."
- Here, "the church of the firstborn" refers to all believers, emphasizing their privileged status as heirs with Christ, not as literal firstborns.
....
....
What do you mean by "begotten" according to an English dictionary?
Please take note that when you look up "begotten" it leads you to the word "beget."
This is because "begotten" is the past participle of "beget."
Generally the word "beget" means to become the father of a child.
There is a second definition that means to cause something or make it happen.
For example: Desperation begets recklessness.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/beget
In the Bible, the word "beget" is not commonly used in the way that Longman’s dictionary describes (e.g., "to cause something or make it happen" as in "Generosity begets gratitude"). The Biblical usage typically refers to either a literal or spiritual generation, such as the birth of children or spiritual transformation or birth into joining God's people. The Bible tends to use other words for the concept of one thing causing another, like "bring forth" or "produce," but the specific metaphorical usage of "beget" as simply causing something to happen isn't prevalent in the KJV (or the dominant English Bible that existed for hundreds of years).
....
Please take note that when you look up "begotten" it leads you to the word "beget."
This is because "begotten" is the past participle of "beget."
Generally the word "beget" means to become the father of a child.
There is a second definition that means to cause something or make it happen.
For example: Desperation begets recklessness.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/beget
In the Bible, the word "beget" is not commonly used in the way that Longman’s dictionary describes (e.g., "to cause something or make it happen" as in "Generosity begets gratitude"). The Biblical usage typically refers to either a literal or spiritual generation, such as the birth of children or spiritual transformation or birth into joining God's people. The Bible tends to use other words for the concept of one thing causing another, like "bring forth" or "produce," but the specific metaphorical usage of "beget" as simply causing something to happen isn't prevalent in the KJV (or the dominant English Bible that existed for hundreds of years).
....
Who is the "I AM"? It was the eternal spirit part of Jesus who is God. The body is just a temple or shell (See again: John 2:19-21). The essence of Jesus was not His body, but it was the Living Word mentioned in John 1:1. John 1:14 says the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). It says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). It says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, " (John 1:14). It doesn't say the Word was made flesh in the beginning. It simply refers to the Word as being God (spirit) in the beginning (suggesting that the Word who is God did not take on flesh yet at the beginning). Read the beginning of the gospel of John again in the King James Bible several times in prayer, and the truth will begin to sink in.
...
...
