Do some of the Scriptural Truths offend you?

Lon

Well-known member
John 17:5 ...
Jesus recognizes that the Word became Jesus (John 1:14).
Jesus recognizes that He really is the Word ...
who was in heaven at the very beginning.
It's all quite confusing, isn't it.
No. You made that up to fit your doctrine! You did! It is scripture twisting!
What makes things even worse is when John says:
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2).
The truth is ... the Word has come in the flesh (as Jesus Christ).
Evidently, he means ...
Jesus Christ was a man (flesh) and was in the world.
ἔρχομαι Erckomi means 'come.' I remember it from Greek class because it sounds like "hear come I." Yours a theory, but if it doesn't line with scripture, you need an education. Be a student.
 

Derf

Well-known member
John 17:5 ...
Jesus recognizes that the Word became Jesus (John 1:14).
Jesus recognizes that He really is the Word ...
who was in heaven at the very beginning.
It's all quite confusing, isn't it.

What makes things even worse is when John says:
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2).
The truth is ... the Word has come in the flesh (as Jesus Christ).
Evidently, he means ...
Jesus Christ was a man (flesh) and was in the world.
Maybe the answer to the confusion is that it is impossible to draw such a distinct line as you are drawing. And I'm not opposed to your premise, that the name of Jesus is intended to refer to the person who is both God and man. I just don't see where it is necessary. If Jesus is the name applied to the Word once He was incarnate, fine, but His existence is from eternity, not from conception. He was in the beginning with the Father.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that He was not the begotten Son until He was conceived in Mary (i.e., until He was actually begotten). But what point does that require? What difference does it make for you?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
John 17:5 ...
Jesus recognizes that the Word became Jesus (John 1:14).
Jesus recognizes that He really is the Word ...
who was in heaven at the very beginning.
It's all quite confusing, isn't it.

What makes things even worse is when John says:
"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2).
The truth is ... the Word has come in the flesh (as Jesus Christ).
Evidently, he means ...
Jesus Christ was a man (flesh) and was in the world.
Please just tell me what the purpose of this convoluted teaching is?

You completely ignore any argument made against it, including the clearest of Jesus' own words that refute it so clearly and completely that any child could know that you're definitely wrong and yet you aren't moved an inch, going so far as to call such a simply understood verse "quite confusing".

Why? Where's the pay off? What's the motive here? Is there one?
 

Dougcho

Member
Please just tell me what the purpose of this convoluted teaching is?

You completely ignore any argument made against it, including the clearest of Jesus' own words that refute it so clearly and completely that any child could know that you're definitely wrong and yet you aren't moved an inch, going so far as to call such a simply understood verse "quite confusing".

Why? Where's the pay off? What's the motive here? Is there one?
The main motive is to reveal some of the garbage church leaders have foisted upon the church.
E.G. Jesus being in heaven with the Father in the beginning is kindergarden garbage.
It was the Word who was in heaven with the Father in the beginning!
Because @ dis point ... "Jesus" wasn't even born yet ... Dah!
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The main motive is to reveal some of the garbage church leaders have foisted upon the church.
E.G. Jesus being in heaven with the Father in the beginning is kindergarden garbage.
It was the Word who was in heaven with the Father in the beginning!
Because @ dis point ... "Jesus" wasn't even born yet ... Dah!

Jesus is the Logos.

The Logos is Jesus.

They are the same Person.

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The main motive is to reveal some of the garbage church leaders have foisted upon the church.
E.G. Jesus being in heaven with the Father in the beginning is kindergarden garbage.
It was the Word who was in heaven with the Father in the beginning!
Because @ dis point ... "Jesus" wasn't even born yet ... Dah!
You have to put "Jesus" in quotation marks, because you know He existed before, without the name.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
The main motive is to reveal some of the garbage church leaders have foisted upon the church.
E.G. Jesus being in heaven with the Father in the beginning is kindergarden garbage.
It was the Word who was in heaven with the Father in the beginning!
Because @ dis point ... "Jesus" wasn't even born yet ... Dah!
Sounds to me like you’re nit picking a bit, because everyone knows our Savior’s name is Jesus Or Yeshua.

He has many other names including the Word, and He is, in fact, God, who became flesh and dwelt among us, as John makes clear here.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The main motive is to reveal some of the garbage church leaders have foisted upon the church.
Except that you've presented no such evidence.

E.G. Jesus being in heaven with the Father in the beginning is kindergarden garbage.
So you claim. You do understand that making a claim is not the same as making an argument, right?

It was the Word who was in heaven with the Father in the beginning!
A rose by any other name is still a rose, Doug! It's the same person and NO ONE denies that His name wasn't Jesus until the incarnation happened.

Because @ dis point ... "Jesus" wasn't even born yet ... Dah!
A point that is not in dispute!

Do you understand the significance of the fact that this point is not in dispute? I really don't think you do because you keep repeating it as if there's someone out there who does dispute it. The significance is that it means that it doesn't support your position. It doesn't prevent you from CLAIMING that it supports your claim but, once again, making a claim is not at all the same thing as making an actual argument.




So, the only reason you gave as a motive here was "to reveal some of the garbage church leaders have foisted upon the church". You called it "the main motive" but I suspect that it is the ONLY motive that you can name and I'm not sure that it is the real motive because, as I pointed out above, you've not given any evidence that this is actually the case. What I find more likely is that you simply want to be contrary for the sake of being contrary by exploding a semantic point into a colossal conspiracy perpetrated by "church leaders". Here's the proof....

Who are these "church leaders"? Give me names of the prominent leaders whom you suspect of being the leaders of this conspiracy.

How was this conspiracy spread?

What is their motive? What damage is done by spreading this "kindergarten garbage" throughout the church? What doctrine is altered? What Christian practice is changed in relation to the name we assign the pre-incarnate 2nd Person of the Trinity?

Do you get the point there? I want you to name an actual suspect in this grand crime of conspiracy and show that they had the means, the motive and the opportunity to commit it.




Prediction: Doug will make no attempt whatsoever to answer these questions. He will basically ignore this entire post and go back to repeating his claims as though nothing has been said to refute a syllable of them. - I hope this prediction proves to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Top