The word was with God...

[love_magnified]

Dear Mr. Smith
In response to your doctrine of the Trinity or lack thereof, I have one portion of scripture to read to you: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1. Does this not say that Jesus and God were one person? I am very interested to see your standpoint on this verse. I am not asking for a lengthy response, but I am not opposed to one.

Thank you for your time,
Mr. O


Dear Mr. O:
So you believe that one can be "WITH" someone else and yet at the same time "BE" that other person that he is "WITH"? I am not asking for a lengthy response...........
God be with you,
Ray

--------------

I don't have esword handy. Can someone post the translation info about this verse. I have actually heard that the translation should read "The word was toward God, and the word was God." Which means the Word is the visible image of the invisible God both points toward God and also has been given all rule and authority and thought it not pillaging to be equal with God. The originial translation does speak to that anyway, but I am curious about the original Greek.

[buddyjc]

The Greek word translated 'with' does mean 'toward' but is also used as 'beside' or 'near.'  Using the word 'with' does not seem to be wrong.

Brian

[love_magnified]

It does give some understanding though. The Word (Christ) was toward God lends understanding to what "with" God means. The Word represents God, the visible image. The Word was God because nothing Christ does is of himself.

[Daniel]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, THE WORD, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and HIS NAME is called THE WORD "OF GOD".

Heb 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed TOWARD HIS NAME, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

Buddy shows (caps mine)

The Greek word translated WITH does mean TOWARD but is also used as BESIDE or 'NEAR.' Using the word 'with' does not seem to be wrong.

Great meditation all are used

The word was WITH, Being His NAME is called The Word of God we see love TOWARD HIS NAME. Paul said the WORD is NEAR YOU. The Father is WITH HIM and we reign WITH HIM.

Lots of applications that are expressed elsewhere. Him being "The beginning". Knowing that IN "the Begining" "was" THE WORD and the WORD was WITH GOD (and was God). Jesus Christ is also "The Beginning" of "the creation". HE is very one the scriptures testified OF. Gods word (of Emannuel) God (His word) WITH US. We too becoming as He is or "like Him" a manifestion of His work and word in us.

Daniel

[lilitalienboi16]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, THE WORD, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.



Daniel

Daniel i don't believe that verse is legitimate, what verse is that again? There are some verses that use the Holy ghost, the father and Jesus Christ (such as the batpize verse) which were added in later by the translaters from a latin vulgate, i believe.

[Daniel]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, THE WORD, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.



Daniel

Daniel i don't believe that verse is legitimate, what verse is that again? There are some verses that use the Holy ghost, the father and Jesus Christ (such as the batpize verse) which were added in later by the translaters from a latin vulgate, i believe.

You might be right because Im no scholar but it still works in comparisons.

What of the three on earth such as water and blood and Spirit is that in there? Because I can trace it to a patern in Genesis speaking of Christ.

Adams SIDE out of which God made the woman. Second Adams SIDE (Jesus Christ) flowed "blood and water". In Gen 5 the Two becoming One types the One New man by the "Spirit". I can see these showing a picture pertaining to Jesus Christ. Especially in "formed, made, and created". Those three are present in scripture, at least in the patern.

To me it does not contradict especially the picture. But like I said, "I don't know" because I'm not a scholar and I will never understand all the technicalities :lol:  Just seems to work thats all.

Thanks for telling me that, if true, I can zip it right off the verse to never quote again

Daniel

[Daniel]

Sorry, you asked me which verse that was I forget to share it  :oops:

1John 5:7

I got the KJV so you got to keep me on my toes  :lol:

Daniel

Edited in... hey how do you find out whether a verse is not in scripture? Anyone got a link for that verse, to check? Thanks in advance

[chrissiela]

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/feature_page_trinity001.shtml

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.5.html

:shock:

[chrissiela]

That was TWO witnesses... are we looking for a THIRD one??  :lol:  :lol:

[Daniel]

Its not even an issue with me really, I see them as one but you can capture the blood and water John speaks of from Jesus Christ side.

You can also see after the death of Abel a Son being granted (in type) to Eve (after Cain killed Him). In Genesis 5 both male and female are at this point called ADAM which it speaks to me of being One with Him in Spirit.

He sends his Spirit and THEY are CREATED. He forms, he made, and he created three parts. Since the flesh counts for nothing in the first patern nothing is in it. In the Begining, LIGHT is FORMED.

Hey I've been dying to ask a scholarly type person who knows words well... Are the words on the seventh day correct? I see Created and made there and no mention of the word "form". Is this true? Because if it is, its pretty exciting :lol:

Daniel

[Daniel]

That was TWO witnesses... are we looking for a THIRD one??  :lol:  :lol:

You know every matter (he conceals) is established by two of three witnesses. :lol:

Is the word "record" different from witness? Seems there is two records, isnt there? I need to check

Daniel

[chrissiela]

If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one."

Still seems to be three that bear record.... only a question of the possible addition of the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost to support the "trinity" teachings??

Chrissie

[gmik]

Chrissie I have spent over an hour reading all that muslim stuff!  Goodness. I found it interesting but troubling.  How much of his research can be believed.  I never have read about Paul like that!   :?

[Daniel]

:lol: Who can tell us concerning that verse? Is that scripture true or false ? How can I know to take it away or keep it?

Now you have me interested :lol:

Daniel

[lilitalienboi16]

:lol: Who can tell us concerning that verse? Is that scripture true or false ? How can I know to take it away or keep it?

Now you have me interested :lol:

Daniel

It is not part of the original manuscripts from what i know.

It was added in to add to the validity of the trinity since there was no scripture supporting the trinity.

Just take the example of when Jesus spoke of the Himself being the Vine and His father the farmer. There was no mention of the HOly spirit what so ever. Not in the rain, the land, the vine itself etc...

The holy spirit is Jesus Christ.

Jesus said "I send the comforter to you, i will not leave you bereaved, I AM COMING TO YOU."

Somewhere along the lines of that, can't find the exact verse for it.

The portion of the passage, in 1 John 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: "For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:



I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in NO Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age-one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen's New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in ALL the early Greek manuscripts.



II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions-one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.



III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity-a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5 th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine-nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor-it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.

VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics. See Griesbach and Hahn. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.

(from Barnes' Notes)

I do not believe that verse to be part of the original inspired manuscripts simply for the facts stated and that the bible does not support a trinity belief.

[Daniel]

lilitalienboi16


There is no argument for the "trinity" God is ONE. Men argue over that stuff not seeing the beauty of the scriptures bearing Jesus Christ witness.  Even the measure of the wall (God) is the measure of a man, that is of an angel. A messenger is an angel, the messenger of the covenant, EVEN the LORD the one we seek ""comes" to the temple".


This is still true, as scripture shows this.


1John 5:6 This is HE that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only[/u], BUT by water and blood[/u]. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness[/b], because the Spirit is truth.  (he hath not left us without a witness, this in ourselves)

John 19:3 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.[/u]


John 5:34 But I receive not testimony from man[/u]


John 19:35 And he that saw it bare record[/u], and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.  

1John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God (Which came by water and blood) hath THE witness IN HIMSELF:[/u] he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record "that God" gave of his Son.[/u]


The "parts"

First Adam was "formed" from the dust[/u] of the ground" ... dust is flesh and counts for nothing[/u] This forming means nothing in the equation.

There are two (the water and blood) even in scripture which bear Jesus Christ a witness to Him being the Son of God.

God made[/u] a "Woman" from Adams SIDE here's the two of the three witnesses which were a pattern of Jesus Christ (The Son of God) who came NOT by "water" only BUT water and blood

Heres the third (After the death of Abel which is important)

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in "the day" when they were created.

Psalm 104:30 Thou sendest forth THY SPIRIT, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.[/u]  (The ONE NEW MAN Paul spoke of)

Heres the three parts expressive of being  in Christ

Isaiah 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.[/u]

Flesh counts for nothing in the "forming" from the dust of the ground. He "forms" the "light" in Christ. This speaks of Christ (the light) being "formed" in you. Expressed in the first day of Genesis, THIS "forming" is counted in the equation after a spiritual truth.

You can indeed see it in three parts which agree in one as He and the Father are one. Changes nothing with "an answer" but sure blesses me to capture the beauty of the blessed witness of Him of whom God spoke of in the scriptures.


Daniel

[buddyjc]

:lol: Who can tell us concerning that verse? Is that scripture true or false ? How can I know to take it away or keep it?

Now you have me interested :lol:

Daniel

If you have an authorized version of the King James, it will tell you in the margin that this verse in its entirety was not found in any manuscript before the 14th century.  

Brian

[Daniel]

:lol: Who can tell us concerning that verse? Is that scripture true or false ? How can I know to take it away or keep it?

Now you have me interested :lol:

Daniel

If you have an authorized version of the King James, it will tell you in the margin that this verse in its entirety was not found in any manuscript before the 14th century.  

Brian

Thanks Brian, nah I use online only. To me I really don't have a problem with it being there or not. Scriptures testify of Him concerning the water and blood coming forth from His side. Even the record itself is in the gospel and the Spirit bears witness of Him. Taking from what is His and making it known to us.

Daniel

[love_magnified]

Here is a possible way of looking at it.

Water and Blood = Jesus in flesh
Spirit = JESUS raised to life after death

But Jesus is come in the flesh, ours right now. As he is, so are we. So together, water, blood, and spirit are one.

[Daniel]

Here is a possible way of looking at it.

Water and Blood = Jesus in flesh
Spirit = JESUS raised to life after death

But Jesus is come in the flesh, ours right now. As he is, so are we. So together, water, blood, and spirit are one.

EXACTLY Love_Magnified, worded perfectly with few words

Daniel