Taking inspiration from Reformed Pope's recent study on Matthew 5-7 (BTW, Pope, when are we gonna get some more of that?), I thought maybe we could do the same thing with John's Gospel, which is most people's favorite anyway.
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NASB)
One of the most familiar verses in the Bible, I suppose, at least to believers.
"In the beginning"
The words remind us of Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God…."
The beginning…a tough concept to wrap the mind around.
I mean, what "beginning" is this? The beginning of the earth? The beginning of the universe? The beginning of heaven itself, wherever that is? I suppose one could say that the beginning goes back to eternity itself.
Um, whenever that was.
My "beginning" was at Emmanuel Hospital, in Portland, Oregon, in 1957. Which may seem long ago to someone in their 20s, but 50 years is really nothing in comparison to a couple of thousand years, and is a mere blip on the scope in comparison to a million years. Or a billion. Or a trillion. Or a "goolgolplex," which is the largest officially named number, consisting of a one followed by a thousand zeroes.
Whenever this "beginning" was, it had to be eons and eons ago.
"was the Word,"
The Greek scholars say that this verb "was" means something like, when you go back to whenever (and wherever) the beginning began, this Word was already there, and had been there. Forever.
Kind of like backtracking a trail which leads up a mountain. When you finally get to the top, you look out into the haze and see that you're not at the beginning of the trail at all, but that it extends back from where you are, way out beyond to a mountain in the distance where your eyes can barely even focus. So, you hop back into your Land Rover and drive back to that mountain. When you get there, you find the trail continues on past it to a another mountain in the blurry distance. So, off you go, again. When you finally arrive at that one, you find the same thing…the trail goes on and on, as far as the eye can see. You notice the gas gauge is perilously close to "E," as opposed to "F," and begin to suspect that you will never get to the beginning of this trail.
In other words, there really is no specific time when the Word started or began. It just always — and already — was.
"Word" is the familiar Greek term logos, which describes the communicating of the meaning of a thought. So, the Word here is revealing someone's thoughts. Whose?
"and the Word was with God,"
Okay, so we now see the Word is in connection with God. "God" is theos in the Greek, from where we get the word theology, which literally means,"words about God," or "God-words."
So, the Word is the one who communicates or reveals God's thoughts. Sounds simple enough.
"and the Word was God."
Here's something a bit perplexing…how can the Word be with God and also be God, all at the same time?
Well, if you could explain that to the satisfaction of all, I suppose you could probably unite all world religions, and get rid of those pesky Muslims. The thought in the original is that whatever God was, and is, the Word was, and is, the same thing.
And don't let those Jehovah's Witnesses tell you that the Greek should say "the Word was a god." That's not only baloney, but violates Greek grammar as well.
And, which goes to show that some people will try anything in order to stuff their pre-conceived, pet doctrines into the Bible. Even going so far as to create their own version of the "original" Greek text, called the "Emphatic Diaglott," which all Greek scholars outside of the JW movement know is a joke.
Still though, I wonder how many of our doctrines, what we believe, are contrived, and not really biblical at all? Which we hold with great fervor and pride.
I remember one occasion, long ago, when I was defending that wonderful "doctrine" (theory) of Dispensationalism, and the whole discussion almost ended up devolving to the point of fisticuffs. "If I have to, I'll beat my doctrine into you." Great witness there, Mr. Christian. Didn't even know I was wrong, until years later. 
Which makes me worry…if any — and if so, how many— of my current beliefs are wrong now? 
Thoughts?
-joebib
Joebib,
Thanks for taking the time to share. One of the greatest contributions this blog is making is to allow the everyday ‘non ministry’ types to speak and share the deposit that Christ has put in them through the Holy Spirit. What a breath of fresh air!
I went to PBC in the late 70′s, and may have known you. KC was my counselor during one quarter. I found him to be a friendly, humble servant of God. Some of the things he shared are still with me. As a vietnam vet, the fall of Saigon in April of ’75 turned my whole world view on its’ ear, I was in a pretty bad way, although at the time I thought I was doing OK. PBC did help me put things in a better light.
Do you remember Winifred Knapp? She was one of the first people I got in contact with at BT. She had a very sharp mind and great attention to detail. She always wanted to preach, but was never called on to do so. At her funeral, I thought it was very sad that a voice like hers was gone….at one time she corrected FDs’ theology papers in college! Her memory is part of the reason I started to share here.
You picture of the trail that disappears into the distance was great! It made me think about my life and walk with Jesus. The fuel tank running low made me realize I’m getting older (older than you!) and the section of trail I have walked with Christ is what I’ll take with me when I see Him.
You said:
And don’t let those Jehovah’s Witnesses tell you that the Greek should say “the Word was a god.” That’s not only baloney, but violates Greek grammar as well.
Actually, this is not true. Please consider:
“…, from the point of view of grammar alone, κα θες ν λγος [from John 1:1c] could be rendered ‘the Word was a god’…†– Harris, Murray J. (b.?-d.?). “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus.” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 60. BT216 .H37 1992 / 92-30780.
“[John 1:1c] could also be translated: ‘the Word was a god’ or ‘the Word was divine.’ Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations [including the common, “and the Word was Godâ€] can be defended on grammatical grounds.†– Loader, William R. G. (b.1944-d.?). “The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structures and Issues.” vol. xxiii of: “Beiträge zur Biblischen Exegese und Theologie.” (Frankfurt am Main; New York; Paris: Verlag P. Lang, c1989), p. 156. BT198 .L57 1989 / 89-12453. 2nd Revised Edition. (Frankfurt am Main, Germany; New York, New York: P. Lang, c1992), p. 155. BT198 .L57 1992 / 92-19502.
“You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God.’†– Barclay, William (b.1907-d.1978), Lecturer in the University of Glasgow. “Ever Yours; A Selection From the Letters of William Barclay.” Rawlins, Clive L. (b.1940-d.?), Compiler, Editor. (Dunbar, England: Labarum Publications, 1985), Portion of a letter from Barclay to Mr. David Burnett, Australia, dated May 20, 1974. BL: 85/18400 DSC. / SN: 012326083. isbn: 0948095040.
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
You also said:
And, which goes to show that some people will try anything in order to stuff their pre-conceived, pet doctrines into the Bible. Even going so far as to create their own version of the “original” Greek text, called the “Emphatic Diaglott,” which all Greek scholars outside of the JW movement know is a joke.
Although the “Watchtower Bible and Tract Society” (the publishing organ of Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses) had, indeed, printed the “Emphatic Diaglott,” the work itself was independently produced (printed and translated) by Benjamin Wilson; who, by the way, was never directly or indirectly associated at any time with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
For this, you may wish to consult:
Wilson, Benjamin F. (b.1817-d.1900). “The Emphatic Diaglott, Containing the Original Greek Text of What is Commonly Styled the New Testament (According to the Recension of Dr. J[ohann] J[akob] Griesbach [b.1745-d.1812]), With an Interlineary Word for Word English Translation, A New Emphatic Version, Based on the Interlineary Translation, on the Renderings of Eminent Critics, and on the Various Readings of the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 in the Vatican Library, Together with Illustrative and Explanatory Foot Notes, and a Copious Selection of References, to the Whole of Which is Added a Valuable Alphabetical Appendix.” (New York, New York: Fowler & Wells Co., 1864; Geneva, Illinois: Published by the Author, 1865). BS1965 1865 / 25-23563.
Furthermore, regarding Griesbach’s ‘Greek,’ the text from which Wilson translated, you may wish to examine:
Griesbach, Johann Jakob (b.1745-d.1812). “Novvm Testamentvm Graece: Textvm ad Fidem Codicvm Versionvm et Patrvm Recensvit et Lectionis Varietatem Adjecit d. Jo. Jac. Griesbach. Editio Secvnda, Emendatior Mvltoqve Locvpletior.” 2 vols. (Halae Saxonvm [or, Halle, Saxony], Germany: J. J. Cvrtii Haeredes; [etc, etc.], 1796-1806). BS1965 1796 / 32-015921.
As for Wilson, there is also this:
“Wilson had set himself up in the printing business in Geneva soon after arriving [1844] in this country [United States]. [In 1853] He began publishing The Gospel Banner [and Bible Advocate] and continued it for many years [until 1869]….[Wilson was also owner and publisher of a local newspaper he named The Western Mercury, its first printing was January 7, 1847; in the year 1856 this was expanded and renamed The Kane County Advertiser].…The Emphatic Diaglott was Wilson’s crowning work. The printing as well as the translating were both remarkable.â€
Taken from: Bills, Alex V. (b.?-d.?). “Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott.†Article appearing within: “The Bible Collector.” Issued quarterly by “The International Society of Bible Collectors.†Ehlert, Arnold D. (b.?-d.?), Editor-in-Chief. (La Mirada, California), no. 2 (April-June, 1965), pp. 3-5. BS410 .B53 / sf78-101.
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
Sorry to go off topic, but has anyone ever been to a Prosperity Conference at City Church or heard anything about them? It sounds like a conference where the rich learn how to get richer, but I also know perfectly normal people who go every year. Just wondering…
Alan, would you be referring to the same Greek experts who restored the Hebrew name “Jehovah” to the Greek NT?
[Comment ID #29243 Will Be Quoted Here]
Dear Samaritan,
The only individuals I mentioned above were: Wilson, Griesbach and Bills; and, in the previous message: Harris, Loader and Barclay.
As far as I know, among these listed, not unlike many others in the past, Wilson was the only one to have incorporated the English rendition of God’s personal proper name, “Jehovah” into his text some 18 times. Mt. 21:9; 21:42; 22:37; 22:44; 23:39 Mk. 11:9; 12:11; 12:29(2x); 12:30; 12:36; Lu. 10:27; 13:35; 19:38; 20:37; 20:42; Jo. 12:13; Acts 2:34.
Regarding such a practice, you may find the contents of the following websites of interest:
http://www.jehovah.to/exe/greek/yhwh.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040606042729/hector3000.future.easyspace.com/yhwh.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040603223256/hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jhvh.htm
These make quite clear that, thru the centuries, such a precedent has been established as a very regular and common practice among most every foreign language Bible Translation society, even up till today.
If you happen to hold to a different thought on this, that is your right, and I respect that.
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
caj–
Thanks for the kind remarks.
I also was at PBC in the mid- to late-70s, so maybe we did know one another. I also remember KJC quite well, and have also retained many of the nuggets of wisdom he offered, and especially what came to be more valuable to me…the impartation of his wonderful character in all of the personal exchanges we had together. He truly was (is) a man of God.
I loved sister Knapp, she just seemed like Aunt Bea to me. Glad to hear you've allowed the Lord to work a healing in you in regard to what you went through in Nam. I remember a couple of vets at PBC/BT from that time.
———————————————————-
Alan–
Thanks for taking the time to visit this site, and offer your views.
I perceived from your opening comments that you were either a follower of Charles Taze Russell, i.e., a Jehovah's Witness, or a member of the International Bible Students Association. The link you then provided pretty much substantiated that. If my assumption is wrong, please correct me.
This, to me, explains the measured tone of your posts, as well as manifests the intense training which the above-mentioned groups receive in seeking to prove their doctrinal points.
While I would rather not engage in a theological debate on the differences between the beliefs of Evangelical Christianity and the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses on this blog, I would very much like to privately dialogue with you in regard to…
1. The correct English translation of John 1:1,
2. The difference between, and usage of, the Articular and Anarthrous construction of the Definite Article in Koine Greek,
3. The accuracy of the Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation,
4. The usage/accuracy of interposing the Name "Jehovah" in translating the New Testament,
5. The accuracy of the writings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania,
6. The validity of the Watchtower Organization of Brooklyn, NY,
…as well as several other issues which you might find helpful. Alan, you offered your comments in a humble, unobtrusive way, with the implication that I would keep my mind open. I would ask you to respond in the same fashion.
I have sent you my email address, and look forward to your reply.
While I really didn't intend for this particular thread on John's Gospel to become an occasion for intense theological discussion, much less debate, I realize some questions/doubts may have been raised by Alan's posted opinions. Therefore, there may be some who are confused as to the correct translation of John 1:1, and would wish to examine a response to the above-posted claims, and ensuing references, made by Alan. Among the myriad of websites available, I have selected the following four:
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/john-1-1.htm
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/jehovah.htm
http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm
http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnessing/john_1_1.htm
It may be of interest to note that much of this information comes from former Jehovah's Witnesses.
Happy studying!
-joebib
Ah, Joe, you’ve kicked off a topic, which if it unfolds in typical fashion, is of the sort that has had me kicked off of discussion forums in the past! Well done!
How often do we say “The Bible is the Word of God”, yet, the Bible itself says that the “Word of God IS God” and that it has existed since the beginning (of ALL things), unlike the printed Bible, which in present commonly-available form has only been around since the 1500′s.
I wonder if we can see, much less admit, that modern Christianity has deified the Bible by calling it “The Word of God”, and potentially robbed God Himself of His identity as “The Word of God”?
The real Word of God is SO MUCH MORE than the Bible! Why, Psalm 139:17-18 liken the number of the thoughts of God to the sand upon the seashore, which are innumerable!
That’s a LOT of thoughts, God! If I, as a man, should bend down and scoop up some sand in my hands, there might be grains of sand equal to the number of words in the Bible … the surf washes in, the depression from which I removed the sand is filled up again, and there remains sand as far as the eye can see – on a single beach. Countless beaches … like folds in the mind of God … standing upon the beach, how small does the Bible appear, when we understand each thought therein, is equivalent only to a single grain of sand …
And then there’s:
So the Bible is just a fraction of what Jesus said and did. A subset. Perhaps it could be said that the Bible is to Jesus, what a business card is to a business man.
If only more of what Jesus said and did had been written down!
But wait! There is another record of the life and miracles of Jesus!
The epistles of Paul are considered part of the written ‘Word of God’ – why not the epistles of Jesus Christ?
Could it be that the ‘cannon of scripture’ has overlooked entire books of scripture – the very testimony of Jesus Christ – written in every believer, by Christ Jesus Himself? Testimony which scripture tells us (Revelation 19:10) is the very spirit of prophecy?
Could it be that John’s words in chapter 21 and verse 25 above, are in fact a prophecy of sorts? That for a moment, the Spirit gave John a vision of the future – a world abounding with believers who are filled with the Holy Spirit, living books bursting with pages written by Christ Jesus? Each of us a volume of scripture, written by Jesus?
Imagine, the reverence with which we treat the Bible, since it is the record of the things God and His Son said and did, if we treated one another with the reverence normally reserved for the Bible? If we rightly understood that each of us is every bit as much a prophetic volume of scripture, as the Bible – that we, by virtue of being an “epistle of Christ Jesus, written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of our hearts”, are the continuation of scripture, in living form, holy and sacred, each of us?
Imagine sitting down to break bread, and drink the wine of Christ’s blood, at the table of love feasts, and looking into the face of your brother and sister, and reading the pages of their prophetic testimony of Christ Jesus in their lives … if only we understood the sacred value of the spirit in one another – and treated each other with the awe and reverence normally reserved for the printed book … if we understood that each of us is a temple – a sanctuary – in which the Lord resides thereby making each of us holy (1 Corinthians 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 6:19)?
We contain the living word – we are walking, talking, living and prophetic testimonies of the works of Jesus Christ. May we learn to love and revere one another, as much or more than we do the Bible.
Sam
Dear Jobib,
Yes, I’d certainly welcome an opportunity “to privately dialogue with you,”…you too have my email address.
As for the links you’ve provided others above, as you might expect, I am quite familiar with them myself. Perhaps, before we go to “private,” I’d like to share with you (and others here) some observations about just one of them, the first one you listed.
Concerning the remarks at the beginning of the website: http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/john-1-1.htm
They open their discussion with a correctly quoted statement from the Watchtower publication, “Reasoning from the Scriptures,” p. 212, where it is says:
“The definitive article (the) appears before the first occurrence of theos’ (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in the Greek) points to a quality about someone.”
They then continue with:
“In other words, the WT is saying the first occurrence of theos has the article and thus refers to the ‘personality’ of God. The second theos is without the article and describes the ‘quality’ of the Word.”
To begin, I have a problem with their “In other words” statement. There, as you can see, the WT did not simply say that John 1:1c should be translated they way they do because this is contingent only upon whether “the second theos is without the article.” No, but rather, their point was whether such a construction follows this particular pattern as well: “a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in the Greek).”
As you can see, the composer of that web site left out the, “before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in the Greek)” part. This is important for a number of reasons.
Without consideration of that specific clarification, it leads to the following incorrect statement,
“If the WT were consistent in the application of its own Greek ‘rules’ each of these [any use of theos without the Greek definite article] should read, ‘a god.’”
Notice, there is no mention of that part of the WT quote which clearly stated, “before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in the Greek,” thus, invalidating their claim that the WT was not “consistent in the application of its own Greek ‘rules’†– which, by the way, is not their ‘rule’ at all; see below.
This then leads to another point: The left out an important part of what the “Reasoning” book had also said, this time, after their quote of the book which stated:
“So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was, but, rather that the Word was godlike, divine, a god.”
Directly after this, the part they left out from the “Reasoning” book included:
“(See 1984 Reference edition of N[ew] W[orld Translation of the Holy Bible], p. 1579.”
When examining this work, first, one would find the WT repeating the same point as from above:
“…the Greek word θεός (the os ) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the os .”
Notice, repeat of the point, “…a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article.”
And yet, secondly, among other things, added to this, the note within the “New World Translation (1984)†had also included:
“In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in M[a]r[k] 6:49; 11:32; Joh[n] 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article ‘a’ before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article ‘a’ is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read ‘a god.’ The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.”
Now, if one was to examine each of these examples (that is, within even your own prefered translation of the Bible), those which do follow the same Greek grammatical construction as that found in John 1:1c, you will see that, rather than the WT devising and following “its own Greek ‘rules,’” most all Bible’s do the same, that is, they do regularly “insert the indefinite article ‘a’ [or, sometimes "an"] before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you might imagine, much more of the points contained within that website (and the others of which you had also provided) could likewise be addressed. My intention in addressing just this one issue, if nothing else, is to demonstrate the fact that, although many of this sort of polemic against Jehovah’s Witnesses can (and, is often) addressed, many who are otherwise reading from opposing rhetoric are, I find, often unaware of that fact. In the event that some might be interested in some of these responses, I would suggest some consultation of the following websites:
http://www.jehovah.to
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/pageindex.htm
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/john1files.htm
And, two of my own:
http://www.geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Interesting_Observations.html
http://www.geocities.com/goodcompanionbooks/Some_Powerful_Reasonings.html
Again, thanks much for the opportunity you’ve afforded me to present my views here.
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
Thought you were leaving us until spring, Foxhole/Betty/Angels?
For the readers here, I wrote a long, open and vulnerable email to Foxhole/Betty/Angels concerning my experience with abuse, with the intent of putting an end to Foxhole/Betty/Angels accusations of abuse from me, Joe, David, JohnPaul, etc., and hoping perhaps to make a friend.
Hopefully readers noticed in the Power thread (October 21 at 6:54pm) that I asked Foxhole/Betty publicly whether or not she had received it, and she replied that she had.
I hoped that Foxhole/Betty would have responded in kind – you know – would have shown me the same kind of open and honest vulnerability, so that I might better understand where she’s coming from, but there has been no reply.
Now with the above, she resorts to more BS and accusations, from yet another new identity “Angels among us”, posting from IP 24.18.86.124 which is the same one Foxhole uses.
Anyhow, Foxhole / Betty / Angels is a troll.
Justin, JP or Henri, would you please block that IP or ban Foxhole / Betty / Angels?
Her accusations are getting real old, real fast.
Sam / Jack
Samaritian, John444, UnscruplousMan said:I hoped that Foxhole/Betty would have responded in kind – you know – would have shown me the same kind of open and honest vulnerability, so that I might better understand where she’s coming from, but there has been no reply.
Since when is it mandatory for someone to respond to others here by private email?
After the way you have treated Foxhole and others publicly (myself included) there is no way I would want to share my heart with you privatly. I can see why there has been no reply from foxhole betty.
As I write this I am actually afraid of what will happen to me and the others that have disagreed with you. This is the same thing that happens to people in church when they disagree or will not go along with everything the pastor says.
[Comment ID #29196 Will Be Quoted Here]
You’re being an ass again, Rhema.
Imagine sitting down to break bread, and drink the wine of Christ’s blood, at the table of love feasts, and looking into the face of your brother and sister, and reading the pages of their prophetic testimony of Christ Jesus in their lives … if only we understood the sacred value of the spirit in one another – and treated each other with the awe and reverence normally reserved for the printed book … if we understood that each of us is a temple – a sanctuary – in which the Lord resides thereby making each of us holy (1 Corinthians 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 6:19)?
We contain the living word – we are walking, talking, living and prophetic testimonies of the works of Jesus Christ. May we learn to love and revere one another, as much or more than we do the Bible.
Sam
Sam: Thank you for showing your true colors once again.
Do you really need an explanation, Rhema?
Foxhole/Betty/Angels among us, is one person, using multiple IDs to create the false appearance of consensus while leveling unfounded accusations against the blog owners and their appointed contributors. Foxhole/Betty said she was gone until next spring, on an RV trip with her hubby, then creates yet another ID to level some more slanderous (that means “false” BTW) accusations.
Has your faith been so corrupted Rhema, that you can’t discern between truth and lies, false accusation, defamation, slander? Are you so desperate for validation (after all, you admitted that) above, that you have to manufacture abuse?
Please, go away.
Sam
Rhema… you need to get a rhema about the HUGE log sitting on your shoulder. . you come across as a VERY disgruntled, sad, venemous person
I am sorry you see me that way living life. In most of my posts my intention has been to bring to rememberance what it feels like to be a victim. I can still remember what it felt like to suffer at the hands of another. I can still feel what it felt like to suffer under abusive leadership. I don’t want to forget and I guess I don’t want others to forget either.
Why? Because it seems like as we get healed and began to move on with our lives we get impatient with others that are suffering. We want them to just hurry up and get over it like we did. (forgetting how long it took us) Or we begin to blame them for their part in it. Or we lable them as bitter, angry, unforgiving, etc.
I realize I come acoss as a negative in the positive world of Christianity and maybe I need to work on that. But all I have figured out so far is that brokenhearted people need someone who has been there. Someone to stand up for them, someone who understands and is willing to hang in there with them no matter what.
You err in assuming we don’t remember what being victimized is like, Rhema. You err in presuming to be “the voice” of victims, everywhere. You are not their savior, Jesus is. Some of us who have experienced healing and who have moved on, see clearly what you are doing as “projection” and trying to heal yourself by healing others.
You’ve slung a lot of dung at the owners and contributors to this blog, Rhema, and with utter disregard for the topic matter at hand. Joebib kicked off a wonderful topic about JESUS!
LL suggested you needed a ‘rhema’ word – I hope you can see and receive this one. Concerning the woman with the case of bleeding – she spent all she had on her healing – she turned from doctor to doctor to doctor, none of whom could heal her. Finally, having been completely disappointed by men who could not heal her, she crawled to Jesus – flat broke and desperate – touched Him, and was healed.
Of course Joe, me, David, et al, will disappoint you in terms of healing and preventing the ills of spiritual abuse – we’re not Jesus. I can’t help but feel that until you get your eyes off of men, until you stop looking to men for your hope, for your healing, etc., and fix them upon Jesus as the only one who can heal you, Jesus, the one who does not disappoint, you’re just going to continue flagellating everyone.
I get that you are disappointed in me, Joe, et al. But do you get that you are looking for us to be more than we are able to be? Potentially, looking for us to be perfect, in your eyes?
Touch Jesus.
Sam, I do not presume to be the voice for all victims, everywhere. I know who their savior is and I do not think Jesus would tell them they are choosing their pastor-kings and to read the f%$#ing manual.
You have disappointed me as far as understanding this aspect of spiritual abuse.
What you do not get is that I am not looking for you to be more than you are able to be just be honest about where you are at .
Like I said before I am ashamed of some of my respones. I could have worded them a lot differently and maybe we could have continued to discuss our difference of opinion on the subject.
Back to the above post on the Gospel of John- You are right Joe-bib did kick off a wonderful subject about Jesus being the Word of God. I also like his question at the end about how many of our current beliefs are wrong. I am sure some of mine are.
I thought your comment was great. My hope is that I realize more and more that each one of us are living testimonies of the works of Jesus Christ and learn to love and revere others as you said. Even if we do not agree…….
Jesus touch me
Pingback: beginner 12 string acoustic guitar