John 1:1

Originally posted by sonship
Why do you think I am over thinking that grace is Christ being everything for us ?

You have not experienced Christ being Who and What you need in this and that circumstance ?

I think God is everything to us, His grace is a means to Him.

Originally posted by KellyJay

I think God is everything to us, His grace is a means to Him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i don't think I am "overthinking" grace to point out that "not I but Christ who lives in me" is practically equivalent to "not I but the grace of God that is with me.".

But if you think that's thinking too much about it, that's okay with me. Saying God is everything to us, to me, requires a lot of musing and much consideration.

In John 1:17 grace is a came with the coming of the living Person Jesus Christ. John constrasts the law and grace. The law was given but grace came.

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)

The footnote in the Recovery Version indicates the literally the word there is became. That is as in "grace and reality became through Jesus Christ".

I checked some other English translations to compare.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
The Teachings were given through Moses, but kindness and truth came into existence through Jesus Christ.

NET Bible
For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ.

New American Standard Bible
For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

Darby Bible Translation
For the law was given by Moses:grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ.

Young's Literal Translation
for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come;

World English Bible
For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

Most versions say "came through".

No harm in thinking and praising much about this. Jesus said that He Himself WAS "the truth" (John 14:6). So to say "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" or were realized through the coming of Jesus Christ seems quite in accord to the grace being the subjective enjoyment of Christ.

The phrase "grace upon grace" signifies a continuous supplying of the enjoyment of Jesus Christ in greater and greater degrees. In this way, the grace is like the multiplying of living cells. It is the enjoyment of Christ to be everything to man in greater and greater and deeper and deeper levels.

So Peter spoke of grace multiplying:

" Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the full knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord ..." ( 2 Peter 1:2)

Grace multiplying is also "grace upon grace".

Peter tells the Christians, who for certain have experienced the grace of God, to ENTER into this grace and stand in it. He means to come into this realm of enjoying Christ as everything more and more. And he means to be established, standing in that realm never to be moved from it.

" ... I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying fully that this is the true grace of God; enter into this grace and stand in it." (1 Peter 5:12b)

Grace upon grace, if we stand in this realm, will become the "abundance of grace" by which the Christians can reign in life, be victorious and overcome in God's life.

" ... those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:17b)

May the saints learn to release the tsunami of grace upon grace, standing in that realm they have enetered and receiving Christ to be everything to us believers.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think God is everything to us, His grace is a means to Him.

Amen.

Notice that in the Body of Christ each member received grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

"But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ." (Eph. 4:7)

I think this implies the necessity to grow in grace with the increase of the measure of Christ dispensed into each Christian.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] I think God is everything to us, His grace is a means to Him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i don't think I am "overthinking" grace to point out that "not I but Christ who lives in me" is practically equivalent to "not I but the grace of God that is with me.".

But if you ...[text shortened]... ing of Jesus Christ seems quite in accord to the grace being the subjective enjoyment of Christ.[/b]

God's grace is a gift to us, in my opinion it is the giver that is more important than the gift.

Originally posted by roigam
Sorry, there are at least 7 others original translations
that say "the Word was a god" or
"the Word was divine" or
"the Logos was a god"
We got that translation from other Bibles, just not the antiquated KJV that still believes in unicorns.
Look it up.
Anyway enough for tonight. Bon Soir

I meant to respond earlier to this, but hadn't until now. So now the KJV is antiquated? Is that because the culture has changed, or maybe a change was needed to fit an organizations dogma? If I am not mistaken, didn't Jehovah Witnesses once use the KJV as their bible or a version similar? Wasn't the organization once a printer of KJV bibles? I know the KJV is printed in an older style English, but it is by far a much more robust and higher reading level bible than most of today's versions.

So why is it antiquated and on what basis? Is it because it has the word unicorns within it's pages as you pointed out and that seems like a totally ridiculous thing to believe by the lens of today's culture, just utter nonsense? Could unicorns that are in the bible mean what we think they mean today? Are they different?

just not the antiquated KJV that still believes in unicorns.

Hmmm. so KJV believes in unicorns? I didn't know a book could believe in anything. I think at best you are dishonest with trying to discredit the KJV because you say it is antiquated and on the basis that it mentions unicorns. Food for thought.

Take a look at this, and let me know what you think.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal
https://www.google.com/search?q=Narwhal&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj6rTxwZXSAhUP-GMKHfr5BGQQ_AUICCgB&biw=1376&bih=661

Unicorns may not be ridiculous after all.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. Your trinity on any level is never spoken of in the bible and all honest religious history shows were it was founded.
So.... It's still amazing how someone like you who I can tell is well educated and probably has a very high IQ can fall for the trinity. But Jesus said many would.....

"If you are interested and not closed minded on wanting to learn the truths of the trinity, here is one of many resources you can check out. If you want.....
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html "

I didn't have this within my reply to you and I resent you pasting this into my reply as if I had written it.

Originally posted by galveston75
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

Just another source that are not JW's to show what the trinity is.

What is the source? I looked through the article and it reads an awful lot like JW teaching to me, http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

The disclaimer page is here, http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/disclaimer.html

Has anybody put their name to this work, I cannot find it? Thanks in advance..

Originally posted by leunammi
I meant to respond earlier to this, but hadn't until now. So now the KJV is antiquated? Is that because the culture has changed, or maybe a change was needed to fit an organizations dogma? If I am not mistaken, didn't Jehovah Witnesses once use the KJV as their bible or a version similar? Wasn't the organization once a printer of KJV bibles? I know the ...[text shortened]... jj6rTxwZXSAhUP-GMKHfr5BGQQ_AUICCgB&biw=1376&bih=661

Unicorns may not be ridiculous after all.

Yes JW s did print and use the KJV Bible for years.
Now we use better translations based on better manuscripts that state the truth more clearly.
Although we still use the KJV, we do not restrict our studies to just one out of date Bible.
Bible translation has progressed with the discovery of older more accurate texts.
Those take us closer to the original inspired Word.
They are God's Word too.
Why discard them?
God's purpose is being revealed slowly over a long period of time.
Should not our understanding of His purpose progress also?
Do you think Adam and Eve understood Ge 3:15?
Do you think John understood what his vision at Re 17:1-6 meant?
God's will is revealed slowly so imperfect man can digest it.
He is a loving Heavenly Father teaching His children slowly, step by step.

Originally posted by roigam
Yes JW s did print and use the KJV Bible for years.
Now we use better translations based on better manuscripts that state the truth more clearly.

What was it about the credentials and experience of the team that produced the NWT that earned your confidence?

Originally posted by roigam
Yes JW s did print and use the KJV Bible for years.
Now we use better translations based on better manuscripts that state the truth more clearly.
Although we still use the KJV, we do not restrict our studies to just one out of date Bible.
Bible translation has progressed with the discovery of older more accurate texts.
Those take us closer to the original ...[text shortened]... t man can digest it.
He is a loving Heavenly Father teaching His children slowly, step by step.

How many saviours do you have roigam?

Originally posted by Suzianne
[b]"If you are interested and not closed minded on wanting to learn the truths of the trinity, here is one of many resources you can check out. If you want.....
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html "

I didn't have this within my reply to you and I resent you pasting this into my reply as if I had written it.[/b]

Sorry Suzianne but I don't see that. Was it in this thread or another? If I did that I apologize.

Originally posted by galveston75
Sorry Suzianne but I don't see that. Was it in this thread or another? If I did that I apologize.

One page back, Page 9 of this thread.

There is my post and you replied to it and stuck that bit into my quoted text.

I did not write that in my post.

Originally posted by leunammi
What is the source? I looked through the article and it reads an awful lot like JW teaching to me, http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

The disclaimer page is here, http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/disclaimer.html

Has anybody put their name to this work, I cannot find it? Thanks in advance..

Bump galvo.