Again with what we were talking about yesterday. Jesus is not the father in exacts. Again, take a piece of hair off your head. This would be "the word" give it a name "made it flesh". You have now simulated what our father did with Jesus. Jesus is the word of God. He is not our father in exacts, but still is one with the father.

hair is something you shed because it has out lived it's purpose ...is this why God gave to the world his only begotton son ...because his son out lived his purpose ...so are you sure you want to keep using hair as an example? .

Yes, because you forcibly plucked a piece of hair out is totally different then you shedding.

do you pluck out your hair to do your chores for you ..do you lie in bed pluck out a hair and the hair gets on the computer log into Mingles2 to seek other hair online in order to spread the hair spray

see how your hair example sounds delusional...which is why you need to fine a passage from "The Old Testament" to back up your claim that the Word existed in the beginning because a passage does not exist in The New Testament

John 1:1-2
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.
---------------------------------------------

John 1:14
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
===========================================


And no i don't pluck out my hairs to do my chores in life or anything of such. Was a metaphore and i am not God in the first place, so therefore i do not have the ability to do as such. A metaphor my friend, a metaphor. Does not resemble it exactly, only simulates it to a degree.

Dude forget the metaphors and go to the Old Testament and find a passage ...

What does it matter what testament it comes out of? If you're gonna give one testament credit you have to give the other credit as well. They go together, they are not separate things. It wasn't relative to mention the word in the old testament. Again the only time it was relative to mention the word was when it was telling us of the word being made flesh to dwell amongst us, Jesus. Outside of telling us that, it isn't relative.

it matters because "In The Beginning" there was The Old Testament...not The New Testament

Very true. Because in the beginning he was not "Jesus". He was "The Word". And the word was made flesh which dwelt among us in the new testament. And it states the word was with God in the beginning, thus Jesus was with God in the beginning. Not in the form we know of him, but nevertheless he was there.

ok..now all you have to do is find the passage in The Old Testament to back up what you just claimed

tick tock tick tock

What are you talking about funches? Why would it even be in the old testament? The old testament was the law book for the world before the coming of Jesus. Before the coming of Jesus there was no reason to have said anything of such.

which is why when The Word turn to flesh..it is describing the human race

Is it possible... it can also apply to one member of the human race?

Mark 13:32... But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

sure..if none of the other members of the human race has flesh

According to science, there was a first human.

The First Human
The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors
By K. Kris Hirst,


Wasn't there was a time in history when none of the other members of the human race had flesh besides one?


If you believe there wasn't such a time, can you please give a scientific source to show you're not fantasizing?

Jeez why do the religious run to science when they get in trouble...but anyway science is not needed ...perhaps you should check the biblical timeline...

according to the biblical timeline those in The Old Testament already had flesh before Jesus popped out of the womb as Flesh ...so you may want to re-think your theory

what in the bible displays why it's either a book of fables, fact, fakery,forklore or fantasy

when presenting a passage or whatever to present your point of view as being "fact"..please include an explanation that doesn't sound delusional along with proof that it is fact...if not then that places it into the category of fantasy

If I ask you for a scientific explanation for something you say.... you don't need to give one; because, The Bible is an authoritative source, if you use it?


If you give no other reason for your statement, than the way you interpret what The Bible says..... we should accept that as proof you're not having delusional thinking?

what I'm saying is that your post didn't require a scientific explanation ....well of course unless you believe that those that lived during the times of the old testament had no flesh until Jesus popped out of the womb with enough flesh for everyone....

It's possible for me to believe people had flesh before Jesus "popped out of the womb," without accepting any of the rest of your points.


I asked for a scientific explanation on the words you wrote, that weren't in The Bible; your interpretation of what you think the The Bible means, but, what it doesn't say.

ok...according to both science and the bible during the times of the old testament and before the times of the new testament humans had flesh ...do you disagree with this?