MCGI: THE WORD DID NOT PHYSICALLY BECOME FLESH

Many sects including catholics and INC prefer the belief that the word in john 1:1, 14 has physically become flesh.

Truth before accepted as is, must not have loopholes or ambiguity before certainly accepted as the truth, in this case, I will show a more rational, logical and sound interpretation that determines the weakness of the belief that the word physically become flesh.

Let us see their basis,

JOHN 1:14 THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH…

MADE in greek is “ginomai” which either means, TO LITERALLY BECOME or TO FIGURATIVELY BECOME therefore, there are two possible interpretation of the verse,

Firstly, THE WORD LITERALLY  BECOME FLESH

secondly, THE WORD FIGURATIVELY BECOME FLESH

Either of the two could be correct, but that is, if without context. Biblical context though, would determine the correct thought. Let me show you why I believe that the right thought is not for the word to physically become flesh but to figuratively become flesh.

this is my proof,

THE WORD DID NOT PHYSCALLY BECOME FLESH.

Hebrews 10:5

[5]Wherefore when he (the word) cometh into the world, he (the word) saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body (human body) hast thou prepared me (the word)

As we can see, the word was talking, implying a person, not an idea, as INC claimed as an idea dont talk, and there was a body, a human body prepared for him, thus the word did not become, transformed or transmutated as a body, bec the body as separate form was prepared for him, proving that the word did not physically become a human body bec there was already a human body prepared apart from him. Logically, the word would incorporate itself to the human host as its tenant.

How do some, view this verse?

They say, the body prepared for the word was Mary as a host for  the word, where he could become flesh.

That could be possible but then, another verse, disputes the allegation that the word, a talking person, god, could transmutate into a physical body bec as the verse say, the word of god which is jesus Christ, is the same throughout all time, meaning, he is immutable–cannot change from being the word, person, god to a physical man.

Hebrews 13:7-8

[7]Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God (jesus in rev19:13)…

[8]Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Jesus Christ as the word of god is the same, unchanging, immutable yesterday today and forever, which word in heb 10:5 was a talking person, and in john 1:1 is god, and in Phil 2:6 is a spirit, as suggested, that he has the shape/nature of god. Therefore, that word as a spirit, is the same yesterday today and forever, Meaning, the word would always remains as a spirit,

HOW DID THEN JESUS CHRIST EXIST AS MAN?
Bec the word cannot transmutate, suggests that he only, indwells “sumanib” in the prepared human body implied in heb 10:5, then was born and called, jesus Christ, Thus jesus Christ is both man (prepared body) and god (the word) when the body and word becomes united as a whole being.

That for me, proves without ambiguity, that the correct interpretation for john1:14 should have been,

THE WORD FIGURATIVELY BECOME FLESH
Figuratively in the sense that, becoming flesh is figurative of the indwelling of god in the flesh as one united being. Therefore, FIGURATIVELY BECOMING FLESH is a postulation of the word indwelling in the human body. Therefore any suggestion of the word as coming in the flesh, should be viewed in relation to the fact that the word did not physically become flesh but only indwells in it….

1JOHN4:2 EVERYONE THAT CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH IS OF GOD…

JESUS COME IN THE FLESH doesn’t mean he become flesh, such as, THE DOG COME IN THE HOUSE, it doesn’t suggest that the dog become the house but it only enters the house, such as jesus come in the flesh suggests he enters the flesh,

As irrevocably, supported by the fact that the word did not physically become flesh as I stated above…😁

Thank you and god bless.

.

.#inactive_mcgi