« The sound of one Voice... All of us! Happy Holidays | Main | The New "Religion" of Atheism II: Fewer Nuns, More Nones »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Dear Spence Tepper

The new testament states "the ONLY begotten son" which means he cant have other sons. So something is not right.

I am a christian. I don't believe there are other "masters"

Jesus is the saviour for all mankind but only if you believe in him.

There is no other way into kingdom of heaven

You say the holy spirit is the word of god and kalma, which you say is some kind of sound. This is not in the bible and is false teaching

Spence Tepper

Hi Jesussaves
You wrote
"The new testament states "the ONLY begotten son" which means he cant have other sons. So something is not right."

Since the Bible teaches us that God has called Abraham, David, Solomon and others His own sons, and since both old and new testaments are the word of God, the flaw must be in the interpretation which you have offered.

God, according to the Holy Bible, has had, among us humans, multiple sons.

But there is only one Father, and only One Holy Spirit. That Spirit is the Christ, in the flesh, who accompanied Moses, as Paul teaches in the New Testament.

Moses followed Christ long before we knew Him by the name Jesus. As did David, Abraham, Isaiah, Joseph and others.

Find an interpretation that doesn't require picking and choosing only the parts of the Holy Bible that fit a dogma.

The Truth must fit the entire Holy Bible.

Spence Tepper

Hi again Jesussaves

As a minor point the phrase for "only begotten" in Greek is actually Monogenetos (mono being one, and genetos, as in generated, created).

But the actual word used in the Bible is Monogenes, which actually means one - of-a-kind, unique.

In Hebrews Paul used the same phrase as used in John, to discuss Abraham's son, Isaac, who is not Abraham's only son. Ishmael was also Abraham's son. And from his line came the Islamic faith.


Hello Spence,
A quick question from one of your earlier posts. I am not a Christian. But I found a portion of what you stated a bit confusing, "...since both old and new testaments are the word of God". I am paraphrasing, I believe from John, but does not the Bible state, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God? So if that is true, the Bible, new and old testament were not in existence in the "beginning". This is what I believe is confusing JesusSaves.
The Bible is speaking of two different words. One is the written/spoken word, the other is the energy/force/Kalma/Logos/Holy Spirit/ Tao,....give it any name. Your thoughts?? Thank you.

spence tepper

Wow, Ruby!
Like a lazer beam, you hit the target!!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God....Yes, the Spirit, that is Christ.

Or at least this is what I believe.

Old and New testaments are the revealed words of God, ie; they are inspired from the Lord.
But you are absolutely right, they are not the WORD, the LOGOS that is Christ, the Spirit, the true Son of God.

Yes, I can see the cornfusion!

Thanks for the refinement.


One more point Spence,
If the above paraphrased statement from the Bible (John I believe) is correct, and JesusSaves believes in the Bible, than it must follow, there is nothing in existence that is not God. It is only God. Everything emanated from God. Thanks.


The Word’: Jesus
First, we focus on the term word. “In the beginning was the Word.” The most important thing to know about this Word is found in verse 14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Word refers to Jesus Christ.

my source:


Spence Tepper

Hi Jesus Saves
Yes the Word became flesh. It has always been so.

Do you agree that Moses walked with Christ? As Paul teaches?


Hello JesusSaves,
I am sorry, but I do not interpret the verse you state above in the same way. The "Word" is the "Word" and flesh is flesh. One, the "Word" is eternal, and one "flesh" as temporary, transient. The temporary arose from the eternal. One will perish, the other "the Word" will never die. It was never born and it will never die. "In the beginning", "In the beginning". I always like to drink that in and digest it. We all have our own opinions. Thank you.
All the best,

Spence Tepper

Hi Ruby
This distinction has also created some controversy in traditional Christianity.

If Christ is the Lord could He ever not have been born? The very idea that he takes birth reflects a notion that He was not eternal. That would be in conflict with John's teaching.

Paul taught that Christ is always here, as did Jesus Himself. Jesus cites the Psalms where David says "The Lord says to my lord " referring to God and the representation of God, who was David's Lord. We do not know the name of that individual. We know only they were Christ, for Jesus confirms this.


Hello Spence,
As I said, I am not Christian, and I am certainly not an authority on Christianity. But I am glad you brought this up. If Jesus is the "Son of God", in essence God and Jesus are one, why the necessity for Jesus to be born. If God intended the world to be saved, why "the birth". He had the power to save, he did not have "to take birth". So "taking birth" has a very important significance. I do not believe it is the significance as most Christians believe. Hint- If Jesus is the Son of God, why the significance of Baptism from John the Baptist? I think God is showing us something here that is very important. All the best.

Spence Tepper

Hi Ruby
Why was born in the flesh?
Why did he take baptism from John, if He was God?
Jesussaves, what are your thoughts about this?


Hello Spence,
I also wanted to ask JesusSaves a question. You put forth verse 14 as an explanation of Jesus and his relationship to the Word. I am looking at a segment of that verse that reads "...the only Son of the Father...". As many people know, the Bible has undergone many translations, including but not limited to the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Humans being human are very prone to error. When something is translated from one language to another, it is easily susceptible to error. So if someone picking up the pen changed the placement of the and only, you can see what a huge difference that would make. There is a big difference in the verse if it read ".....only the Son of the Father...", as opposed to "....the only Son of the Father...". I think if we switched those two words, it offers an explanation as to why Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. For me, I always wondered why we humans put limitations on the one who is limitless. JesusSaves, your thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you.


Jesus had to be born as a sinless man and die for our sins.
Nobody else in history died for our sins.

John the baptist prepared the way for "one greater than me" as he said

The WORD is god, jesus is god made flesh, born as a human.

in order to redeem humans

Spence Tepper

Hi Ruby
The correct translation is "one of a kind" , not "single offspring".

As detailed earlier in the Bible, God calls several people His son : Abraham, David, Solomon and others. So Jesus is not God's only son, just as Isaac wasn't Abraham's only son either, where the same Greek phrase is used. Abraham also had Ishmael.

But Isaac was special, just as Jesus is special.

Jesussaves hasn't yet addressed this point, that God has called others his sons in the Bible. And that the Greek Bible from which the English is translated doesn't say 'only begotten' just 'one of a kind' .

Spence Tepper

Hi Ruby
OK, I'm guessing this topic has gotten over Jesussaves head.

The issue of adoption is a more recent and popular interpretation that pulls it all together.

The other sons became sons through their devotion. They started as sons of men and became sons of God.
"And he will become my son."

But Christ was always the son of the father, the word made flesh.

When we take birth in that Word, the Holy Spirit, we are also then adopted sons and daughters accepted as full heirs to the inheritance of the Father.

Spence Tepper

As for Baptism, this is Christ placing Himself beneath His Father, "Not I but the Father within me doith the works."
Emphasizing the Spirit, the true Christ into which we must take birth.


Hello and Good Night Spence,
It must be very late where you are. A couple of quickies:
1. On the baptism of Christ,( I believe said in Matthew ??), wasn't this a baptism of redemption? Why the need of the word made flesh to be redeemed, there is no sin there?
2. As far as the issue of adoption. For all intents and purposes....the difference? Starting out the son of men and becoming the son of god is no small feat. In the end, if they all reached the same level, will they not reach the same end?
I think I have clogged up your blog enough. I will give others a chance now. Thank you.

Spence Tepper

Hi Ruby
You asked why Christ would need to be redeemed. By definition he would not. But to show us the way, He would walk as we must.

Yes, children who have become worthy of inheritance. Paul says it doesn't matter if you are grafted in or if you are part of the natural tree and never fell away. It's the same.


What is this beautiful you wrote Spence
Adi Granth like :

The Kalma has ferried millions across.
In countless ways has it transformed
Ordinary mortals into Saints.

OMG. and even clearer:

… Within me resounds the melody of Kalma,
the melody that love has taught me to hear.
Why don’t you put away your books,
And forget what you have learnt from them-
For within the Kalma you will find
The fourteen inner realms.
Scholars sharpen reeds into pens,
But they are not capable of writing the true Kalma.
This Kalma has rid me of all afflictions
Of the body and mind –
Only a Master could have taught it to me, O Bahu
The Abyat of Sultan Bahu

Mr jesussaves can learn a lot here , if Jesus will let him
Did he never hear about Pentecost and his
disciples receiving The Holy Ghost

And why jesussaves doesn't comment on Compassion ?
and vegetarisme
Is this Compassion from the devil ??
You think so ?




Hello Spence,
I would like to know your opinion on the Baptism of Jesus from the perspective of John the Baptist. For me it seems to be indicating a (formal) public announcement from the predecessor. Here he is, the one that will follow me, and is greater then me. Here is the eternal coming down to the temporal (One from eternity that will be here for a short time), Word made flesh. So he is here for a set time and a set purpose. Here is the Shepard come to gather his sheep. Those sheep will recognize the Shepards whistle and come. He is the way. The Father and the Son are one. The Son being the means to reach the One. But the fact that he is flesh means his time was limited. His work was to collect his appointed flock while they were both in the flesh. It was only in that way that he could relate the process with the best chance of avoiding confusion. The disciples would get instruction straight from the Master. He is the Boatman, Bridge, Guide, Master, Shepard, give him any name. But He is everything for his disciples. They can only reach There through him. Your thoughts. All the best.


Do you all agree that Jesus had no sin and was crucified for our sins.

Through Him is our redemption.

The Way, the Truth, and the Life
5“Lord,” said Thomas, “we do not know where You are going, so how can we know the way?” 6Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”…


“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Word refers to Jesus Christ.

Hello JesusSaves,

It's always puzzled me because humanity living before Christ's era
were seemingly abandoned then. An evangelical explained that
Christ would manifest to earlier generations and propose to save
them posthumously if they accepted Him as their savior. Is that
your understanding?

Spence Tepper

Hi Ruby!
Yes I agree I the main.
I believe that we need good teachers to show us, to teach us. But when it comes to spirituality, I don't think a good teacher assumes any authority at all. That is really what I find so beautiful in this post about the Master Attorney. Jesus doesn't call His own disciples students. He calls them His friends.

No program of submission to another human being who supposidly has power over your own soul is legitimate. Even if that is a church and the priest is the proxy for Christ. Or a Guru with a turban as a proxy for Christ. It is okay to model what you must do within, but it is at best play practice.

The real work is within.

That's just you and Christ. In my opinion.


Hello Dungeness.
That may have been the way the evangelical explained the process. But where in the Bible does Jesus state that? Where in the Bible does Jesus explain how the people who came before his time could also reach the eternal? Maybe JesusSaves could direct us to that particular passage or passages for clarity.

The comments to this entry are closed.