- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Yeah, I agree – pretty hard to reconcile the data outside of a trinitarian framework….. Is 1:18
Amen!
Quote PS; here's a tip – the scholarly articles for which you never cite a reference for have starkly different sentence construction, word usage and stylistic elements compared to the posts you write yourself (not to mention the uppercase lettering for your section titles – oops just did). If you “read them and put them in your own words”, you might want to pay more attention to these details… I hate to break this to you Is 1:18, but you are actually completely wrong on this, the details, at least.
Completely wrong.
Let me explain how I work. Often, when speaking on this forum, I will just answer a question directly. But in the background, I'm always working, organizing thoughts and scriptures. Sometimes, I spend a lot of time on one subject. And occasionally and this is rare, I organize that file so much that it is actually somewhat organized. It is rare, but it happens. The LARGE LETTERS are my attempt to make certain things stand out, for myself and those who read it.
The headings and the sections are as organized as I can make them–the actual scriptures that contain “alpha and omega.” It bothers me that I'm the only one on here discussing this. If some of the things look like you've read them before, I have posted the same posts from my “trinity-alpha and omega” file from my computer. This file has recently gotten more organized. All the headings, titles are mine. They are pretty generic: “REVELATION 1:11”
As you know Is 1:18, I ask a lot of quesitons on here. In the holy spirit thread, for example, I've been asking questions. When people answer those questions by diverting attention to JW organization or anywhere else or say: “I'm not discussing this with you because they are not your words” then that makes me wonder how competent they are.
(I'm tring to bate you of course. You know it. I know it.)Look at this post closely. It's in my words. Of course it's written differently than the “alpha omega” post. It was written in 2 minutes.
The other post was one of those organized posts that I spent quite a bit of time more time on, obviously. Or at least, I would have thought it was obvious.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,01:20) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 13 2007,06:07) Hi Is 1.18.
Jesus is the unique monogenes Son, solely derived from God
“solely derived from God”, presumably 'in the beginning'…..Where is this written?Quote as the image of God Himself in the beginning. No other being can make this claim as all other were created by God through the agency of this firstborn being.
Then he came from heaven and was conceived and born of Mary and the Spirit of God as the true Son of Man.
Firstborn often refers to preeminence not procreation, that is plainly revealed in scripture. And anyway, all of this could be applicable to the natural (earthly) begettal of Yahshua. Where in scripture would I read about a begettal that happaned before this? Which of the NT writers explains that 'Son of God' means pre-incarnate progeny of God? These are the questions I'm looking for answers to…..
Actually firstborn is literal and being the literal firstborn comes with privileges.But those privileges can be lost and given to another who is not the literal firstborn. This is the lesson of Jacob and Esau.
Firstborn males from the Israelites were to be consecrated to the Lord.
Exodus 13:2
“Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.”Even firstborn animals too. Are these firstborn animals the ones with privileges or are they literally firstborns?
Exodus 13:12
you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD.Now Jesus is the firstborn of many sons. We are sons too and we too are born from above. But Christ was the first born and has preeminence in all things.
Scripture is also clear that we will be like him. It also says that God is invisible. So that in itself clearly shows us that Jesus is not the invisible God of the bible but is the image of the invisible God that scripture speaks of.
MS to Is 1:18
Quote
I dont agree with all the watchtower propoganda either.I am not sure David is copying anything.
However, David is just sharing his views.
Is he writing a book?
Is he turning in a homework assignment?
Does he really need to learn information and spend a solid hour writing out the very same information he learned in his own writing style to please you?
This seems to be, in my opinion, your way of playing the role of superior scholar. Using the only most refined and prestigious methods of debate. For surely a man who uses big words and follows the proper etiquette of the scribe must also hold a firmer grasp on truth. Sound right?
Not writing a book or turning in any “homework assignment,” whatever that means.
But every now and then I research things. I don't claim to be infallible.
When giving talks, I would often first find all the information I could on a subject. I would copy and paste a hundred pages into a file. I would then widdle it down to a page or two, and it would be my words.I have nothing against Is 1:18. He's one of the only ones on here who actually says things that hit me. A day after thinking I'm spending too much time on here, he askes me what my wife thinks. Stuff like that.
On the “big words,” I really do think Is 1:18 could learn to communicate effectively. The really good speakers or communicators can communicate with anyone, on any level. I don't think Is 1:18 realizes how he comes off when he uses those words. I don't think he does it intentionally. But he has lost something along the way, the ability to communicate effectively. He is a smart guy. But maybe not wise with words.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 14 2007,02:04) Quote Yeah, I agree – pretty hard to reconcile the data outside of a trinitarian framework….. Is 1:18
Amen!
In other words it is hard to make sense of scripture outside of looking at it through Trinity glasses.You said it yourself.
The Trinity is the template that all scripture must fit inside.
I think you need to rethink your Trinity slant.
Here are 100 scriptures that do not fit for a start.
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htmIt is the Spirit that leads us into all truth. Throw away the doctrines of men and let God speak.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,07:17) Actually firstborn is literal and being the literal firstborn comes with privileges. But those privileges can be lost and given to another who is not the literal firstborn. This is the lesson of Jacob and Esau.
Firstborn males from the Israelites were to be consecrated to the Lord.
Exodus 13:2
“Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.”Even firstborn animals too. Are these firstborn animals the ones with privileges or are they literally firstborns?
Exodus 13:12
you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD.
t8, can you explain to me why David, the YOUNGEST or LAST born of Jesse was called a firstborn by YHWH? And which of his brothers relinquished the privilege?Psalms 89:27
“I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.”Given that Israel is a comparatively young nation, why also does YHWH call this country his firstborn:
Exodus 4:22
“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn.”And also, why are all believers called God’s firstborn:
Hebrews 12:23
”to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,Could this word denote something outside of procreation? It seems so….
Quote Now Jesus is the firstborn of many sons.
He he…How many sons did God give birth to in the beginning?!Seriously t8, where in scripture does this come from?
Hi Is 1,18,
How many sons rejoiced at the foundation of the earth [Jb 38]?
Church of the firstborn is the church of Christ, the firstborn.Quote (david @ Jan. 13 2007,07:15) Quote PS; here's a tip – the scholarly articles for which you never cite a reference for have starkly different sentence construction, word usage and stylistic elements compared to the posts you write yourself (not to mention the uppercase lettering for your section titles – oops just did). If you “read them and put them in your own words”, you might want to pay more attention to these details… I hate to break this to you Is 1:18, but you are actually completely wrong on this, the details, at least.
Completely wrong.
Let me explain how I work. Often, when speaking on this forum, I will just answer a question directly. But in the background, I'm always working, organizing thoughts and scriptures. Sometimes, I spend a lot of time on one subject. And occasionally and this is rare, I organize that file so much that it is actually somewhat organized. It is rare, but it happens. The LARGE LETTERS are my attempt to make certain things stand out, for myself and those who read it.
The headings and the sections are as organized as I can make them–the actual scriptures that contain “alpha and omega.” It bothers me that I'm the only one on here discussing this. If some of the things look like you've read them before, I have posted the same posts from my “trinity-alpha and omega” file from my computer. This file has recently gotten more organized. All the headings, titles are mine. They are pretty generic: “REVELATION 1:11”
As you know Is 1:18, I ask a lot of quesitons on here. In the holy spirit thread, for example, I've been asking questions. When people answer those questions by diverting attention to JW organization or anywhere else or say: “I'm not discussing this with you because they are not your words” then that makes me wonder how competent they are.
(I'm tring to bate you of course. You know it. I know it.)Look at this post closely. It's in my words. Of course it's written differently than the “alpha omega” post. It was written in 2 minutes.
The other post was one of those organized posts that I spent quite a bit of time more time on, obviously. Or at least, I would have thought it was obvious.
Yes David these are very obviously your words….you have a style of your own, so to speak. It's equally clear when you post scholarly material – the form and content is poles apart from yours….I'll take the bait and have a look at the “Alpha and Omega” post at some stage, maybe tomorrow.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:00) He he…How many sons did God give birth to in the beginning?! Seriously t8, where in scripture does this come from?
Doesn't seem that funny to me.Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.Quote How many sons rejoiced at the foundation of the earth [Jb 38]?
Are these sons part of creation or fellow creators themselves? It must be one or the other.Hebrews 12:23
”to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,08:15) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:00) He he…How many sons did God give birth to in the beginning?! Seriously t8, where in scripture does this come from?
Doesn't seem that funny to me.Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
This verse is dealing with the “predestined” believers that will inherit, as adopted sons of God, these are the “many brothers”. It does not speak of Sons that were birthed by God 'in the beginning….Quote (david @ Jan. 13 2007,07:26) On the “big words,” I really do think Is 1:18 could learn to communicate effectively. The really good speakers or communicators can communicate with anyone, on any level. I don't think Is 1:18 realizes how he comes off when he uses those words. I don't think he does it intentionally. But he has lost something along the way, the ability to communicate effectively. He is a smart guy. But maybe not wise with words.
he he…touche….
Quote I'll take the bait and have a look at the “Alpha and Omega” post at some stage, maybe tomorrow. No thanks.
My new rules for speaking to people:
Rule #1: No words like “antidisestablishmentarianism.”So, in view of these terms, some words of advise:
“Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations.
Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous vacuity ventriloquial verbosity, and vaniloquent vapidity. Shun double-entendres, prurient jocosity, and pestiferous profanity, obscurant or apparent!!
** ** In other words, talk plainly, briefly, naturally, sensibly, truthfully, purely. Keep from slang; don't put on airs; say what you mean; mean what you say. And, don't use big words!”””
http://www.abcsmallbiz.com/funny/big-words.htmlQuote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:00) t8, can you explain to me why David, the YOUNGEST or LAST born of Jesse was called a firstborn by YHWH? And which of his brothers relinquished the privilege? Psalms 89:27
“I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.”
The verse explains it.God MADE him his firstborn.
In other words God didn't choose the literal firstborn because he was looking for a man after his heart. So if this was the criteria, then it can be safe to say that the literal firstborn in this case didn't have a heart after God like David did.
In fact without reading it, I think that this was a problem for Jesse.
Now God didn't choose Jesus because he was chosen from among certain candidates as the one who had the most gracious heart after God, he was chosen because he is the only begotten of the Father.
Scripture says that he is the only mediator between God and man, yet you say that he is actually God himself. If that were the case then he wouldn't be a mediator and intercessor for us because he would be the God of whom he is interceeding and mediating for.
Oh how the Trinity doctrine confuses even the simplest of scriptures. No wonder it takes a scholar to explain it. Scholars can use words like 'ontological' and give an impression that they are expert on the subject.
But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:20:
“Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
Jesus said in Matthew 11:25:
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.Quote You're being a little obstreperous David don't you think?….
I don't know. Maybe. I have no idea.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:23) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 13 2007,08:15) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2007,03:00) He he…How many sons did God give birth to in the beginning?! Seriously t8, where in scripture does this come from?
Doesn't seem that funny to me.Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
This verse is dealing with the “predestined” believers that will inherit, as adopted sons of God, these are the “many brothers”. It does not speak of Sons that were birthed by God 'in the beginning….
Why do you assume that I was speaking of sons from another age or time?I said “Now Jesus is the firstborn of many sons. We are sons too and we too are born from above. But Christ was the first born and has preeminence in all things.”
I thought it was pretty easy to follow and I didn't even use words like 'ontological'.
T8, you are flip flopping…
This was your initial assertion:
Quote Actually firstborn is literal and being the literal firstborn comes with privileges. But those privileges can be lost and given to another who is not the literal firstborn. This is the lesson of Jacob and Esau.
Less than half an hour ago it was literal, but now it's conceptual?Be consistent.
Quote (david @ Jan. 14 2007,03:28) My new rules for speaking to people:
Rule #1: No words like “antidisestablishmentarianism.”So, in view of these terms, some words of advise:
“Next time, in promulgating your esoteric cogitations, or articulating your superficial sentimentalities and amicable, philosophical or psychological observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosity. Let your conversational communications possess a clarified conciseness, a compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations.
Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility and veracious vivacity, without rodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabic profundity, pompous prolixity, psittaceous vacuity ventriloquial verbosity, and vaniloquent vapidity. Shun double-entendres, prurient jocosity, and pestiferous profanity, obscurant or apparent!!
Ooh I can see Is 1:18 drooling over that one.What about “floccinaucinihilipilification”?
drool drool
The bigger the better.
As I have seen written on a tee shirt: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
