And God called their name adam

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ July 25 2011,11:39)

Mike,
That would be the reason to know that the word 'of' is not the correct translation. See the NET Bible on Col 1 and Rev. 1:5, it does not use the word 'of' in any firstborn mention. All creation is not Jesus' Father and neither is the 'dead.'

That is correct, Kathi.

And I read what NETNotes said about Col 1:15 a long time ago. It is bogus, and amounts to, “Since we 'know' that Jesus isn't a creation, we're going to change the genetive, which means 'OF', into 'OVER', and call it a
'genetive of subordination' – WITHOUT GIVING ANY SUBSTANTIATED REASON FOR DOING THIS.”

So, since “the dead” is not Jesus' Father, what do you make of Rev 1:5? The phrase TRULY CAN BE “of the dead”, as I've showed you from various, reputable translations.

So, when reading ONE OF THOSE TRANSLATIONS, how would you understand the fact that Jesus is “the firstborn of the dead”?

Like I said before – it's time to let your truthful nature shine, Kathi. How would you HONESTLY understand that phrase when it includes the word “OF”?

July 26, 2011 at 1:20 am#253742

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ July 24 2011,22:24)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 23 2011,22:19)

Mike,

Quote

Kathi, we are also said to be ONE with the Father.

Where?

Mike,
Did you answer this and I missed it or did you not answer this yet?

Kathi

John 17

July 26, 2011 at 1:27 am#253743

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2011,15:15)

Pierre,
Love is the perfect bond of unity. Love is to be in all.

Col 3:14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.

Kathi

there are many different sorts of love ,which one is it ?

July 26, 2011 at 1:48 am#253749

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ July 25 2011,13:01)

Pierre,

John 17:21…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us
Jesus wants us to be a unity in them not as them. When we are in Christ, we are not also Christ. When we are in them, we are not also them. We are not just “in” the Father but “in” THEM.

So yet another example of the “Exception for Jesus” rule?

Kathi, I have but two points I hope you'll address:

1. Why is it we are a unity “IN THEM, NOT AS THEM”…………but the same words teach you that Jesus is a unity AS GOD, not IN GOD? Seems like a double standard for the same exact words and phrasing, don't you think?

2. Why is it that in this instance, the compound unity of Jesus and the Father is referred to with PLURAL pronouns, instead of the SINGULAR pronouns so common elsewhere in scripture? Why would Jesus call this SINGULAR UNITY an “US”, when everyone else calls this same SINGULAR UNITY a “HE”?

mike

July 26, 2011 at 2:33 am#253761

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 25 2011,20:20)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 24 2011,22:24)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 23 2011,22:19)

Mike,

Quote

Kathi, we are also said to be ONE with the Father.

Where?

Mike,
Did you answer this and I missed it or did you not answer this yet?

Kathi

John 17

Wrong, it says no such thing in John 17, Mike.

July 26, 2011 at 2:35 am#253762

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ July 25 2011,20:27)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2011,15:15)

Pierre,
Love is the perfect bond of unity. Love is to be in all.

Col 3:14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.

Kathi

there are many different sorts of love ,which one is it ?

Pierre,
Look up which Greek word is used for 'love' in that verse and then do a word search to pull up other verses with that same Greek word in it. That should help. If you have trouble doing this, let me know and I will help you.

Kathi

July 26, 2011 at 3:21 am#253769

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 25 2011,20:17)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 25 2011,11:39)

That is correct, Kathi.

So, since “the dead” is not Jesus' Father, what do you make of Rev 1:5? The phrase TRULY CAN BE “of the dead”, as I've showed you from various, reputable translations.

So, when reading ONE OF THOSE TRANSLATIONS, how would you understand the fact that Jesus is “the firstborn of the dead”?

Like I said before – it's time to let your truthful nature shine, Kathi. How would you HONESTLY understand that phrase when it includes the word “OF”?

Mike,
The NET translators know who Jesus' Father is and they know it is not all creation. They translate Rev 1:5 accurately. The Greek word 'ek' has more than one translation. “Of” is not the correct translation in those 3 verse.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Col 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,

This 'ek' preposition is found in Col 1:17 and this is what is said about it:

1537 ek (a preposition, written eks before a vowel) – properly, “out from and to” (the outcome); out from within. 1537 /ek (“out of”) is one of the most under-translated (and therefore mis-translated) Greek propositions – often being confined to the meaning “by.” 1537 (ek) has a two-layered meaning (“out from and to”) which makes it out-come oriented (out of the depths of the source and extending to its impact on the object).

Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ – the faithful 18 witness, 19 the firstborn from among the dead, the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has set us free 20 from our sins at the cost of 21 his own blood

If the statements contain the word 'of' then the parents of Jesus would be ALL creation and that's a lot of parents.

Also, the dead would make a lot of parents, too.

“Of” is not the right choice.

Kathi

July 26, 2011 at 3:21 am#253770

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2011,20:35)

Quote (terraricca @ July 25 2011,20:27)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2011,15:15)

Pierre,
Love is the perfect bond of unity. Love is to be in all.

Col 3:14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.

Kathi

there are many different sorts of love ,which one is it ?

Kathi

why are you making so a big fuss about answering my question ?

is it so difficult?

Pierre

July 26, 2011 at 3:43 am#253775

Participant

Pierre,
No, it is not difficult at all for me to answer that. I want it to be easy for you also to find the answer to these simple questions without asking people. I want you to be able to study the Bible so that you won't have to ask.

Go here and see the Greek word that is used for 'love' in that verse:
http://biblos.com/colossians/3-14.htm
Find out what Strong's number is for 'love' and put it in the Strong's number box on this site:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/
There you can see more info about the word and also you can click on the list of the books of the Bible to see the verses that have that Greek word translated in them.

Keep those references handy, they are very helpful!

Kathi

July 26, 2011 at 4:03 am#253778

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2011,21:43)

Keep those references handy, they are very helpful!

Kathi

but I know the answer ,this is why i ask you because it seems you do not in this case want to show the Greek word with the different type of love attache to it ,

so which love is it ;friendly love ?
Mother love ?
brother Love?
fathers love ??
romantic love ?
power love ?
material love ?
childish love?
love based on principals ?
or ?

so what you say ?

July 26, 2011 at 4:08 am#253779

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2011,20:33)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 25 2011,20:20)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 24 2011,22:24)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 23 2011,22:19)

Mike,

Quote

Kathi, we are also said to be ONE with the Father.

Where?

Mike,
Did you answer this and I missed it or did you not answer this yet?

Kathi

John 17

Wrong, it says no such thing in John 17, Mike.

Kathi

Jn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Jn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Jn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Pierre

July 26, 2011 at 4:31 am#253785

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ July 25 2011,21:21)

If the statements contain the word 'of' then the parents of Jesus would be ALL creation and that's a lot of parents.

Also, the dead would make a lot of parents, too.

“Of” is not the right choice.

Kathi,

Exactly how many times DOES the NETBible translate “ek” as “of”?

And my question wasn't which translation of “ek” is the right choice. I have shown proof from REPUTABLE Bibles that the word “ek” in Rev 1:5 CAN BE translated as “OF”.

Now, my question is if you were reading one of THOSE Bibles, and came across the “OF” in Rev 1:5, WHAT WOULD YOU TAKE IT TO MEAN?

In other words, would you SERIOUSLY understand it to mean that ALL OF THE DEAD PEOPLE were the father of Jesus? SERIOUSLY?

July 26, 2011 at 6:27 pm#253833

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 24 2011,09:12)

Kathi, would it make sense to you if GOD HIMSELF was called “the firstborn of all creation”?

Mike

Why not since you say that Jesus is part of creation and all things including Jesus was brought forth from the Father.

See how wacked your doctrine is!

July 26, 2011 at 6:35 pm#253834

Participant

Bump

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,12:20)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2011,11:08)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,11:05)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2011,09:57)

Since you say that the “Nature” of the Father is a “Spirit being” implying that all “Spirit beings” have the nature of God, which is “DIVINE” then to be consistent with using your own words then you are saying…

“Now, what exactly is the “nature” of God Almighty? He is a Spirit Being, right? So Jesus, His Son, is a DIFFERENT spirit being that shares a nature with his Father [and with satan and demons who are also Spirit beings]”.

Is that right Mike?

Yes Keith,

That is correct. Just as you and I share the SAME EXACT NATURE as human beings, yet YOU are evil and I am good.

You know I'm kidding, but do you get the point? Having a spirit nature doesn't preclude that being from having an evil disposition.

peace,
mike

Mike

Your doctrine is puke, for now you have to resort to saying that the Father has the same nature as satan and demons to support your sick beliefs!

Anathema!

Come on Keith,

That's a little harsh, don't you think?

Would you have us believe that Satan is NOT a spirit being like the God who brought him forth?

HA HA

God brought him forth like he was “Born”? Is that what you mean?

So let me hear it Mike, let me hear you say “satan has the same nature as the Father God“.

July 26, 2011 at 6:44 pm#253835

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,13:20)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2011,11:43)

So satan is the “exact representation of the Fathers image”?

Is satan the “Image of the invisible God”?

Is satan a “Begotten Son of God”?

No, no and no.

But is Satan a SPIRIT BEING, just like the God who created him? YES. Therefore Satan shares his spirit nature with the God who brought him forth.

Keith, it is amusing that you go full bore when it comes to showing all the ways Jesus is different from the OTHER angels of God, but you come to a full halt when it comes to all the scriptures that show how the God OF Jesus is different from him.

HaHa Mike

Please tell us how Jesus is different than the Father in nature?

Remember if you find any difference in nature then you deny Pauls words in Col 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3!

Are the Angels the “image of the invisible God” or “the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person”?

July 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm#253836

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 16 2011,14:20)

Mike,
Think of flesh beings…are all flesh beings the same…NO! Are you the same flesh being as the moo cow, or how about the horsey? Not all spirit beings are the same either. Two are of divine nature-the Father and the Son, the angels have their own nature, still spirit beings but not the same kind as the Father and the Son.

This is not hard.
God bless,
Kathi
(more later…I have some errands to run)

Kathi

Exactly!

The word “monogenes” means…

“single of its kind, only” Source And Source

Therefore there is no “other” of the kind the Father and Jesus are.

He is the Fathers “only single of its kind” Son! No man or angel is ever called “only single of its kind” so therefore he could not be an Angel!

But watch Mike do some more dancing!

Blessings!

Keith

July 26, 2011 at 8:11 pm#253839

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:35)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2011,14:11)

Animals, fish, birds, and humans are all of the same “species”.
Just like he is saying “demons, satan, angels, the Father and Jesus are all part of the “Spirit Species”.

Okay Keith,

Show me the scripture that teaches that angels are of, let's say, “bird flesh” and demons are of “fish flesh”.

Is there any scripture that implies there are different natures of spirit beings?

Mike

First of all there are different species of beings in the flesh. In the animal kingdom there are dogs, cats, donkeys etc.
So yes there are different natures of spirit beings in the spirit world.

Besides what the scriptures already tell you, Jesus is the “only single of his kind” Son of God there are also “cherubim” and “seraphim” mentioned in the scriptures.

Seraphim
Literally “burning ones”, the word is normally a synonym for serpents when used in the Hebrew Bible, but they are mentioned in the Book of Isaiah as fiery six-winged beings which praise God while encircling His throne. This can be seen in Revelation 4:8 “Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.”” They are mentioned as celestial beings in an influential Hellenistic work, the non-canonical Book of Enoch, and a little later in the canonical Book of Revelation. They occupy the fifth of ten ranks of the hierarchy of angels in medieval and modern Judaism, and the highest rank in the Christian angelic hierarchy. Source

Cherubim
Cherubim are mentioned in the Torah (five books of Moses), the Book of Ezekiel, and the Book of Isaiah. They are also mentioned in the books of 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, and 2 Chronicles mainly in the construction of the House of God. There is only one mention in the New Testament, in Hebrews 9:5, referring to the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant.
The prophet Ezekiel describes cherubim as a tetrad of living creatures, each having four faces: of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. They are said to have the stature and hands of a man, feet of a calf, and four wings each. Two of the wings extended upward, meeting above and sustaining the throne of God; while the other two stretched downward and covered the creatures themselves. In the Christian New Testament similar beings are mentioned in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation. Source

Now compare them with John’s vision of Jesus…

And in the midst of the seven candlesticks “one like unto the Son of man”, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. Rev 1:13-16

Does Jesus appear to be anything like the Seraphim or the Cherubim?

But the key is John identifies Jesus as the glorified “Son of man”. Meaning Jesus is still a man and not an angel.

And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. Rev 14:14

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:56

Are angels “sons of men” Mike?

Is Jesus still the “Son of Man” Mike?

If not then how can you call him brother if he is not still human?

For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for* the sins of the people. Heb 2:17

If Jesus is not a “glorified man” then how can he still make atonement for our sins? How can his blood still wash away our sin?

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, Heb 10:19, 20

God the Father knew you and chose you long ago, and his Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed him and have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ. May God give you more and more grace and peace. 1 Peter 1:2

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and “the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 1 John 1:7

The Greek word for “Purifies” (KJV cleanseth) is “katharizō” and it is in the “present tense” and the “active voice” meaning his blood is alive and did not see corruption but is still available to cleanse and purify those who confess their sin. 1 John 1:9

July 26, 2011 at 8:11 pm#253840

KangarooJack

Participant

WJ wrote:

Quote

But watch Mike do some more dancing!

btw, the ending “genes” is a form of “genos” which means “kind.” The LXX uses the word in the Genesis account where God said,

“Let each bring forth after its own kind” (genos).

This means that Christ is to be distinguished from angels and from mankind as Mike himself has said (April 2010). If Christ is literally begotten and He is an angel, then God is an angel because Christ is God's kind.

Mike will do his usual flip flops

Jack

July 26, 2011 at 8:30 pm#253841

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 21 2011,19:35)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 21 2011,17:43)

TO ALL,

There you have it! Mike says that “begotten” distinguishes Jesus from angels and from mankind!

It distinguishes Jesus from the OTHER angels, Jack. What's your point again?

The point is Jesus is the “only, single of its kind” Son of God.

That means there is no other like him just as there is no other like the Father.

For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that “THERE IS NONE LIKE ME IN ALL THE EARTH”. Exod 9:14

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and ”THERE IS NONE LIKE ME”, Isa 46:9

But you will probably say I take those scriptures too literal!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 21 2011,19:35)

You asked, “What other 'kind' is there?”

Do you really think there is only “Godkind” or “Angelkind”?

Well there is mankind, animal kind, satan kind and demon kind also.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 21 2011,19:35)

Can't Jesus be something in between the two?

There it is folks; Mike is inferring Jesus can be something in between God and the angels or man.

So Jesus being the “Only begotten Son of God” means in nature Jesus is some sort of half-breed or demi-god or a freak of nature!

The JW doctrine is heresy and stinks to high heaven!

July 26, 2011 at 8:33 pm#253843