- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,15:17) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,15:13) Quote (Ed J @ April 27 2010,02:36) Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2010,15:22) Quote …the sonship of THE Son of God: He began being a son in Mary.
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
He began being a son at the resurrection.So, I assume that Nick votes for (He began being a son at the Jordan baptism). How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
Hi LU,These (three) are all “Fractally” true.
He began being a son in Mary. (Isaiah 7:14 / Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism. (Heb.7:28 / John 1:14-15 / John 12:49)
He began being a son at the resurrection. (Rom.1:4)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EdJ,I don't think that it was cool for you to give a half quote of my list. You took out two other choices, you took out the numbers of my list and you took out the number in what I said to Nick and added words. That must be a violation of board rules, I'm not sure, but we can ask Nick. Anyway, that appears very manipulative and dishonest whether it was or not.
Here is my original post:
Quote Posted: April 25 2010,23:22
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 25 2010,23:05)
Hi LU,
The sonship we can follow him into brotherhood is only that of the Jordan.
We must be reborn from above.Quote
The way that I see it is this:
These are the opinions on HN about the sonship of THE Son of God:1.He was begotten as in born of God and not created before creation.
2.He was created directly by God and then all things were created through the first one that was created.
3. He began being a son in Mary.
4. He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
5. He began being a son at the resurrection.When we let God show us truth in this, that is when we can begin a true knowledge of the Father and the Son. This is a vital foundational truth.
So, I assume that Nick votes for #4. How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
found here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=640
Nick,
As the moderator, would you consider this as a violation of board rules? Are we allowed to remove the parts of another persons quote or change it?
KathiI agree with you. He had done this to me several times and it was very frustrating!
WJ
Thanks Nick and Keith!
That misrepresentation of other's posts has to stop. I wonder if tiles would be given? That might stop this behavior. I don't want to scare away Ed J but hopefully he will stop doing that now and he won't have to receive tiles for it.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,17:09) Thanks Nick and Keith! That misrepresentation of other's posts has to stop. I wonder if tiles would be given? That might stop this behavior. I don't want to scare away Ed J but hopefully he will stop doing that now and he won't have to receive tiles for it.
SureHowever I think you left out one option.
He was the Word that was with God and was God (who has no beginning) and became a Son of God when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 27 2010,17:42) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,17:09) Thanks Nick and Keith! That misrepresentation of other's posts has to stop. I wonder if tiles would be given? That might stop this behavior. I don't want to scare away Ed J but hopefully he will stop doing that now and he won't have to receive tiles for it.
SureHowever I think you left out one option.
He was the Word that was with God and was God (who has no beginning) and became a Son of God when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man.
WJ
Hi Keith,
The list was about when He began His 'Sonship' and I thought of you when I listed #3 because before Mary, you say that He was not a Son. Isn't that correct?Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 27 2010,19:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,14:27) I'm going to answer your points, after which you can choose to respond or not.
I'll pass.
Hi Paul,That's okay. I was afraid I might have turned up too much heat on you all at once. Next time we talk, I'll take baby steps.
peace and love to you,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ April 28 2010,07:13) 1.He was begotten as in born of God and not created before creation.
2.He was created directly by God and then all things were created through the first one that was created.
3. He began being a son in Mary.
4. He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
5. He began being a son at the resurrection.
Hi Kathi,I vote for 1 and/or 2. Both created and begotten boil down to “caused to exist”. Jesus says he was “the only begotten Son of God”, but he also says he is the “beginning of the creation of God”. John calls him “the only begotten god” and Paul calls him the “firstborn of all creation”. Either way you word it, Jesus clearly came from God before the creation of the heavens and the earth. It was at that time he became God's Son.
peace and love,
mikeHi Kathi,
I didn't get an answer yet and just wanted to make sure you saw my post. Whether the “educated guess” as to why the tetragrammaton was changed to adonai is correct or not, the fact remains the in the oldest manuscripts, the tetragrammaton was used.
In 134 places the Jewish Sopherim (scribes) altered the original Hebrew text from YHWH to ’Adho‧nai′. Gins.Mas, Vol. IV, p. 28, § 115, says: “We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS. and early editions read the Tetragrammaton,
Gen 19:18 is one of those places. So originally, it read,
18 Then Lot said to them: “Not that, please, Jehovah!
How do you answer to that?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2010,13:33) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 27 2010,19:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,14:27) I'm going to answer your points, after which you can choose to respond or not.
I'll pass.
Hi Paul,That's okay. I was afraid I might have turned up too much heat on you all at once. Next time we talk, I'll take baby steps.
peace and love to you,
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ April 28 2010,07:13) Quote (Ed J @ April 27 2010,02:36) Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2010,15:22) Quote …the sonship of THE Son of God: He began being a son in Mary.
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
He began being a son at the resurrection.So, I assume that Nick votes for (He began being a son at the Jordan baptism). How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
Hi LU,These (three) are all “Fractally” true.
He began being a son in Mary. (Isaiah 7:14 / Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism. (Heb.7:28 / John 1:14-15 / John 12:49)
He began being a son at the resurrection. (Rom.1:4)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EdJ,I don't think that it was cool for you to give a half quote of my list. You took out two other choices, you took out the numbers of my list and you took out the number in what I said to Nick and added words. That must be a violation of board rules, I'm not sure, but we can ask Nick. Anyway, that appears very manipulative and dishonest whether it was or not.
Here is my original post:
Quote Posted: April 25 2010,23:22
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 25 2010,23:05)
Hi LU,
The sonship we can follow him into brotherhood is only that of the Jordan.
We must be reborn from above.Quote
The way that I see it is this:
These are the opinions on HN about the sonship of THE Son of God:1.He was begotten as in born of God and not created before creation.
2.He was created directly by God and then all things were created through the first one that was created.
3. He began being a son in Mary.
4. He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
5. He began being a son at the resurrection.When we let God show us truth in this, that is when we can begin a true knowledge of the Father and the Son. This is a vital foundational truth.
So, I assume that Nick votes for #4. How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
found here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=640
Hi Kathi,I was NOT referring to the first two (as you called them options) you Posted!
Are you suggesting that we should always Post the entire quote Posted instead of what we want to address?Are you familiar with the 'fairness doctrine'? A way (for you, Kathi) to 'censor' apposing views!
Quote (Lightenup @ April 28 2010,09:09) Thanks Nick and Keith! That misrepresentation of other's posts has to stop. I wonder if tiles would be given? That might stop this behavior. I don't want to scare away Ed J but hopefully he will stop doing that now and he won't have to receive tiles for it.
Hi Kathi,So you believe in 'censorship' is that right?
Article 1 of the Constitution of the U.S.A. says (in essence) NO law may be enacted to limit “Free Speech”!What country do you live in Kathi and you too WJ for that matter?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 28 2010,12:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 27 2010,17:42) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,17:09) Thanks Nick and Keith! That misrepresentation of other's posts has to stop. I wonder if tiles would be given? That might stop this behavior. I don't want to scare away Ed J but hopefully he will stop doing that now and he won't have to receive tiles for it.
SureHowever I think you left out one option.
He was the Word that was with God and was God (who has no beginning) and became a Son of God when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man.
WJ
Hi Keith,
The list was about when He began His 'Sonship' and I thought of you when I listed #3 because before Mary, you say that He was not a Son. Isn't that correct?
Hi Kathi,I thought you would have been glad the someone responded to what you had proposed!
Would you rather that I just ignore you like you don't even exist; Kathi?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 28 2010,09:42) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,17:09) Thanks Nick and Keith! That misrepresentation of other's posts has to stop. I wonder if tiles would be given? That might stop this behavior. I don't want to scare away Ed J but hopefully he will stop doing that now and he won't have to receive tiles for it.
SureHowever I think you left out one option.
He was the Word that was with God and was God (who has no beginning) and became a Son of God when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man.
WJ
To ALL,Here is a quote from the home Page of this site…
“The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem
controversial to some religiously bound people(Like WJ and LightenUp). The idea is to do God's will and
shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man.
This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and
minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others.
There is NO PROBLEM testing ALL doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones(of WJ and Kathi)).”The systems of religion and traditions of men (believed by BOTH Kathi and WJ)
communicate… distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.For Kathi Click here
Quote (Ed J @ April 28 2010,06:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 28 2010,09:42) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,17:09) Thanks Nick and Keith! That misrepresentation of other's posts has to stop. I wonder if tiles would be given? That might stop this behavior. I don't want to scare away Ed J but hopefully he will stop doing that now and he won't have to receive tiles for it.
SureHowever I think you left out one option.
He was the Word that was with God and was God (who has no beginning) and became a Son of God when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man.
WJ
To ALL,Here is a quote from the home Page of this site…
“The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem
controversial to some religiously bound people(Like WJ and LightenUp). The idea is to do God's will and
shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man.
This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and
minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others.
There is NO PROBLEM testing ALL doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones(of WJ and Kathi)).”The systems of religion and traditions of men (believed by BOTH Kathi and WJ)
communicate… distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.
Yes EveryoneMake sure that you only listen to EDj for he is the only one around here that has the truth. Don't forget Edj claims that he is personally written about in the scriptures!
His accusations line up with satan who is the accuser of the brethren.
When you took out the numbers of her post, you changed it!
Ed you have changed the wording of my post in the past and that is what kathi is talking about! Its like taking part of a sentence out of its context and expounding on it.
It is disengenous.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 29 2010,02:47) Quote (Ed J @ April 28 2010,06:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 28 2010,09:42) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,17:09) Thanks Nick and Keith! That misrepresentation of other's posts has to stop. I wonder if tiles would be given? That might stop this behavior. I don't want to scare away Ed J but hopefully he will stop doing that now and he won't have to receive tiles for it.
SureHowever I think you left out one option.
He was the Word that was with God and was God (who has no beginning) and became a Son of God when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man.
WJ
To ALL,Here is a quote from the home Page of this site…
“The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem
controversial to some religiously bound people(Like WJ and LightenUp). The idea is to do God's will and
shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man.
This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and
minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others.
There is NO PROBLEM testing ALL doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones(of WJ and Kathi)).”The systems of religion and traditions of men (believed by BOTH Kathi and WJ)
communicate… distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.
Yes EveryoneMake sure that you only listen to EDj for he is the only one around here that has the truth. Don't forget Edj claims that he is personally written about in the scriptures!
His accusations line up with satan who is the accuser of the brethren.
When you took out the numbers of her post, you changed it!
Ed you have changed the wording of my post in the past and that is what kathi is talking about! Its like taking part of a sentence out of its context and expounding on it.
It is disengenous.
WJ
Hi WJ,Isn't that what a lot of people here do with “The Bible”?
Are your words any more special than God's?Quote (Ed J @ April 28 2010,05:30) Quote (Lightenup @ April 28 2010,07:13) Quote (Ed J @ April 27 2010,02:36) Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2010,15:22) Quote …the sonship of THE Son of God: He began being a son in Mary.
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
He began being a son at the resurrection.So, I assume that Nick votes for (He began being a son at the Jordan baptism). How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
Hi LU,These (three) are all “Fractally” true.
He began being a son in Mary. (Isaiah 7:14 / Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
He began being a son at the Jordan baptism. (Heb.7:28 / John 1:14-15 / John 12:49)
He began being a son at the resurrection. (Rom.1:4)God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EdJ,I don't think that it was cool for you to give a half quote of my list. You took out two other choices, you took out the numbers of my list and you took out the number in what I said to Nick and added words. That must be a violation of board rules, I'm not sure, but we can ask Nick. Anyway, that appears very manipulative and dishonest whether it was or not.
Here is my original post:
Quote Posted: April 25 2010,23:22
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 25 2010,23:05)
Hi LU,
The sonship we can follow him into brotherhood is only that of the Jordan.
We must be reborn from above.Quote
The way that I see it is this:
These are the opinions on HN about the sonship of THE Son of God:1.He was begotten as in born of God and not created before creation.
2.He was created directly by God and then all things were created through the first one that was created.
3. He began being a son in Mary.
4. He began being a son at the Jordan baptism.
5. He began being a son at the resurrection.When we let God show us truth in this, that is when we can begin a true knowledge of the Father and the Son. This is a vital foundational truth.
So, I assume that Nick votes for #4. How about the rest of you? What is your vote?
found here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=640
Hi Kathi,I was NOT referring to the first two (as you called them options) you Posted!
Are you suggesting that we should always Post the entire quote Posted instead of what we want to address?Are you familiar with the 'fairness doctrine'? A way (for you, Kathi) to 'censor' apposing views!
Ed J,I believe that the last line in this commentary that you posted said something like “If government really wants to help people, it will pass the honesty doctrine.” That I can support. I am not against you opposing my views Ed J, and I believe in free speech. What I oppose is those who are a false witness and misrepresent others views. I didn't say it was necessary to quote several conversations but sometimes that is helpful. In this case, I just expect to have the complete thought quoted, not changed like you did. You could quote my whole list including the reason for the list and still pick your three options to speak your mind. Do you see my point? What if someone quoted you but took out all YOUR NUMBERS and half of your thought. Wouldn't you be just a little ticked off? In the future, if you want to quote my post, then quote the entire post without your manipulation of it, i.e. italicizing part of it, coloring part of it, eliminating part of it, bolding what I didn't make bold, adding to it…you have been guilty of almost all of that within your last several pages on this thread towards my words alone. Keith says that you have been doing that to him also.
I am just asking you to have some integrity when you quote someone. I realize that quoting a part of someone's post can be reasonable and without misrepresentation and with integrity to respect that person's freedom of speech. When you change people's exact quotes by eliminating parts of the complete thought, or structure, that can be misleading.
Mike did a much better job at quoting the list that I presented although he could have added what the list was about. You can see that he only discussed two of the items on the list, he still quoted the whole list.
So, Ed J, I think that I would have been somewhat impressed if you had just admitted to hacking up my list and apologizing rather than the self-righteous approach that you took while slinging derogatory names at me. Humility is always a better way when you can clearly see that someone is ticked off at you for doing something like misrepresenting their quotes when it is easy to prove that you actually did do that.
If you still do not see that this is wrong then maybe we need to include t8 in giving us his opinion. One of us has their wires crossed!! Maybe it will take the moderator to be the 'electrician.'
Quote (Ed J @ April 28 2010,11:47) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 29 2010,02:47) Quote (Ed J @ April 28 2010,06:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 28 2010,09:42) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2010,17:09) Thanks Nick and Keith! That misrepresentation of other's posts has to stop. I wonder if tiles would be given? That might stop this behavior. I don't want to scare away Ed J but hopefully he will stop doing that now and he won't have to receive tiles for it.
SureHowever I think you left out one option.
He was the Word that was with God and was God (who has no beginning) and became a Son of God when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man.
WJ
To ALL,Here is a quote from the home Page of this site…
“The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem
controversial to some religiously bound people(Like WJ and LightenUp). The idea is to do God's will and
shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man.
This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and
minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others.
There is NO PROBLEM testing ALL doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones(of WJ and Kathi)).”The systems of religion and traditions of men (believed by BOTH Kathi and WJ)
communicate… distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.
Yes EveryoneMake sure that you only listen to EDj for he is the only one around here that has the truth. Don't forget Edj claims that he is personally written about in the scriptures!
His accusations line up with satan who is the accuser of the brethren.
When you took out the numbers of her post, you changed it!
Ed you have changed the wording of my post in the past and that is what kathi is talking about! Its like taking part of a sentence out of its context and expounding on it.
It is disengenous.
WJ
Hi WJ,Isn't that what a lot of people here do with “The Bible”?
Are your words any more special than God's?
EDWrong!
The Bible is open source to all the public. You can misquote it and be called out for it. If you do not see the difference then you have a problem.
But when you purposely change the post that someone makes by rearanging what they said or quoting them out of context or with a part sentence then that is wrong.
You cannot just change the format of someones post and make it look or sound different than what was posted so that it makes you look better or supports you.
Its almost the same thing when you number their sentences and respond because it is a diversionary tactic IMO that makes it harder to read and give you an edge because the reader is reading your response without it being in light of the one you are responding too.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ April 29 2010,07:14) I am just asking you to have some integrity when you quote someone. I realize that quoting a part of someone's post can be reasonable and without misrepresentation and with integrity to respect that person's freedom of speech. When you change people's exact quotes by eliminating parts of the complete thought, or structure, that can be misleading…… …So, Ed J, I think that I would have been somewhat impressed if you had just admitted to hacking up my list and apologizing rather than the self-righteous approach that you took while slinging derogatory names at me. Humility is always a better way when you can clearly see that someone is ticked off at you for doing something like misrepresenting their quotes when it is easy to prove that you actually did do that.
Ed I would have to agree with Lu here, (and see how I quoted only part of the post but kept it to the full sentance of what Lu was saying? (And without overquoting)
Calm down Ed, apologise and learn not to do it again.ok?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
