Answering jodi lee's nonsense

[Lightenup]

Hi Mike,
Thanks for your view. I hope I have you questioning your Jehovah is always the Father theory, anyway. Two persons called 'Jehovah' is making more and more sense to me. In fact, I think that Jehovah in the OT is the Son in more instances than realized. I know that you don't realize this, but many do.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 12 2010,11:42)

Hi Mike, Thanks for your view.  I hope I have you questioning your Jehovah is always the Father theory, anyway.  Two persons called 'Jehovah' is making more and more sense to me.  In fact, I think that Jehovah in the OT is the Son in more instances than realized.  I know that you don't realize this, but many do.

What?!?

That's it?  What a cop out, Kathi.  If you first start with the assumption that Jehovah is one, just like He teaches, you will have no problem understanding the scriptures.  You have started with the assumption that Jesus is the Son of Man, therefore you have no problem getting through the sometimes “wierd” way things are worded.  Why can't you do that same thing with the first and third person Jehovahs?

Try it.  Try reading it KNOWING Jehovah is one, and clarity will happen for you.

peace and love,
mike

ps  My colorful post was cooler that yours.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
God gave His name as I AM WHO AM.
Was it a chorus of voices or should it have been WE ARE WHO ARE?

[mikeboll64]

Bump for Paul

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 09 2010,16:36)

Huh? I didn't realise I had an obligation to follow you around the threads answering your inane and ill-conceived questions. I thought KJ, WJ and LU answered you pretty well, what do you want from me exactly?

Hi Paul,

I thought you'd never ask!  What I want from you is:  1.  Read

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father,

2.  Answer

Considering the “before all the ages”, do you think that this man who was considered to be “the greatest Greek teacher and most learned theologian” of his day thought “prototokos pasa ktisis” meant (a)”preeminent over mankind” or (b) “firstborn of every creature”?

Considering the use of “genao”, do you think this same man thought “monogenes” meant (a)”unique” or (b) “only begotten”?

Thanks in advance for your HONEST answers.  

You said:

Quote

I've been waiting for you to prove to me that the El Shaddai references in Genesis speak exclusively of the Father of Yeshua. Where are you at with that?

I think it would be an exercise in futility.  You want to say that some of the mentions are of the Son.  I could make the same non-supported claims that some were the pre-flesh Apostle Paul.  Or Melchizadek.  Or Mary the Magdalene.  It's a stupid game, and I don't want to play it.  

There is no basis in scripture at all to assume that Jesus, who was begotten by the Almighty, and the beginning of the creation of the Almighty, and who still is a servant of the Almighty and calls the Amighty our God and his God, the only true God, and in Rev calls the Almighty “my God” could actually BE the Almighty.  

It would be like me asking you to PROVE that every time Jesus is mentioned in the Gospels, it was really him mentioned.

If you want to play this stupid game that will prove nothing for either side, you start.  You show me the “Almighty” that refers to the Son, and I'll see if I agree there is ample scriptural evidence to support that claim.

On the other hand, you have personally claimed to me that “prototokos pasa ktisis” and “monogenes” had nothing to do with the beginning of the Son.  So I feel you are obligated to comment on the Eusebius letter.  And please don't stray or cloud up the issue like those who you think “answered me pretty well” but who, in reality have yet to even answer the questions.  Please just answer the questions based on the letter he wrote.

peace and love,
mike

[Is 1:18]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 12 2010,14:54)

Bump for Paul Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 09 2010,16:36) Huh? I didn't realise I had an obligation to follow you around the threads answering your inane and ill-conceived questions. I thought KJ, WJ and LU answered you pretty well, what do you want from me exactly? Hi Paul, I thought you'd never ask!  What I want from you is:  1.  Read We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, 2.  Answer Considering the “before all the ages”, do you think that this man who was considered to be “the greatest Greek teacher and most learned theologian” of his day thought “prototokos pasa ktisis” meant (a)”preeminent over mankind” or (b) “firstborn of every creature”? Considering the use of “genao”, do you think this same man thought “monogenes” meant (a)”unique” or (b) “only begotten”? Thanks in advance for your HONEST answers.

My honest answer is – I have no idea. I haven't looked into it. I don't see how an appeal to authority has any bearing on the author's intended conveyance anyway. As KJ has already pointed out (and you should have heeded) it's the context of the passage that should be preeminent in forming an interpretation. The “the greatest Greek teacher and most learned theologian of his day” (a very contentious issue, BTW) is a human. As far as i'm aware there's only been one perfect one and it's not Eusebius.

Quote

I think it would be an exercise in futility.  You want to say that some of the mentions are of the Son.  I could make the same non-supported claims that some were the pre-flesh Apostle Paul.  Or Melchizadek.  Or Mary the Magdalene.  It's a stupid game, and I don't want to play it.   There is no basis in scripture at all to assume that Jesus, who was begotten by the Almighty, and the beginning of the creation of the Almighty, and who still is a servant of the Almighty and calls the Amighty our God and his God, the only true God, and in Rev calls the Almighty “my God” could actually BE the Almighty.   It would be like me asking you to PROVE that every time Jesus is mentioned in the Gospels, it was really him mentioned. If you want to play this stupid game that will prove nothing for either side, you start.  You show me the “Almighty” that refers to the Son, and I'll see if I agree there is ample scriptural evidence to support that claim. On the other hand, you have personally claimed to me that “prototokos pasa ktisis” and “monogenes” had nothing to do with the beginning of the Son.  So I feel you are obligated to comment on the Eusebius letter.  And please don't stray or cloud up the issue like those who you think “answered me pretty well” but who, in reality have yet to even answer the questions.  Please just answer the questions based on the letter he wrote.

It's always going to be an exercise in futility for you if you borrow watchtower arguments that cannot be defended.

Critical thinking R.I.P

[mikeboll64]

Is wrote:

[/quote]
Okay, Mr. $5 words.

Should I dumb it down for you?  He thought Jesus was the firstborn of all creation BEFORE ALL THE AGES.  How could that possibly have meant “preeminent over mankind”?

You haven't looked into it?  Well, look.  It's right there in front of you.

And I agree that Eusebius was only a man.  I'm not asking you to agree with his view, only that in about 325 A.D., a noted Greek speaking theologian that WJ touted as a prominent member of the Nicene Council, thought “prototokos pasa ktisis” to mean “firstborn of all creation”.

I love it that your idea of proof is something that is impossible for either of us to prove.  But when I throw this quote at you guys, you can't even be honest enough to say, “Yep, it sure looks like that's what he thought.”  I also love it when you bring up the Watchtower.  To me, that is the signal that you cannot refute my interpretation of scripture logically, so your only recourse is to apply what is the equivalent of a bigotted racial slur.

Be honest, Paul.  How do you think Eusebius read “prototokos pasa ktisis”?

peace and love,
mike

[Is 1:18]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,12:48)

Is wrote: [/quote] Okay, Mr. $5 words. Should I dumb it down for you?  He thought Jesus was the firstborn of all creation BEFORE ALL THE AGES.  How could that possibly have meant “preeminent over mankind”? You haven't looked into it?  Well, look.  It's right there in front of you.

It could be taken to mean preeminent over creation, even before all ages. Why not? In the same sense He was the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” before he was crucified. It's common for Yeshua to be spoken about in a predictive or prophetic manner.

Quote

your only recourse is to apply what is the equivalent of a bigotted racial slur.

What rubbish. Stop being a girl's blouse.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2010,21:36)

Hi LU, God gave His name as I AM WHO AM. Was it a chorus of voices or should it have been WE ARE WHO ARE?

Nick,
They both are who they are. Sometimes they are quoted as speaking amongst themselves and we see things like Gen 1:26-27. Then when speaking to the people, there is one spokesperson.

Gen 1:26-27
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
NASU

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 13 2010,13:17)

It could be taken to mean preeminent over creation, even before all ages. Why not? In the same sense He was the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” before he was crucified.

First, John the Baptist had a deeper knowledge of who Jesus was, is and would be than anyone else alive at that time. Second, he said “takes” not “has taken”, so it hadn't actually happened yet, and John never implies that it did. Third, Roo insist that “pasa ktisis” ALWAYS refers to makind only in the NT. Do you disagree with him? If so, I find it funny that you derided me for not taking his great conjecture to heart during out debate.

mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 11 2010,21:16)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 12 2010,11:42) Hi Mike, Thanks for your view.  I hope I have you questioning your Jehovah is always the Father theory, anyway.  Two persons called 'Jehovah' is making more and more sense to me.  In fact, I think that Jehovah in the OT is the Son in more instances than realized.  I know that you don't realize this, but many do. What?!? That's it?  What a cop out, Kathi.  If you first start with the assumption that Jehovah is one, just like He teaches, you will have no problem understanding the scriptures.  You have started with the assumption that Jesus is the Son of Man, therefore you have no problem getting through the sometimes “wierd” way things are worded.  Why can't you do that same thing with the first and third person Jehovahs? Try it.  Try reading it KNOWING Jehovah is one, and clarity will happen for you. peace and love, mike ps  My colorful post was cooler that yours.

Hi Mike,
To you it is a cop-out, to me it is accepting that we both have different premises. Mine is that the Father gave His name Jehovah to His Son also and yours is that Jehovah is only the Father. When I find one Jehovah sending the other, you will say that it is the first person, third person who are both the same or you will claim that it is really an angel. It seems pointless to strive over and therefore I just appreciate your view but don't agree with it.

Your colorful post was prettier, I'll give you that. You can see that I would not have colored it that way though.

I'm working on the whole father giving the son his name thing…look for it sooner or later. It is quite a tradition!

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 13 2010,13:30)

When I find one Jehovah sending the other, you will say that it is the first person, third person who are both the same or you will claim that it is really an angel.

Hi Kathi,

So you disagree with my post of Zec 2? Why? Why would God Almighty ever be SENT by anyone? Does that even make sense to you?

mike

[Is 1:18]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,13:27)

First, John the Baptist had a deeper knowledge of who Jesus was, is and would be than anyone else alive at that time.  Second, he said “takes” not “has taken”, so it hadn't actually happened yet, and John never implies that it did.

This supports my point.

Quote

Third, Roo insist that “pasa ktisis” ALWAYS refers to makind only in the NT. Do you disagree with him?

I don't know. I haven't looked into it.

Quote

If so, I find it funny that you derided me for not taking his great conjecture to heart during out debate.

What are you talking about?

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 12 2010,21:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 13 2010,13:30) When I find one Jehovah sending the other, you will say that it is the first person, third person who are both the same or you will claim that it is really an angel. Hi Kathi, So you disagree with my post of Zec 2?  Why?  Why would God Almighty ever be SENT by anyone?  Does that even make sense to you? mike

Mike,
Jesus does send the Father when He sends the Comforter.

John 15:26
26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
NASU

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 13 2010,13:41)

Mike, Jesus does send the Father when He sends the Comforter. John 15:26 26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, NASU

You ended the bold letters one word too soon. It is not THE FATHER, but FROM the Father.

Come on Kathi. Do you honestly think that Almighty God gets SENT anywhere by anyone? Don't be silly.

mike

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Is the Father in you? Is it by His spirit that He is in you? Who sent Him? I already told you.

John 15:26
26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
NASU

Or do you think the Spirit of Truth is a third person?

[Is 1:18]

No doubt Mike will think the Holy Spirit is God's active force…..

[mikeboll64]

When I first started talking with you, I called you “brother”.  You indignantly replied that you are NO brother of mine.  Then you told how you followed my debate with Jack and think I'm “stupid” (I don't know the exact word you used) because he has PROVEN his point to me and he is right that I am obstinate.  You don't remember?

And now after that speech you gave me, you say you “haven't looked into” the PROOF that I should have so easily believed from Jack?      

You're something else, man.  Really though, tell me your HONEST thoughts on the Eusebius letter.  If there was no creation, how could Jesus be preeminent over it?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 13 2010,13:59)

Mike, Is the Father in you?  Is it by His spirit that He is in you?  Who sent Him?  I already told you. John 15:26 26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, NASU Or do you think the Spirit of Truth is a third person?

Come on Kathi – be real.

God sends us the rays of the sun to warm us. Does that mean the the sun is actually ON the earth? It clearly says FROM the Father, not I will send THE FATHER.

And yes, Paul. The Holy Spirit IS God's active force, not your only God to go without a throne in New Jerusalem.

mike

[Is 1:18]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,14:02)

When I first started talking with you, I called you “brother”.  You indignantly replied that you are NO brother of mine.

I disagree it was indignant. It wasn't even meant as a perjorative. I was just being honest with you. Your faith is only as valid as the legitimacy of the object of your faith. Since I believe you have invested your faith in a counterfeit Yeshua, you thereby make yourself a counterfeit christian. I would be doing you no favours by encouraging you in your malignant delusion, which of course is what I would be doing if I accepted you as my brother in the Lord.

🙂

Quote

Then you told how you followed my debate with Jack and think I'm “stupid” (I don't know the exact word you used) because he has PROVEN his point to me and he is right that I am obstinate.  You don't remember?

He made some points which you failed to refute, or even tried to address. I didn't call you stupid, but I did make a light jibe about your IQ which wasn't meant to offend.

Quote

And now after that speech you gave me, you say you “haven't looked into” the PROOF that I should have so easily believed from Jack?

Well no. If I was in the debate forum with you I guess I would have as part of the preparation I would need to do for the exchange. As it is you “bumped” posts for me and demanded I answer to them. I'm not obliged to fully research and generate comprehensive replies to posts at your whim Mike.

Quote

You're something else, man.  Really though, tell me your HONEST thoughts on the Eusebius letter.  If there was no creation, how could Jesus be preeminent over it?

I've done that.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,14:06)

And yes, Paul.  The Holy Spirit IS God's active force, not your only God to go without a throne in New Jerusalem.

Bingo!

[Author]

Posts