Attention wj

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 02 2011,12:43)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 03 2011,04:31)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,03:13)

Mike,

If a sculptor takes a big rock being and saws it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?

Suppose the sculptor makes an image of the The Thinker from one half of the rock being and then makes an image of Homer Simpson from the other half. Do the two images become two separate beings? No! They are one being but two individual images existing in two separate forms.

I rest my case.

Jack

Hey Jack,

Even identical twins are different;
your logic then, is severely lacking.
A sculpture can NEVER be 'a being'!

God bless

Ed,

A “being” is anything that exists whether personal or non personal animate or inanimate terrestrial or celestial.

Christ is the EXACT representation of the Father's being. He is the same being as the Father but a different person. Adam and Eve were the same being but different persons. God called both of them “The Adam.”

Jack

t8 and Mike try to make the argument that Adam is in identity not also adam.

Yet Adam is as much a part of humanity as adam.

Therefore adam also “identifies” Adam.

Once again as I said before, if you see a creature that runs on four legs and barks then you would “identify” that animal as a Dog.

What t8 and Mike are trying to argue is the Dog is not a Dog because it isn't the original Dog. Thier logic falls apart.

What is so funny is how Mike has rearanged his questions to include the Title God as if that is Gods name or that the Title only refers to the “One True God”, yet Mike so adamently wanted to argue that “God” does not identify “God” because according to him the definition is simply “ruler”. Seldom does Mike ever refer to the Father by the title Father.

I haven't had time to answer him because I have been real busy here at work, but just thought I would drop this tidbit in.

March 2, 2011 at 9:41 pm#237857

Ed J

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,07:23)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 03 2011,05:17)

Hi Mike,

Jack said:

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,04:43)

A “being” is anything that exists whether personal or non personal animate or inanimate terrestrial or celestial.

I told you Jack defines words in a 'confusing' manor!
That is why you MUST ask him 'how' he is defining
the words he uses to present his beliefs to you.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

What is so confusing about it? A 'being' is anything that has existence.

being 1. existence (Webster's)

being 1. existence as opposed to non-existence (Funk and Wagnall's)

Note that the FIRST definition of the word 'being' by the two lexographers above is 'EXISTENCE.”

Therefore, a rock is a 'being' because it has existence.

If a sculptor takes a big rock being and cuts it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?

What is so hard to understand about this? You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.” My daughter understands this.

SO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ED: DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES?

THESE ARE NOT 'TRICK' QUESTIONS EDDIE BOY.

Hi Jack,

You are being very difficult here, with your strange word usages.
Here's a question: What grade did you attend school to?

“A being” implies life, you seem to overlook this.
A rock is NOT 'a being'! A rock HAS being.
Look up all the other definitions.
Your truth confuses others.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

March 2, 2011 at 9:49 pm#237859

Ed J

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 03 2011,07:41)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,07:23)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 03 2011,05:17)

Hi Mike,

Jack said:

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,04:43)

A “being” is anything that exists whether personal or non personal animate or inanimate terrestrial or celestial.

I told you Jack defines words in a 'confusing' manor!
That is why you MUST ask him 'how' he is defining
the words he uses to present his beliefs to you.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

What is so confusing about it? A 'being' is anything that has existence.

being 1. existence (Webster's)

being 1. existence as opposed to non-existence (Funk and Wagnall's)

Note that the FIRST definition of the word 'being' by the two lexographers above is 'EXISTENCE.”

Therefore, a rock is a 'being' because it has existence.

If a sculptor takes a big rock being and cuts it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?

What is so hard to understand about this? You guys are confused by your own “wisdom.” My daughter understands this.

SO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ED: DOES A ROCK BECOME TWO 'BEINGS' AFTER IT IS CUT IN HALF AND FORMED IN TO TWO INDIVIDUAL IMAGES? OR IS IT THE SAME 'BEING' BUT NOW EXISTING IN TWO SEPARATE SHAPES?

THESE ARE NOT 'TRICK' QUESTIONS EDDIE BOY.

Hi Jack,

You are being very difficult here, with your strange word usages.
Here's a question: What grade did you attend school to?

“A being” implies life, you seem to overlook this.
A rock is NOT 'a being'! A rock HAS being.
Look up all the other definitions.
Your truth confuses others.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Jack,

Why are you saying the same thing on two separate threads? (Click Here)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

March 2, 2011 at 11:37 pm#237863

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 02 2011,10:06)

Mike,

It a sculptor takes a big rock being and saws it in half and then from each half makes an individual sculpture, do the sculptures by their individuality become two separate beings?

Hi Jack,

If you are going to consider a big rock a “being”, then YES, by cutting it in half and making two smaller rocks, you have made two small “beings” out of one big “being”. They are now individual rocks. They are still not the same boulder they once were.

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 02 2011,10:06)

BTW, the word “person” as it is used in modern times originated with a Trinitarian by the name Tertullian:

And your point is…………?

It sounds to me like Tertullian “redefined” the understanding of the word “person” to support some goofy idea he had that the ONE BEING of God could consist of more than one person. He goes as far as implying that the words we think in our minds are their own “persons”.

I did like this part of his quote though:

Before all things God was alone …

…..his Word, which he made second to himself by agitating it within Himself. – Tertullian, (Against Praxeas 3)

If one is “first” and another is “second to the first one”, there is NOT equality.

Jack, how many human BEINGS are there in existence right now? ONE?

mike

March 2, 2011 at 11:40 pm#237865

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 02 2011,11:10)

Amen Keith!

God is light. Christ is the TRUE light (John 1:9). The implication is clear. If Christ was the mere reflection of God, then He could not Himself be the TRUE (or genuine) light.

Jack

Yet the disciples are now the “light”, right? Are they all “God” too?

mike

March 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm#237866

Blocked

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,12:17)

Hi Mike,

Jack said:

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,04:43)

A “being” is anything that exists whether personal or non personal animate or inanimate terrestrial or celestial.

I told you Jack defines words in a 'confusing' manor!
That is why you MUST ask him 'how' he is defining
the words he uses to present his beliefs to you.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Ed,

Jack needs to show some support of his new theory. He needs to show where any two persons were considered the same being – excluding of course, men's writings about the flawed man-made doctrine of the trinity.

In order to be taken seriously, he needs to show from scripture or any secular source that two persons can be one being. Any crackpot can just up and CLAIM illogical things.

mike

March 2, 2011 at 11:46 pm#237867

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 02 2011,14:23)

What is so confusing about it? A 'being' is anything that has existence.

being 1. existence (Webster's)

being 1. existence as opposed to non-existence (Funk and Wagnall's)

Note that the FIRST definition of the word 'being' by the two lexographers above is 'EXISTENCE.”

We're more interested in the NOUN, “being”………..not the VERB. What do your sources say about the NOUN?

mike

March 3, 2011 at 12:26 am#237869

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 02 2011,14:30)

No, what I've done is point you to Matthew 16:16. In that scripture, there is no doubt that Peter is referring to the ONE BEING he knows as “the living God” – not some sort of “Godkind”.
And there is no doubt, based on Jesus' congratulatory response, that Peter was correct in answering that Jesus is the Son OF the ONE BEING he knows as “the living God”.

Keith, why must we circle? Why do you hide? Why do you use games and charades?

The question is simple enough. The scriptures clealy display the answer to it. Why is it so hard for you to say it? Here, let me lead by example:

Mike, is there only one being we know as “God”?

Why, yes, of course.

Well then Mike, does scripture clearly tell us that Jesus is the Son OF this one being we know as “God”?

Absolutely. Because even if one were to misconstrue all of the mentions of “Son of God” in the scriptures as meaning that Jesus was the Son of some species of “Godkind” or something, we know from Matthew 16:16 that Jesus is the Son of THE LIVING GOD. We can also figure this out from verses like John 3:16, where the being of God is identified as one. For it teaches us that God sent HIS only begotten Son. It does not teach us that the Father sent his only begotten Son, but instead teaches that GOD sent HIS only begotten Son”.

See Keith? It's not that hard, is it? Yet I started this thread months ago. And more recently, I've been playing words games with you for the last two weeks. All for what? Because you are afraid to speak the scriptural truth of the matter for fear it might bugger up your doctrine?

And now we've got Jack in here with his “the human race consists of only ONE human being” diversional crap, fogging up the issue.

That issue is the SCRIPTURAL FACT that we have ONE God, and Jesus is the Son of that ONE God. He is NOT said to be the Son of A PART OF OUR ONE GOD. He is NOT said to be the Son of ONE MEMBER OF OUR ONE GODHEAD. Nope.

He is said to be the Son OF our ONE God, period.

mike

March 3, 2011 at 4:58 am#237879

Participant

OK, it looks like we have WJ's attention.

March 3, 2011 at 5:02 am#237880

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,09:40)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 02 2011,11:10)

Amen Keith!

God is light. Christ is the TRUE light (John 1:9). The implication is clear. If Christ was the mere reflection of God, then He could not Himself be the TRUE (or genuine) light.

Jack

Yet the disciples are now the “light”, right? Are they all “God” too?

mike

I am afraid that I have to break this to you Mike, but WJ or KJ won't answer you on this. I have never had an answer from what I have read. Although they might attempt it now in their zest to prove my assumption wrong. Either way is good for me though.

March 3, 2011 at 5:03 am#237881

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2011,07:30)

Jack

t8 and Mike try to make the argument that Adam is in identity not also adam.

Yet Adam is as much a part of humanity as adam.

Your assumption about my stance is absolutely incorrect WJ. In fact I preach the exact opposite if you care to read my many previous posts on this subject.

If you got that completely wrong, then what else?

Adam is the only one who is in identity Adam. adam is all mankind, including Adam.

Likewise, YHWH is the only one identified as God, the true God. YHWH also happens to have divine nature and divine authority. The 2 latter things are not exclusive to YHWH because he shares his nature and authority or at least lets us participate in both. But YHWH is the only one who we can identify as the Most High God.

Hopefully this sorts out your misunderstanding and does not lead to others thinking that I indeed teach what you say.

March 3, 2011 at 5:13 am#237882

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2011,07:30)

Therefore adam also “identifies” Adam.

Once again as I said before, if you see a creature that runs on four legs and barks then you would “identify” that animal as a Dog.

What t8 and Mike are trying to argue is the Dog is not a Dog because it isn't the original Dog. Thier logic falls apart.

Wrong again WJ.

Just like your spelling of Their (Thier), you have something backwards.

Yes you can identify nature in order to qualify, but when you talk about an identity, you are talking about a person.

e.g., When a man is identified as committing a crime, we are not qualifying him as a criminal based on his nature, but as a criminal because HE committed a crime.

All dogs are part of the dog family, i.e., their flesh or nature is dog. But I had a dog when I was younger and yes I can identify him as a dog, but in identity, I called him by his name to identify him.

I hope this wraps up your confusion in this matter.

Also, why is it interpret it any way but the right way WJ?
That is not how you win a debate or reveal truth. It is how you try to confuse what a person is saying by mis-representation. It is not the way of God WJ. The way of God is to shine light on a situation, not to obscure it.

March 3, 2011 at 4:54 pm#237919

Kangaroo Jack Jr.

Participant

Quote

Jack

t8 and Mike try to make the argument that Adam is in identity not also adam.

Yet Adam is as much a part of humanity as adam.

Therefore adam also “identifies” Adam.

Once again as I said before, if you see a creature that runs on four legs and barks then you would “identify” that animal as a Dog.

What t8 and Mike are trying to argue is the Dog is not a Dog because it isn't the original Dog. Thier logic falls apart.

I haven't had time to answer him because I have been real busy here at work, but just thought I would drop this tidbit in.

Keith,

Fortunately for us it is not what t8 and Mike says that counts. It is what God said that counts. God called the progeny of Adam by the term “THE ADAM.”

Quote

I will destroy THE ADAM whom I have created from the face of the earth.

Genesis 6:7

t8 and Mike err because they see the first Adam as the original in contrast his progeny which are duplicates. But Adam's progeny are NOT duplicates. Adam's progeny are God's repeating or doing again that which He did in the beginning.

Note that Genesis 6:7 says, “I will destroy THE ADAM which I have created….” Therefore, Adam's progeny are not duplicates of an original but the original REPEATED. Thus the IDENTITY of Adam's progeny is “THE ADAM WHICH I HAVE CREATED” the same as the first Adam.

t8 and Mike are simpletons. They do not comprehend language or essence and they have no concept whatsoever of Hebrew thought.

Jack

March 3, 2011 at 8:11 pm#237926

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 03 2011,10:54)

Quote

Jack

t8 and Mike try to make the argument that Adam is in identity not also adam.

Yet Adam is as much a part of humanity as adam.

Therefore adam also “identifies” Adam.

Once again as I said before, if you see a creature that runs on four legs and barks then you would “identify” that animal as a Dog.

What t8 and Mike are trying to argue is the Dog is not a Dog because it isn't the original Dog. Thier logic falls apart.

I haven't had time to answer him because I have been real busy here at work, but just thought I would drop this tidbit in.

Keith,

Fortunately for us it is not what t8 and Mike says that counts. It is what God said that counts. God called the progeny of Adam by the term “THE ADAM.”

Quote

I will destroy THE ADAM whom I have created from the face of the earth.

Genesis 6:7

t8 and Mike are simpletons. They do not comprehend language or essence and they have no concept whatsoever of Hebrew thought.

Jack

Amen!

Did you get that t8 and Mike?

March 3, 2011 at 8:33 pm#237927

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 02 2011,23:03)

Adam is the only one who is in identity Adam. adam is all mankind, including Adam.

Wrong! There are no caps in Hebrew first of all.

Second if Adam is part of all mankind then he is also adam or human like all other adams.

Just as Jesus is not the Father but is also God in nature as the Father.

Jesus is exactly like the Father in nature just as Adam is exactly like adam in nature.

Your smokescreens and spin doesn't prove anything t8.

Is Jesus of a “different kind” than the Father, like a halfbreed, demi-god or a freak of nature?

March 3, 2011 at 8:49 pm#237929

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 02 2011,23:02)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 03 2011,09:40)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 02 2011,11:10)

Amen Keith!

God is light. Christ is the TRUE light (John 1:9). The implication is clear. If Christ was the mere reflection of God, then He could not Himself be the TRUE (or genuine) light.

Jack

Yet the disciples are now the “light”, right? Are they all “God” too?

mike

We reflect the light but we are not the light as John the Baptist said…

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. “He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. THAT WAS THE TRUE LIGHT, WHICH LIGHTETH EVERY MAN THAT COMETH INTO THE WORLD. John 1:7-9

Jesus is the True Light in us. So yes your assumption is wrong again for I know I have answered this before.

You can see the difference can’t you? Jesus is “The Light” and we are “a light” that reflects the True Light?

Its kind of like men are gods yet Jesus is “The True God”.

This is basic stuff t8.

The thing is your Henotheistic teachings are not found in scriptures. Sometimes God has to break through the understanding with revelation of the truth. But mens hearts that are blinded to the truth are very often hardened against the Spirit of truth because of pride through years of deception. It would be wise for you t8 to accept all scriptures as they are written and not just select ones that fit your doctrine.

March 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm#237930