- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ said to KJ:
Quote But he still thinks that if there is no water in the glass then that does not prove there is no water in the glass because there could be water in the glass! 
WJ
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 10 2010,04:23) WJ said to KJ: Quote But he still thinks that if there is no water in the glass then that does not prove there is no water in the glass because there could be water in the glass! WJ
Jack
Thats called a “pontential” arguementlike can God be healer if pain does not exist.
of course not.God has the power and pontential to heal, but its non-existant role if pain is not present.
is its obvious.
samething with a glass, just becaues glass has pontential to hold water, doesnt mean it does.
so its a fact it doesnt have water,
its fact it has pontential.so therefore one concludes simply that what if is not a fact.
the thought that water could be in the glass is just an idea not fact.thats my two cents
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,11:44) Funny, I don't remember ever debating about water in a glass. mike
me either,Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 10 2010,13:15) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 10 2010,04:23) WJ said to KJ: Quote But he still thinks that if there is no water in the glass then that does not prove there is no water in the glass because there could be water in the glass! WJ
Jack
Thats called a “pontential” arguementlike can God be healer if pain does not exist.
of course not.God has the power and pontential to heal, but its non-existant role if pain is not present.
is its obvious.
samething with a glass, just becaues glass has pontential to hold water, doesnt mean it does.
so its a fact it doesnt have water,
its fact it has pontential.so therefore one concludes simply that what if is not a fact.
the thought that water could be in the glass is just an idea not fact.thats my two cents
SF,The same is true with the idea of God being a “personal” God. If God was always a personal being, then there was never a point in His existence that He was without a companion and He never existed in isolation. Without a companion He would only have been a personal being potentially until He “created” His first companion.
But if God had always possessed realized personhood, then there was always His companion at His side.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and God was the Word.”
KJ
JustAskin said to WJ:
Quote The answer, WJ, is the equivalent in that language of 'I AM' (Or 'I will be').
God said 'That is my name forever'.God as JA defines Him did not say that “I will be” was His name forever.” it is God as trinitarians define Him who said it.
It was the Messenger of YHWH who said that “I will be” is “My name forever.”
Quote Exodus 3:1-14 (King James Version) Exodus 3
1Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.2And the Messenger of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
5And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
6Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
7And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;
8And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
9Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them.
10Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.
11And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?
12And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you
.
Major premise: The Messenger appeared as a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush, vs. 2
Minor premise: God called out from the midst of the bush, vs. 4
Conclusion: Therefore, the Messenger was God
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 10 2010,08:33) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 10 2010,13:15) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 10 2010,04:23) WJ said to KJ: Quote But he still thinks that if there is no water in the glass then that does not prove there is no water in the glass because there could be water in the glass! WJ
Jack
Thats called a “pontential” arguementlike can God be healer if pain does not exist.
of course not.God has the power and pontential to heal, but its non-existant role if pain is not present.
is its obvious.
samething with a glass, just becaues glass has pontential to hold water, doesnt mean it does.
so its a fact it doesnt have water,
its fact it has pontential.so therefore one concludes simply that what if is not a fact.
the thought that water could be in the glass is just an idea not fact.thats my two cents
SF,The same is true with the idea of God being a “personal” God. If God was always a personal being, then there was never a point in His existence that He was without a companion and He never existed in isolation. Without a companion He would only have been a personal being potentially until He “created” His first companion.
But if God had always possessed realized personhood, then there was always His companion at His side.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and God was the Word.”
KJ
Yep!True!
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 16 2010,08:38) Major premise: The Messenger appeared as a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush, vs. 2 Minor premise: God called out from the midst of the bush, vs. 4
Conclusion: Therefore, the Messenger was God
KJ
So God was a messenger of God? Hmmmm…..mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2010,04:38) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 16 2010,08:38) Major premise: The Messenger appeared as a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush, vs. 2 Minor premise: God called out from the midst of the bush, vs. 4
Conclusion: Therefore, the Messenger was God
KJ
So God was a messenger of God? Hmmmm…..mike
Or did God personaly delivered a messageQuote (SimplyForgiven @ July 16 2010,13:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2010,04:38) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 16 2010,08:38) Major premise: The Messenger appeared as a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush, vs. 2 Minor premise: God called out from the midst of the bush, vs. 4
Conclusion: Therefore, the Messenger was God
KJ
So God was a messenger of God? Hmmmm…..mike
Or did God personaly delivered a message
It says “messenger of God” Dennison. Did God serve as a messenger of Himself? Hmmmm……..mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2010,09:46) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 16 2010,13:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2010,04:38) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 16 2010,08:38) Major premise: The Messenger appeared as a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush, vs. 2 Minor premise: God called out from the midst of the bush, vs. 4
Conclusion: Therefore, the Messenger was God
KJ
So God was a messenger of God? Hmmmm…..mike
Or did God personaly delivered a message
It says “messenger of God” Dennison. Did God serve as a messenger of Himself? Hmmmm……..mike
You means Jehovahs Messenger,Can you not deliver your own personal message?
can you not be your own messenger?
curious
This whole thing is to funny, what did I learn from this?
Nothing but arguments and joke's….. When are you going to start answering Questions? Is that so hard to do?? What a waste of space……IreneQuote (Arnold @ July 16 2010,23:49) This whole thing is to funny, what did I learn from this? Nothing but arguments and joke's….. When are you going to start answering Questions? Is that so hard to do?? What a waste of space……Irene
you know the topic of this thread was to define the terms of the debate that is going on in the Plural God threadby the way, so ooo
since taht finished already it jsut opened up to nonsense,so really you shouldnt be upset
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 16 2010,21:09) You means Jehovahs Messenger, Can you not deliver your own personal message?
can you not be your own messenger?
curious
No Dennison, you CAN'T be your own messenger.One never says, “I sent myself to deliver a message for me”.
Rather, they say, “I delivered the message myself.”
And can you think of ANY OTHER INSTANCE in the history of the world where a person was referred to as a messenger of himself?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,05:58) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 16 2010,21:09) You means Jehovahs Messenger, Can you not deliver your own personal message?
can you not be your own messenger?
curious
No Dennison, you CAN'T be your own messenger.One never says, “I sent myself to deliver a message for me”.
Rather, they say, “I delivered the message myself.”
And can you think of ANY OTHER INSTANCE in the history of the world where a person was referred to as a messenger of himself?
mike
hey maybe your rightQuote (SimplyForgiven @ July 18 2010,17:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,05:58) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 16 2010,21:09) You means Jehovahs Messenger, Can you not deliver your own personal message?
can you not be your own messenger?
curious
No Dennison, you CAN'T be your own messenger.One never says, “I sent myself to deliver a message for me”.
Rather, they say, “I delivered the message myself.”
And can you think of ANY OTHER INSTANCE in the history of the world where a person was referred to as a messenger of himself?
mike
hey maybe your right
Dennison,The Messenger of Jehovah CLEARLY identified Himself as the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. Mikeboll is not a man of faith.
His statement that “you cannot be your own messenger” assumes that God is a solitary being. Hebrews 1:8 says that God anointed God. Therefore, God is a plural being.
When a man anoints another man for the ministry it is man anointing man. When a country sends an ambassador to another country to negotiate it is man being a messenger for man.
KJ
Is that ambassador the SAME man as the man who sent him? Is he the same being? Can a being send itself?
Jack, I had hoped and prayed that you would receive the mounting evidence that supports the Hebrew use of a plural of grandiosities in scripture and maybe think, “Hey, if I was mislead about this, maybe I should take a closer look at the other things I've come to believe.” But, instead, you dig your heels in even further and lamely try to “unexplain” what is there in scripture for all to see. Even taking it so far as to claim scriptures that are clearly prophesies of Jesus aren't.
And then you say that I'm not a man of faith?
How far will you take it? Do you propose to rewrite the whole Bible for the sake of your flawed man-made doctine?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2010,04:23) Is that ambassador the SAME man as the man who sent him? Is he the same being? Can a being send itself?
Jack, I had hoped and prayed that you would receive the mounting evidence that supports the Hebrew use of a plural of grandiosities in scripture and maybe think, “Hey, if I was mislead about this, maybe I should take a closer look at the other things I've come to believe.” But, instead, you dig your heels in even further and lamely try to “unexplain” what is there in scripture for all to see. Even taking it so far as to claim scriptures that are clearly prophesies of Jesus aren't.
And then you say that I'm not a man of faith?
How far will you take it? Do you propose to rewrite the whole Bible for the sake of your flawed man-made doctine?
mike
Mike,You are a Rationalist and not a man of faith. A man of faith accepts God's word. Hebrews 1:8-9 says that God anointed God.
“But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”God said it and I believe it. If God can anoint God, then God can be God's messenger because of the plural nature of His being. You are a scoffer.
the Roo
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
