Does god procreate?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2010,14:45)

if the phrase was 'heir of all creation' would you insist that meant He was part of all creation?  If not, then why is it different with the word 'firstborn?'

Really Kathi?  If the verse said “Black”, then I would believe “Black”.  But it doesn't…..it says “White”.

Kathi:

Quote

This verse could mean the beginning (as a cause) of the creation of God and that would fit my understanding.  The truth is that it is not clear either way.

Do you think that makes sense?  Jesus is the “cause” behind all things created?  All things were “caused” by Jesus, not by his God?  And notice how you said the part I bolded above.  Translation: “That would fit into my desire for Jesus to be placed in a higher postition than what he and the rest of scripture taught.”  It's the same with “firstborn of all creation”.  To fit your desires, you are willing to say it means “preeminent over all creation”, although there's no indication it means anything other than what it says.  And even the church fathers you tout agree that it simply means he was the first one of all creation…….before the ages.  And are you willing to say that “firstborn from the dead” then also means he is “preeminent over the dead”?  Why would he be “preeminent” over something he said his God wasn't even the God of?

I agree that “firstborn from the dead” might mean he has received the firstborn rights over anyone else who has been or will be raised from the dead, but only because we know there have been others before him.  Or it could mean the first one who was raised from the dead to eternal life in heaven.  But either way, doesn't it automatically imply that he is part of the group of those who were or will be “born from the dead”?

Is there any instance in the Bible where a “firstborn” – whether literal or one who received those rights from another – was NOT a part of the group of things he was the firstborn of?

mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2010,23:33)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,14:44) mike you see how Kathy uses certain of your comments were you show the folly of some thinking to someone else and cut it and paste it to twisted the faith you preach in Christ, Hi Pierre, Yeah, I noticed.     I posted it to show that just because these guys were EARLY church fathers doesn't mean they weren't already a part of the apostacy. She turned it around to say I might have also called some of the 70 Jesus sent out “wolves in sheep's clothing”, given the chance. We will know them by their fruits.  If their fruits involve teaching things that contradict scripture, then we have a choice to either believe them or believe scripture. peace and love, mike

Mike,
“Yeah I noticed?” What are you talking about? Show me the quotes.

Quote

I posted it to show that just because these guys were EARLY church fathers doesn't mean they weren't already a part of the apostacy.

And just because these guys were early church fathers didn't mean that they WERE part of the apostacy either. Good grief! These guys that I like are kind and love the Father and the Son and the brethren and often die because of that devotion and refusing to worship the idols. Their fruits are evident.

I don't read the early church fathers and just accept everything they say because they are early church fathers. I do find that what many say are more consistent with what God has shown me.

Mike, you said “I don't care what the early church father's wrote” in one post and then told me what Eusebius wrote in another…and then you tell ME that I am the one saying if Eusebius wrote it then it must be scriptural. And now you are chiming in with terraricca about ME twisting things around. Maybe you should have a log check yourself.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2010,15:33)

So, do you have this knowledge or not Mike?  You seem to flip flop.  On one thread you will post this verse and with your post to me here, it is as if you are totally unaware. Now, does the verse speak of two involved or one, Mike?  One God and one Lord=two persons.

I have the knowledge I gained from the scriptures Kathi.  And I don't “flip flop” on this that I'm aware of.  I have in the past used “co-creator”, but always in quotations.  I have since stopped using that terminology due to discussions with Gene.

There were definitely two that were involved in creation.  And adding in Heb 1, where Paul MAYBE says Jesus is the one who laid the foundations of the earth with his own hands, I can see both yours and Eusebius' point here.  But every other scripture either says “God alone” or “from God, through Jesus”.  

So that Hebrews 1 passage and the “master craftsman” verse and even the “Let US create man” do not undo the many, many other scriptures that say we have ONE Creator.  

When it says “FROM” God, “THROUGH” Jesus, it could mean many things.  It could be that God said it, and Jesus did the hands on…..like Eusebius thinks because of that Psalm: “You spoke and it was created”.  But even if that is the case like Heb 1 seems to attest to, for some reason, scripture STILL says only God is our Creator.  Scripture never says “THEY created us” or calls God and His Son our “CREATORS”.

So what to do?  Again, I'll stick with scripture.  And when you have seemingly contradicting scriptures, I believe Pierre who says it is our lack of understanding that causes the “paradox”, not the scriptures themselves.  That being said, we have 3 or 4 “could mean this” compared to a very plain “I ALONE created”.  I'm going to go with that one, because there's no “could be's” involved.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Kathi,

I had it reversed.  You implied that maybe these men you quote were the laborors God sent and akin to the 70 Jesus sent out into the world first.  THEN I posted the scriptures that show the apostacy was already present in the apostle's lifetimes.  In my mind the posts were the other way around……I'm sorry.  

Kathi:

Quote

Mike, you said “I don't care what the early church father's wrote” in one post and then told me what Eusebius wrote in another…and then you tell ME that I am the one saying if Eusebius wrote it then it must be scriptural.

Kathi, you said on the bottom of page 40, “Mike,
Eusebius certainly did say that the Son and the Father were the creator so therefore, the Son was not a creation.”

That sounds alot to me like you're saying if Eusebius said it, so it is.  The thing with the men you're reading is that if what they write follows what scripture said and maybe even offers insight into it, then great.  That's why I used Eusebius and Ignatius as support.  Not because of their theological beliefs, but because they spoke the language the NT was written in and they both agree that Jesus was the “firstborn of all creation” before the ages/world.  Apparently to them, firstborn of all creation meant just what it says.  It didn't mean “preeminent over all creation”, because according to them, he had this title before there was any creation to be preeminent over.  And this follows along with what I think Paul was saying in the first place – that Jesus had to have been the first thing created because everything else was created through him.

Anyway, I'm not just blindly against anyone you quote.  It's just that I will always take scripture over their words when those two things contradict each other.

mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2010,00:00)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2010,14:45) if the phrase was 'heir of all creation' would you insist that meant He was part of all creation?  If not, then why is it different with the word 'firstborn?' Really Kathi?  If the verse said “Black”, then I would believe “Black”.  But it doesn't…..it says “White”. Kathi: Quote This verse could mean the beginning (as a cause) of the creation of God and that would fit my understanding.  The truth is that it is not clear either way. Do you think that makes sense?  Jesus is the “cause” behind all things created?  All things were “caused” by Jesus, not by his God?  And notice how you said the part I bolded above.  Translation: “That would fit into my desire for Jesus to be placed in a higher postition than what he and the rest of scripture taught.”  It's the same with “firstborn of all creation”.  To fit your desires, you are willing to say it means “preeminent over all creation”, although there's no indication it means anything other than what it says.  And even the church fathers you tout agree that it simply means he was the first one of all creation…….before the ages.  And are you willing to say that “firstborn from the dead” then also means he is “preeminent over the dead”?  Why would he be “preeminent” over something he said his God wasn't even the God of? I agree that “firstborn from the dead” might mean he has received the firstborn rights over anyone else who has been or will be raised from the dead, but only because we know there have been others before him.  Or it could mean the first one who was raised from the dead to eternal life in heaven.  But either way, doesn't it automatically imply that he is part of the group of those who were or will be “born from the dead”? Is there any instance in the Bible where a “firstborn” – whether literal or one who received those rights from another – was NOT a part of the group of things he was the firstborn of? mike

Mike,
Someone could be the firstborn of ten children but nine of them could have been adopted. Get it. It doesn't mean that the firstborn was adopted does it?

Quote

Do you think that makes sense?  Jesus is the “cause” behind all things created?

Yes, it does and this proves it:

Col 1:16
call things have been created through Him and for Him.
NASU

My 'desire' is for truth Mike.

Quote

To fit your desires, you are willing to say it means “preeminent over all creation”, although there's no indication it means anything other than what it says.

What…NO indication? You don't think the verse following that prove that He is preeminent? You are joking, right? Read this:

Col 1:18
…so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
NASU
Doesn't preeminent mean first place, Mike? Give me a break.

Quote

And even the church fathers you tout agree that it simply means he was the first one of all creation…….before the ages.

They don't think he was created so they don't agree with your understanding that you desire so badly for it to mean. They don't say that He was created by the word of God but that He WAS the word of God that created. Have you missed that? Do you see how you do the twisting? Remove the log, Mike.

Quote

Is there any instance in the Bible where a “firstborn” – whether literal or one who received those rights from another – was NOT a part of the group of things he was the firstborn of?

Mike, a firstborn can be a part of a group of things without being what that goup of things is. For instance, I have four siblings and my oldest child is…get ready…the firstborn of all the siblings. Does that make him one of my siblings? NO! The firstborn is my son, the siblings are my brothers and my sister and me.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2010,00:50)

Hi Kathi, I had it reversed.  You implied that maybe these men you quote were the laborors God sent and akin to the 70 Jesus sent out into the world first.  THEN I posted the scriptures that show the apostacy was already present in the apostle's lifetimes.  In my mind the posts were the other way around……I'm sorry.   Kathi: Quote Mike, you said “I don't care what the early church father's wrote” in one post and then told me what Eusebius wrote in another…and then you tell ME that I am the one saying if Eusebius wrote it then it must be scriptural. Kathi, you said on the bottom of page 40, “Mike, Eusebius certainly did say that the Son and the Father were the creator so therefore, the Son was not a creation.” That sounds alot to me like you're saying if Eusebius said it, so it is.  The thing with the men you're reading is that if what they write follows what scripture said and maybe even offers insight into it, then great.  That's why I used Eusebius and Ignatius as support.  Not because of their theological beliefs, but because they spoke the language the NT was written in and they both agree that Jesus was the “firstborn of all creation” before the ages/world.  Apparently to them, firstborn of all creation meant just what it says.  It didn't mean “preeminent over all creation”, because according to them, he had this title before there was any creation to be preeminent over.  And this follows along with what I think Paul was saying in the first place – that Jesus had to have been the first thing created because everything else was created through him. Anyway, I'm not just blindly against anyone you quote.  It's just that I will always take scripture over their words when those two things contradict each other. mike

Mike,

Quote

Kathi, you said on the bottom of page 40, “Mike, Eusebius certainly did say that the Son and the Father were the creator so therefore, the Son was not a creation.”

That was 'according to Eusebius,' the Son would not be a created being since he sees Him with the Father as creator.

Thank you for saying your 'sorry' in regards to claiming that I am the one twisting YOUR words especially when you realized that you had just twisted mine.

And again about the father's and their understanding regarding the firstborn of all creation…many say 'firstborn word' or the 'first begotten word' and that should prove that they are not claiming that He was the first of the created. They often go on to say how it was through that first begotten word that all things were created.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2010,00:20)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2010,15:33) So, do you have this knowledge or not Mike?  You seem to flip flop.  On one thread you will post this verse and with your post to me here, it is as if you are totally unaware. Now, does the verse speak of two involved or one, Mike?  One God and one Lord=two persons. I have the knowledge I gained from the scriptures Kathi.  And I don't “flip flop” on this that I'm aware of.  I have in the past used “co-creator”, but always in quotations.  I have since stopped using that terminology due to discussions with Gene. There were definitely two that were involved in creation.  And adding in Heb 1, where Paul MAYBE says Jesus is the one who laid the foundations of the earth with his own hands, I can see both yours and Eusebius' point here.  But every other scripture either says “God alone” or “from God, through Jesus”.   So that Hebrews 1 passage and the “master craftsman” verse and even the “Let US create man” do not undo the many, many other scriptures that say we have ONE Creator.   When it says “FROM” God, “THROUGH” Jesus, it could mean many things.  It could be that God said it, and Jesus did the hands on…..like Eusebius thinks because of that Psalm: “You spoke and it was created”.  But even if that is the case like Heb 1 seems to attest to, for some reason, scripture STILL says only God is our Creator.  Scripture never says “THEY created us” or calls God and His Son our “CREATORS”. So what to do?  Again, I'll stick with scripture.  And when you have seemingly contradicting scriptures, I believe Pierre who says it is our lack of understanding that causes the “paradox”, not the scriptures themselves.  That being said, we have 3 or 4 “could mean this” compared to a very plain “I ALONE created”.  I'm going to go with that one, because there's no “could be's” involved. peace and love, mike

Mike,
This whole thing about God alone creating the heavens and the earth and then we find out that the Father and the Son were both involved is all about gaining new revelation as we go from OT to NT and also perspective.

That is why I like the 'two trees in one tree' illustration. You can call the whole tree (which includes the offshoot)…ONE TREE all alone and be correct if no other trees exists. Or you could refer to them as two trees and in one sense, that would be correct. Or you could refer to them as one parent tree with one offshoot tree and that would be correct. Or you could refer to them as two trees in one and in a sense, that would be correct. Do you see how it can be described alone or two together? Both would be correct. In the NT, the 'tree' is more clearly revealed.

Don't let Gene cause you to wimp out

You could further describe the trees as having the same life, the same attributes, the same strength, one as the begetter, the other the begotten, one the source, the other the receiver of all things from the source, etc.

Anyway, my college graduate thought it was a good illustration We put him through college so that he could continue learning to THINK for himself!

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2010,22:59)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2010,22:44) mike you see how Kathy uses certain of your comments were you show the folly of some thinking to someone else and cut it and paste it to twisted the faith you preach in Christ, and then quote ;29 I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves wen it is her doing it . it is good i am following this topic.so i notice that. Pierre terraricca, Where is your proof?   The early christian fathers that I am interesting in reading ARE treating the flock with tenderness otherwise I would not be reading them. Are YOU treating the flock with tenderness and promoting unity?  Do you have something against someone and take it to them directly or do you accuse them to another?  Is that scriptural? Actually, you have just demonstrated that you have something against me and slander me to another.  Where is your proof or maybe you just haven't asked me to clarify something to you that you think shows some sort of twisting of words.  Do you like it when others treat you like that?  Read your own sentences. They don't even make sense.  You have poor grammar skills and poor writing skills and I sincerely wonder about your reading skills.  Sorry to tell you that.  You will be more effective when you take the log out of your own eye.  Just today, I read two people getting after you, one saying that you are an accuser and another of being judgemental.  Unless you provide proof of your accusations of me, you can add slanderer to the list and that is just today.  I am betting that you are not truly comprehending what I am saying and that is entirely possible.

Kathy

you have told me that you have worked with scriptures for your first years ,then, now you have gone into men views ,

if you could not find truth in scripture in the first of those years ,what make you so sure that you will find it with non inspired men??

also i never claim to be more then a fisher man,

you should read your own quotes way back so you will a longer view of what you have written.

as for the early so called fathers,do you understand what it means to treating the flock
with tenderness???

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,08:25)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2010,22:59) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2010,22:44) mike you see how Kathy uses certain of your comments were you show the folly of some thinking to someone else and cut it and paste it to twisted the faith you preach in Christ, and then quote ;29 I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among YOU and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among YOU yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves wen it is her doing it . it is good i am following this topic.so i notice that. Pierre terraricca, Where is your proof?   The early christian fathers that I am interesting in reading ARE treating the flock with tenderness otherwise I would not be reading them. Are YOU treating the flock with tenderness and promoting unity?  Do you have something against someone and take it to them directly or do you accuse them to another?  Is that scriptural? Actually, you have just demonstrated that you have something against me and slander me to another.  Where is your proof or maybe you just haven't asked me to clarify something to you that you think shows some sort of twisting of words.  Do you like it when others treat you like that?  Read your own sentences. They don't even make sense.  You have poor grammar skills and poor writing skills and I sincerely wonder about your reading skills.  Sorry to tell you that.  You will be more effective when you take the log out of your own eye.  Just today, I read two people getting after you, one saying that you are an accuser and another of being judgemental.  Unless you provide proof of your accusations of me, you can add slanderer to the list and that is just today.  I am betting that you are not truly comprehending what I am saying and that is entirely possible. Kathy you have told me that you have worked with scriptures for your first years ,then, now you have gone into men views , if you could not find truth in scripture in the first of those years ,what make you so sure that you will find it with non inspired men?? also i never claim to be more then a fisher man, you should read your own quotes way back so you will a longer view of what you have written. as for the early so called fathers,do you understand what it means to treating the flock with tenderness??? Pierre

Pierre,
Stick to fishing instead of accusing.

Btw, what exactly are you fishing for? Trouble?

I did find truth in scriptures and I find confirmation of that truth in the early christian writers.

Why don't YOU go back to my earlier posts and reread them. I don't think you comprehended them the first time.

Yes, I know what treating the flock with tenderness means…good grief, Pierre.

[terraricca]

Kathy

[QYes, I know what treating the flock with tenderness means…good grief, Pierre.
UOTE][/QUOTE]

then why you do not explain it to me??

Pierre

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 18 2010,17:42)

Hi Keith and Mike, I see that you are discussing 'today' again.  I would like to mention that somewhere outside of our realm there is no night, just day as far as I can tell. Rev 21:23-25 23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; NASU During eternity there was God's illumination and no darkness…always daytime.  In the beginning, darkness covered the earth and that was in a different realm.  The beginning of the first day in Genesis was in relation to the realm of our earth and doesn't necessarily imply there was no daytime in any other realm unless you think that God did not have glory which illuminated before the ages of the earth. imo

Kathi

Are you serious? Why do you speak conjecture like it is fact?

First of all the scripture you give is speaking of the the “New heavens and New earth”.

Secondly can you show me a scripture that says there were days before “day one” in Genesis 1:5?

You are getting “light” mixed up with days.

If I light a candle is that considered a day? If I turn on a flashlight is that “daytime”?

Yes the light of God always was because God is light. But God is not “daytime”.

Daytime is in relation to time and part of it. Before time, or the beginning was the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

Do you think that is what the Psalmist meant in Pss 2:6, 7?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,17:42)

first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith,

Yes I know that and that is why I said the Spirit of God does not run around accusing “the brethren” like it seems you do so often.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2010,18:15)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 19 2010,04:46) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool”. Isa 1:18 Hi Keith, The way I understand it, our sins have been washed in the blood of the Lamb – someone other than God by the way.  If the Lamb took on our sins, then he came into contact with sin, right? Or am I mistaken? mike

Mike

When Jesus touched the lepers (leprousy was a type of sin) he did not get infected by it, instead the essence or substance of God left him and healed them just as it left him and healed the woman with the issue of blood when Jesus said “who touched me” though he was being thronged by a crowd.

Don't try and spin out of you supporting the Muslim in his statement that the substance of God could be tainted by sin.

He may be intelligent but he is decieved and only seeks to make the scriptures corrupt and the word of God of none effect.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Mike

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2010,15:28)

Mike I did check and the English translation of the LXX and the Masoretic text have it the same.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2010,14:11)

Keith, do you agree that both the original Hebrew and the LXX use the word “day” in the text?

Yes true, but the word “owlam” is there also which can be interpreted “forever”, a “long duration”, “antiquity”, or “ancient” depending on context.

Since the word “yowm” for day which can also be a “period of time” and since before “time” there was only  “eternity” the NET rightly translates the verse as…

As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah –from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins are in the distant past Micah 5:2

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2010,14:11)

You are missing the whole point here.  Is it over your head, or are you just pretending it is?   Jesus' BEGINNING was from DAYS of eternity. (LXX) Jesus' GOINGS FORTH were from DAYS of antquity.  (Hebrew)

Mike take your pick…

AAT – You, Bethlehem [Ephrathah],
too small to be one of Judah's clans,
from you there will come out for Me,
One Who Is to Rule Israel
who real comings are from the eternal past.
AB – Whose going s forth have been from of old, from ancient days — eternity.
ASV – whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.
DHB – whose goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity.
EBR – Whose comings forth have been from of old from the days of age-past time.
EVD – His beginnings are from ancient times.
from long, long ago.
GW – His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago.
HBME – Who brought you, long ago, in old times from the East;
HBRV – whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.
IB – and His goings forth have been from old, from the days of eternity.
IV – whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
KJV – whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
KTC – Whence comes he? From the first beginning, from ages untold!
Footnote: 'From ages untold'; literally, 'from the days of eternity,' but this is a phrase used somewhat loosely by Hebrew authors, and no certain theological inferences can be based on it.
LB – who is alive from everlasting ages past.
LBP – whose goings forth have been predicted from of old, from eternity.
LXX – and his goings forth have been from the beginning, even from eternity.
MNT – one whose origin is of old,
of long descent.
MRB – whose goings forth are from old, from ancient days.
NAB – Whose origin is from of old,
from ancient times.
NAS – His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.
NBV – His goings forth are from of old, from days of eternity.
NCV – He comes from very old times,
from days long ago.
NEB – one whose roots are far back in the past, in days gone by.
NIV – whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.
Footnote: origins: Hebrew goings out.
Footnote: ancient times: Or from days of eternity.
NJB – whose origins go back to the distant past,
to the days of old.
NJPS – One whose origin is from of old,
From ancient times.
NKJ – Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.
NLT – one whose origins are from the distant past.
NLV – His coming was planned long ago, from the beginning.
NWT – whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.
REB – one whose origins are far back in the past, in ancient times.
RSV – whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.
SBK – And his origin is from of old,
From ages long past.
SGAT – Whose origins are from of old,
From ancient days.
SNB – whose comings forth have been from of old, from the days of age-past time.
SSBE – whose origin is from an ancient era, from ages of eternity.
TDB – whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
TEV – whose family line goes back to ancient times.
TJB – his origin goes back to the distant past,
to the days of old.
YLR – And his comings forth are of old,
From the days of antiquity.

So take your pick Mike. My point is it has to be the english translation of the LXX or the the english translation of the Masoretic Text, “from everlasting” or “days of antiquity”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2010,14:11)

Now I agree with you that “DAYS” as we humans understand them were created by our God through His Son, so HOW COULD THERE BE “DAYS” BEFORE GOD CREATED THEM THROUGH HIS SON? Do you understand what I'm saying?  The scripture doesn't say Jesus' beginning/goings forth were from BEFORE days of eternity/antquity right?

First of all “eternity and antiquity” are not the same thing, so take you pick it can’t be both. Secondly you keep insisting that “mowtsa'ah” means beginning yet none of the translations render the word that way. Again his goings forth can refer to his acts that we see all through the OT including the creation of all things for by him and for him all things came into being. Jesus is not part of a beginning or the scriptures would say “In the beginning God beget the Word” or “God created the word, or “the Word was the beginning and through the Word all things were created”,  but instead it says “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Gen 1:1, and then John clarifies this by stating that “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” and that  “APART FROM HIM NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING. and that includes the light and the waters which proceeded the days.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2010,14:11)

So can we assume that the word “day” was just a “figure of speech” since “days” didn't exist before Jesus did?

Exactly Mike, days didn’t exist before Jesus therefore the “FIRST DAY” came into existence in Genesis 1:5. So no we can’t assume that the Psalmist meant that the day was a figure of speech especially in its context.

Is there any scripture where the word “day” is used as a figure of speech and precedes day one in Genesis?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2010,14:11)

Can we assume that “days” meant “a particular time period” before God even created literal “days” as we understand them?

No because when you assume that Pss 2:6, 7 is in a particular “time period” or a “day”
before time, then that is a contradiction of terms besides the fact that Pss 2:6, 7 in context is when the King is set upon his Holy Hill and the Apostles in three places verify this scripture after the resurrection which you choose to ignore.

Please answer the questions…

[terraricca]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,11:09)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,17:42) first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith, Yes I know that and that is why I said the Spirit of God does not run around accusing “the brethren” like it seems you do so often. WJ

WJ

this is my reasons;;
Mt 16:11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Mt 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

IF YOU DO NOT PREACH THE TRUTH OF GOD,THIS MEANS YOU USE GOD WORD FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT.this will prevent me to support you.

Pierre

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,13:45)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,11:09) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,17:42) first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith, Yes I know that and that is why I said the Spirit of God does not run around accusing “the brethren” like it seems you do so often. WJ WJ this is my reasons;; Mt 16:11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Mt 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. IF YOU DO NOT PREACH THE TRUTH OF GOD,THIS MEANS YOU USE GOD WORD FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT.this will prevent me to support you. Pierre

Pierre
I know in whom I have believed, but you seem to think when ever someone disagrees with you then they are not a believer or are saved.

Well you are right, in that you serve a different Jesus than I do.

Paul warned us against those who preach another Jesus.

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 2 Cor 11:4

It seems that my Jesus is bigger than yours.

WJ

[terraricca]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,12:55)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,13:45) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,11:09) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,17:42) first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith, Yes I know that and that is why I said the Spirit of God does not run around accusing “the brethren” like it seems you do so often. WJ WJ this is my reasons;; Mt 16:11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Mt 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. IF YOU DO NOT PREACH THE TRUTH OF GOD,THIS MEANS YOU USE GOD WORD FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT.this will prevent me to support you. Pierre Pierre I know in whom I have believed, but you seem to think when ever someone disagrees with you then they are not a believer or are saved. Well you are right, in that you serve a different Jesus than I do. Paul warned us against those who preach another Jesus. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 2 Cor 11:4 It seems that my Jesus is bigger than yours. WJ

WJ

i did not knew that Christ was preaching the trinity.

and that he had taught his disciples ,could you digg out those scriptures and show them to me ,

Pierre

[SimplyForgiven]

Proverbs 26:
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

[terraricca]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 21 2010,13:44)

Proverbs 26: 4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

SF

you are right thanks

Pierre

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,14:37)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,12:55) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,13:45) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,11:09) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,17:42) first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith, Yes I know that and that is why I said the Spirit of God does not run around accusing “the brethren” like it seems you do so often. WJ WJ this is my reasons;; Mt 16:11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Mt 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. IF YOU DO NOT PREACH THE TRUTH OF GOD,THIS MEANS YOU USE GOD WORD FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT.this will prevent me to support you. Pierre Pierre I know in whom I have believed, but you seem to think when ever someone disagrees with you then they are not a believer or are saved. Well you are right, in that you serve a different Jesus than I do. Paul warned us against those who preach another Jesus. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 2 Cor 11:4 It seems that my Jesus is bigger than yours. WJ WJ i did not knew that Christ was preaching the trinity. and that he had taught his disciples ,could you digg out those scriptures and show them to me , Pierre

Pierre

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of “the Father“, and of “the Son“, and of “the Holy Ghost“: Matt 28:19

Now take note that they all have the definite article and share a singular name, right?

Jesus did preach about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit didn't he?

That is a Trinity isn't it?

WJ

[Author]

Posts