Does god procreate?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,15:24)

Mike You may have a point. The word virtue is “dynamis” which means Gods power. Nevertheless Jesus could not have been tainted by sin or that would mean he was not the sinless Lamb of God.

Wait a minute here. Are you now saying that Jesus didn't really have the “substance” of God while he was on earth…….only His “power”?

And Jesus was “sin, who knew no sin”. He personally was sinless, but how could he have taken all of our sins upon himself without coming in contact with sin?

I'm tired….goodnight.

mike

[shimmer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2010,12:47)

Quote (shimmer @ Sep. 20 2010,09:07) Good verses there Mike, as Nick would say…the apostasy started early. Hi Shimmer, It's clear that you got the point I was making.    The apostacy started while the actual apostles were still alive, and continued to the point that some of us consider Mary, a mere human, as the mother of our God…. a God who is said to be from everlasting to everlasting.   I sure don't have all the answers, but I've seen the results of veering away from what the scriptures actually say…….even if it is just an inch at a time. Your second post was wonderful. mike

Thanks Mike about the post,

Reg early church fathers, I used to bring up early church writings, Nick would say “The apostacy started early”, I would disagree with him, So I just remembered that. I don't have the answers either, Trust scripture, Jesus said the… news of the coming kingdom would be spread througout the world as a witness to all nations and then the end will come….scripture is what has been sent throughout the world, I have nothing against these early church people myself, I don't know,

[shimmer]

Regardless of what happened, these people are part of the church of God and were Martyrs who died for their faith, so they have my respect, and always had, I read them years ago, so God forgive me for saying anything negative against them on this forum, I would never have done that before.
But Im way behind whatever your talking about now, so, carry on !

[terraricca]

Quote (shimmer @ Sep. 22 2010,06:43)

Regardless of what happened, these people are part of the church of God and were Martyrs who died for their faith, so they have my respect, and always had, I read them years ago, so God forgive me for saying anything negative against them on this forum, I would never have done that before. But Im way behind whatever your talking about now, so, carry on !

shimmer

it is not given to us to judge who is going to be saved,
the judgement belong to Christ.

and we know that it is not ALL WHO SAY LORD LORD,that will be saved.

Pierre

[Baker]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,15:24)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2010,22:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2010,14:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,04:14) 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. Hi Keith, I overlooked this bolded part of your post the first time. Are you saying there were times when Jesus was on earth that he WASN'T God?  How can a being's own substance “leave him” on occasion? mike Mike You may have a point. The word virtue is “dynamis” which means Gods power. Nevertheless Jesus could not have been tainted by sin or that would mean he was not the sinless Lamb of God. WJ

WJ When Jesus was hanging on the Cross before He died, He took all of Sins of Humanity upon Him and said:” My God, my God why have you forsaken Me.”  And then He died. At that point Jehovah God could not look at Jesus and that is why He said what He did…Peace Irene

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2010,22:07)

Kathi: Quote 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? But it does mean the firstborn is a part of the “group of those ten children” doesn't it? Kathi: Quote Yes, it does and this proves it: Col 1:16 call things have been created through Him and for Him. NASU Are “the reason things were created” and “the cause of creation” the same thing?  Everything was “CAUSED to exist” by God……including His Son. Kathi: Quote 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. “Preeminent means “peerless”.  It means the highest of the high.  If Jesus is “preeminent over all creation”, then his God who created all of creation is not.  Only one can be the most supreme.  Only one can be the “Almighty”.  Which One is “preeminent over all creation” Kathi?  The Son…….or his God?  NETNotes says: The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. I agree that David was given the “firstborn rights” that used to belong to Saul.  But we know that this case of “firstborn” meant “firstborn rights” because we know Saul was the first of God's “kings of the earth”.  Plus, it flat out says these rights were “appointed”.  The problem is, who was the REAL “firstborn of all creation” whose “firstborn rights” were “appointed” to Jesus? Kathi, it is YOU who brilliantly said, “If there is not a directly stated or clearly implied referrence to a 'firstborn' being appointed the firstborn rights of the REAL firstborn, then the default definition must remain “the one who was born first”. Do you now disagree with your own rule?  Jesus either was the one of creation that was born first, or he was appointed those rights OVER THE REAL FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION, right? Kathi: Quote They don't think he was created so they don't agree with your understanding that you desire so badly for it to mean. Eusebius does, and I showed it to you.  I can also show you the letter to his Diocese after signing the Nicene Creed where he explained that the Son is a completely different substance than the Father.  And you say I'M the one “desiring”?  I'M the one who needs to remove a log?  All I'm doing is taking scripture as it is written……and following YOUR rule about “firstborns”.  It is YOU who desires for Jesus to be put in a higher position than the one he and all of scripture teaches Kathi.   Don't you ever think about all those scriptures that have God foretelling about His anointed one saying, “and he will be their ruler, and I will be their God”?  Or “and he will be their King, and I will be their God”?  What are the two main meanings of “proskuneo” again?  It either means “homage paid to God” or “reverrence shown to someone other than God”.  God Himself keeps saying that Jesus will be someone other than our God, but you still want to give him homage that is only due to our God.     I asked: 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? You said: Quote Mike, a firstborn can be a part of a group of things without being what that goup of things is. What does that even mean?  Give an example please….something other than this one below that you gave: Kathi: Quote 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. Wow Kathi, really?  You are speaking of two different groups here.  Your oldest is the firstborn of the “group of your children”.  He is not even a part of the “group of your siblings”, so how could we expect him to be the firstborn of that particular group?  So once again: 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? Please give a scriptural answer this time Kathi. mike

Mike,

I said:

Quote

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?

your response:

Quote

But it does mean the firstborn is a part of the “group of those ten children” doesn't it?

Good question Mike, I was hoping you would ask that
The firstborn from Col 1:15 is a part of a group…He is a part of all that was
brought into existence, and He is a part of all the sons of God, and even a part of the group 'creation.' However, that doesn't mean that He came into existence in the same manner and He didn't come into sonship in the same manner.

Look again at the example again. The firstborn son of all 10 'male' (added for clarity) children, where the other 9 came later by adoption, is a part of the group 'family' and is part of the group 'sons' but he did not become a part of the group 'family' in the same way his 9 adopted siblings did. They were adopted, he was begotten by birth.

The only begotten Son came into the group 'creation' in a different way (by being begotten of God) than those that became part of the group 'creation' by being created of God.

It is they that came by being created that become the 'created' creatures. So, if anyone calls the Son a 'creature' it is not because He is a 'created' creature. The sense of the Son being a creature would be in the sense that He is a 'person,' the begotten 'person' as opposed to the 'created' person.

So, even though the Son is in a group of the 'sons of God'
that doesn't mean that He came to be a part of that group in the same way, similar to the example.

Hopefully that 'evolved over time' clarification helps you see what I understand. Thanks for helping me think it through

As far as 'preeminence' is concerned…the firstborn, being the first of the children of the family, is naturally preeminent over the other children, not preeminent over the parents though. Isn't that obvious? The Father puts the Son first in all things that have been brought into existence but not first over Him, the Father. That would be obvious and not needing to be spelled out, imo.

Please, just try to use that understanding spirit that I know you have

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 20 2010,12:04)

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

Keith,
Did creation always exist? If it didn't always exist, then there was a TIME when creation was not. But you might say, how was there a 'time' when creation did not exist if there was no such thing as 'time?'

There had to be some sense of time before creation, otherwise nothing could be before something else. The word 'before' carries the idea of sequence which, I would think, requires some sense of time. Elusive as it may be time that existed before time, as we understand it, must exist outside of our understanding in a different way, and God is the reason it existed and continues to exist. Maybe it would be differentiated as God's time as opposed to earth's time.

As far as the Psalms verse, “today I have begotten you,” I can see that as being said before the ages and reaffirmed at the coronation. We know that the resurrection coronation is not the beginning of His relationship as a Son of God. It is when He received power and authority as the resurrected Son who had emptied Himself to become a man many years before that.

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,10:06)

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

Pierre,
Think of how a good shepherd would treat his sheep. He would protect them from evil. He would know the difference between evil and good and would promote the good influences. He would also feed them good food, and provide shelter if need be. He would go out and look for the lost sheep and rejoice when he found it. He would represent Christ and not satan to his flock. He would not belittle his sheep, or talk badly about one sheep to another sheep and would not shepherd them with a desire to condem them. Much of that would apply to 'people' sheep.

Does that help?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 21 2010,16:32)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 20 2010,12:04) 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 Keith, Did creation always exist?  If it didn't always exist, then there was a TIME when creation was not.  But you might say, how was there a 'time' when creation did not exist if there was no such thing as 'time?' There had to be some sense of time before creation, otherwise nothing could be before something else. The word 'before' carries the idea of sequence which, I would think, requires some sense of time. Elusive as it may be time that existed before time, as we understand it, must exist outside of our understanding in a different way, and God is the reason it existed and continues to exist. Maybe it would be differentiated as God's time as opposed to earth's time. As far as the Psalms verse, “today I have begotten you,” I can see that as being said before the ages and reaffirmed at the coronation.  We know that the resurrection coronation is not the beginning of His relationship as a Son of God.  It is when He received power and authority as the resurrected Son who had emptied Himself to become a man many years before that.

Kathi

Just as I thought, no scriptures to back your assumption, but simply conjecture.

Time was created. Before time there were no days but only eternity. Thats why the scriptures say “in the beginning God…”.

Genesis 1:5 says the FIRST DAY was created.

So how can Pss 2:6, 7 be speaking of Jesus begetting before time? Where is the word “owlam” in the verse?

Jesus was there in the beginning of all things right?

Like Mike you want it so bad to mean that Jesus was born from God, God begetting God.

But like Mike you are refusing to see that Jesus begetting in Pss 2:6, 7 was called upon by the disciples in reference to his resurrection when he sat on the Holy hill of Zion or the right hand of the Father.

Was there days before “Day One”?

Prove it by scriptures or else admit that it is just conjecture or your opinion.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 21 2010,16:32)

There had to be some sense of time before creation, otherwise nothing could be before something else.

Why? There was nothing before the beginning of all things but God, was there? If so then Eternity was without time. God does not live in the confinements of Time. He is an eternal being who did not need time or days.

WJ

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2010,15:47)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,10:06) Kathy [QYes, I know what treating the flock with tenderness means…good grief, Pierre. UOTE] then why you do not explain it to me?? Pierre[/quote] Pierre, Think of how a good shepherd would treat his sheep.  He would protect them from evil.  He would know the difference between evil and good and would promote the good influences.  He would also feed them good food, and provide shelter if need be.  He would go out and look for the lost sheep and rejoice when he found it.  He would represent Christ and not satan to his flock.  He would not belittle his sheep, or talk badly about one sheep to another sheep and would not shepherd them with a desire to condem them.  Much of that would apply to 'people' sheep. Does that help?

Kathy

look at scriptures ,all are not what they say they are;

What kind of sheep you talking about ,and what shepherd?

Ac 4:2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead

Ac 4:5 The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem.
Ac 4:6 Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family.
Ac 4:7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”
Ac 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!
Ac 4:9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed,
Ac 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
Ac 4:11 He is
“ ‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.’
Ac 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
Ac 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary

Ac 4:19 But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God

Ac 5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.
Ac 5:2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Ac 5:17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy.
Ac 5:18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail.

1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power

1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,

1Co 2:6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing

1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:9 However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him”—
1Co 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

–witch of those are the good shepherd, and the true sheep?

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Kathi:

Quote

The firstborn from Col 1:15 is a part of a group…He is a part of all that was brought into existence, and He is a part of all the sons of God, and even a part of the group 'creation.'  However, that doesn't mean that He came into existence in the same manner and He didn't come into sonship in the same manner.

On both of these points, I agree.  I never argued that Jesus' beginning wasn't different than ours.  In fact, the way the angels were created has to be different than the way man was created.  And there's no reason to think that the rest of the creatures on earth came to be by the same means as man.  But it is good to see you admit that Jesus is a “part of ther group 'creation'”.

Now, let's work on that word “preeminent”.  First of all, it isn't even in the Greek.  The Greek means “have first place”.  And Jesus definitely has the “first place” of all creation.  In other words, Jesus holds the highest rank AMONG the group “creation” – of which his God is not a part.  He holds first place AMONG the group of those raised from the dead – of which his God is not a part.  But that doesn't mean that he is “preeminent” over creation, for his God, who created everything, and to Whom Jesus is still a servant, alone holds that title.  At any rate, the word “preeminent” isn't there, and is only translated as such by the KJV that I'm aware of……so let's just forget it.  We're debating the meaning of a word that isn't even in the scripture.

And that brings us to YOUR rule:  If it isn't directly stated or clearly implied otherwise, “firstborn” has the default meaning of “the one who was born first”.  We agree that he was “brought forth as the FIRST of God's works”. (Proverbs 8)  We agree that Jesus was BORN of God.  And now you agree that he is a part of the group “CREATION“.

Do you see it?  FIRST      BORN      CREATION

Speaking of Proverbs 8:22, do you know that “create” is the word used?  Read the NETNotes on it and compare them to the LXX.  If “Wisdom” is Jesus, as we both believe, then that verse point blank says that God “created” him.

What say you?  Use that understanding spirit I know you possess.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Sorry Kathi, but Keith brought me into this post.

Keith:

Quote

Just as I thought, no scriptures to back your assumption, but simply conjecture.

As opposed to your “facts”?  What do you know about the beginning of time or whether or not God dwells within it or not?

Keith:

Quote

Before time there were no days but only eternity.

So explain how “days” could have come through Jesus if his origins were only “from days of antiquity”?  Again, it doesn't say Jesus' origins were from BEFORE “days of antiquity”.

Keith:

Quote

Thats why the scriptures say “in the beginning God…”.

But “in the beginning”, God also created the heavens and the earth AND ANGELS SHOUTED FOR JOY because they were already created.  There are more than one use of “in the beginning” Keith.  How can you be sure the one you quote means what you think it does?

Keith:  

Quote

Genesis 1:5 says the FIRST DAY was created. So how can Pss 2:6, 7 be speaking of Jesus begetting before time?

The same exact way Micah 5:2 is speaking of it.

Keith:

Quote

Like Mike you want it so bad to mean that Jesus was born from God, God begetting God.

And what particular scripture says it DOESN'T mean Jesus was born from God?  It's not just 2:7 Keith.  There's Col 1:15, Rev 3:14, Proverbs 8:22, Micah 5:2.  That's a lot of scriptures you have to “rewrite” to avoid Jesus having a beginning.  Not to mention every single use of the title “Son” or the words “only begotten”.  Come on Keith.  Would you have us believe that when two of the three persons of God were deciding that one of them had to empty himself and be flesh for a while, the most unconfusing titles they could come up with for themselves were “Father” and “Son”?  And just to confuse us more, they threw in “begotten” and “origin” and “of creation” and “first of God's works”, etc?

Keith:

Quote

But like Mike you are refusing to see that Jesus begetting in Pss 2:6, 7 was called upon by the disciples in reference to his resurrection when he sat on the Holy hill of Zion or the right hand of the Father.

Keith, you just posted last night about the blood of Jesus.  You pointed to the scriptures that indicate that everything on earth is a “lessor copy” of what is in heaven.  How do you know there isn't a “Mt Zion” in heaven?  How do you know that Jesus hasn't been reigning from the heavenly Mt. Zion for billions of years?  He was already the “King of the Jews” before he was raised from the dead, right?

Furthermore, Paul speaks of a promise to the forefathers being fulfilled by the raising of Jesus from the dead.  When did God ever promise the forefathers that he would “appoint” an “only begotten Son”?  I've told you and told you that Paul's first “mission” after being blinded by Jesus was to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.  It is for THIS reason, not the “today”, that he quotes Psalm 2:7.  He is saying that Jesus is the one that 2:7 was talking about.  This man Jesus that you crucified is the Son that God begot so long ago, as attested to by the 2nd Psalm.  

Keith:

Quote

Was there days before “Day One”? Prove it by scriptures or else admit that it is just conjecture or your opinion.

Go ahead and refute Kathi and my understanding of 2:7 in light of Micah 5:2 Keith.

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Hi Mike,
Ok maybe we are making progress.

Let us clarify something…
What/who would the group called 'creation' include?

I would suggest that the creator AND the created would be included in the group called 'creation.'

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 21 2010,17:43)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2010,15:47) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2010,10:06) Kathy [QYes, I know what treating the flock with tenderness means…good grief, Pierre. UOTE] then why you do not explain it to me?? Pierre Pierre, Think of how a good shepherd would treat his sheep.  He would protect them from evil.  He would know the difference between evil and good and would promote the good influences.  He would also feed them good food, and provide shelter if need be.  He would go out and look for the lost sheep and rejoice when he found it.  He would represent Christ and not satan to his flock.  He would not belittle his sheep, or talk badly about one sheep to another sheep and would not shepherd them with a desire to condem them.  Much of that would apply to 'people' sheep. Does that help?[/quote] Kathy look at scriptures ,all are not what they say they are; What kind of sheep you talking about ,and what shepherd? Ac 4:2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead Ac 4:5 The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. Ac 4:6 Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family. Ac 4:7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?” Ac 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! Ac 4:9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, Ac 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. Ac 4:11 He is “ ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.’ Ac 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Ac 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary Ac 4:19 But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God Ac 5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. Ac 5:2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. Ac 5:17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. Ac 5:18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power 1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1Co 1:19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1Co 1:22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 1Co 2:6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing 1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1Co 2:9 However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him”— 1Co 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. –witch of those are the good shepherd, and  the true sheep? Pierre

Pierre,
The sheep that I am talking about are the Christians, the followers of Christ. The shepherd that I am talking about is the one called by God to shepherd the flock.

There are going to be wolves that are imitating sheep and there are going to be deceptive and uncalled by God, people acting as shepherds…i.e. Jim Jones.

We need to have a discerning spirit to know the difference.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2010,13:13)

I would suggest that the creator AND the created would be included in the group called 'creation.'

Hi Kathi,

And the progress comes to a halt again.

So you think God Almighty is part of the group of “creation”? He is the One who created the group of “creation”……how can He be a part of that group? If God isn't a “creation” then He can't be part of that group.

mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2010,17:24)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 21 2010,16:32) There had to be some sense of time before creation, otherwise nothing could be before something else. Why? There was nothing before the beginning of all things but God, was there? If so then Eternity was without time. God does not live in the confinements of Time. He is an eternal being who did not need time or days. WJ

Keith,
If God was 'before' something, which He was, then there had to be a time before time, which is often called eternity.

You say that God does not live in the confinements of time. Maybe time exists simply because God exists. Time is not something tangible or created. Maybe time is simply part of existing.

God and eternity automatically go together, right? How could there be God and not eternity? Eternity means infinite TIME.

In Revelations there is going to be a TIME without darkness we are told, right? There is going to be something called DAYTIME though, right? Has the eternal realm ever been without the glory of God, if not, then eternal daytime would exist because that is the result of the presence of the glory of God…illumination.

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;

The term 'eternal being' requires a sense of TIME, the kind that has no beginning or end.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2010,22:06)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2010,13:13) I would suggest that the creator AND the created would be included in the group called 'creation.' Hi Kathi, And the progress comes to a halt again. So you think God Almighty is part of the group of “creation”?  He is the One who created the group of “creation”……how can He be a part of that group?  If God isn't a “creation” then He can't be part of that group. mike

Mike,
Isn't God a part of everything? Isn't God everywhere? Does He create and then leave?

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Isn't the Almighty the God OF all creation? In the group of 'creation' we would have the God of all creation, the Lord of all creation, the men of all creation, the angels of all creation, etc.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2010,13:26)

There are going to be wolves that are imitating sheep and there are going to be deceptive and uncalled by God, people acting as shepherds…i.e. Jim Jones. We need to have a discerning spirit to know the difference.

Hi Kathi,

You mention Jim Jones.  He didn't hide his wolve's clothing very well.  Jesus said even Satan can masquerade as an angel of light.  

That's why the ONLY way we can tell is by fruits.  Even servants of Satan can give their lives to further his purposes, right?  Like maybe Jim Jones.  Can you imagine how many people turned away from Christianity because of the Guyana tragedy?  Boom!  Satan won one.  He got people thinking we were all nutjobs.

That's how I see some of these men you quote.  I see them as Satan's tools masquerading as men of light.  And some of them went so far as to die “for Jesus” like Jim Jones “did”, to further Satan's agenda.

I can't claim this as a fact or judge any of them, but the one thing I'm certain about is that if they are teaching something other than what is taught in scripture…..something's wrong with them.

Aren't these “good, God fearing men who love Jesus with all their heart” the same one's who worship Mary as the “Mother of God”?  Are these the same ones who worship God with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from Him?  Are they like the Pharisees, teaching the doctrines of men over the words of scripture? What did Jesus say about that?

mike

[Author]

Posts