Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[kerwin]

Pierre,

Quote

you do not see it through the spirit ,the soul of man is the spirit and that is what has to submit to the will of God the flesh will follow it has no choice ,flesh count for nothing,right ?

I agree that one must see through a righteous character in order to understand the Word of God for Satan will use one’s desires of the flesh to lead one astray.

One who has a spirit point of view knows God commands his people to be righteous as he is just as Jesus teaches that God is spirit and desires worship in the spirit.  In knowing that God commands righteousness then one is also aware Jesus teaches how to obtain it.  Those that adhere Jesus' teachings will worship God as he desires.  He was therefore teaching Nicodemus how that to obtain the righteousness God desires one must be born of water and spirit.  Like when teaching us to be born of spirit, he also speaks of his spirit as his whole being when he states he came from above.

Quote

your question 1 to 4 are wrong and not bring clarity but only confusion, they come from religion

So you deny the Word is incarnated in God and according to you he is not a representation of his Word.

So you deny the Word is incarnated and so according to you it is not righteous and holy as the fulfillment of God’s Word is righteousness and holiness.

So you deny the Spirit is with God and so according to you it is excluded from God.

So you deny that the Spirit dwell in Jesus and so according to you God does not live in Jesus through his spirit.

Did you really mean what you wrote or did you fail to correctly understand what I wrote?

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2011,00:08)

Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 27 2011,20:00) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 27 2011,04:44)  Hi Gene, Five Common Fallacies, Don't Be Fooled By Them 1) Believing what you currently think the truth is, actually is “The Truth” ? 2) Making up scenarios to illustrate this believed truth, is proof that it is true ? ? 3) Repeating  ‘it’  over and over helps to substantiate, to others, the fact IT IS true ? ? ? 5) Believing that if you get others to agree with you, is FURTHER proof that  ‘it’  is correct ? ? ? ? 4) Believing counter arguments are all  ‘fake’,  while your own scenarios are rock solid PROOF ? ? ? ? ? THE (real) TRUTH By Ed J.   http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (A) What's that supposed to demonstrate Ed? (B) You just described all communication between men. (C) Even YOU use the same tools, (D) and you are certainly convinced you are correct in understanding. Hi Paladin, Good to here from you again! A) Demonstrate?   …It's an illustration of the fallacies that what people believe constitutes proof of their truth to others!

Let's examine this a little bit more closely, Ed.

Quote

1) Believing what you currently think the truth is, actually is “The Truth” ?

Actually, it's a demonstration of an unproved assertion alluding to what people believe, with no proof beyond the assertion.

My Proof? Are not lies also told by assertion? Some lies are even told in the imperative. Are these lies “believed” by the person telling them? Are they believed by the person hearing them? The grammatical application illustrates nothing whatsoever as to the truth or veracity of the statement made.

Jesus certainly believed that what he thought was truth, was truth. If I read the scriptures, and “think on these things” I have every right to believe it is truth, do I not?

I can even read scriptures about lies. Can I then believe that what I think about that lie, is the truth? Or is it a lie? How is it a fallacy? Lies are a communication tool. As also is silence. When asked to communicate as to facts in a situation, is silence then a fallacy?

Quote

B) Where is the proof of this assertion? Are you going to just make blanket statements, or can you actually offer PROOF?

You mean like the “proof” you offered in defence of your
“assertions” in response to my post? Or am I to understand you were illustrating “fallacies?” Assertions with no proof.

Quote

C) I use many tools, including Scriptural backing!

What does “Scriptural backing” infer? Does it infer truth is in your understanding? Or does it infer truth is in the writing of scripture itself? Can the written scripture be misunderstood? If you misunderstand the written scripture, does it count as “scriptural backing”? It is right there in the scriptures. But the understanding is not in the scriptures, is it? So, what does “scriptural backing” have to do in a communication about
“fallacies” and “assertions?”

Quote

D) I have studied the bible intensively for over 40 years.

Another unproved assertion. Is it “scripturally backed?” Is it a fallacy? Is it true? Aren't you offering assertions without proof?

Quote

I) Most people understand The Bible with the understanding of a man. (Isaiah 55:7-11)

But Isaiah was not talking about “most people” in your reference. He was talking about the wicked and the unrighteous, telling them to forsake their evil ways. Again, it is an unfounded assertion. And though you used “scriptural backing” you were selective, and concluded a fallacy, not a truth.

II) “The Bible” is best understood in much the same way “Optics” are understood. What I mean is: “The Bible” must be understood as “a whole”, Gen. to Rev.[/quote]

Then did Isaiah fail to understand that? Isaiah 28:10 “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:”

Did God misspeak when he said “Jots” and “tittles” must be taken into account?

Quote

But how is this done? Let us use “Optics” as a comparative example; OK? The closer you look at something, the less that can be seen in the field of view. Who told you that? The view changes, and the closer you get, the more detail you can see. Doesn't the “optic” approach depend upon what information it is you are trying to gather? Are you looking for detail, or entirety? Both are necessary for understanding with comprehension. And those are not the same thing. And likewise, the focus of detail is lost with the greater field of view.

But isn't the focus of the greater view lost in the detail? How is one to be considered superlative to the other? Isn't a change of focus necessary to understanding with full comprehension?

Quote

I hope you are getting all this? This is quite a conundrum, as you can only read one Bible verse at a time.

Who told you that? Sometimes I read one book at a time. Sometimes one chapter at a time, sometimes o
nly one word at a time. My focus changes to agree with my interest of the moment. You failed to define “a time” so I can do with it what I want. See, Ed, assertion with no proof. No definition. No parameters. nothing but assertins which are fallacious if I apply different parameters than you intended when you wrote your post.

“Fallacies” can be erroneous conclusions, or even intended lies, and in fact, even truth can be told fallaciously.

Assertion #1 – “Sentence number two is true.”
Assertion #2 – “Sentence number one is false.”

Or I can add the perameter “imperative” to the problem;

Assertion #1 – “Sentence number two must be true.”
Assertion #2 – “Sentence number 1 must be false.”

Conclusion? Conundrum known as “fallacy.”

III)

Quote

Consider what it would take to make a map without the advent of aerial photography? First you must understand each and every section of terrain. And then fit all sections of terrain by scale into their respective positions. Scale is imperative to the whole. But in order to fit all the sections by scale into the whole, “The Big Picture” has to be clearly understood in the mapmakers mind; then all the pieces will fit!

What if I am reading a map of the earth's seas? No ammount of terrain elevation study will be of any aid whatsoever. I will still see the curvature of earth, but if I go to the horizon, it will still not be “downhill” to where I began. Is this a fallacy? A conundrum? Optical illusion? Or does it help to know what you are mapping? Terrain elevation only helps when you are mapping terrain. See what a few words of instructin will do for the communication of “truth?”

IV)

Quote

When beginners start to read The Scriptures they don’t understand what “God” wants them to, because of what the ‘systems of religion’ taught them.

And you know this how? Another “assertion” without the
“proof” you demanded of me. How many “beginners” did you interview? how many did you “observe?” How many did you teach? According to your “unproved assertion,” In order to begin bible reading you have to first be spoiled by a “system of religion.” how then can they become “beginners” having no religious training? isn't that a fallacy? Or maybe a contradiction in terminology? If a “system of religion” has already taught them, how are they “beginners?” I think you are asserting things without proof.

V)

Quote

If they have been baptized with The “HolySpirit” and are open to His teachings, then they will be like a skilled mapmaker understanding the terrain of God’s Word!

So are you saying that all ocean map makers are heathens? No terrain, therefore no terrain elevation reading, and no understanding of God's word? Or do you think oceans are not mapped by map makers? I don't make that connection at all.

We must communicate again, Ed, but try without the fallacies.

[Ed J]

Hi Paladin,

You work real hard to disagree, don't you?

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

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2011,19:34)

Hi Paladin, You work real hard to disagree, don't you? Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

nothing hard about disagreeing with your last post to me. it is full of fallacies.

“Beginner” tainted by religious training? come on. How is he a beginner?

[kerwin]

Ed,

Quote

Kerwin, non-Scriptural ideas do not impress me.

Today everyone's word has become scripture to them as they read into scripture what their itching ears want to hear.  Therefore test every idea against the principles of God and against those of man.  The ones that are found rely on the principles of man are to be discarded while those that rely on godly principles are to be adhered to.

Quote

How was this idea revealed to you?

I have judged, am judging,  and will continue to judge that for myself but you are instructed to continuously judge that and other teachings for yourself.

Quote

The ball is in your court, you brought this up.

I did bring it up and the scriptures that support what I stated are self-evident so I have trouble understanding why you wish me to cite them.  Therefore perhaps you do not understand what “conceive” means.  It means “to cause to begin” as in a new life is caused to begin in a woman’s inner parts.

Quote

What Scriptural backing do you have to support it?

Quote

Luke 1:31 King James Version (KJV) 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

A prophecy to a seed of David regarding a son, she was to call by the name Jesus, which would be caused to begin in her, Mary’s, inner parts.

Quote

Luke 1:36 King James Version (KJV) 36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

The angel also instructs her that Elizabeth in a like manner was caused to begin a new life in her own inner parts and that life was currently in his 6th month.

[kerwin]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 28 2011,20:19)

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 28 2011,10:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 27 2011,20:41) But Gene, How is it that the Word AND the man Jesus BOTH had the glory of God's ONLY begotten Son? Gene, Though I have already answered this question of Mike's I would also like to hear your answer. Kerwin……….. God and his WORD are both Glorious, The Logos was (IN) Jesus and therefor so was the glory of GOD.  But God gives (HIS) Glory to (NO) Man. Jesus' glory was foreordained before he ever existed , Just as the Glory of Cyrus existed before he ever did. Even Man has a glory afforded him from the very beginning of his creation.   “what is man that so kind to him you should be , for you have made him a little lower then the angels for the tasting of death, but has (CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR)”.   Another thing Kerwin Jesus also has the Glory of being the First from human kind to be perfected and raised from the dead and that by it self is a glory afforded him. But man will also recieve the glory promised man by God at the resurrection to eternal life, which will be given them at the return of Jesus,  all Saints will recieve Glory and Honor, from GOD. There is a glory of GOD and a Glory of Man, but they are (NOT) the same Glory, each has a glory of its own. IMO peace and love…………………………gene

Gene,

Here is a scripture you should consider in rethinking the idea you just wrote as it states Jesus is the radiance of God's glory and not his glory as you just wrote.

Quote

Hebrews 1:3 King James Version (KJV) 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Another thought is that in his question Mike asked, inadvertently separates the human Jesus from the Word.  I know of know account in scripture were Jesus is not the human manifestation of God's word.  Do you?

[GeneBalthrop]

Kerwin……….. Yes  because Jesus (the person) put “HIMSELF” to DEATH by submitting His WILL to GOD the FATHERS WILL. All who have the Father (IN) them and Submit to him give off the RADIANCE of GOD through HIS SPIRIT that abides (IN) THEM, but none of that makes Them that radiance they give off. God Gives His Glory to NO MAN Kerwin> Remember In revelations where Jesus Spoke things to the Churches and then said whosoever has ears to hear let him here what the Spirit is saying unto the churches GOD'S Spirit is the radiance that can be given off by whoever has it, but that is GOD'S radiance not the persons. Do you see what i am saying Brother?

peace and love to you and yours…………………………………………..gene

[Ed J]

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 30 2011,01:20)

Ed, Quote Kerwin, non-Scriptural ideas do not impress me. Today everyone's word has become scripture to them as they read into scripture what their itching ears want to hear.  Therefore test every idea against the principles of God and against those of man.  The ones that are found rely on the principles of man are to be discarded while those that rely on godly principles are to be adhered to. Quote How was this idea revealed to you? I have judged, am judging,  and will continue to judge that for myself but you are instructed to continuously judge that and other teachings for yourself. Quote The ball is in your court, you brought this up. I did bring it up and the scriptures that support what I stated are self-evident so I have trouble understanding why you wish me to cite them.  Therefore perhaps you do not understand what “conceive” means.  It means “to cause to begin” as in a new life is caused to begin in a woman’s inner parts. Quote What Scriptural backing do you have to support it? Quote Luke 1:31 King James Version (KJV) 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. A prophecy to a seed of David regarding a son, she was to call by the name Jesus, which would be caused to begin in her, Mary’s, inner parts. Quote Luke 1:36 King James Version (KJV) 36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. The angel also instructs her that Elizabeth in a like manner was caused to begin a new life in her own inner parts and that life was currently in his 6th month.

Hi Kerwin,

This verse seems to be in disagreement with your theories; which is inaccurate?

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)

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

[Ed J]

Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 29 2011,20:46)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2011,19:34) Hi Paladin, You work real hard to disagree, don't you? nothing hard about disagreeing with your last post to me. it is full of fallacies. “Beginner” tainted by religious training? come on. How is he a beginner?

Hi Paladin,

The same way a baby is a beginner in the flesh.

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

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 28 2011,23:26)

To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. (Rom. 16:27)

Hi Ed,

Do you understand this scripture to be saying that ONLY God has glory?

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2011,06:48)

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 27 2011,15:40) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 27 2011,20:45) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 27 2011,13:13) edj Quote 1) The Word maketh the Son of God. (Heb.7:28) 2) Jesus speaks the Father's word. (John 14:24) 3) Belief in The Word saves you. (Luke 18:12) 4) Born again by The Word of God. (1Peter 4:23) 5) Believers speak The Word of God. (Acts 4:31) 6) The Word of God makes you clean. (John 15:3) 7) The seed is The Word of God. (Luke 11:18) 8) The Word grew and multiplied. (Acts 12:24) 9) The Word increased in number. (Acts 6:7) 10) The Word of God prevailed. (Acts 19:20) 11) What? came The Word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? (1 Cor 14:36) all those scriptures you quote are NOT the ” THE WORD OF GOD” from JOHN 1 ;1 OR REV;19- the scriptures are the word of God and by obey them you can do all the things 1-11 now the seed does not mean the word of God of it self but the seed is the gospel or good news that people hears and that go's to the heart or the stones ,where it can either grow or die , also the word of God is the truth ,and so will always prevails Pierre Hi Pierre, Does eternal life die? Jesus' died, but “The Word” NEVER DID. Read carefully what John says… That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of “The Word” of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1John 1:1-3) Compare  Rev.19:11-21 to Isaiah 63:2-10. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org edj read this I have ad some for understanding ; Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word(when man was created), and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. Jn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.(of creation ) Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Jn 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light(the words of the grace of God ,the reconciliation from God to men;this meant live to whoever accepted )  of men. Jn 1:9 The true light(the truth from God and to prove he was who he said he was, he fulfilled the law, with all what was said abode what the Christ should do ,true to the letter) that gives light to every man was coming into the world. Jn 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jn 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. Jn 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” Quote Does eternal life die? THE WORD OF GOD ,CAME INTO THE WORLD TO GIVE HIS FLESH BODY AS A PERFECT OFFERING IN RANSOM FOR MEN SINS, why would his soul die ? and stay dead ? our souls do not die until Gods judgment ,and Christ by obeying his father  to the fullest and to dead ,was judge totally righteous and so was the first one among many brothers (144k) to be resurrected,and later (40days)so return to his father and took his name back in heaven ,”THE WORD OF GOD” THIS WITH MORE GLORY THAN BEFORE ,God had place him now to clean up the heaven and will soon clean up the earth and dead will be no more ,and all will be of God and from God. Pierre Hi Pierre, Is your contention that eternal live (according to Pierre) does die? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

eddy

Job 2:4 “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life

this was one of the question that Christ came to prove

Pierre

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 27 2011,20:45)

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 27 2011,13:13) edj Quote 1) The Word maketh the Son of God. (Heb.7:28) 2) Jesus speaks the Father's word. (John 14:24) 3) Belief in The Word saves you. (Luke 18:12) 4) Born again by The Word of God. (1Peter 4:23) 5) Believers speak The Word of God. (Acts 4:31) 6) The Word of God makes you clean. (John 15:3) 7) The seed is The Word of God. (Luke 11:18) 8) The Word grew and multiplied. (Acts 12:24) 9) The Word increased in number. (Acts 6:7) 10) The Word of God prevailed. (Acts 19:20) 11) What? came The Word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? (1 Cor 14:36) all those scriptures you quote are NOT the ” THE WORD OF GOD” from JOHN 1 ;1 OR REV;19- the scriptures are the word of God and by obey them you can do all the things 1-11 now the seed does not mean the word of God of it self but the seed is the gospel or good news that people hears and that go's to the heart or the stones ,where it can either grow or die , also the word of God is the truth ,and so will always prevails Pierre Hi Pierre, Does eternal life die? Jesus' died, but “The Word” NEVER DID. Read carefully what John says… That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of “The Word” of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1John 1:1-3) Compare  Rev.19:11-21 to Isaiah 63:2-10. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

eddy

THE WORD OF GOD(Christ) was given a body of flesh that he offered for our sins,

came down and live like man among men and give up his body of flesh for our sins ,understand ?

tell me when did his soul died ?ours do not die after dead because it goes back to God for storage until the time of judgment and resurrection, and we are not the son of God

Pierre

[terraricca]

Kerwin

Quote

This sounds like the body of our current conversation. Jest to make sure we have some common understandings I have some questions to ask before continuing. Feel free to give essay answers if you feel it is necessary. 1) Is the Word incarnated in God? 2) Is the Word incarnated in the Spirit? 3) Was the Spirit with God in the beginning? 4) Does the Spirit dwell in Jesus?

Pierre say;your question 1 to 4 are wrong and not bring clarity but only confusion, they come from religion

Quote

So you deny the Word is incarnated in God and according to you he is not a representation of his Word. So you deny the Word is incarnated and so according to you it is not righteous and holy as the fulfillment of God’s Word is righteousness and holiness. So you deny the Spirit is with God and so according to you it is excluded from God. So you deny that the Spirit dwell in Jesus and so according to you God does not live in Jesus through his spirit. Did you really mean what you wrote or did you fail to correctly understand what I wrote?

1)So you deny the Word is incarnated in God;and according to you he is not a representation of his Word.

2)So you deny the Word is incarnated;and so according to you it is not righteous and holy as the fulfillment of God’s Word is righteousness and holiness.

3)So you deny the Spirit is with God ;and so according to you it is excluded from God.

4)So you deny that the Spirit dwell in Jesus; and so according to you God does not live in Jesus through his spirit.

==================================================================
my answer to ;

1) I do not believe in incarnation of anyone in God;but I believe that THE WORD (Christ ) came down from heaven to become like one of us and voluntarily give up his fleshly body and live for a ransom for our sins ,and then return to heaven ,

2)see answer #1

3)it seems you have not stipulated witch spirit see God his a spirit being ,so you are using the word SPIRIT what do you mean by this are you talking God mind ?Gods will ?

4) again what spirit do you talking about ? and how is God the father lives in his only begotten son ? Christ is not his father and God is not his son,you must understand this ,they are two different beings ,
so are you meaning that the spirit that live in Christ from the father is the fathers WILL ? if so then I agree.

Pierre say;your question 1 to 4 are wrong and not bring clarity but only confusion, they come from religion

this still true

Pierre

[kerwin]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 30 2011,01:08)

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 30 2011,01:20) Ed, Quote Kerwin, non-Scriptural ideas do not impress me. Today everyone's word has become scripture to them as they read into scripture what their itching ears want to hear.  Therefore test every idea against the principles of God and against those of man.  The ones that are found rely on the principles of man are to be discarded while those that rely on godly principles are to be adhered to. Quote How was this idea revealed to you? I have judged, am judging,  and will continue to judge that for myself but you are instructed to continuously judge that and other teachings for yourself. Quote The ball is in your court, you brought this up. I did bring it up and the scriptures that support what I stated are self-evident so I have trouble understanding why you wish me to cite them.  Therefore perhaps you do not understand what “conceive” means.  It means “to cause to begin” as in a new life is caused to begin in a woman’s inner parts. Quote What Scriptural backing do you have to support it? Quote Luke 1:31 King James Version (KJV) 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. A prophecy to a seed of David regarding a son, she was to call by the name Jesus, which would be caused to begin in her, Mary’s, inner parts. Quote Luke 1:36 King James Version (KJV) 36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. The angel also instructs her that Elizabeth in a like manner was caused to begin a new life in her own inner parts and that life was currently in his 6th month. Hi Kerwin, This verse seems to be in disagreement with your theories; which is inaccurate? But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2) Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed J.

My “theory” is a litteral interpretation and the reasonable conclusions I that are drawn from it.  You have not offered any reason why Luke 1:31 and 36 should not me taken litterally.  I would like to hear it.

As for Micah 5:2 Jesus' existence was known and planned by God long before it occured and therefore he came forth from God.

Here is a scripture that testifies to that.

Quote

Ephesians 1:4 King James Version (KJV) 4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

[Ed J]

Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 30 2011,16:04)

Ed J. My “theory” is a litteral interpretation and the reasonable conclusions I that are drawn from it.  You have not offered any reason why Luke 1:31 and 36 should not me taken litterally.  I would like to hear it. As for Micah 5:2 Jesus' existence was known and planned by God long before it occured and therefore he came forth from God. Here is a scripture that testifies to that. Quote Ephesians 1:4 King James Version (KJV) 4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Hi Kerwin,

How would our birth preclude preexistence?
Could not both Ephesians 1:4 as well as 2Tm.1:9 be
instead indicating that we, as well as Christ, all preexisted?

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

[kerwin]

Pierre,

Quote

1)I do not believe in incarnation of anyone in God;but I believe that THE WORD (Christ ) came down from heaven to become like one of us and voluntarily give up his fleshly body and live for a ransom for our sins ,and then return to heaven , 2)see answer #1

I am not saying that a person incarnated in God or the Spirit as the Word of God is not a person.  I am saying that God is a manifestation of his own Word.    I am also stating the Spirit of God is a manifestation of God’s literal Word.

A synonym of incarnated is manifested and here is one verse that parallels some ideas that are in John 1
:1-

Quote

1 John 1:2 King James Version (KJV) 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

Does the ideas I expressed in question 1 and 2 clearer?

Quote

3)it seems you have not stipulated witch spirit see God his a spirit being ,so you are using the word SPIRIT  what do you mean by this are you talking God mind ?Gods will ? 4) again what spirit do you talking about ? …

The Spirit of God written of in this verse.

Quote

1 Corinthians 2:11 King James Version (KJV)  11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Quote

and how is God the father lives in his only begotten son ?

As this verse states he lives in those that believe in him except that he has no mediator between him and God.

Quote

Ephesians 2:22 King James Version (KJV) 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Christ is not his father and God is not his son,you must understand this ,they are two different beings ,

That is true; though some such as Trinitarians misunderstand what it means for God to live in Jesus through his Spirit.

Quote

so are you meaning that the spirit that live in Christ from the father is the fathers WILL ? if so then I agree.

I mean that Jesus submits his will to the Spirit of God within him and so summits his will to God’s will.

[kerwin]

To all,

I posted this to the wrong thread inadvertantly. I am moving it to the preexistence thread where it belongs. It is a post to mike on that thread.

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 30 2011,06:15)

Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 29 2011,20:46) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2011,19:34) Hi Paladin, You work real hard to disagree, don't you? nothing hard about disagreeing with your last post to me. it is full of fallacies. “Beginner” tainted by religious training? come on. How is he a beginner? Hi Paladin, The same way a baby is a beginner in the flesh. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

So in your thinking, all babies are born corrupted and tainted?

By WHAT? Bad Teachers?

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 29 2011,19:26)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2011,00:08) Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 27 2011,20:00) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 27 2011,04:44)  Hi Gene, Five Common Fallacies, Don't Be Fooled By Them 1) Believing what you currently think the truth is, actually is “The Truth” ? 2) Making up scenarios to illustrate this believed truth, is proof that it is true ? ? 3) Repeating  ‘it’  over and over helps to substantiate, to others, the fact IT IS true ? ? ? 5) Believing that if you get others to agree with you, is FURTHER proof that  ‘it’  is correct ? ? ? ? 4) Believing counter arguments are all  ‘fake’,  while your own scenarios are rock solid PROOF ? ? ? ? ? THE (real) TRUTH By Ed J.   http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (A) What's that supposed to demonstrate Ed? (B) You just described all communication between men. (C) Even YOU use the same tools, (D) and you are certainly convinced you are correct in understanding. Hi Paladin, Good to here from you again! A) Demonstrate?   …It's an illustration of the fallacies that what people believe constitutes proof of their truth to others! Let's examine this a little bit more closely, Ed. Quote 1) Believing what you currently think the truth is, actually is “The Truth” ? Actually, it's a demonstration of an unproved assertion alluding to what people believe, with no  proof beyond the assertion. My Proof? Are not lies also told by assertion? Some lies are even told in the imperative. Are these lies “believed” by the person telling them? Are they believed by the person hearing them? The grammatical application illustrates nothing whatsoever as to the truth or veracity of the statement made. Jesus certainly believed that what he thought was truth, was truth. If I read the scriptures, and “think on these things” I have every right to believe it is truth, do I not? I can even read scriptures about lies. Can I then believe that what I think about that lie, is the truth? Or is it a lie? How is it a fallacy? Lies are a communication tool. As also is silence. When asked to communicate as to facts in a situation, is silence then a fallacy? Quote B) Where is the proof of this assertion? Are you going to just make blanket statements, or can you actually offer PROOF? You mean like the “proof” you offered in defence of your “assertions” in response to my post? Or am I to understand you were illustrating “fallacies?” Assertions with no proof. Quote C) I use many tools, including Scriptural backing! What does “Scriptural backing” infer? Does it infer truth is in your understanding? Or does it infer truth is in the writing of scripture itself? Can the written scripture be misunderstood? If you misunderstand the written scripture, does it count as “scriptural backing”? It is right there in the scriptures. But the understanding is not in the scriptures, is it? So, what does “scriptural backing” have to do in a communication about “fallacies” and “assertions?” Quote D) I have studied the bible intensively for over 40 years. Another unproved assertion. Is it “scripturally backed?” Is it a fallacy? Is it true? Aren't you offering assertions without proof? Quote I) Most people understand The Bible with the understanding of a man. (Isaiah 55:7-11) But Isaiah was not talking about “most people” in your reference. He was talking about the wicked and the unrighteous, telling them to forsake their evil ways. Again, it is an unfounded assertion. And though you used “scriptural backing” you were selective, and concluded a fallacy, not a truth. II) “The Bible” is best understood in much the same way “Optics” are understood. What I mean is: “The Bible” must be understood as “a whole”, Gen. to Rev.[/quote] Then did Isaiah fail to understand that?  Isaiah 28:10 “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:” Did God misspeak when he said “Jots” and “tittles” must be taken into account? Quote But how is this done? Let us use “Optics” as a comparative example; OK? The closer you look at something, the less that can be seen in the field of view. Who told you that? The view changes, and the closer you get, the more detail you can see. Doesn't the “optic” approach depend upon what information it is you are trying to gather? Are you looking for detail, or entirety? Both are necessary for understanding with comprehension. And those are not the same thing. And likewise, the focus of detail is lost with the greater field of view. But isn't the focus of the greater view lost in the detail?  How is one to be considered superlative to the other? Isn't a change of focus necessary to understanding with full comprehension? Quote I hope you are getting all this? This is quite a conundrum, as you can only read one Bible verse at a time. Who told you that? Sometimes I read one book at a time. Sometimes one chapter at a time, sometimes only one word at a time. My focus changes to agree with my interest of the moment. You failed to define “a time” so I can do with it what I want. See, Ed, assertion with no proof. No definition. No parameters. nothing but assertins which are fallacious if I apply different parameters than you intended when you wrote your post. “Fallacies” can be erroneous conclusions, or even intended lies, and in fact, even truth can be told fallaciously. Assertion #1 – “Sentence number two is true.” Assertion #2 – “Sentence number one is false.” Or I can add the perameter “imperative” to the problem; Assertion #1 – “Sentence number two must be true.” Assertion #2 – “Sentence number 1 must be false.” Conclusion? Conundrum known as “fallacy.” III) Quote Consider what it would take to make a map without the advent of aerial photography? First you must understand each and every section of terrain. And then fit all sections of terrain by scale into their respective positions. Scale is imperative to the whole. But in order to fit all the sections by scale into the whole, “The Big Picture” has to be clearly understood in the mapmakers mind; then all the pieces will fit! What if I am reading a map of the earth's seas? No ammount of terrain elevation study will be of any aid whatsoever. I will still see the curvature of earth, but if I go to the horizon, it will still not be “downhill” to where I began. Is this a fallacy? A conundrum? Optical illusion? Or does it help to know what you are mapping? Terrain elevation only helps when you are mapping terrain. See what a few words of instructin will do for the communication of “truth?” IV) Quote When beginners start to read The Scriptures they don’t understand what “God” wants them to, because of what the ‘systems of religion’ taught them. And you know this how? Another “assertion” without the “proof” you demanded of me. How many “beginners” did you interview? how many did you “observe?” How many did you teach? According to your “unproved assertion,” In order to begin bible reading you have to first be spoiled by a “system of religion.” how then can they become “beginners” having no religious training? isn't that a fallacy? Or maybe a contradiction in terminology? If a “system of religion” has already taught them, how are they “beginners?” I think you are asserting things without proof. V) Quote If they have been baptized with The “HolySpirit” and are open to His teachings, then they will be like a skilled mapmaker understanding the terrain of God’s Word! So are you saying that all ocean map makers are heathens? No terrain, therefore no terrain elevation reading, and no understanding of God's word? Or do you think oceans are not mapped by map makers?  I don't make that connection at all. We must communicate again, Ed, but try without the fallacies.

ED J………..What Paladin has said here is right Brother, rethink you position, he is not arguing with you, but trying to show you something that is true and will aid you in you understanding and expressing of what you believe to be true brother. IMO

peace and Love to you and yours…………………………gene

[Ed J]

Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 30 2011,20:49)

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 30 2011,06:15) Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 29 2011,20:46) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2011,19:34) Hi Paladin, You work real hard to disagree, don't you? nothing hard about disagreeing with your last post to me. it is full of fallacies. “Beginner” tainted by religious training? come on. How is he a beginner? Hi Paladin, The same way a baby is a beginner in the flesh. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (1)So in your thinking, all babies are born corrupted and tainted? (2)By WHAT? Bad Teachers?

Hi Paladin,

1) I didn't say that?

2) I didn't say that either?

I see you're still working hard to disagree.

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

[Author]

Posts