- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 16 2011,03:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2011,09:55) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 15 2011,01:00) So no, Mike, I do not say “I have God's grace and my opponents don't.
Good, Paladin. I didn't really think that's what you meant to say.
That's not only not what I meant to say –That's not what I said.
Do we REALLY have to do this EVERY SINGLE time, Paladin? Do I REALLY have to spend MY valuble time showing you what you said before because you apparently don't remember from one day to the next?
THIS is what you said: “I believe that except for the grace of God and the blood of Christ I differ not one whit from my opponents.”
Here is just the underlined words, so you can SEE FOR YOURSELF what you really said: “Except for the grace of God I differ not from my opponents.
So……………..do you DIFFER FROM YOUR OPPONENTS in that YOU have the grace of God and THEY don't? Or is it that THEY have the grace of God and YOU don't? Because, according to your statement, the grace of God is the distinguishing factor between you and your opponents.
Now, I was a polite gentleman. I offered you an easy way out of this statement by saying I didn't really think you meant it like you posted it. Why couldn't you just leave well enough alone? Why do you feel the need to try to SHOW ME WRONG all the time? It hasn't worked once in the entire time we've been discussing your misunderstandings of scriptures. Why not just give it up?
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 16 2011,04:20) [/quote] Quote mikeboll64,Sep. wrote:1. John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.What does it mean that he ascended except that he first DESCENDED? Where did Jesus ascend TO? That is also where he descended FROM.
Well that certainly explains Paul's statement That when Christ ascended to heaven, he first descended into the lower parts of the earth.
Jesus descended first into the lower parts of the earth, was raised from the dead, (ascended back to where he was before) was with the disciples forty days and nights, followed by the ascension to heaven.
You made a point with Psalm 63:9 that the phrase “lower parts of the earth” has also been used in scripture to refer to “beneath the earth”. But I have made a point with Psalm 139:15 and Isaiah 44:23 that the phrase “lower parts of the earth” also refers to the earth itself, and NOT “beneath the earth”.Now that both meanings have been clearly displayed in the scriptures, (which, btw, is what a SCRIPTURAL discussion is all about), how do we decide which meaning Paul meant in Ephesians 4:9? We can't, can we? It's really anybody's guess, right?
I will offer two thoughts on the matter:
1. In Eph 4:8 and 4:10, the two verses surrounding the verse in question, it is clear that Paul is speaking about Jesus' ascension to HEAVEN. So when Paul says that the fact he ascended means he also descended, I take it to mean the place he descended FROM is also the place he ascended TO. Like this:
8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men.”9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended [FROM ON HIGH] to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended [FROM HIGHER THAN ALL THE HEAVENS] is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)
Your opinion on the matter may vary.
2. Since the “WHERE” of the descension cannot be properly and scripturally ascertained, this verse cannot rightfully be used by either one of us to shed light on John 6. Which doesn't affect me at all, because I never used this verse in conjunction with the teaching in John 6 anyway. But it DOES affect you in a detrimental way. Because John 6 STILL has Jesus saying 7 times that he came down from heaven, and ending his teaching by asking, “What if you see me ascend to where I was BEFORE?”
Now, since Jesus didn't mention anything in John 6 about being “beneath the earth”, nor can you honestly use your “beneath the earth” understanding of Eph 4:9 since it is ambiguous, then there is only one place a logical person can conclude that Jesus meant by the words “where I was BEFORE”. The “where he was before” was the exact same place he just got done telling us SEVEN TIMES that he came FROM. Get it? Someone could only come FROM a place he was BEFORE. That's just common sense.
So you can play your word games with “blepo” and “thewreete” if it makes you feel better, Paladin. But NOTHING will change the scriptural FACT that Jesus told them where he was FROM seven times in John 6, and then implied that some of them would even see him ascend BACK THERE.
I don't really care what you believe. Just don't try to use Eph 4:9 as a rebuttal of our John 6 understanding anymore, okay? Because two different scriptures show that Paul could have just as easily been referring to Jesus descension to earth itself, and not “beneath the earth”.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2011,07:40) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 16 2011,03:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2011,09:55) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 15 2011,01:00) So no, Mike, I do not say “I have God's grace and my opponents don't.
Good, Paladin. I didn't really think that's what you meant to say.
That's not only not what I meant to say –That's not what I said.
Do we REALLY have to do this EVERY SINGLE time, Paladin? Do I REALLY have to spend MY valuble time showing you what you said before because you apparently don't remember from one day to the next?THIS is what you said: “I believe that except for the grace of God and the blood of Christ I differ not one whit from my opponents.”
Here is just the underlined words, so you can SEE FOR YOURSELF what you really said: “Except for the grace of God I differ not from my opponents.
So……………..do you DIFFER FROM YOUR OPPONENTS in that YOU have the grace of God and THEY don't? Or is it that THEY have the grace of God and YOU don't? Because, according to your statement, the grace of God is the distinguishing factor between you and your opponents.
The grace of God has nothing to do with whether recipients are opponents, Mike.
If we do not have God's grace, then we only have opponents.
I would rather have the grace of God with opponents, than not have the grace of God, but just have opponents, who also have the grace of God.
Get real.
Quote Now, I was a polite gentleman. I offered you an easy way out of this statement by saying I didn't really think you meant it like you posted it. Why couldn't you just leave well enough alone? Why do you feel the need to try to SHOW ME WRONG all the time? It hasn't worked once in the entire time we've been discussing your misunderstandings of scriptures. I don't need “a way out” Mike. I need a way “IN.” You know, a way in which to communicate to you.
I don't “feel the need to try to show you wrong all the time” because you do that to yourself, with no help from me whatsoever.
Quote Why not just give it up? I tried that for about fifty pages or so, and it didn't work, because you began to snipe and accuse, finally attacking my friends for, as you put it, “accepting without evidence” a view on Heb 11:3 which is opposite to what I believe. Are you going to tell me you were “not wrong” Mike?
[page 253 post #3]
Quote mikeboll64 – Feb. 2010 Posted: Sep. 10 2011,13:33
———————————————————–
Speaking of things that must hurt, Ed pointed me to this scripture:Hebrews 11:3 NKJV ©
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.According to Paladin's theory, (which was gladly accepted without evidence by Wispring, Marty, Gene, Kerwin, and anyone else that was willing to jump on the bandwagon just because they liked the non-preexistent conclusion it promised), the word “word” above MUST BE “logos”, right? Guess again.
My correct position – found on page 4 post #9
Quote
When Jonah preached to Ninevah that their city would be destroyed in forty days, the citizens of Ninevah repented, and God adjusted the timeing of the judgment on them for one generation, which is how long it took for the next generation of citizens to rebel against God. It was an adjustment to the age of their destruction.The Hebrew author recognizes that when the Mosaic dispensation (old covenant) ended, and the new covenant began, it was another “adjustment” of the ages. THAT is the reference of Heb 1:2 and Heb 11:3
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the aiwns [ages];
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the aiwns [worlds] were [adjusted] framed by the reema [word] of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2011,08:42) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 16 2011,04:20) [/quote] Quote mikeboll64,Sep. wrote:1. John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.What does it mean that he ascended except that he first DESCENDED? Where did Jesus ascend TO? That is also where he descended FROM.
Well that certainly explains Paul's statement That when Christ ascended to heaven, he first descended into the lower parts of the earth.
Jesus descended first into the lower parts of the earth, was raised from the dead, (ascended back to where he was before) was with the disciples forty days and nights, followed by the ascension to heaven.
You made a point with Psalm 63:9 that the phrase “lower parts of the earth” has also been used in scripture to refer to “beneath the earth”. But I have made a point with Psalm 139:15 and Isaiah 44:23 that the phrase “lower parts of the earth” also refers to the earth itself, and NOT “beneath the earth”.Now that both meanings have been clearly displayed in the scriptures, (which, btw, is what a SCRIPTURAL discussion is all about), how do we decide which meaning Paul meant in Ephesians 4:9? We can't, can we? It's really anybody's guess, right?
I will offer two thoughts on the matter:
1. In Eph 4:8 and 4:10, the two verses surrounding the verse in question, it is clear that Paul is speaking about Jesus' ascension to HEAVEN. So when Paul says that the fact he ascended means he also descended, I take it to mean the place he descended FROM is also the place he ascended TO. Like this:
8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men.”9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended [FROM ON HIGH] to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended [FROM HIGHER THAN ALL THE HEAVENS] is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)
Your opinion on the matter may vary.
2. Since the “WHERE” of the descension cannot be properly and scripturally ascertained, this verse cannot rightfully be used by either one of us to shed light on John 6. Which doesn't affect me at all, because I never used this verse in conjunction with the teaching in John 6 anyway. But it DOES affect you in a detrimental way. Because John 6 STILL has Jesus saying 7 times that he came down from heaven, and ending his teaching by asking, “What if you see me ascend to where I was BEFORE?”
Now, since Jesus didn't mention anything in John 6 about being “beneath the earth”, nor can you honestly use your “beneath the earth” understanding of Eph 4:9 since it is ambiguous, then there is only one place a logical person can conclude that Jesus meant by the words “where I was BEFORE”. The “where he was before” was the exact same place he just got done telling us SEVEN TIMES that he came FROM. Get it? Someone could only come FROM a place he was BEFORE. That's just common sense.
So you can play your word games with “blepo” and “thewreete” if it makes you feel better, Paladin. But NOTHING will change the scriptural FACT that Jesus told them where he was FROM seven times in John 6, and then implied that some of them would even see him ascend BACK THERE.
I don't really care what you believe. Just don't try to use Eph 4:9 as a rebuttal of our John 6 understanding anymore, okay? Because two different scriptures show that Paul could have just as easily been referring to Jesus descension to earth itself, and not “beneath the earth”.
mike
So you think it proper, that if you disagree with my understanding of a verse, you can tell me not to use it anymore because …what??? You own it? You disagre with my understanding, therefore I am not to use it?What planet are you from Mike?
Paladin,
You are really a piece of work.
You reposted an old post of yours where you mentioned Heb 11:3………….SO WHAT? Did that old post of yours say that since the “word of God” in that verse was “rhema”, your whole “secret meaning of logos” plan didn't work? Because if you DIDN'T say that, then what was this recent post about? To prove that you once mentioned Heb 11:3 in a post? The fact that you once quoted 11:3 doesn't change my post about “logos” versus “rhema”, does it? The fact that you once quoted 11:3 doesn't change the fact that your theory about “logos” having a special meaning while “rhema” refers only to a regular old “word” is FLAWED, does it?As far as Eph 4:9, you can post it as some kind of “proof” if you want to . But now that you know the TRUTH of the matter – that it is ambiguous concerning the “where” of the descension – you would not be HONEST in doing so.
And any time I see you use that scripture in an attempt to twist John 6, I will be right there in your face “sniping”.
Uh oh Paladin. Now what will you do? Will you have to break down and accept the teaching in John 6 for what it REALLY says – that Jesus came down from heaven and would ascend back to heaven?
Probably not. Honesty is only the best policy for those of us who don't have flawed doctrines to maintain.
Mike,
I see that your understanding is not mine as the unwritten context you bring to bear is not mine and therefore you see implication I do not.
What does it mean when I state that there were a group of women near the cross, and John was among them?
I doubt you believe that John is one of their number, since you know he is a male.
Your example demonstrated to me that I myself made in error in assuming that mentioning someone specifically meant they were an exception to the earlier generalization. Therefore that line of reasoning is flawed.
Another answer using another line of reasoning therefore is that scripture states that Adam is the son of God.
Quote Luke 3:38
King James Version (KJV)38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Since by the act of creation both Adam is the son of God and Eve is the daughter of God then all their male descendants are the sons (as in the descendants) of God.
Since angels, including Satan, are also created by God they are all in a like manner the sons of God.
Even though all human beings are the sons of God through the act of creation there are some humans who are called sons of man while others are called children of the Jehovah as Deuteronomy 14:1 demonstrates. Why is this?
Quote Deuteronomy 14
King James Version (KJV)1Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
Since angels also are created whose son is Satan in the sense of the clause “son of” as used in Deuteronomy 14:1?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2011,07:40) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 16 2011,03:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2011,09:55) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 15 2011,01:00) So no, Mike, I do not say “I have God's grace and my opponents don't.
Good, Paladin. I didn't really think that's what you meant to say.
That's not only not what I meant to say –That's not what I said.
Do we REALLY have to do this EVERY SINGLE time, Paladin? Do I REALLY have to spend MY valuble time showing you what you said before because you apparently don't remember from one day to the next?THIS is what you said: “I believe that except for the grace of God and the blood of Christ I differ not one whit from my opponents.”
Here is just the underlined words, so you can SEE FOR YOURSELF what you really said: “Except for the grace of God I differ not from my opponents.
So……………..do you DIFFER FROM YOUR OPPONENTS in that YOU have the grace of God and THEY don't? Or is it that THEY have the grace of God and YOU don't? Because, according to your statement, the grace of God is the distinguishing factor between you and your opponents.
Now, I was a polite gentleman. I offered you an easy way out of this statement by saying I didn't really think you meant it like you posted it. Why couldn't you just leave well enough alone? Why do you feel the need to try to SHOW ME WRONG all the time? It hasn't worked once in the entire time we've been discussing your misunderstandings of scriptures. Why not just give it up?
I have gone back and read my post again Mike, and you are correct, that is what I said.I apologize. It was not what I meant to say.
Too late, however, I already said it.
Maybe I am just getting too old to do battle on the boards anymore.
I have to think about it.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2011,13:20) Paladin, You are really a piece of work.
You reposted an old post of yours where you mentioned Heb 11:3………….SO WHAT? Did that old post of yours say that since the “word of God” in that verse was “rhema”, your whole “secret meaning of logos” plan didn't work? Because if you DIDN'T say that, then what was this recent post about? To prove that you once mentioned Heb 11:3 in a post? The fact that you once quoted 11:3 doesn't change my post about “logos” versus “rhema”, does it? The fact that you once quoted 11:3 doesn't change the fact that your theory about “logos” having a special meaning while “rhema” refers only to a regular old “word” is FLAWED, does it?As far as Eph 4:9, you can post it as some kind of “proof” if you want to . But now that you know the TRUTH of the matter – that it is ambiguous concerning the “where” of the descension – you would not be HONEST in doing so.
And any time I see you use that scripture in an attempt to twist John 6, I will be right there in your face “sniping”.
Uh oh Paladin. Now what will you do? Will you have to break down and accept the teaching in John 6 for what it REALLY says – that Jesus came down from heaven and would ascend back to heaven?
Probably not. Honesty is only the best policy for those of us who don't have flawed doctrines to maintain.
Hey Mike, it was YOU who said to my friends,Speaking of things that must hurt, Ed pointed me to this scripture:
Hebrews 11:3 NKJV ©
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.According to Paladin's theory, (which was gladly accepted without evidence by Wispring, Marty, Gene, Kerwin, and anyone else that was willing to jump on the bandwagon just because they liked the non-preexistent conclusion it promised), the word “word” above MUST BE “logos”, right? Guess again.
There is no “secret meaning of logos” in any of my posts. It is right there in scripture for all to see. The fact you did not see it does not make my seeing it, a “sectet meaning.” That's where you keep going wrong Mike. Your attitude.
It seems as though your whole reason for being here is to bludgeon everyone who does not agree with you, till they either surrender in abject terror, or get so tired of trying to explain something to you because you keep asking them to say it like you say it so it will make sense that you can understand.
It was Paul the Apostle who said “the logos of God” is a concept of “Christ in you.”[Col 1:25-27] And it was John who said Jesus was given a name “The Logos of God.”[Rev 3:12][Rev 19:12-13] And that name gift was long after the resurrection and ascension.
And it was Paul the Apostle who said the Holy SPirit is the reema of God.[Eph 6:17]
None of this is secret language or expressed in language only I understand. It is right there on the page for all to see.
Doctrine is not, however. It is developed from what is NOT on the printed page, by those who publish conclusions as though their understanding of what scripture says, is scripture itself.
Trinity doctrine comes from using words not in scripture to explain concepts found in scripture, by adding words from outside of scripture.
John 1:1 does not say anything about “in the beginning was pre-existant Jesus, and pre-existant Jesus was with God, and pre-existant Jesus was God;” and John 1:14 does not say
“Pre-existant Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.”All that about “pre-existant Jesus” is found from outside of scripture. It is a doctrine developed from believing that John's
“ho logos” that “became flesh” was later in scripture identified as Jesus. That comes from reading the books of the testament out of order. That comes from developing a doctrine out of John's gospel, that will not be developed from reading John's gospel in the order in which it was written.By the time John's gospel was written, Paul had already, at least thirty years before, said that “The logos of God” is
“Christ in you” – a developement of Paul's earlier statement “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”And his statement “”My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]
And Paul later said – “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” [II Cor 13:5]
Still later, Paul wrote that he had preached to the whole world: “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:” [Col 1:23-24]
And that he was given a mission to “fully preach' (fulfill) the logos of God: “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:” [Col 1:25-27]
Tell me Mike, how can the logos of God increase? “And the logos of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” [Acts 6:7]
The logos of God can increase because the number of disciples who turned their lives over to Christ so that Christ lived in them, the logos of God was personified in those saints, and incresed in number.
Long after Paul finished his assignment of preaching the logos of God to the whole world, John referenced the result of Paul's preaching, when he said “And the logos became flesh and dwelled among us,” referencing the personification of the logos of God in the lives of the saints.
It is not secret language, nor is it Paladin's imagination. It is all clearly written right there in the scripture for all to see. No Paladin interpretation” just quotes from the scriptures themselves. No conclusions from a deluded rendition of scripture, simply a gathering of the scriptures in the approximate order in which they were written, as found in the King James Translation. To deny any of this is to deny scripture quotations, not my musings and conclusions.
As far as “twisting” John 6:62 – it was YOUR a
rgument that
“blepo” was the standard that applied to understanding it. I simply looked to the scripture, saw that “blepo” was not involved, and found where “thewrew” was applied by the Holy Spirit, to other scriptures carrying the same theme.As for you telling me I cannot use certain scriptures in response to your questions because you have shown the “truth” of that scripture, I can only remind you that you can no longer use John 1:1,14 to prove the logos is Jesus Christ. Let's see how long that effects your doctrine of pre-existant Jesus.
Paladin,
Quote As for you telling me I cannot use certain scriptures in response to your questions because you have shown the “truth” of that scripture, I can only remind you that you can no longer use John 1:1,14 to prove the logos is Jesus Christ. Let's see how long that effects your doctrine of pre-existant Jesus. I have wrote to Mike and others not to use hard to understand passages that we disagree on the meaning of in order to prove a point but rather to find those passages that are easier to understand an so agree on to make a point.
Of course John 1:1 and 14 qualifiy as a hard to understand verses.
I did enjoy reading your argument in support of your understanding of what the word made flesh means. It apears well thought out to me.
Paladin…………Your work here is not without effect brother, there are some who do understand what you have put forth from scripture and agree with you. The Christos is indeed the Logos of GOD and it was (IN) Jesus and is (IN) all true Saints of GOD who are the true Brothers of Jesus. It was made to be flesh in Jesus and is made flesh in all those who have it. I believe your post is both accurate and scriptural brother.
peace and love to you and yours………………………………………….gene
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,20:14) Paladin, Quote As for you telling me I cannot use certain scriptures in response to your questions because you have shown the “truth” of that scripture, I can only remind you that you can no longer use John 1:1,14 to prove the logos is Jesus Christ. Let's see how long that effects your doctrine of pre-existant Jesus. I have wrote to Mike and others not to use hard to understand passages that we disagree on the meaning of in order to prove a point but rather to find those passages that are easier to understand an so agree on to make a point.
Of course John 1:1 and 14 qualifiy as a hard to understand verses.
I did enjoy reading your argument in support of your understanding of what the word made flesh means. It apears well thought out to me.
Thank you Kerwin.The fact that a verse is “hard of understanding” shows only that the Holy Spirit intended for it to. That is his tool for separating the serious student from the doctrinaire.
If all one can use is those “easy to understand” scriptures, I would have to ask, “Easy to understand by whom?”
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 16 2011,23:17)
Your example demonstrated to me that I myself made in error in assuming that mentioning someone specifically meant they were an exception to the earlier generalization. Therefore that line of reasoning is flawed.
So I'm NOT posting to an unchanging brick wall after all? How refreshing to know that!Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 16 2011,23:17)
Since angels, including Satan, are also created by God they are all in a like manner the sons of God.
Very good Kerwin. Now, what scripture is it that forbids Jesus from being the first of these sons of God?Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 16 2011,23:17)
Since angels also are created whose son is Satan in the sense of the clause “son of” as used in Deuteronomy 14:1?
I'm not aware that Satan created any sons. I assume you are making a reference to Jesus saying, “You do what you've learned from your father”. Will you now try to show that the phrase “sons of wickedness” or “father of lies” somehow has bearing on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God? Will you use a metaphorical mention of son to prove that Jesus is not the literal Son of God?Kerwin, I await your response in our debate. If you are so sure of your scriptural understanding, then why wouldn't you jump at the chance to show it to me under a microscope in the debate thread I made for us?
peace,
mikeQuote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12) Tell me Mike, how can the logos of God increase? “And the logos of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” [Acts 6:7]
The problem you have comes from wanting every mention of “logos” in the scriptures to mean the same exact thing. And for a while you were claiming that since this scripture had “logos”, it meant one thing. And since that scripture had “rhema”, it had to mean something else.It was a claim you made without any real evidence, and many jumped on board and accepted this claim as truth because they liked the non-preexistent conclusion you offered.
It does not seem like you are making the “logos” versus “rhema” claim anymore, which is good. Because they are simply two different words that can mean a lot of different things.
Both of them can simply refer to a spoken or written word of ANYONE. And both of them can have other, metaphorical meanings. But what is sure is that each mention of “logos” in the scripture does NOT refer to the same thing.
You ask how the “logos of God” can increase? Simple. We are told to preach the gospel to every nation. The gospel is the words of God concerning what will someday be. It can “increase” because of more and more people hearing it every day.
The “logos” of God can be “fulfilled” every time something God has spoken has come to pass.
But neither of these change the fact that “logos” means “word”, and Jesus, as the head spokesman of God is metaphorically called “the Word of God”, because he speaks God's words to others. I showed you all the example of the King of Abyssinia having a spokesman that was called “the Word of the King”. It doesn't mean that in Abyssinia, every mention of a “word” now refers to that particular Word, who is the King's spokesman. Nor does every mention of “logos” in the scriptures refer to Jesus.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12) John 1:1 does not say anything about “in the beginning was pre-existant Jesus, and pre-existant Jesus was with God, and pre-existant Jesus was God;” and John 1:14 does not say
“Pre-existant Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Let's find out, Paladin. Would you like to discuss this in short, to the point posts with me? Would you be willing to answer my direct questions with DIRECT, to the point answers?If so, then let's do it. We can post 1:1, and discuss, ONE POINT AT A TIME, what it teaches. And then do the same for the rest of John 1.
Let me know if you are willing to discuss this in a short and to the point manner.
mike
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,00:20) I apologize. It was not what I meant to say.
I don't think you believe that you have grace and I don't, so I kind of figured that's not how your statement was meant to be taken.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,03:14) Of course John 1:1 and 14 qualifiy as a hard to understand verses. Not only do those verses seem very straightforward to me, but the Bible also contains many other verses that support the meaning of those two.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,03:26) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12) Tell me Mike, how can the logos of God increase? “And the logos of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” [Acts 6:7]
The problem you have comes from wanting every mention of “logos” in the scriptures to mean the same exact thing. And for a while you were claiming that since this scripture had “logos”, it meant one thing. And since that scripture had “rhema”, it had to mean something else.It was a claim you made without any real evidence, and many jumped on board and accepted this claim as truth because they liked the non-preexistent conclusion you offered.
It does not seem like you are making the “logos” versus “rhema” claim anymore, which is good. Because they are simply two different words that can mean a lot of different things.
Both of them can simply refer to a spoken or written word of ANYONE. And both of them can have other, metaphorical meanings. But what is sure is that each mention of “logos” in the scripture does NOT refer to the same thing.
You ask how the “logos of God” can increase? Simple. We are told to preach the gospel to every nation. The gospel is the words of God concerning what will someday be. It can “increase” because of more and more people hearing it every day.
The “logos” of God can be “fulfilled” every time something God has spoken has come to pass.
But neither of these change the fact that “logos” means “word”, and Jesus, as the head spokesman of God is metaphorically called “the Word of God”, because he speaks God's words to others. I showed you all the example of the King of Abyssinia having a spokesman that was called “the Word of the King”. It doesn't mean that in Abyssinia, every mention of a “word” now refers to that particular Word, who is the King's spokesman. Nor does every mention of “logos” in the scriptures refer to Jesus.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12) John 1:1 does not say anything about “in the beginning was pre-existant Jesus, and pre-existant Jesus was with God, and pre-existant Jesus was God;” and John 1:14 does not say
“Pre-existant Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Let's find out, Paladin. Would you like to discuss this in short, to the point posts with me? Would you be willing to answer my direct questions with DIRECT, to the point answers?If so, then let's do it. We can post 1:1, and discuss, ONE POINT AT A TIME, what it teaches. And then do the same for the rest of John 1.
Let me know if you are willing to discuss this in a short and to the point manner.
mike
There is really no point in debating new testaament issues until the old testament is first set firmly in place. There are some things the new testament absolutely cannot be teaching. Trinity is one, pre-existant Jesus is another.If you are ready to debate the old testament issues I raised way back in page 96 post #5 I will then consider debating new testament issues depending on how you react to the first debate.
Mike,
Quote Very good Kerwin. Now, what scripture is it that forbids Jesus from being the first of these sons of God? Quote Acts 13
King James Version (KJV)22And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave their testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
23Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:Which comes first, the seed or the tree from which the seed comes?
Quote I'm not aware that Satan created any sons. I assume you are making a reference to Jesus saying, “You do what you've learned from your father”. You are correct that Deuteronomy 14:1 uses the words “children of” in the same sense that “sons of” and “father of” is used in “sons of wickedness” and “father of lies”. In the same way Satin is the Son of perdition because he is the chief (archetype) through and by who destruction comes to all things.
Quote Will you now try to show that the phrase “sons of wickedness” or “father of lies” somehow has bearing on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God? Jesus is the king (archetype) through, by, and for which righteousness comes to all things.
Quote Will you use a metaphorical mention of son to prove that Jesus is not the literal Son of God? Scripture speaks of no child of God’s body but Scripture does testify that Jesus is the son of David’s body through his descendant Mary. Scripture also speaks of many sons of God’s spirit of which Jesus is the chief one by, through, and for which all others are made sons.
Quote Kerwin, I await your response in our debate. If you are so sure of your scriptural understanding, then why wouldn't you jump at the chance to show it to me under a microscope in the debate thread I made for us? You desire answers to direct questions but your question are in accordance with your understanding and so limits the answer to your understanding. It seems unfruitful to box my understanding in such a way as one often has to think outside the boxes that are placed on us in order to correctly understand God.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12) John 1:1 does not say anything about “in the beginning was pre-existant Jesus, and pre-existant Jesus was with God, and pre-existant Jesus was God;”
and John 1:14 does not say “Pre-existant Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Hi Paladin,Your John 1:1 is more accurate than the bias of the N.W.T.
John 1:14 says “The Word”(also called God's HolySpirit) bacame flesh.Although I agree with your rendition of John 1:1,
John 1:1 is a reference to God's “HolySpirit”(The Word).God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,03:33) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 17 2011,03:14) Of course John 1:1 and 14 qualifiy as a hard to understand verses. Not only do those verses seem very straightforward to me, but the Bible also contains many other verses that support the meaning of those two.
Hi Mike,Yes, there are many verses that show “The Word” of God is God's HolySpirit!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,08:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,03:26) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12) Tell me Mike, how can the logos of God increase? “And the logos of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” [Acts 6:7]
The problem you have comes from wanting every mention of “logos” in the scriptures to mean the same exact thing. And for a while you were claiming that since this scripture had “logos”, it meant one thing. And since that scripture had “rhema”, it had to mean something else.It was a claim you made without any real evidence, and many jumped on board and accepted this claim as truth because they liked the non-preexistent conclusion you offered.
It does not seem like you are making the “logos” versus “rhema” claim anymore, which is good. Because they are simply two different words that can mean a lot of different things.
Both of them can simply refer to a spoken or written word of ANYONE. And both of them can have other, metaphorical meanings. But what is sure is that each mention of “logos” in the scripture does NOT refer to the same thing.
You ask how the “logos of God” can increase? Simple. We are told to preach the gospel to every nation. The gospel is the words of God concerning what will someday be. It can “increase” because of more and more people hearing it every day.
The “logos” of God can be “fulfilled” every time something God has spoken has come to pass.
But neither of these change the fact that “logos” means “word”, and Jesus, as the head spokesman of God is metaphorically called “the Word of God”, because he speaks God's words to others. I showed you all the example of the King of Abyssinia having a spokesman that was called “the Word of the King”. It doesn't mean that in Abyssinia, every mention of a “word” now refers to that particular Word, who is the King's spokesman. Nor does every mention of “logos” in the scriptures refer to Jesus.
Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12) John 1:1 does not say anything about “in the beginning was pre-existant Jesus, and pre-existant Jesus was with God, and pre-existant Jesus was God;” and John 1:14 does not say
“Pre-existant Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Let's find out, Paladin. Would you like to discuss this in short, to the point posts with me? Would you be willing to answer my direct questions with DIRECT, to the point answers?If so, then let's do it. We can post 1:1, and discuss, ONE POINT AT A TIME, what it teaches. And then do the same for the rest of John 1.
Let me know if you are willing to discuss this in a short and to the point manner.
mike
There is really no point in debating new testaament issues until the old testament is first set firmly in place. There are some things the new testament absolutely cannot be teaching. Trinity is one, pre-existant Jesus is another.If you are ready to debate the old testament issues I raised way back in page 96 post #5 I will then consider debating new testament issues depending on how you react to the first debate.
Hi Mike,You have an offer, are you going to take Paladin up on this?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
