Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:44)

As for Jesus “coming down from heaven”, you will never come to an understanding of it's meaning because you are blinded by the words instead of seeing the message behind the words.

What are you talking about?  I HAVE come to an understanding.  When my Lord says HE came down from heaven, I believe him.

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:44)

You really need desparately to do a bible study on the meaning of gennaw, translated “begotten, begot, bore, born. It means “to cause to be.” Jesus existed only in prophecy prior to his begettal by the Holy Spirit of God.

And YOU really need desperately to give up your cockamamie idea that a PERSON begins to exist from the moment he is prophesied about.  A PROPHESY is not a PERSON, Paladin.  And it was most definitely the PERSON Jesus who said, “I came down from heaven”.  It was the PERSON Jesus who said he had glory alongside God before the earth was founded.  And it was the PERSON Jesus who said, “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man”.

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:44)

When the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary, that was from heaven, not Eden. But it took place on earth.

So in YOUR mind, Jesus said, “The Holy Spirit that overshadowed Mary came down from heaven”?  Funny, because that is NOT what Jesus said.

I notice you didn't address John 6:46,
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

Why had ONLY Jesus seen the Father, Paladin?  Why not John the Baptiser, who, according to you, came “from God” the same way Jesus did?

Nor did you address the “according to the flesh” scriptures I listed.  Why do you suppose that Paul would say Jesus is from the seed of David, and then add “ACCORDING TO THE FLESH”?

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2011,21:08)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 19 2011,08:43) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2011,01:05) Paladin Quote As for Jesus “coming down from heaven,” it is the same way the baptism of John was “from heaven.” It was by the authority of God in heaven. simple question here ;why is that John the Baptist ad a man for father and Christ was given trough Gods intervention ,so no man intervention only women intervention ,??? Pierre How can you say there was “no man intervention” when Jesus is declared throughout scripture to be the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, etc? Read the story of Judah if you want to see “intervention” when God had to intervene so Judah would see that he had a duty to beget a seedline, because of prophecy that was going unfulfilled, because Judah couldn't be bothered. Reaqd the stories of the Hebrew national record and you will see plenty of “man intervention” much of it brought about by the direct interaction of Jehovah God, and some of it brought to fruition because of the zeal of believers for God's word. David is just one example of a man who did certain things based upon God's promise to him that Messiah would come of his seed. And there was plenty of “woman intervention” too, so you aare at least correct in that respect, but it was not limited to Eve and Mary. There was also Rahab and Ruth who had active parts in the historical account of Christ. Paladin sorry but you do not addressed the question ,Mathew ,Luke explain how Jesus came to be born of a women , so answer the question ,did Jesus add a man for a father ? (biological) or was God his father ?? Pierre

Pierre,

Eve was created from the flesh of a human and yet you do not see her as being born of God in the same way you claim Jesus was born of God,  even though he was also created from the flesh of a human.

You are also aware of clones that are made of the flesh of another and lack one biological parent or the other and yet you do not believe they are the children of God in the same way as you are convinced Jesus is.

God creates each individual in the way he desires and even with human beings he has chosen more than one way.  That is his choice.

This line of reasoning you are trying is flawed.

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

Kerwin, very good.  Now, let's REALLY delve into this matter, okay?  YES, I agree that Jesus was of David's seed…………..ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.

So you agree that according to the flesh Jesus came first and you also agree that a human being has flesh, soul, and spirit.   That means we have not yet addressed the human soul or spirit of Jesus.

Quote

And the fact that Jesus, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, came through the line of David makes him the BRANCH of David, right?

If we are speaking of genealogy (flesh) Jesus is the chief branch of David.

Quote

Now, WHAT EXACTLY MAKES JESUS THE ROOT OF DAVID?  Because scripture says that Jesus is BOTH.

Quote

1 Kings 2 King James Version (KJV) 4That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel.

As the above scripture testifies David believed in the Jesus that then existed in prophecy just as Isaac is a root and offspring of Abraham.

Quote

Let's not get off track here.  I asked you in what way angels were the sons of God.  You said, “Since angels, including Satan, are also created by God they are all in a like manner the sons of God.”  Are these angels “children of God's body”, Kerwin?

No, they are not the children of Gods body as there is but one that cannot be tempted by evil.  

What I know is that Scripture testifies that they witnessed creation but they also are created.  The angels were instructed to give homage to Jesus when he came into the world.

Quote

Whatever the answer you give, either “YES” or “NO”, just apply that same reasoning to Jesus.

I agree that Jesus is not the child of God’s body as there is but one that cannot be tempted by evil.

Quote

Because what you are saying is that God CAN bring forth spirit sons unto Himself, but for some odd reason, Jesus can't be one of them.

I am not one who claims that angels are spirit beings.  Still even assuming that angels are spirit beings as ghosts are also said to be, that does not make Jesus one or make them the children of his body.  We both agree that Jesus body of flesh is descended from David.    

So if you believe that angels are the equivalent of how ghosts (naked souls) are described then perhaps you believe that God breathed such a being into the flesh side of man just as he breathed the inner Adam into the outer Adam.  If so the inner man always comes from God and so from above.  That starts to address the issue of his soul.

Quote

And I'm trying to get the scripture out of you that PROHIBITS Jesus from being one of those spirit sons of God before he emptied himself, became the seed of David according to the flesh, and being found as a flesh and blood man, had the glory of the only begotten of God.

I already gave scripture that demonstrates Jesus cannot be a transformed angel.  Now if your doctrine is about Jesus being a whole being composed of both an inner angel and an outer human then I will have to address it differently but until I know I can do nothing in addressing it.

Quote

You are quick with the scriptures that speak of Jesus' beginnings as a HUMAN BEING, but the problem is that not one of them prohibits him from being a spirit son of God BEFORE God sent him to earth as the bread that came down from heaven.

The Spirit of God is the true bread that comes from heaven for those that hunger and thirst for righteousness are filled by receiving and living according to the Spirit of God.  That is done by obeying all of Jesus’ teachings and so he too is the true bread that comes from heaven.  That starts to address the issue of his spirit.

Quote

My questions on the debate thread will be the same kind of questions I ask on the public threads, Kerwin.  The only difference will be that you will have to stand and defend your imaginary claims before I move off the subject. What are you afraid of Kerwin?  If my understanding is wrong, then you should easily be able to show me that, right?

I sometime feel I am in a rut and look for new conversations instead of continuing with the old.  Other times I miss them, am overwhelmed by the number, or fail to respond for some other reason.  These things happen and I seek to address them in accordance with righteousness that comes from God.  

I see no need to defend my claims as they are what they are and my defense will change their truth not one bit.  

I find a free flowing conversation more stimulating to my understanding.

[Paladin]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2011,02:08)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 19 2011,08:43) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2011,01:05) Paladin Quote As for Jesus “coming down from heaven,” it is the same way the baptism of John was “from heaven.” It was by the authority of God in heaven. simple question here ;why is that John the Baptist ad a man for father and Christ was given trough Gods intervention ,so no man intervention only women intervention ,??? Pierre How can you say there was “no man intervention” when Jesus is declared throughout scripture to be the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, etc? Read the story of Judah if you want to see “intervention” when God had to intervene so Judah would see that he had a duty to beget a seedline, because of prophecy that was going unfulfilled, because Judah couldn't be bothered. Reaqd the stories of the Hebrew national record and you will see plenty of “man intervention” much of it brought about by the direct interaction of Jehovah God, and some of it brought to fruition because of the zeal of believers for God's word. David is just one example of a man who did certain things based upon God's promise to him that Messiah would come of his seed. And there was plenty of “woman intervention” too, so you aare at least correct in that respect, but it was not limited to Eve and Mary. There was also Rahab and Ruth who had active parts in the historical account of Christ. Paladin sorry but you do not addressed the question ,Mathew ,Luke explain how Jesus came to be born of a women , so answer the question ,did Jesus add a man for a father ? (biological) or was God his father ?? Pierre

Unless you accept what scriptures says about it, I cannot give you any answer but yes.

It was God who said – “He (Jesus) shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him (Jesus) the throne of his father David:” [Luke 1:32]

Now, if you want to know how God is the Father of Jesus the son of David, that will require a little more understanding.

Is that what you want?

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,11:50)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:44) Michael, Michael, Michael; Don't you know “A body thou hast prepared me” is a reference to the church, the “children thou hast given me?” Paladin, Paladin, Paladin, Guess again. Hebrews 10 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:   “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,   but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings   you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—   I have come to do your will, O God.’” 8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. The body that was prepared was the SACRIFICE, Paladin.  Was the church sacrificed?

So now we have Mike “corrupting” the scripture that says the church is the body of Christ. He says it was not.

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,02:28)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 19 2011,02:01) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,01:50) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,23:36) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,10:43) Quote (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.org I know of one. show me two! Hi Paladin, For to one is given by the Spirit “The Word” of wisdom; to another “The Word” of knowledge by the same Spirit; (1Cor 12:8) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard “The Word” of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that HolySpirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph.1:13-14) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us “The Word” of reconciliation. (2Cor.5:19) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Nope! “Gifts of” tells us of gifts given by a giver of gifts. It is not telling us we are given the giver. Hi Paladin, How did “The Word” grow, multiply and prevail? (Acts 12:24, Acts 19:20) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

There are two senses to the idea of growing.
1) A plant or vegetable gets bigger.
2) A plant or vegetable has seeds which are sown and produce; which grows plants which grow bigger and produces seeds that are sown, which grow into plants, which produce seeds that are sown, that produce plants etc.

In this way, the seeds are continually multiplied, but the seed itself does not get bigger, nor does its replacement, all the seeds will remain of a common size.

The logos does not become a bigger message, it produces more children who grow to tell the message to others who will be able to tell others yet again. So the gospel message grows, but remains the same.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:26)

<!–QuoteBegin–Ed J+Sep. 17 2011,21:26,–> Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26,) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06) Ed, Why do you think John would have described what was really God's glory as the glory, not of God, but of the only begotten OF Him? Hi Mike, Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too! Good.  Now answer the question, please.

Hi Mike,

The answer was in my quote.
It seems you must of accidentally or
intentionally extracted form the quoted post.

Here is the full quote, I have enlarged the part that is the answer.

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,14:26)

Hi Mike, Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too! May all who read our discussion be blessed! Because it was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

You got my answer dated (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26) before the question was asked.

Here is the date and TIME that you asked the question…   mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06.

And hear is the date and time I answered it(which was the very next post) … Ed J,Sep. 18 2011,14:26

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

[Ed J]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 19 2011,20:58)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,02:28) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 19 2011,02:01) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,01:50) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,23:36) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,10:43) Quote (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.org I know of one. show me two! Hi Paladin, For to one is given by the Spirit “The Word” of wisdom; to another “The Word” of knowledge by the same Spirit; (1Cor 12:8) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard “The Word” of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that HolySpirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph.1:13-14) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us “The Word” of reconciliation. (2Cor.5:19) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Nope! “Gifts of” tells us of gifts given by a giver of gifts. It is not telling us we are given the giver. Hi Paladin, How did “The Word” grow, multiply and prevail? (Acts 12:24, Acts 19:20) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org There are two senses to the idea of growing. 1) A plant or vegetable gets bigger. 2) A plant or vegetable has seeds which are sown and produce; which grows plants which grow bigger and produces seeds that are sown, which grow into plants, which produce seeds that are sown, that produce plants etc. In this way, the seeds are continually multiplied, but the seed itself does not get bigger, nor does its replacement, all the seeds will remain of a common size. The logos does not become a bigger message, it produces more children who grow to tell the message to others who will be able to tell others yet again. So the gospel message grows, but remains the same.

Hi Paladin,

When a message becomes more replete to someone, is that not growth?

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

[Paladin]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 19 2011,11:55)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,08:17) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 18 2011,11:27) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,05:49) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,10:40) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 17 2011,01:12) John 1:1 does not say anything about “in the beginning was pre-existant Jesus, pirit. 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.org Logos is never called the spirit. Reema is. Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the reema [word] of God: Paladin, Mike pointed out to me that he believes reema is the sword of the Spirit and not the Spirit itself in that passage.  I could also be understood t mean the sword is made of Spirit and so the Spirit is reema.  Both understandings seem in keeping with the English language. I do know that the Spirit of God is the manifestation of the Word of God as it demonstrates God's word with both its actions and its words. Quote John 16 King James Version (KJV) 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. I know that God is also the manifestation of his own word and that Jesus was made the manifestation of God's Word by receiving and living by the Spirit of God. What is the relationship between reema and logos? O.K. – Here's the complete statement – “Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; 19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.” [Eph 6:14-20] Now, focus on verse 17 –  “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The Greek origin of this translation, is – “o estin reema theou” Now, focus on that little word “o” translated “Which” – And notice it is a nominative neuter singular relative pronoun. Notice also that “sword” is from the greek “maxairan” which is an accusative feminine singular form of the noun “maxaira”. Notice finally, that “Spirit” is from pneumatos – the Greek nominative neuter singular form of the noun pneuma. Now, follow this reasoning: The relative pronoun “o” agrees in gender and number, with its antecedent. All you have to do is compare, in the greek the pronoun “o” gender which is neuter, and number which is singular, with sword whose gender is feminine, and whose number is singular; then compare it with Pneumatos, whose gender is neuter, and whose number is singular. Which does neuter singular “o” relate to? The feminine singular “sword?” or the neuter singular “Spirit?” It relates to the neuter singular “Spirit.” It does not relate to the feminine singular “sword,” no matter what any commentator may say to the contrary. As for the relationship between logos and reema – both are the word of God- logos being the concept, reema being the written record. What confuses some, is because sometimes God has the author recording his reema, the written account, but sometimes he has him recording the logos itself; i.e., the idea behind the written record. How do we identify the difference? By paying attention when God tells us something is according to His reema, and when He tells us something is according to His logos. How simple can it get? That does not mean they are “the same.” If you reach that conclusion, it means you have not paid attention. It is kinda like if I have a written agreement with you, and a sermon about the written agreement, and in discussing with you some important aspect of the agreement, I quote the written account, then offer comment from my sermon about it, claiming both are in the agreement. If I tell you “this is in the agreement” it may be in the written account, but equaloly, it may be in the sermon about the agreement. The written account gives the record, while the sermon gives the deeper meaning behind the written account. Later, in discussing it with others, you may quote some of what I have given you from the written account, and some from the sermon; both would be about the agreement, but they would not be the same. Hi Paladin, You need to recheck the form of 'spirit' in this verse. You said: Quote Notice finally, that “Spirit” is from pneumatos – the Greek nominative neuter singular form of the noun pneuma. 'Spirit' is not in the nominative form so that would throw your understanding off here. Fyi. I would translate the verse like this: Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, the word, which is of God. I'm no Greek expert but I'm pretty confident about this. What do you think? Kathi

You are correct, in that spirit is genitive. I've got to stop posting when I get tired.

The nominative neuter singular relative pronoun “o” replaces spirit which is genitive neuter singular, not sword which is accusative feminine singular.

It does not throw off my understanding of the verse because I was not even aware I was stating spirit to be nominative, because I was focusing at that time, on reema, which is nominative neuter singular.

Thank you for the correction.

[terraricca]

Kerwin

Quote

God creates each individual in the way he desires and even with human beings he has chosen more than one way. That is his choice. This line of reasoning you are trying is flawed.

yeah,I can see that you have a great understanding in Gods word,I wander were you find it

you do not say anything free talk …………means nothing……………..useless……………..

we can see that you do not believe all what scriptures are saying,and specially the words that Jesus says when he said ;he comes from heaven, right ?

it does not matter how God made his son as a human ,what is important is that he is not from a human father,and so it is God that is his father ,right

your answer ?

Pierre

[terraricca]

Paladin

Quote

Unless you accept what scriptures says about it, I cannot give you any answer but yes. It was God who said – “He (Jesus) shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him (Jesus) the throne of his father David:” [Luke 1:32] Now, if you want to know how God is the Father of Jesus the son of David, that will require a little more understanding.

Ha,Ha,Ha,

you are a specialist in killing scriptures ,need more understanding?? witch one ? yours ??

the day you will consider all scriptures and apply them to your understand ,I then will pay attention.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Paladin,

Quote

You are correct, in that spirit is genitive. I've got to stop posting when I get tired. The nominative neuter singular relative pronoun “o” replaces spirit which is genitive neuter singular, not sword which is accusative feminine singular. It does not throw off my understanding of the verse because I was not even aware I was stating spirit to be nominative, because I was focusing at that time, on reema, which is nominative neuter singular. Thank you for the correction.

You are welcome Paladin…I would want to be corrected also if I was in error about the Greek grammar. I believe the “o” refers to “rhema” and not sword or spirit. I believe the last phrase should be “the word WHICH is of God.” Both 'word' and 'which' is written in the nominative neuter singular. Spirit is not written in the nominative and does not qualify for the 'which' to refer to it.

I hear ya about posting when tired

Take care,
Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 19 2011,01:02)

Quote 1 Kings 2 King James Version (KJV) 4That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel. As the above scripture testifies David believed in the Jesus that then existed in prophecy just as Isaac is a root and offspring of Abraham.

The above scripture does no such thing.  Psalm 110 has David speaking about Jesus through God's Holy Spirit, but doesn't expand on what exactly David knew about the one he called his Lord.  And which scripture calls Isaac the root of Abraham?

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 19 2011,01:02)

………assuming that angels are spirit beings as ghosts are also said to be, that does not make Jesus one………

You are correct.  But what I've been asking for is the scripture that says Jesus COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been a spirit son of God before he emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being.  

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 19 2011,01:02)

I already gave scripture that demonstrates Jesus cannot be a transformed angel.

I must have missed it.  Please post it again, along with your understanding of why it prohibits Jesus from being the first spirit son of God before he became flesh.

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 19 2011,01:02)

I find a free flowing conversation more stimulating to my understanding.

I find that a free flowing conversation gives you a whole lot of wiggle room and allows you to avoid or divert away from many of my points.  So don't worry, I completely understand why you want to avoid our debate thread like the plague.  

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 19 2011,03:41)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,11:50) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:44) Michael, Michael, Michael; Don't you know “A body thou hast prepared me” is a reference to the church, the “children thou hast given me?” Paladin, Paladin, Paladin, Guess again. Hebrews 10 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:   “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,   but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings   you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—   I have come to do your will, O God.’” 8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. The body that was prepared was the SACRIFICE, Paladin.  Was the church sacrificed? So now we have Mike “corrupting” the scripture that says the church is the body of Christ. He says it was not.

No, actually we have Paladin not only corrupting scriptures, but also corrupting the clear message of my post.

The church IS the body of Christ, figuratively speaking.

But the church is NOT the body that was prepared for Jesus.  The very scriptures I posted should tell you this, Paladin.  Do you see that God was sick of the offerings and animal sacrifices?  And what did God do about it?  He prepared a body for Jesus to offer up as a once for all time sacrifice.

It's all right there in front of you.  Now, I asked you a question in the last post that you chose not to answer because you were too busy trying to make me look bad.  Let me rephrase it for you:

Paladin, was it the CHURCH, or the LITERAL BODY OF JESUS that was offered up as a once for all time sacrifice?

Do you think there could be more than one meaning of “body” in the scriptures, Paladin?     When Jesus said, “Touch me and see, a spirit does not have flesh and bones”, do you think the disciples touched his LITERAL body that had been sacrificed?  Or did they touch THE CHURCH?  

And why not actually ADDRESS these points, so we can all know that you've learned something. A “thanks, Mike” would also be appreciated.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,09:29)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:26) <!–QuoteBegin–Ed J+Sep. 17 2011,21:26,–> Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26,) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06) Ed, Why do you think John would have described what was really God's glory as the glory, not of God, but of the only begotten OF Him? Hi Mike, Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too! Good.  Now answer the question, please.   Hi Mike, The answer was in my quote. It seems you must of accidentally or intentionally extracted form the quoted post. Here is the full quote, I have enlarged the part that is the answer. Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,14:26) Hi Mike, Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too! May all who read our discussion be blessed! Because it was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh. God bless Ed J You got my answer dated (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26) before the question was asked. Here is the date and TIME that you asked the question…   mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06. And hear is the date and time I answered it(which was the very next post) … Ed J,Sep. 18 2011,14:26 God bless Ed J

I thought that sentence was saying OUR DISCUSSION was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh, and that somehow people would be blessed by this fact.    How could I have known that sentence out of the blue was supposed to be an answer to the question I had asked?  

Ed, “glory” is an abstract thing.  “Glory” cannot “become flesh”.  Nor does that answer why GOD'S glory, after “becoming flesh”, was said to be His ONLY BEGOTTEN'S glory, and not HIS OWN glory.

As far as the time stamps, it is a problem with the site.  Go check some of the posts you've quoted and you'll notice the same thing.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2011,10:48)

it does not matter how God made his son as a human ,what is important is that he is not from a human father,and so it is God that is his father ,right

Very good, Pierre!  It doesn't really matter HOW God made Jesus into the likeness of a human being; NOR does it matter HOW God brought forth His only begotten Son in the beginning.  These people seem to think that if we don't know the exact chemistry or physics of these events, it is some kind of proof that the events didn't happen at all.  But they don't think of all the things they DO accept without knowing the chemistry or physics of them.  Like the heavens and earth being created.  Or angels being created.  Or even mankind being created. Or Elijah going up in the whirlwind. Etc.

Keep up the good work, brother!  

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2011,16:28)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2011,10:48) it does not matter how God made his son as a human ,what is important is that he is not from a human father,and so it is God that is his father ,right Very good, Pierre!  It doesn't really matter HOW God made Jesus into the likeness of a human being; NOR does it matter HOW God brought forth His only begotten Son in the beginning.  These people seem to think that if we don't know the exact chemistry or physics of these events, it is some kind of proof that the events didn't happen at all.  But they don't think of all the things they DO accept without knowing the chemistry or physics of them.  Like the heavens and earth being created.  Or angels being created.  Or even mankind being created.  Or Elijah going up in the whirlwind.  Etc. Keep up the good work, brother!

Mike

you too keep up ,for Gods truth,I just received my copies of the NET BIBLE and a Greek and English of the NT,(by mail)

so I will have to look in to it ,

Pierre

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2011,09:21)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,09:29) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:26) <!–QuoteBegin–Ed J+Sep. 17 2011,21:26,–> Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26,) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06) Ed, Why do you think John would have described what was really God's glory as the glory, not of God, but of the only begotten OF Him? Hi Mike, Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too! Good.  Now answer the question, please.   Hi Mike, The answer was in my quote. It seems you must of accidentally or intentionally extracted form the quoted post. Here is the full quote, I have enlarged the part that is the answer. Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 18 2011,14:26) Hi Mike, Thank you; I enjoy discoursing with you too! May all who read our discussion be blessed! Because it was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh. God bless Ed J You got my answer dated (Ed J @ Sep. 17 2011,21:26) before the question was asked. Here is the date and TIME that you asked the question…   mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2011,13:06. And hear is the date and time I answered it(which was the very next post) … Ed J,Sep. 18 2011,14:26 God bless Ed J I thought that sentence was saying OUR DISCUSSION was to illustrate God's glory becoming flesh, and that somehow people would be blessed by this fact.    How could I have known that sentence out of the blue was supposed to be an answer to the question I had asked?   Ed, (1)”glory” is an abstract thing.  “Glory” cannot “become flesh”.  (2)Nor does that answer why GOD'S glory, after “becoming flesh”, was said to be His ONLY BEGOTTEN'S glory, and not HIS OWN glory. (3)As far as the time stamps, it is a problem with the site.  Go check some of the posts you've quoted and you'll notice the same thing. mike

Hi Mike,

1) God's glory can't but God's word can; how do you know that?

2) Because God's glory was going to be seen in us. (Romans 8:18)

3) Thank you for the explanation, it wasn't meant as a cry of foul play.

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

[mikeboll64]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2011,16:43)

I just received my copies of the NET BIBLE and a Greek and English of the NT,(by mail) so I will have to look in to it ,

Happy reading!

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 19 2011,16:46)

1) God's glory can't but God's word can; how do you know that? 2) Because God's glory was going to be seen in us. (Romans 8:18)

1.  A regular old word of God doesn't become flesh either, Ed.  The only way a “word” can BECOME flesh is if “Word” was the title of a BEING who became flesh.  Besides, you think the Word of God is God's Holy Spirit.  That Spirit can come to be IN flesh, but if the Holy Spirit BECAME flesh, it would no longer be spirit.

2.  That still doesn't answer why, if it was GOD'S glory that was going to be seen in us, it would be refered to as the glory, NOT OF GOD, but as the glory of an ONLY BEGOTTEN OF God.  Whether it was seen in only one person or a million people, according to you it was still GOD'S glory, and should have therefore been described as GOD'S glory – not as the glory of God's ONLY BEGOTTEN.  Unless you think God is HIS OWN only begotten?  

[Author]

Posts