Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:29)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,06:33) When I quote John 1:1 telling us “the logos was God;” then offer another verse that tells us “the spirit, which is the reema of God,” and then give you my conclusion that the logos was God and the reema is the Holy Spirit, what is your complaint about my “not real” evidence? Well, John 1:1 doesn't say the logos was “THE God”, with a capital “G”. And I don't know of a scripture that refers to God's Spirit as “rhema”. So maybe “real” is not the word I should have used.  I should have said you are making this “logos” versus “”rhema” claim without any ACCURATE evidence.

Nope! You should have said “you are making this “logos”versus
“rhema” claim without any evidence according to Mike.”

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,10:50)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:04) Gene did not corrupt God's word and neither did I, We simply tried to find a way to explain it so you would understand it. Well, Gene believes that Jesus being the ROOT OF David means that Jesus CAME FROM David's roots.  Is that a correct assumption, Paladin? I assumed you believed the same from your “sucker tree root” story. I now know that you realize that Jesus being the ROOT OF David means Jesus came BEFORE David.  That is something Gene has yet to accept. Which brings us to YOUR misunderstanding:  You accept that Jesus came BEFORE David, but ODDLY invent some crazy idea that Jesus EXISTED from the moment he was prophesied about – but not as a real person. Paladin, a person begins to exist the minute they become a PERSON – not before and not after.  So for Jesus to have come BEFORE David, the PERSON Jesus had to have existed BEFORE David. So yes, you and Gene are BOTH corrupting the word (logos? rhema?) of God – just in different fashions. It's too bad scripture doesn't list the life span of Cyrus.  Because if they added the 160 years between the time he was first prophesied about and the time he actually began to exist to his number of lived years, you could easily make your point!

Quote

I now know that you realize that Jesus being the ROOT OF David means Jesus came BEFORE David. [/quot] I certainly hope you don't think this is a quote from my post. Try this one instead – Everybody in the lineage is the root of David, and of Messiah, who is the root of them all in prophecy.

You seem to think that a root can only be on one side of the tree, that of begetting the tree, but that is not so. Scripture tells us of a root that dried up, and could bear no fruit “from the tree.” This is speaking of the root of the tree being dried up, so that that tree could not bear fruit. This bearing of fruit follows the growing of the tree, not just leading to the tree.

That is the way Messiah is, as the root from which the whole Messianic lineage comes, each in turn coming from the same root leading in turn to the next growth of that root.

A root goes down to extend more roots, while it goes up to bear fruits.

“And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward:
[II Kings 19:30][Isa 37:31]

For example:Messiah was the root in prophecy, [Gen 3:15]; which formed on Abraham, formed again in Isaac; yet again in Jacob, who bore fruit in Judah, Joseph, and the other sons of Israel;of which Ephraim was dried up, but Manasseh flourished.

Hosea 9:16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit:

Do you see it Mike? “Their root” both preceded them and followed them, in the Messianic line, from the prophecies concerning Messiah, through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesse, the Christ David, to the fulfillment in Christ Jesus.

But, just as the fulfillment of prophecy follows the prophecy, so also the root that is Christ Jesus, followed the root that was David, which followed the root that was Jesse, that followed the root that was Jacob; who followed the root that was isaac, who followed the root that was Abraham, who followed the root that began in the woman of Gen 3:15.

I would have posted this sooner but I thought everybody knew it who knows anything about the old testament, which some on this board claim they already know without help from me. Some even insist there is no reason to begin bible study in the old testament because after all, we are Christians and the new testament is for us, and not the old testament which was done away in Christ.

And that is a sad commentary on Christian teachers that would teach any such nonsense. It only serves to create ignorant Christians who know nothing of their “roots” which go all the way back to Abraham in the covenant, and back to Gen 3:15 in prophecy. It is what results from lazy teachers who think they already have too much scripture to memorize without crowding thier little minds with Old Testament stuff.

If you would learn this “stuff” you would know there cannot be a trinity (which you already know) AND there cannot be a pre-existant Jesus; or anyone else other than God himself. That “pre-existant” stuff comes from beginning at the end of the story, recorded in John, and moving backwards to read Paul's writings.

But as you have pointed out many times on this board, “It makes no difference” what order you study the books in. To which I can only respond – “your choice.”

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,12:11)

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”?

“As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.” [Gen 17:4]

Quote

A PROPHESY is not a PERSON, Paladin.

“Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.” [Gen 17:5]

So you are telling me God was just… What?…Bragging?? Abraham was NOT made the father of many nations in Gen 17:5? So God's use of “I have made thee” is what… a LIE? A brag?

Jeus because the “Persons” who later became the reality were not there when the prophecy was made, does not mean they were not real persons, as Paul said “As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” [Rom 4:17]

I have presented the prophesied Messiah to you “as though he were” and you constantly correct me. When you do that, you are correcting God who “calleth those things which be not, as though they were.”

That is all there is to it Mike. I present it to you just as God recorded it in scripture, (which you claim to know), in the old testament.

The really strange twist that results from all of this, is, you reverse the proccess. You take things that are not, and treat them as though they were (pre-existant Jesus), and ignore the real Jesus of prophecy, denying he is real, in prophecy; but insist he is real in pre-existance.

Again, your choice.

[Paladin]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 20 2011,03:53)

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

Your choice!

[Paladin]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2011,06:50)

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

You may be confusing the relative pronoun “o” with an adjective, which agrees with the word it modifies, in case, number, and gender.

With relative pronouns, however, their gender and number are determined by their antecedent, while their case is determined by their function in the relative clause.

'o anthrwpos on…ginwskomen didaskei eemas
the man…..whom we know…..teaches us

In this example, the antecedent (anthrwpos) is nominative, the relative pronoun (on) is accusaive because it is the direct object of the verb ginwskomen. [See W.D.Mounce: “Basics…]

Back to Eph 6:17:
“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

teen maxairan tou pneumatos o……estin reema theou
the sword…… of the Spirit,.. which is the word of God:

“Sword” is accusative feminine singular. Accusative as the direct object of the verb “take.”

“Spirit” is genitive neuter singular. Genitive as possessor of the sword.

“which” [o] is nominative neuter singular relative pronoun referencing the neuter singular Spirit, which becomes obvious when you eliminate the feminine sword, and locate the only other possibility, the neuter singular reema.

I also prefer to be corrected when I boo a boo. I would rather be correct, but in leiu of a boo, correction is better.

Thanks again.

[Paladin]

mikeboll64,Sep. wrote:

Scripture shows that the root comes “out of” OR IS FOUND IN THE DESCENDANT OF THE ONE NAMED.

Judges 5:14 Out of Ephraim was there a root of them against Amalek; after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of Machir came down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer.

And the root “again takes root” passing on the seed of prophecy.

2 Kings 19:30 And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall yet again take root downward, and bear fruit upward.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2011,11:39)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,00:20) My purpose for pointing out that Isaac is the root and offspring of Abraham was not a quote from scripture but was an example of how Jesus is the root of and offspring of David. Well, if it's not scriptural that Isaac was the root of Abraham, then why would you claim it as fact?  Isaac was the offspring of Abraham, never the root. You point only draws more attention to the fact that Jesus was at once the Root AND the Offspring of David.  One means “came after”, the other means “came before”. Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,00:20) You already know what scriptures I wrote of so I will point out that a body that is transformed into a genotype is not a descendant of the forefather of that genotype just like I would not become Bill Gate’s son if my genotype was changed into his as he did not directly or indirectly sire me. Kerwin, why would you speak with feigned knowledge of things you couldn't possibly know?    Once again, you are limiting what God can and can't do.  Also, I DON'T know what scriptures you posted that FORBID Jesus from pre-existing his flesh.  There aren't any in the whole of scripture, so you couldn't have possibly listed any before.  But if you listed one you THINK forbids the pre-existence of Jesus, then I apparently overlooked it.  Please post it again for me, so I can show you how it DOESN'T FORBID Jesus from pre-existing. My question still remains unanswered on the debate thread. mike

Woman of Gen 3:15….root….Abraham…..root….Isaac…
.root….Jacob/Israel…..root….Judah…..root….Jesse….root…David…root…mary……….Jesus.

The root is not unidirectional in scripture. It is bi-directional.

[Paladin]

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,16:42)

Pierre, Quote it does not matter how God made his son as a human ,… It matters if God changed his Jesus from some other being into a human being as Jesus can only be a descendant of David if his body side is a descended from King David.  To change some other body into a genetic match of David’s genotype does not make such a child a descendent of David. Quote … what is important is that he is not from a human father, and so it is God that is his father ,right Joseph is his human father since Joseph claimed him as his own.  He is not Jesus’ biological sire as God created Jesus’ body from a part of Mary and breathed Jesus’ soul with its spirit into the body Jehovah had made for him. A human biological sire is a sire because his sperm united with the egg of a human female.   I doubt you believe that God’s sperm united with Mary’s egg to become a human/God crossbreed.   I know scripture does not testify of that.  So how do you think God replaces a human biological sire for Jesus? Scripture speaks of God having children in three ways.  The first way is creation, the second is by faith and/or by spirit, and the third is by the law.   God sired Jesus in all three of those ways.  I am confident that is all the ways and that any other way beyond those is adding to God’s word.  If you have evidence otherwise then please show me what scripture literally speaks of any other way an individual is a child of God because I know of none.

How is Jehovah God the Father of Jesus the son of David?

You have listed three ways – Scripture gives another:

The term “Father” does not necessarily mean male progenitor indicating a parent/child relationship, but may also reference the idea of designating the first one who has an idea; a founder of a place, or a family, or a dynasty, or a category of craftsmanship. It can even reference a person who is the only one who can accomplish a thing.

Nor does the term “child of” or “children of” indicate a child/father relationship. [Mat 23:15] (“Child of Hell”)

For example, a person who originates the idea of something is called the Father of… whatever is under consideration. We are familiar with the expression, “the Father of modern medicine;” “the Father of modern industry;” even the nation understands the meaning of “the founding Fathers.”

Scripture is repleat with examples of men who are called
“Father” in a sense other than progenitor; mostly the idea of “originator of the idea;” or “direct cause of the result” but without any passing of seed involved.

Joab is called the “Father of the valley of Charashim” wherein dwelled craftsmen, because he was the first in a long line of men able to understand the concept of craft, and craftsmanship; “and Seraiah begat Joab, the father of the valley of Charashim; for they were craftsmen.” [1 Chron 4:14]

Jabal understood tentmaking as an industry, as well as the concept that later became known as “cowboy” in the cattle industry in this country; “And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.” [Gen 4:20]

Jubal was the man who first exercised music as an industry, and therefore is a “Father” of an industry, that of music; “And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.” [Gen 4:21]

Another use of the term “Father” is one of patristic authorship; For example, George Washington, as the “Father” of his country, not because he first had the idea, but because he was first to carry out much that was necessary for the nation to experience its “birth.” This is not a new concept.

Salma, the Father of Bethlehem, hareph, the Father of Beth-Gader.

And several “city Fathers” are listed in scripture: Shobal the father of Kirjath-jearim, [1 Chron 2:50]

Satan is called the “Father” of lies in [John 8:44] and liars.

Abraham is called the “Father” of all them that believe – [Rom 4:11]

God is called the “Father” of lights in [James 1:17]

Jesus is called “eternal Father” by virtue of the fact God gave him children that previously belonged to God himself. [Isa 8:18] [Heb 2:13]

David calls God his “Father” in [Psa 89:26]

Paul the apostle even speaks of Timothy as “My son” [1 Tim 1:2][2 Tim 1:2] when in fact Paul had nothing to do with bringing Timothy into this world.

EXAMINE THE PROPHECIES –
Once God speaks a thing into reality potentially (called
“prophecy”), it is as good as done. Follow the tenses of the verbs in two statements God made to Abraham. In the first statement, God expresses an intention in prophecy, in promise to Abraham. “As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations” [Gen 17:4]; One verse later, in the second statement, God speaks as though the event was already past: “..a Father of many nations have I made thee.” [Gen 17:5]

These statements were made before Abraham had any seed whatsoever. The verb tenses belie the facts, but for one thing. When God makes a statement, it is covered by two things which cannot change; his oath, and his promise [Heb 6:15-18] He made a promise, and confirmed that promise by an oath.

Paul says about this, “God…calleth those things which be not, as though they were.” [Rom 4:17] A thing may be in prophecy, true. They are as certain to come to pass, as if they were already happening.

HOW GOD MADE IT HAPPEN – ABRAHAM –
When God made promise to Abraham, Abraham was getting along in years, but was still able to beget progeny of his own body, Ishmael being his son by Hagar, Sarah's handmaid. When God rejected Abraham's offering of Ishmael as his son, and continued the “Promise” of prophecy, he waited till Abraham was “dead” in body, as far as seed and beggetting was concerned; as well, Sarah's womb was past life-bearing. It was dead Though her faith was alive. [Heb 11:11]

Abraham believed God, though his body was as good as dead [Heb 11:12], and Sarah's womb was dead, and God's promise was unfilfilled at that time [Rom 4:19]. Abraham staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God.

When Sarah conceived and bore Isaac, God's promise was fulfilled, and Isaac became the “seed of promise” of prophecy, and the beginning of the Messianic hope, born in the mind of God, was beginning to bear fruit. And as Isaac was the “seed of promise” in his generation, brought as it were “from the dead” body of Abraham, and womb of Sarah, so God set in motion that which was to become the “seed of promise” which culminated in Christ Jesus [Gal 3:16]

HOW GOD MADE IT HAPPEN – FIRST TIME – ADAM
The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. [Gen 2:7] And Adam is called the “son of God” in Luke 3:38

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

HOW GOD MADE IT HAPPEN – SECOND TIME – SECOND ADAM
When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his son, MADE OF A WOMAN, made
under the law.” [Gal 4:4] (note: “Made” is not the same as “born” and is from the Greek word for “made” or “became” in Gal 4:4 – same as “Pilate and Herod were 'made' friends” – Luke 23:12)

Just as Adam was “formed from the dust of the earth” and Eve was made from the rib of Adam, so also Jesus was “MADE OF A WOMAN.” It is that simple.

WHAT WAS SAID – FIRST TIME –
“And Adam said, This is now BONE OF MY BONES, and FLESH OF MY FLESH: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.[Gen 2:21-24]

WHAT WAS SAID – SECOND TIME –
“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, OF HIS FLESH, AND OF HIS BONES. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.” [Eph 5:28-32]

So we are told in parallel accounts of the Father/to/Son relationship of God/to/Adam and God/to/Jesus; both of which were “MADE” from something that was already available to God's use.

JESUS IS NEVER CALLED “SEED OF GOD” IN SCRIPTURE
1 John 3:9 “Whosoever is (born) gennao of God doth not commit sin; for his sperma (seed) remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is (born) gennao of God.” That's it. Jesus is never called the “seed of God.” He is called the firstborn [Col 1:15,18) and the begotten [Psalm 2:7;Acts 13:33;Heb 1:5; 5:5; Rev 1:5] but in both cases that references the resurrection.

“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the (first begotten) prototokos of the dead…” [Rev 1:5]

When was Jesus “begotten?”
“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. [Psalm 2:7]

“God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” [Acts 13:33]

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” [Heb 1:5]

“So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”[Heb 5:5]

WHO ARE THE “BORN OF GOD – BEGOTTEN OF GOD?”
“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have (begotten) gennao you through the gospel.” [1 Cor 4:15]

“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is (born) gennao of God, and knoweth God.” [1 John 4:7]

“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is (born) gennao of God: and every one that loveth him that (begat) gennao loveth him also that is (begotten) gennao of him.” [1 John 5:1]

“For whatsoever is (born) gennao of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” [1 John 5:4]

“We know that whosoever is (born) gennao of God sinneth not; but he that is (begotten) gennao of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” [1 John 5:18]

So it was, that God was the “Father” of Jesus, when David was his Father in the flesh. And Jesus is NEVER called the “seed of God” while believers in Christ are so called, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURE.

Adam was God's first son, but Jesus was the first son of promise. Adam was first, then Jesus. [1Cor 15:45-46]

In this way it becomes easily understood as to the prophecies, “seed of the woman,” “seed of Abraham,” “Root of Jesse,” “Son of David.” God was “father” to the idea, and made it happen. Christians are “begotten through the gospel” and “Born of God” ; whosoever is “born of God”… God's “seed (sperma) remaineth in him” BECAUSE he is born of God. This is NOT said of Jesus, who is of the (sperma) of David [John 7:42;Rom 1:3;II Tim 2:8]

Again, “…that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” [Mat 1:20]; “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” [John 3:6]

So Jesus had for a father of the flesh, Abraham, and David; for a father of his spirit, he had the Holy Spirit.

For a father of the concept or idea of “Christ in you” he had God for a father.

[Ed J]

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,12:32)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 20 2011,20:11) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,16:42) Pierre, Scripture speaks of God having children in three ways.  The first way is creation, the second is by faith and/or by spirit, and the third is by the law.   God sired Jesus in all three of those ways.  I am confident that is all the ways and that any other way beyond those is adding to God’s word.  If you have evidence otherwise then please show me what scripture literally speaks of any other way an individual is a child of God because I know of none. Hi Kerwin, You see the Scriptures fractally, as we all should see them. “The Word” begets us, just like “The Word” also begot Jesus. Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but The Word(TheSeed “IS” HolySpirit) of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son(Jesus Christ), who is consecrated for evermore. 1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by “The Word” of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Of his own will begat he us with “The Word” of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Ed, I am unsure what you are getting at.  Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing.  If the later then please make it more clear what the disagreement is.

Hi Kerwin,

The word of God created the world, the word re-births us by faith in God
through Jesus sacrifice, and the the word causes us to adhere to the law.

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

[Lightenup]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,04:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2011,06:50) 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 You may be confusing the relative pronoun “o” with an adjective, which agrees with the word it modifies, in case,  number, and gender. With relative pronouns, however, their gender and number are determined by their antecedent, while their case is determined by their function in the relative clause. 'o anthrwpos on…ginwskomen didaskei eemas the man…..whom we know…..teaches us In this example, the antecedent (anthrwpos) is nominative, the relative pronoun (on) is accusaive because it is the direct object of the verb ginwskomen. [See W.D.Mounce: “Basics…] Back to Eph 6:17: “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: teen maxairan tou pneumatos o……estin reema theou the sword…… of the Spirit,.. which is the word of God: “Sword” is accusative feminine singular. Accusative as the direct object of the verb “take.” “Spirit” is genitive neuter singular. Genitive as possessor of the sword. “which” [o] is nominative neuter singular relative pronoun referencing the neuter singular Spirit, which becomes obvious when you eliminate the feminine sword, and locate the only other possibility, the neuter singular reema. I also prefer to be corrected when I boo a boo. I would rather be correct, but in leiu of a boo, correction is better. Thanks again.

Hi Paladin,
I am enjoying this challenge.  Note taken on the agreement of the case on adjectives but not necessarily on pronouns.  Thanks.  However, regarding Eph 6:17 here is something to throw into the pot:

Agreement with Predicate Substantives27
Some of the exceptions to the rule of agreement show an agreement of a different kind; the relative clause is a copulative one with a predicate substantive, and the relative agrees in gender with the predicate substantive rather than with the antecedent in the main clause. An example is found in Eph 6:17: thn maxairan tou, pneuma-toj, o! estin rhma qeou, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The actual antecedent is maxairan (feminine), but the predicate substantive, which is of course referring to the same thing, is rhma (neuter), and the relative neuter agrees with it. In every instance the predicate substantive is more prominent than the actual antecedent.

27 Nine instances: Mark 7:11; 15:16, 42; Gal 3:16; Eph 6:17; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Tim
3:15; Rev 4:5; 5:8.

from here: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu….GTJ.pdf

Interesting, huh.

Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,01:42)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:29) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,06:33) When I quote John 1:1 telling us “the logos was God;” then offer another verse that tells us “the spirit, which is the reema of God,” and then give you my conclusion that the logos was God and the reema is the Holy Spirit, what is your complaint about my “not real” evidence? Well, John 1:1 doesn't say the logos was “THE God”, with a capital “G”. And I don't know of a scripture that refers to God's Spirit as “rhema”. So maybe “real” is not the word I should have used.  I should have said you are making this “logos” versus “”rhema” claim without any ACCURATE evidence. Nope! You should have said “you are making this “logos”versus “rhema” claim without any evidence according to Mike.”

Really Paladin?  You can't figure out from my name and avatar on the post that the statements therein are “according to Mike”?  

How about instead of worrying about how I word my sentences, you just address the scriptures I've given you that show both “logos” and “rhema” are used to refer to just plain old WORDS?  Admit that FACT, and then feel free to offer your OPINION that this mention of rhema refers to this, and that mention of logos refers to that.

I don't mind that you make up your own “secret meaning” of those two words at will.  I mind that you claim there is EVIDENCE to support those “secret meanings”.

The FACT of the matter is that sometimes “rhema” just refers to any old word spoken by any old person.  And sometimes “logos” just refers to any old word spoken by any old person.

Now if YOU want to read secret messages into some of the times those words are used, I can't stop you.  Just don't claim it as FACT, when it is merely your OPINION.  Fair enough?

Disclaimer:  The words contained in this post were “according to Mike”, for those of us who didn't know that already from the fact that Mike is the one who made the post.  

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:23)

You seem to think that a root can only be on one side of the tree, that of begetting the tree, but that is not so. Scripture tells us of a root that dried up, and could bear no fruit “from the tree.”

That makes perfect sense.  If the root dries up, the things that FOLLOW cannot be.  The fruit FOLLOWS the root.  Root FIRST, fruit LATER.

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:23)

Everybody in the lineage is the root of David, and of Messiah, who is the root of them all in prophecy.

Now, does the Messiah being the “root of them ALL” indicate that the Messiah came BEFORE, or AFTER “them ALL”?

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:23)

That is the way Messiah is, as the root from which the whole Messianic lineage comes………

Once again, agreed.  Because any lineage comes FROM the original root.

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:23)

A root goes down to extend more roots, while it goes up to bear fruits.

So which comes FIRST………….the root or the fruits?

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:23)

“And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward: [II Kings 19:30][Isa 37:31]

This is a metaphor saying that the remnant of Judah will once again gain a firm hold of their land and produce offspring, food and wine, etc.  This scripture has no bearing on our discussion about Jesus being both the Root AND the Offspring of David.

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:23)

For example:Messiah was the root in prophecy, [Gen 3:15]; which formed on Abraham, formed again in Isaac; yet again in Jacob, who bore fruit in Judah, Joseph, and the other sons of Israel;of which Ephraim was dried up, but Manasseh flourished.

So once again you agree with me that the root is what all others come FROM.  FIRST Messiah, THEN Abraham, THEN, Isaac, etc.  Like you said before, Jesus is the “root of them all”.  You and I agree that being the root means he was BEFORE “them all”.  It's just that you think he was only a prophecy when he was BEFORE “them all”, and I think that's totally absurd.  

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:23)

Hosea 9:16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: Do you see it Mike? “Their root” both preceded them and followed them………

No, the ROOT preceded them.  The FRUIT is what FOLLOWED them.  Jesus is at once the Root AND the Fruit of David.  One word means Jesus PRECEDED David, the other means he FOLLOWED David.

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:23)

But, just as the fulfillment of prophecy follows the prophecy, so also the root that is Christ Jesus, followed the root that was David, which followed the root that was Jesse, that followed the root that was Jacob; who followed the root that was isaac, who followed the root that was Abraham, who followed the root that began in the woman of Gen 3:15.

I'm in agreement with this statement.  The difference is that you think Abraham's root was a prophecy.  I know that it was the pre-existent Jesus.

Paladin, we seem to agree that “root” refers to what came FIRST, while “fruit, seed, offspring and branch” refer to what came LATER.

Paladin, from your point of view, is the following a fair assessment of your belief:

The Messianic Prophecy is the Root of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and so on down the line until Jesus Christ.  And the fact that the Messianic Prophecy is Root of all of them shows that that Messianic Prophecy came BEFORE all of them.

Is that statement true in your eyes?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,02:43)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,12:11) 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”? “As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.” [Gen 17:4] Quote A PROPHESY is not a PERSON, Paladin. “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.” [Gen 17:5] So you are telling me God was just… What?…Bragging?? Abraham was NOT made the father of many nations in Gen 17:5? So God's use of “I have made thee” is what… a LIE? A brag? Jeus because the “Persons” who later became the reality were not there when the prophecy was made, does not mean they were not real persons, as Paul said “As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” [Rom 4:17] I have presented the prophesied Messiah to you “as though he were” and you constantly correct me. When you do that, you are correcting God who “calleth those things which be not, as though they were.” That is all there is to it Mike. I present it to you just as God recorded it in scripture, (which you claim to know), in the old testament. The really strange twist that results from all of this, is, you reverse the proccess. You take things that are not, and treat them as though they were (pre-existant Jesus), and ignore the real Jesus of prophecy, denying he is real, in prophecy; but insist he is real in pre-existance. Again, your choice.

Paladin, why did your post not address my questions…………AGAIN?!?

Many translations, including the NET, NASB, NLT, and MSG render Gen 17:5 as “WILL MAKE you a father to many nations”.  In fact, the Hebrew Interlinear at Biblos.com also renders it as “WILL MAKE”.  Source  

Also, remember that the Hebrew word used, “nathan”, refers to an “appointing, asignment or bestowment”.  So even using the past tense translation, it only says that God had APPOINTED Abraham to SOMEDAY BE the father of many nations.

And finally:  Yes Paladin, God can call was is yet to be as if it had already happened.  Now, how often in scripture did God do this?  And more importantly, show me how this applies to Jesus.  You say, “I have presented the prophesied Messiah to you 'as though he were' and you constantly correct me.”  Just because it is POSSIBLE for God to speak of the future as if it had already happened doesn't mean He DID this in reference to Jesus, does it?  Show me the scriptures that speak of a not yet existent Jesus “as if he were”.  And show me how you KNOW that is what's going on in those scriptures.

Because WAY more often than not, God spoke of future things in a future tense.  And WAY more often than not, if God called someone His servant, for instance, that person was ALREADY LIVING.

So…………show me please.  Oh, and why not address the points above that I've already posted to you TWICE.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,03:53)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 20 2011,08:53) And which scripture calls Isaac the root of Abraham? Scripture shows that the root comes “out of” OR IS FOUND IN THE DESCENDANT OF THE ONE NAMED. Judges 5:14 Out of Ephraim was there a root of them against Amalek; after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of Machir came down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer. And the root “again takes root” passing on the seed of prophecy. 2 Kings 19:30 And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall yet again take root downward, and bear fruit upward.

Paladin,  

Tell me in what way these two scripture have any bearing on our discussion about Jesus being the Root of David.  Is 5:14 saying that Ephraim was the root of Amalek?  Or is it the other way around?  What does 5:14 mean in your eyes?  And how does that meaning affect what we're talking about?

Same questions for 19:30.  Tell me what you think it means, and how it applies to our current discussion about Jesus being the Root of David.  Does 19:30 tells who Judah is the root of?  Or from whose root Judah sprang?

Or are you just trying to find oddball mentions of the word “root” and pretend they apply somehow to our discussion?  

P.S. You didn't answer the question you quoted me as asking. Where is the SCRIPTURE, Paladin? What SCRIPTURE says that Isaac is the root of Abraham?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,04:03)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 21 2011,11:39) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,00:20) My purpose for pointing out that Isaac is the root and offspring of Abraham was not a quote from scripture but was an example of how Jesus is the root of and offspring of David. Well, if it's not scriptural that Isaac was the root of Abraham, then why would you claim it as fact?  Isaac was the offspring of Abraham, never the root. You point only draws more attention to the fact that Jesus was at once the Root AND the Offspring of David.  One means “came after”, the other means “came before”. Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 20 2011,00:20) You already know what scriptures I wrote of so I will point out that a body that is transformed into a genotype is not a descendant of the forefather of that genotype just like I would not become Bill Gate’s son if my genotype was changed into his as he did not directly or indirectly sire me. Kerwin, why would you speak with feigned knowledge of things you couldn't possibly know?    Once again, you are limiting what God can and can't do.  Also, I DON'T know what scriptures you posted that FORBID Jesus from pre-existing his flesh.  There aren't any in the whole of scripture, so you couldn't have possibly listed any before.  But if you listed one you THINK forbids the pre-existence of Jesus, then I apparently overlooked it.  Please post it again for me, so I can show you how it DOESN'T FORBID Jesus from pre-existing. My question still remains unanswered on the debate thread. mike Woman of Gen  3:15….root….Abraham…..root….Isaac… .root….Jacob/Israel…..root….Judah…..root….Jesse….root…David…root…mary……….Jesus. The root is not unidirectional in scripture. It is bi-directional.

Really? Then why not show me a scripture that supports your claim? Show me a scripture where the one who came AFTER was said to be “the root of” the one who came BEFORE.

Ready, set, GO!

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 21 2011,11:26)

Agreement with Predicate Substantives27 Some of the exceptions to the rule of agreement show an agreement of a different kind; the relative clause is a copulative one with a predicate substantive, and the relative agrees in gender with the predicate substantive rather than with the antecedent in the main clause. An example is found in Eph 6:17: thn maxairan tou, pneuma-toj, o! estin rhma qeou, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The actual antecedent is maxairan (feminine), but the predicate substantive, which is of course referring to the same thing, is rhma (neuter), and the relative neuter agrees with it. In every instance the predicate substantive is more prominent than the actual antecedent. 27 Nine instances: Mark 7:11; 15:16, 42; Gal 3:16; Eph 6:17; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Tim 3:15; Rev 4:5; 5:8.

Hmmmmm…………… So it seems it is the SWORD of the spirit that is the rhema of God, and not the SPIRIT itself?

[kerwin]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,13:42)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,03:29) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,06:33) When I quote John 1:1 telling us “the logos was God;” then offer another verse that tells us “the spirit, which is the reema of God,” and then give you my conclusion that the logos was God and the reema is the Holy Spirit, what is your complaint about my “not real” evidence? Well, John 1:1 doesn't say the logos was “THE God”, with a capital “G”. And I don't know of a scripture that refers to God's Spirit as “rhema”. So maybe “real” is not the word I should have used.  I should have said you are making this “logos” versus “”rhema” claim without any ACCURATE evidence. Nope! You should have said “you are making this “logos”versus “rhema” claim without any evidence according to Mike.”

Mike and Paladin,

I have read Paladin's evidence why he believes reema is the Letter of God's Word and logos is the Spirit of God's Word and thus it us untrue to state he has not given evidence.

I have heard Mike expressing that he did not find the evidence he heard that Paladin has given as being creditable.

I have also heard Mike use that difference as a premise when disputing with those that he perceives as believing it.

[kerwin]

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 21 2011,14:23)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2011,10:50) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 18 2011,15:04) Gene did not corrupt God's word and neither did I, We simply tried to find a way to explain it so you would understand it. Well, Gene believes that Jesus being the ROOT OF David means that Jesus CAME FROM David's roots.  Is that a correct assumption, Paladin? I assumed you believed the same from your “sucker tree root” story. I now know that you realize that Jesus being the ROOT OF David means Jesus came BEFORE David.  That is something Gene has yet to accept. Which brings us to YOUR misunderstanding:  You accept that Jesus came BEFORE David, but ODDLY invent some crazy idea that Jesus EXISTED from the moment he was prophesied about – but not as a real person. Paladin, a person begins to exist the minute they become a PERSON – not before and not after.  So for Jesus to have come BEFORE David, the PERSON Jesus had to have existed BEFORE David. So yes, you and Gene are BOTH corrupting the word (logos? rhema?) of God – just in different fashions. It's too bad scripture doesn't list the life span of Cyrus.  Because if they added the 160 years between the time he was first prophesied about and the time he actually began to exist to his number of lived years, you could easily make your point!   Quote I now know that you realize that Jesus being the ROOT OF David means Jesus came BEFORE David. [/quot] I certainly hope you don't think this is a quote from my post. Try this one instead – Everybody in the lineage is the root of David, and of Messiah, who is the root of them all in prophecy. You seem to think that a root can only be on one side of the tree, that of begetting the tree, but that is not so. Scripture tells us of a root that dried up, and could bear no fruit “from the tree.” This is speaking of the root of the tree being dried up, so that that tree could not bear fruit. This bearing of fruit follows the growing of the tree, not just leading to the tree. That is the way Messiah is, as the root from which the whole Messianic lineage comes, each in turn coming from the same root leading in turn to the next growth of that root. A root goes down to extend more roots, while it goes up to bear fruits. “And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward: [II Kings 19:30][Isa 37:31] For example:Messiah was the root in prophecy, [Gen 3:15]; which formed on Abraham, formed again in Isaac; yet again in Jacob, who bore fruit in Judah, Joseph, and the other sons of Israel;of which Ephraim was dried up, but Manasseh flourished. Hosea 9:16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: Do you see it Mike? “Their root” both preceded them and followed them, in the Messianic line, from the prophecies concerning Messiah, through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesse, the Christ David, to the fulfillment in Christ Jesus. But, just as the fulfillment of prophecy follows the prophecy, so also the root that is Christ Jesus, followed the root that was David, which followed the root that was Jesse, that followed the root that was Jacob; who followed the root that was isaac, who followed the root that was Abraham, who followed the root that began in the woman of Gen 3:15. I would have posted this sooner but I thought everybody knew it who knows anything about the old testament, which some on this board claim they already know without help from me. Some even insist there is no reason to begin bible study in the old testament because after all, we are Christians and the new testament is for us, and not the old testament which was done away in Christ. And that is a sad commentary on Christian teachers that would teach any such nonsense. It only serves to create ignorant Christians who know nothing of their “roots” which go all the way back to Abraham in the covenant, and back to Gen 3:15 in prophecy. It is what results from lazy teachers who think they already have too much scripture to memorize without crowding thier little minds with Old Testament stuff. If you would learn this “stuff” you would know there cannot be a trinity (which you already know) AND there cannot be a pre-existant Jesus; or anyone else other than God himself. That “pre-existant” stuff comes from beginning at the end of the story, recorded in John, and moving backwards to read Paul's writings. But as you have pointed out many times on this board, “It makes no difference” what order you study the books in. To which I can only respond – “your choice.”

Paladin,

Your premises are 1) Scripture cannot be broken, 2 Root is Hosea 9:16 to mean the entire linage of Ephram.

Your conclusion is Jesus is the root of David can mean that Jesus is the linage of David.

Do I have that correct?

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

NOR does scripture say that Jesus was the Root of David's FAITH, Kerwin.  It says that Jesus is the Root of DAVID – not his faith.

This is an example of why context is important to correctly understand a message.  Why should the Spirit of God put in explicit letters in one passage which it has already made explicit in the spirit of the whole of all that which it wrote?  

Does the spirit of the whole word of God make clear that Jesus is the root of David’s faith?

If the hearers of the passage from Revelations already know that Jesus is the root of David’s faith, and this passage does not teach but assumes its hearers already know what it speaks of, then why is ir required to be explicitly restate it?

Quote

If your Lord said, “I came down from heaven”, you immediately try to find ways to PRETEND he didn't really say what he clearly said.

I simply know what he is not speaking of and thus seek to look at the Scripture in other ways.  You already demonstrated with your words that you have no idea how your claim that Jesus is the offspring of both the body of God and the body of David is true and I chose not to believe what God did not state.  That in itself means we use different contexts that we use when reading scripture.  I chose to believe that Jesus is the chief son of God’s spirit just as it is written that God sires children in accordance with his Spirit.  I also believe that as testified by scripture the Spirit of God comes from above.

Quote

It is YOU who needs to be careful what YOU write, Kerwin.  Isaac was NEVER said, or even implied to be any “root” of Abraham.  The “root” of someone comes BEFORE that someone.  The “branch” or “offspring” comes AFTER that someone.  This is just plain old common sense.

Abraham heard the words of the promise of God before that seed became his root.  David too, heard the promise before it became his root.   In both cases the word of God came first and both David and Abraham were shown to have root after, which always the case when the seed falls on fertile ground.

Quote

Do you ever sit back and just look at the scriptural teaching you've INVENTED with your mysterious, abstract rantings?

What I have written in this post is supported by what the Spirit of God has written on the pages of the Writings.  

Quote

You've come to a place where God has an only begotten that you don't even KNOW!

I believe it is Wisdom as Scripture testifies Wisdom is the first of God’s creations.  I have not yet found any challenger to Wisdom but I am yet a student and more knowledge may come forth.

Quote

He is BOTH, Kerwin.  He is the Offspring of David, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH – just like the scriptures say.

I could ask “both what” as you do not explicitly state it by the letter of what you wrote but I know the context of our conversation and so I also know that you speak of both the bodies of God and David and so my answer is as follows.

That makes him a crossbreed and scripture clearly states Jesus was, is, and will be a human being and therefore not a crossbreed.

Quote

He is the Root of David, according to creation, for David came THROUGH him, as did all other things – again, just like the scriptures say.

Scripture clearly states that the linage of David was started with Adam who was the first man created by God.  Jesus is recorded in that linage as a descendant of David and not an ancestor.

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 21 2011,11:57)

Kerwin Ro 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, who Paul ,says send his own son ? and in what likeness ? Pierre

Pierre,

Jesus is the chief son of God's saintly spirit.

Jesus was created like his human brothers who have all fallen short of God's saintliness.

Do you disagree with either of those statements?

[Author]

Posts