- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 21 2011,19:26) 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
Ed. J.I am not seeing where we disagree, if that is your point.
Hi Kerwin,
We seldom disagree.
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (kerwin @ Sep. 22 2011,22:20) 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?
KerwinQuote Jesus was created like his human brothers who have all fallen short of God's saintliness. see you never could go be on men view carnal,the spirit view of the word of God seams not in your favor,but may be you do not look for the truth just a satisfying opinion,
you know that I have shown you all the scriptures that make Christ preexist his birth as a man,this view elevate Christ to the only begotten son of God,
but now you bring Christ lower than the group of brothers ,it seams to me now that you have made the so called HIS BROTHERS the group that save Christ rather than the other way around,
Quote Jesus is the chief son of God's saintly spirit. do you have scriptures for your opinion ??
you drifted so far away of scriptures that you will end up with no understanding of truth at all
and like most of the time you have not answered my question
WHY
Pierre
Pierre,
Quote see you never could go be on men view carnal,the spirit view of the word of God seams not in your favor,but may be you do not look for the truth just a satisfying opinion, I will let God judge our words.
Quote you know that I have shown you all the scriptures that make Christ preexist his birth as a man, this view elevate Christ to the only begotten son of God, You have shown me that you believe certain scriptures say that Jesus preexisted his conception but that is not the same as those scriptures saying that Jesus preexists his conception. Your claim falls apart because you cannot explain how Jesus is both a descendant of David and yet preexists David because that claim is not in scripture.
Quote but now you bring Christ lower than the group of brothers ,it seams to me now that you have made the so called HIS BROTHERS the group that save Christ rather than the other way around, That is invalid reasoning as to be made like is not equivalent to be made lower.
Scripture does state that Jesus, as well as his human brothers, was created a little lower than the messengers.
Quote do you have scriptures for your opinion ?? Jesus was appointed king of everything in heaven and on earth which makes him God’s chief servant, Matthew 28:18.
Jesus was tempted even as we are but without sin which makes him the son of God’s saintly spirit, Hebrews 4:15.
Both together testify Jesus Anointed is the chief son of God’s saintly spirit.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 22 2011,10:51) Hi Kerwin, We seldom disagree.
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Understood!
Kerwin
Quote You have shown me that you believe certain scriptures say that Jesus preexisted his conception but that is not the same as those scriptures saying that Jesus preexists his conception. Your claim falls apart because you cannot explain how Jesus is both a descendant of David and yet preexists David because that claim is not in scripture. you are confused in the spirit of Christ ,go on the internet and ask the question how is Christ the descendant of David and you will see then ,if you accept this truth ,
NKJV ©Mat 28;18
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.Quote Jesus was appointed king of everything in heaven and on earth which makes him God’s chief servant, Matthew 28:18. was Christ King before or after he became baptized by John ??
I do not see appointment in Mat 28;18
Pierre
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,20:14) I have heard Mike expressing that he did not find the evidence he heard that Paladin has given as being creditable.
What you've seen is Mike giving actual scriptures where “logos” refers to any written or spoken word. And I've given scriptures that show the same thing about “rhema”.Kerwin, they are words that mean “word”, and nothing more. Now, when in English I'm talking about “the Word of God”, my mention of “word” obviously has a different meaning than “any old written or spoken word”, right? But, AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART, it doesn't mean that from here on out, any time I mention the word “word”, I'm HAVE TO BE speaking of “the Word of God”. I could still just be speaking of the “words” I'm writing to you right now.
Get it? They are simply two Greek words that mean “word”. They are interchangeable in that they both have the same basic meaning. So Paladin's “evidence” is nothing but his own imagination. You say that Paladin believes “logos” is the “spirit of God's word”, yet here he is trying to convince us that the word “RHEMA” refers to the Spirit of God in Eph 6:17.
Kerwin, take ONE scripture at a time and analyze the meaning of “logos” or “rhema” in that ONE scripture. I might even agree with your conclusion for that ONE scripture. But to claim that choosing “logos” or “rhema” signifies something in ALL scriptures is absurd, and totally without evidence. The words are interchangeable.
mike
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,21:41)
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?
You mean like Jesus being a pre-existent being who was having glory alongside his God before emptying himself to be made in the likeness of a human being? Is that what you mean, Kerwin? Are you saying that there is no need for an explicite scripture saying “JESUS PRE-EXISTED HIS FLESH” when so much of scripture points to this very fact?Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,21:41)
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.
Don't speak mistruths about me, Kerwin. It is you who brings up “the BODY of God”, not any of us. You say I “have no idea”? God is the Father of Jesus according to his spirit son nature. David is the father of Jesus ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, like it is many times emphasized for you in scripture.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,21:41)
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.
Kerwin, you are babbling nonsense here. Unless you know of a SCRIPTURE that says Jesus was the root of “David's faith”, or one that says Isaac was the root of Abraham in ANY WAY AT ALL, then it is just your own imagination running away with you.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,21:41)
I believe it is Wisdom as Scripture testifies Wisdom is the first of God’s creations.
No Kerwin. God has only ONE “only begotten Son”. That's why he is the ONLY begotten Son of God. His name is Jesus – also known as “the Word of God”. He was the firstborn of ALL creation, and then all other things were created through him. God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son into it, so that by believing on his name, we could be saved. Kerwin, do you believe on the name “Wisdom”, or the name “Jesus Christ”?Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,21:41)
I could ask “both what” as you do not explicitly state it by the letter of what you wrote………
Jesus is BOTH the Root AND the Offspring of David. One means CAME BEFORE and the other means CAME AFTER. In your understanding though, they both mean “same lineage”. Which makes Jesus redundant to tell us he is the Same Lineage AND the Same Lineage of David – as if we didn't hear him the first time.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,21:41)
……..scripture clearly states Jesus was, is, and will be a human being and therefore not a crossbreed.
What scripture really states is that Jesus was existing in the form of God, but then was made in the likeness of a human being. The last Adam then became a life-giving spirit, who has a new, glorious, spiritual body in heaven at the right hand of his God……………..the same God he had glory alongside before the founding of the earth.Spirit being, flesh being, dead, raised as a flesh being, ascended as a spirit being. THAT'S what scripture states, Kerwin. Nothing about any “crossbreed”.
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,21:41)
Jesus is recorded in that linage as a descendant of David and not an ancestor.
Jesus is recorded in that lineage as coming both BEFORE and AFTER David.Pierre,
Quote you are confused in the spirit of Christ ,go on the internet and ask the question how is Christ the descendant of David and you will see then ,if you accept this truth , Scripture states that in the body he is the primary descendant of David.
As for the internet, what expert(s) do you believe teaches while being carried along by the Spirit of God?
Quote I do not see appointment in Mat 28;18 Appoint means to be made the holder of an office and he was made the holder of the office of King.
Quote was Christ King before or after he became baptized by John ?? Quote Philippians 2
King James Version (KJV)8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.Philippians 2:8-11 makes it clear he was appointed King after his death and resurrection.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2011,06:50) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,20:14) I have heard Mike expressing that he did not find the evidence he heard that Paladin has given as being creditable.
What you've seen is Mike giving actual scriptures where “logos” refers to any written or spoken word. And I've given scriptures that show the same thing about “rhema”.Kerwin, they are words that mean “word”, and nothing more. Now, when in English I'm talking about “the Word of God”, my mention of “word” obviously has a different meaning than “any old written or spoken word”, right? But, AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART, it doesn't mean that from here on out, any time I mention the word “word”, I'm HAVE TO BE speaking of “the Word of God”. I could still just be speaking of the “words” I'm writing to you right now.
Get it? They are simply two Greek words that mean “word”. They are interchangeable in that they both have the same basic meaning. So Paladin's “evidence” is nothing but his own imagination. You say that Paladin believes “logos” is the “spirit of God's word”, yet here he is trying to convince us that the word “RHEMA” refers to the Spirit of God in Eph 6:17.
Kerwin, take ONE scripture at a time and analyze the meaning of “logos” or “rhema” in that ONE scripture. I might even agree with your conclusion for that ONE scripture. But to claim that choosing “logos” or “rhema” signifies something in ALL scriptures is absurd, and totally without evidence. The words are interchangeable.
mike
Mike,I already pointed out to Paladin that since when correctly understood the reema of God reveals the logos.
I am convinced that the experts do believe that the two words are not always synonyms and I am confident God chooses his words carefully to advance his righteous plan.
Kerwin
Quote As for the internet, what expert(s) do you believe teaches while being carried along by the Spirit of God? if you do not believe scriptures then you can go any where ,
Pierre
Kerwin
Quote Quote
I do not see appointment in Mat 28;18Appoint means to be made the holder of an office and he was made the holder of the office of King.
Quote
was Christ King before or after he became baptized by John ??Quote
Philippians 2
King James Version (KJV)8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.Philippians 2:8-11 makes it clear he was appointed King after his death and resurrection.
Mt 27:11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied.so he was king before he died,right ?? that is what scriptures are saying
Quote Philippians 2:8-11 makes it clear he was appointed King after his death and resurrection. you are confused to say the least,
Pierre
Mike,
Quote You mean like Jesus being a pre-existent being who was having glory alongside his God before emptying himself to be made in the likeness of a human being? I do not see that explicit idea expressed in the Writings.
Quote Are you saying that there is no need for an explicite scripture saying “JESUS PRE-EXISTED HIS FLESH” when so much of scripture points to this very fact? I am stating that an explicitly expressed idea is more convincing than a argument based on personally perceived implications.
Quote Don't speak mistruths about me, Kerwin. It is you who brings up “the BODY of God”, not any of us. That is what I understand you to mean and this is the first time I have heard one of you with similar understandings deny my understanding is correct.
Quote You say I “have no idea”? When someone falls back on the last ditch argument that God can do anything to explain something then they are stating they have no idea how to explain it.
Quote God is the Father of Jesus according to his spirit son nature. I agree with the letter of what you right here but from the context of our communications on the issue I believe those letters reveal a different understanding to each of us. Mine is that Jesus is a spirit son of God because he continually walks according to the teachings. He is the Son of God because God anointed him and so declared him Heir to the kingdom of God and he obtained that throne after his death and resurrection.
Quote David is the father of Jesus ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, like it is many times emphasized for you in scripture. I agree that Jesus is the primary son of David’s body and so his body must be descended from David’s and not just changed into a copy of it.
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 21 2011,21:41) 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 Kerwin, you are babbling nonsense here. I applied the parable of the sower to both David and Abraham and their hearing the word of God.
Quote No Kerwin. God has only ONE “only begotten Son”. That's why he is the ONLY begotten Son of God. Wisdom is female and the personification of Wisdom as well as being the firstborn of God. Some even call her an angel. Proverbs 8 covers her quite well. Jesus is not a female and so is not called “she”.
Quote Kerwin, do you believe on the name “Wisdom”, or the name “Jesus Christ”? I believe both in the name of the Wisdom of God and the name of Jesus Anointed because Jesus rules by the name of Wisdom; just as Proverbs 8:16 declares.
Quote Jesus is BOTH the Root AND the Offspring of David. One means CAME BEFORE and the other means CAME AFTER. In your understanding though, they both mean “same lineage”. Here are the meaning Merriam-Webster online dictionary gives for root. Here are the ones for offspring. Perhaps you should use them to better explain you point. Thank you.
Quote What scripture really states is that Jesus was existing in the form of God, but then was made in the likeness of a human being. That is not what scripture states. It instead states that because Jesus exists in the form of God he did not seek to be equal to God but in lowliness of mind esteemed others better than himself and so took on himself the form of a servant; and God created him in the likeness of human kind.
That makes him a the best example for the argument to:
Quote Philippians 2
King James Version (KJV)5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
And
Quote Philippians 2
King James Version (KJV)2Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
3Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.Quote The last Adam then became a life-giving spirit … You assume the Last Adam is Jesus but I know:
The outer Adam was the man created from the earth.
The inner Adam was the man from heaven that gave life to the Adam that came before it.
Sounds like an argument against Gnosticism to me.
I see the two Adam’s there. I also can see that it was not a new teaching for his hearers as he was using it to teach about the body to come.
Quote(Jesus) has a new, glorious, spiritual body in heaven at the right hand of his God. It is the same body he ascended in and will descend with on that day.
Quote Spirit being, flesh being, dead, raised as a flesh being, ascended as a spirit being. THAT'S what scripture states, Kerwin. Actually the words are spiritual body and not spirit body in the King James Version of 1 Corinthians 15. I did a search of the whole King James Version and not one case of clause “Spirit Body” turned up. So I don’t see where scripture states the resurrected dead are spirit beings though they are spiritual beings.
Quote Nothing about any “crossbreed” I agree with that but the offspring of two species is called a crossbreed and you seemed to believe Jesus has a mixture of a spirit body and a flesh body. Perhaps I erred and you instead think he has two bodies that his soul occupies at different times.
Quote Jesus is recorded in that lineage as coming both BEFORE and AFTER David. What verses from his two genealogies do you speak of?
Pierre,
Quote you are confused to say the least, I am not confused as Philippians 2:8-11 use of the word “Wherefore” makes it clear that which comes after its use is the result of which comes before its use.
Quote Mt 27:11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied.so he was king before he died,right ?? that is what scriptures are saying
That is a good scripture as it seems to be clear Jesus is already the king of the spiritual world but yet it cannot be understood to contradict Philippians 2:8-11.
Here is another one you might want to consider.
Quote Matthew 2:2
King James Version (KJV)
2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.I believe he was born Heir to his seat and so the Prince of everything in heaven and on earth much as David was before he took the throne.
Do you believe Jesus was already sitting on his throne when he was born or did that take place after he ascended?
Quote Do you believe Jesus was already sitting on his throne when he was born or did that take place after he ascended?
Kerwin! No, Jesus was a messenger sent by God. Throughout the Gospel of John He says several times that His Father sent Him/ The question still is where did His Father sent Him from?
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
Verse 13 in interesting because it tells us that first of all NO MAN has ascended to Heaven, except He that came down from Heaven… like Jihn 6:38…
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
GOD SENT HIS SON, WHERE FROM KERWIN?
Jhn 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
SOMEJhn 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
THE FATHER THAT SENT ME
Jhn 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
BUT HE THAT SENT ME
Jhn 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
HE THAT SENT ME
Jhn 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
BUT HE SENT ME
Kerwin, how many times did Jesus say THAT HIS FATHER SENT HIM? WHERE DID HIS FATHER SENT HIM FROM? the answer is in John 6:38
He came down from Heaven to do the will of His Father THAT SENT HIM…
Peace Irene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2011,09:42) 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.
yabut why have you kept it a “secret” all this time?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2011,10:10) 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?
After.Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2011,04:26) 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 usIn 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
Don't go 'way – I'm working on something pertaining to this…Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 22 2011,22:34) I am convinced that the experts do believe that the two words are not always synonyms and I am confident God chooses his words carefully to advance his righteous plan.
If they are “not ALWAYS synonyms”, then there is no “set rule of thumb” regarding them. Like I said: Take ONE scripture at a time, give your understanding of “logos” or “rhema” in THAT verse, and I might even agree with you on THAT verse. But to make a blanket statement that “logos” ALWAYS MEANS THIS and “rhema” ALWAYS MEANS THAT is to do so WITHOUT evidence.Are we agreed?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
