Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 06 2011,12:09)

Quote

O THEY DON'T BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT CHRIST SPIRIT IS, AND IT CAN NOT BE GODS SPIRIT ,

Pierre! Jesus has a Spirit, just like we have a Spirit….. but Jesus also has Gods Holy Spirit in Him….Just like we do…. The big difference is that Jesus has Gods Holy Spirit without measure, will we don't…..Jesus also has immortality now and is seated at the right hand of the Father, while the Angels do not have immortality……Peace adn Love Irene

Irene

the spirit of Christ ,what Paul talks about ,is that Christ was totally committed to do his father WILL,

the holy spirit his the will of God and God can add to that his power to performed it,

so Christ was full of(HOLY SPIRIT) GODS WILL ,YES THIS IS WHY HE WAS BORN AND WHY HIS FATHER SEND HIM TO US ,God also put powers at his service to prove that he really was who he said he was ;THE SON OF GOD ,THE MESSIAH ,THE REDEEMER ,
THE LAMB,THE SACRIFICE,…..

October 6, 2011 at 1:03 am#260015

GeneBalthrop

Participant

MIke…………Go look up the Greek word EN notice its primary meaning is IN not BY.

So in Heb it is saying, God spoke to us “en” or “IN a SON” not “by a son”. This shows a direct involvement by GOD the FATHER himself , He was truly (IN) Jesus as the word “en” (in) in Greek shows. This also agree with Jesus saying the Father was “en” In him, doing the works. God who is and WAS the LOGOS came to be IN Jesus and regarded Jesus' body as “HIS TEMPLE” that if it were destroyed He (GOD) would raise it up in three days. Think about it.

peace and love…………………………………………………………….gene

October 6, 2011 at 1:29 am#260022

Blocked

Hi Gene,

Two points:
1. Scripture doesn't say “the Word came TO BE IN SOMEONE WHO WAS FLESH”. It says “the Word BECAME flesh”.

2. The Logos that BECAME flesh had the glory of God's only begotten. Why would God Himself have the glory, not of God, but of an only begotten OF God?

peace,
mike

October 6, 2011 at 2:41 am#260039

Pastry

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 06 2011,09:03)

Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 04 2011,21:48)

Quote

Irene, does Jesus ever say “NO ONE has ever heard God” anywhere in scripture? YES or NO? Does ANYBODY ever say those words anywhere in scripture? YES or NO?

Mike! Yes, in
Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Peace and Love Irene

Irene,

I said “HEARD”, not “SEEN”.

Hi mike! Sorry had the wrong Schripture….This one does say
HEARD

Jhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

October 6, 2011 at 3:44 pm#260057

Participant

Mike,

Quote

I ask the same question for each of the scriptures I listed – none of which have the “internally consistent teaching” of “the act of creation

Here is what Wikipedia states about the “internally consistency” method of research.

I believe internal consistency has to do with the context of the whole which is why I looked at the whole context of the various passages that contained the verses you cited and then determined what the idea was behind the each verse was according to what would render in most internally consistent. I did the same with 1 Corinthians 8.

“All” does mean all of the things being spoken of and Romans 8 speaks of the knowledge and love of God and not directly about either the old or new creation.

Quote

And for Kerwin, Gill says:

Offhand I suspicion that the argument that follows is a argument from authority fallacy because even experts in the field often disagree on such subjects. In addition he is interpreting scripture and I have no idea what his expertise on that subject is. I can test the spirit of his commentary to a certain extent and here is my response to his words.

Quote

whenever that(the new creation) is spoken of, the word “new” is generally used, or what is equivalent to it, or some clause or phrase added, which determines the sense,

That premise sounds correct to a point though his words are somewhat vague as I cannot tell whether or not there are some cases when the direct context or explicit wording does not determine the sense. There are certainly points in scripture where the knowledge of more context than that provided by the passage is necessary for understanding.

Quote

The (sense of new) creation of all things is not (determined by either direct context or explicit wording) here (Colossians 1:16).

I disagree with him but he makes no argument to support his claim.

Quote

All things that are in heaven are said to be created here, which, to say nothing of the sun, moon, and stars, which are not capable subjects of the new creation.

His poor use of English writing skills confuses the issue but I believe he is claiming that the spiritual realms are not made new through Christ Jesus. That I disagree with as it is written:

Quote

Ephesians 6:12
King James Version (KJV)

12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

And

Quote

Revelation 21:1
King James Version (KJV)

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Quote

To (apply) them to angels cannot be true; for those who were once in heaven but kept not their first estate and quitted their habitation will find no place there anymore nor will they be renewed and restored by Christ;

and

Quote

Moreover, all things that are on earth are also said to be created by him, and are, but not anew: for to confine these only to men, all men are not renewed in the spirit of their minds; all have not faith, nor a good hope through grace, nor love to God and Christ, the greater part of the world lies in open wickedness; and all that profess religion are not new creatures, these are a chosen generation, and a peculiar people

No creature whose soul does not pant for righteousness as a thirsty dear pants for water will enter the reign of God that is the new creation. In making all things new such creatures will be destroyed in Gehenna as part of making creation new.

Quote

As for the good angels, since they never sinned, they stand in no need of renovation.

The Angels of God do not need to be made new in order to take part in the new creation as they have not sinned and yet they like their brothers were made subject to Jesus the Anointed so the he may have supremacy in all things. After all it is written:

Quote

Hebrews 1:6
King James Version (KJV)

6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

And

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.

Quote

And like Gill points out, that is to say nothing of the things we know existed way before Jesus became flesh – such as the sun, the moon, and the stars. Likewise, these things are NOT a part of “the new creation”, but ARE included in the words “all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible”.

As I wrote, his poor use of English writing skills is confusing and I do not believe he was making the claim that you seem to believe he was but I do know that understanding contradicts the following words of Scripture.

Quote

Romans 8
King James Version (KJV)

19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Note: I edited the words of Gil to make his ideas easier to understand. If my lack of knowledge about his teachings caused me to misunderstand his points then please let me know. Thank you!

October 6, 2011 at 5:50 pm#260059

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 04 2011,07:53)

Ok, I dug some up here:

This “Word of YHWH” was, according to Targum Jonathan, the Creator:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH created man in his likeness,
in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created,
male and female created He them.
(Targ. Jonathan Gen. 1:27)

This idea is also put forward in the Jerusalem Targum:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH said to Moses:
“I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was:
and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!'
and it shall be.” And He said: “Thus you shall say
to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you.”
(Jerusalem Targum Ex. 3:14)

The Fragmentary Targum of the Torah also expresses that the Word of YHWH was the Creator:

The first night, when the “Word of YHWH”
was revealed to the world in order to create it,
the world was desolate and void,
and darkness spread over the face of the abyss
and the “Word of the Lord” was bright and illuminating
and He called it the first night.
(Fragmentary Targum Ex. 12:42)

That the Word of YHWH was the Creator can also be seen in the Tanak itself:

By the Word (DAVAR) of YHWH were the heavens made,
and all the hosts of them by the Spirit of His mouth.
(Ps. 33:6)

Whenever the Targums come to passages where YHWH is anthropomorphisised or seen, or where two or more YHWHs are indicated by the text, the Targums will substitute “The Word [Memra] of YHWH” for YHWH. For example in Gen. 19:24 the Tanak has:

And YHVH rained brimstone and fire upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, from YHVH, from the heavens.
(Original Bible Project preliminary edition)

The Hebrew grammar here indicates that one YHWH rains fire from another YHWH. But Targum Jonathan substitutes “The Word of YHWH/the L-RD” for the first of the two YHWHs as follows:

And the Word of the YHWH caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gommorah, brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven.

In another example the Torah has:

Ex. 24:1a (YHWH is the speaker, see Ex. 20:1-2)
Now He [YHWH] said to Moses, “come up to YHWH…”

But Targum Jonathan paraphrases the speaker in Ex. 20:1 with the substitution “the Word [Memra] of YHWH” in place of “YHWH.”

“And the Word of the Lord spoke all these glorious words…”

So it would seem that one of these entities called “YHWH” in these Torah passages was actually understood by the Targumists as being the “Word of YHWH.”

Moreover Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of YHWH:

And Abraham worshipped and prayed
in the name of the Word [Memra] of YHWH,
and said, “You are YHWH who does see,
but You cannot be seen.”
(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 22:14)

Note that here Abraham prays “in the name of the Word of YHWH” to the YHWH who “cannot be seen.” Here two YHWH’s are very apparent. Abraham is praying in the name of the Word of YHWH but is praying to the YHWH who cannot be seen. This idea is reinforced elsewhere as follows:

And Hagar praised and prayed in the name of the Word [Memra] Of YHWH who had revealed Himself to her…
(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 16:3)

Of this very incident Philo writes:

But Hagar flees out of shame. And a proof of this is, that the angel, that is the WORD of God, met her, with the intent to recommend her what she ought to do, and to guide her in her return to her mistress's house. For he encouraged her, and said unto her: “The Lord has heard the cry of thy humiliation,” which you uttered, not out of fear, nor yet out of hatred. For the one is the feeling of an ignoble soul, and the other of one which loves contention, but under the influence of that copy of temperance and modesty, shame.
(On Flight and Finding (5))

It was this Word of YHWH that Jacob also trusted in:

And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, “If the Word [Memra] of YHWH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Word [Memra]of YHWH be my Elohim.
(Targum Onkelos on Gen. 28:20-21)

from here: http://nazarenespace.com/profiles/blogs/the-word-of-yhwh-revealed-part

I think that ya'll would find this interesting.
Kathi

To Kathy,

It does sound interesting and if God wills I will look into the matter. Thank you!

October 6, 2011 at 5:58 pm#260060

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 04 2011,08:47)

Mike,

Quote

I don't see “the Word of YHWH” actually BEING YHWH anywhere in this information.

Compare these two renditions of Gen 1:27

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH created man in his likeness,
in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created,
male and female created He them.
(Targ. Jonathan Gen. 1:27)

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

The word “God” is replaced with “The Word of God.”

God is YHVH.

Kathi,

God created mankind by and through the Word of God but that does not literally make the Word God any more than the watchman is made God by God using him to give warning of a threat to the people.

The Word is metaphysically God because God reveals his own Word.

October 6, 2011 at 6:38 pm#260061

Lightenup

Participant

Kerwin,
The Word of God was a person with the Father in the beginning who was loved by the Father and who was begotten by the Father to work alongside Him before the foundation of the world. The Word was His Son and that is what makes the Word a God. They together are one as a unity and act towards us as one voice with one purpose. The Targums seem to understand that the Word of God was God's way of relating to creation in the manner of a person. They did not have the fuller revelation that the Word of God was actually His Son. We do though. This is my understanding.

If you consider that God, in His fullness, is the unity of two persons that are both deity natured, it is easy to see that they work together to perform God sized tasks of creation and eternal salvation and eternal judgment. It sure does explain the creation of Jehovah being alone yet the Word was there with the Father.

Kathi

October 6, 2011 at 11:05 pm#260069

Participant

Pierre,

Quote

can you not see that you are mixing two thing that are different of each other look

I hear your opinion that I am mixing two things but do not know what things you believe I am mixing when I site scripture passages that instruct us that God employs his Spirit through and by his Son to create a spirit in us that is like his in true holiness and righteousness. His Spirit teaches and trains us how to use the power of God to obtain that righteousness just as Mosses used the power of God to split the Red Sea.

Quote

Living by the spirit = only require knowledge and then apply it, if it is understood in the truth of God;

Living by the spirit requires the knowledge and application of believing that God can and will feed righteousness if you believe Jesus is King with both your actions and your words.

Quote

living submitted to God = this mean that you are not your own controller but God is and so all what God says ,tells, you do ,in this way all is of God.

I do not disagree but I do add you can only truly submit to God if you live by the Spirit and you can only do that by obeying all of Jesus’ teachings.

Quote

so Christ was not a man but came IN THE APPEARANCE AS A MAN ,how is that ?

I am not going to be diverted by a point that is not relevant to the current discussion. If you wish to discuss it then please start another conversation. Thank you.

Quote

So Christ was not a man but came IN THE APPEARANCE AS A MAN ,how is that ?

Col 1:16( For by him all things were created:)? (things in heaven and on earth,)? ( visible and invisible)?, (whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;)? (all things )? (were created)? ( by him and for him.) ?
Col 1:17( He is before all things,)? and (in him all things hold together.)?

could you answer those question with other scriptures NOT OPINIONS PLEASE

only supported truth will i accept for answers

I did not give an opinion I cited a dictionary entry as evidence that to be King over all things is to be the Supreme authority over all things. You did not address that point.

You also failed to address the point that Philippians 2:8-11 makes.

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

Quote

Definition of THEREFORE

1 a : for that reason : consequently
b : because of that
c : on that ground

2: to that end

Please tell me for what reason does Philippians 2:8-11 instruct us that Jesus was exalted to the highest place and given a name that is over every other name?

NO THEY DON'T BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT CHRIST SPIRIT IS, AND IT CAN NOT BE GODS SPIRIT,

Quote

Romans 8:9
King James Version (KJV)
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And

Quote

1 Corinthians 12:13
King James Version (KJV)
13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Which Spirit are those that believe baptized into one body by, according to your opinion?

Romans 8:9 both stares those that a believer has the Spirit of God in them and that a believer has the Spirit of Christ in them while 1 Corinthians states that a believer was baptized into the body by only one Spirit. It is clear to me in order for both scriptures to be true the Spirit of God must be the Spirit of Christ.

October 6, 2011 at 11:10 pm#260071

Blocked

Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 05 2011,20:41)

Hi mike! Sorry had the wrong Schripture….This one does say
HEARD

Jhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Hi Irene,

This will be the third time I explain this scripture to you. If you don't understand what I'm saying this time, I'll give up.

Listen carefully: Jesus did NOT say “NO ONE HAS EVER heard God”. He was talking to specific people, and telling THEM (and ONLY THEM) that THEY had not heard God.

He was speaking to CERTAIN PEOPLE who had never heard God's voice. He was NOT saying that NO MAN had EVER heard God's voice.

Do you understand this now?

peace and love,
mike

October 6, 2011 at 11:21 pm#260073

Paladin

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 05 2011,15:12)

Paladin,

Is the use of Aion in Hebrews 1:2 singular or plural in Hebrews 1:2.

Mike believes it is singular.

I would like to know how to tell the difference and what source on the internet my aid me in learning.

Thank you.

I think most internet sources will help in finding the basic word forms, though their explanations are not to be taken as gospel. I do not use them so I am not familiar with them as much as others may be, like Irene, mike, and Wisper for just a few.

aiwnas is plural; in Heb 1:2 and 11:3 and Col 1:26 among others.

aiwn is singular in Mat 12:32; 13:32; John 9:32 for just three examples.

As for the “how to” questions, I do not have the time to invest in the enormous effort it takes to post a proper response to that.

October 6, 2011 at 11:26 pm#260074

Participant

KERWIN

Quote

if you believe Jesus is King

IS BEING THE SON LESS THAN BEING KING

October 6, 2011 at 11:31 pm#260075

Participant

Kerwin

Quote

God employs his Spirit through and by his Son to create a spirit in us this I do not understand ,unless you tell me what is Gods spirit and how a spirit is created in us ?

this is be on my humble understanding

October 6, 2011 at 11:36 pm#260076

Participant

kerwin

Quote

Living by the spirit requires the knowledge and application of believing that God can and will feed righteousness if you believe Jesus is King with both your actions and your words.

this does not make sense ,what is; feed righteousness; ?

and why is it so critical to believe that Christ is king ??

October 6, 2011 at 11:37 pm#260077

Paladin

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2011,17:19)

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:33)

Lightenup,Oct. wrote:

Paladin, I fail to see what you claim is 'even more interesting.' There is nothing in your post to contradict what Boyer said which I quoted and put a link to.

I also do not know why you are struggling with this. What would be the 'sword' of the word of God? If you replace the 'spirit' with 'word of God'…what exactly do you say is the sword of the word of God?? I believe that it is clear that the 'word of God' is the weapon, i.e. the 'sword.' Dr. Boyer agrees and spells it out, even using the Greek words in the order you have noted. Did you follow the link…the actual paragraph is on page 14 of the pdf.

The passage is talking about the pieces of armor that we are to put on and is not a passage explaining the spirit.

Eph 6:14Stand firm therefore, HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH, and HAVING PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, 15and having shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE; 16in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

You can respond if you want or not, take your time. Hope you are feeling better.

Kathi

I find this even more “more interesting.”

Paul is explaining to Christians that they are to dress themselves with preparation. Now, preparation is not a dress code, nor is it a material which one can purchase in the local market place, to sew into a uniform or costume to wear for defense. It is a concept to which Christians must become accustomed.

Paul goes on to delineate the articles of accouterment of a soldier dressed for battle in a spiritual warfare.

Quote

12For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13Therefore…

Paul is preparing the soldier for spiritual warfare, not battle with physical swords and shields.

“And take the sword of the reema, which is the spirit,” is equivalent language to “Take the sword of the spirit, which spirit is the reema of God. “Which” modifies “Spirit” – not “sword,” regardless of what the scholars say about it, “Doctor” or not.

Compare the language of all the grammars All will tell you

Quote

“the Greek relative pronoun, – so called because it “relates” to someone or something previously mentioned – follows the declension of the definite article. It must agree with its antecedent in gender and number, but its case is determined by its function

[David [A. Black; It's still Greek to me” page 70-71]

Quote

The relative pronoun “Like any pronoun, their gender and number are determined by their antecedent, while their case is determined by their functiion in the relative clause.”

[Wm. D. Mounce; Basics of biblical Greek; page 115]

Quote

The Relative gets its number and gender from the noun to which it refers,which is called the antecedent.

The Relative gets its case from its function in the relative clause.
[D.F.Hudson; New Testament Greek; page 118]

It is a common theme in Greek Grammars; i.e., the relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number. It is also an obviously common theme, that if the relative pronoun has no antecedent, it relates then to something other than the non-existant antecedent.

But once an antecedent is established, i.e., You have a definite article “tou” that is declined genitive neuter singular, applied to a noun that is in agreement with the gender and number of the relative pronoun, which does not violate any other rules of communication, why are we continuing to look for something to which the relative pronoun can relate? Is “must agree” not strong enough? [See Black above]

In eph 6:17, 'o estin' has the antecedent of “tou Spirit” which is neuter singular, as also is “o” = which.” The spirit, which is the reema…”

But we have yet to test the other Grammatical principle that must be applied also. The Greek relative pronoun follows the declension of the definite article. [See Black page 70-71; above]

There are two definite articles in the verse under consideration, and they are; “teen” which is accusative feminine singular and applies to 'the sword', accusative feminine singular maxairan; and 'tou' which is genitive neuter singular and applied to genitive neuter singular 'the Spirit.'

So, the relative pronoun 'o' declines in accord with the definite article “tou,” and agrees in gender and number with its antecedent “pneumatos; so it relates grammatically to “tou pneumatos;” But it does not relate to “teen maxairan” which though they agree in how they are declined, do not agree with how O' is declined, as it is genitive neuter singular, and is in agreement with the definite article of “The spirit” and also agrees with the neuter singular Spirit.

There is no contest, regardless of all the scholars and men with degrees that think to the contrary.

Why are you still looking for a “predicate” to which you can apply it? While it applies in some cases, it never applies when there is already a matching antecedent present, only when it is missing; why do you continue to look for the “cause” to which it applies. No antecedent, look for a predicate…etc.

Hi Paladin,
I have downloaded on my iPod touch a Complete Word Study of the Old and New Testament by AMG Publishing. The author was a member of my church before he passed away recently. My pastor has been mentored by him. Anyway, that is besides the point. In the tool, the author speaks precisely to what we are discussing and brings more light to the situation. He says that there are two departures from the rule of the pronoun agreeing with the antecedent and the departure that concerns this instance is this:

Where there is the relative pronoun with the verb “to be,” the pronoun conforms in gender to the following noun.

It lists three examples of this:
Gal 3:16
Eph 1:14
Eph 6:17

That was what it said as the author explained the relative pronoun in regards to the above three verses.

Also, the word is the sword/weapon that Jesus used in the desert during His temptation from satan.
Kathi

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the reemata [words] that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are li
fe.

October 6, 2011 at 11:40 pm#260078

Participant

kerwin

Quote

I did not give an opinion I cited a dictionary entry as evidence that to be King over all things is to be the Supreme authority over all things. You did not address that point.

if you do not answer my questions then do not complain wen i do not answer yours,

could you answer those question with other scriptures NOT OPINIONS PLEASE

October 6, 2011 at 11:44 pm#260079

Participant

kerwin

Quote

Please tell me for what reason does Philippians 2:8-11 instruct us that Jesus was exalted to the highest place and given a name that is over every other name?

NO THEY DON'T BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT CHRIST SPIRIT IS, AND IT CAN NOT BE GODS SPIRIT,

Quote
Romans 8:9
King James Version (KJV)
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And

Quote
1 Corinthians 12:13
King James Version (KJV)
13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Which Spirit are those that believe baptized into one body by, according to your opinion?

————–
Your Fellow Student,

Kerwin

TELL ME WHAT THE WORD “SPIRIT ” MEANS IN THOSE SCRIPTURES YOU ARE QUOTING ME ?

OR WHAT IS IT ??

October 6, 2011 at 11:47 pm#260080

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Mike……….I see again you refused to answer my post, and come out with something that meet you dogmas, so i will ask you again, do you believe the FATHER WAS (IN) Jesus or NOT?, A Simple yes or no will suffice, It will tell us all exactly what you believe. IMO

peace and love…………………………………………gene

October 7, 2011 at 12:08 am#260082

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 06 2011,09:44)

“All” does mean all of the things being spoken of and Romans 8 speaks of the knowledge and love of God and not directly about either the old or new creation.

Okay, and how about Eccl 11:5?
5 As you do not know the path of the wind,
or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
the Maker of all things.

What specific things are included in the “ALL things” mentioned here? Or are we allowed to take the words as they are written and conclude that God is the Maker of (literally) ALL things?

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 06 2011,09:44)

[Gill's] poor use of English writing skills confuses the issue but I believe he is claiming that the spiritual realms are not made new through Christ Jesus. That I disagree with as it is written:

Quote

Revelation 21:1
King James Version (KJV)

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 Peter 3:13
But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
Kerwin, Peter wrote this about 30 years AFTER Jesus was killed. At that time, Peter was looking forward to a new heaven that had yet to be made.

Now, look at Rev 1:1, where John tells us that his revelation (which was written approximately 65 years AFTER Jesus died) was of things YET TO COME. Then look at chapters 19 and 20, and consider all the things that first have to come to pass BEFORE God makes the new heavens and new earth.

Are you with me so far? Okay, now look at Col 1:16 again, and notice that the second mention of “created” is in the perfect tense in the Greek. And that tense ” describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated”, according to NETNotes.

So it is clear that in Col 1:16, Paul referred to heavenly things that had ALREADY BEEN created through Jesus, and not to things concerning the NEW heaven that is yet to be made – the one that Peter and John said was still to come many years AFTER Jesus died.

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 06 2011,09:44)

No creature whose soul does not pant for righteousness as a thirsty dear pants for water will enter the reign of God that is the new creation. In making all things new such creatures will be destroyed in Gehenna as part of making creation new.

Again, I refer you to the perfect tense of “created” in Col 1:16. Jesus was not said to be “in the process of” making certain things new and destroying others in Gehenna, Kerwin. Instead, it was said that ALL things in existence had ALREADY BEEN created through him – in a “once for all time” action. So the perfect tense makes it CLEAR that the “all things, visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth” would include the people, both good AND bad, who had lived up until the time when Paul wrote this letter to the Colossians. It must also include the stars, moon, sun, angels, etc. – EVERYTHING that had existed up until the time Paul said those words.

mike

October 7, 2011 at 12:17 am#260083