- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2011,10:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Oct. 09 2011,10:21) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2011,04:37) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 07 2011,10:26) KERWIN Quote if you believe Jesus is King IS BEING THE SON LESS THAN BEING KING
Hi Pierre,Yes, Prince is son of the King; YHVH is King and Jesus is Prince. (See Acts 3:15 and Rev.1:5-6)
Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Revelation 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead,
and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,I informed you last year that the word “prince” in old King James English proves nothing. King James was also called “Prince” James. The word 'prince' in Rev. 1:5 is old King James English. It is 'archon' which simply means 'ruler.' Jesus is EXPLICITLY called “King of kings” in Rev. 19.
But you will continue to manipulate language to your liking won't you?
KJ
Hi Jack,Are you denying that ἀρχηγός means “Prince”?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Yes! The word is 'archon' which means 'ruler' and is translated that way in ALL other translations except the KJV which is archaic English. The NKJV has it right!Young's Literal Translation
Quote 5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood,
The first King James Bibles in 1611 were dedicated to “The Mighty King, Prince James.”In old English the words 'king' and 'prince' could be equivalents. So you can't prove squat from the KJV. But go ahead and let the whole internet world see you ignore the historical usage of words.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Oct. 08 2011,13:33) 1. Strong begins by saying that “poieo” has a “wide variety” of applications. Then he lists the various meanings of the word. The words Mike imputes to Strong do not appear in Strong's list of definitions! 2. Strong ends saying to compare with 4238. None of Mike's definitions are found in 4238 either.
The words Mike gives as definitions “to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc” are no where found in Strong's 4160 and 4238! Where does Mike get this stuff?
Jack, this is my source for the Strong's info. I quoted the short definition at the top of the page, but the exhaustive is lower down on the page. Also notice the NASB usage of the word. Notice that “appoint” in its various forms was used by the NASB only 3 times in scripture. Notice that “make” in its various forms was used 101 times.Nor did you address the fact that your hero, Barnes, also considers “poieo” in 1:2 to be referring to the creation of the universe.
Nor did you address the 22 translations I listed that all render “poieo” as “made” or “created” in Heb 1:2.
That sure is a whole lot of “heretics and cults” that have it wrong, according to you.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 08 2011,12:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 08 2011,22:50) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 08 2011,10:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 08 2011,21:49)
NWT
and through whom he made the systems of thingsNET Bible
and through whom he created the world.New International Version (©1984)
and through whom he made the universe.New Living Translation (©2007)
and through the Son he created the universe.English Standard Version (©2001)
through whom also he created the world.New American Standard Bible (©1995)
through whom also He made the world.King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
by whom also he made the worlds;International Standard Version (©2008)
and through whom he also made the universe.Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
and by him he made the universe.GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
His Son is the one through whom God made the universe.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
by whom also he made the worlds;American King James Version
by whom also he made the worlds;American Standard Version
through whom also he made the worlds;Bible in Basic English
and through whom he made the order of the generations;Douay-Rheims Bible
by whom also he made the world.Darby Bible Translation
by whom also he made the worlds;English Revised Version
through whom also he made the worlds;Webster's Bible Translation
by whom also he made the worlds;Weymouth New Testament
and through whom He made the Ages.World English Bible
through whom also he made the worlds.Young's Literal Translation
through whom also He did make the ages;Jack……………..it seems you stand alone in your understanding of “appointed”.
Mike,In this case I believe created is a poor choice of translating the word “poieo” which in general seems to mean to make one thing from another.
I have only looked at Strong's and not looked at how “poieo” is used in other passages of Scripture.
I stand corrected then. Jack does not stand alone anymore, for Kerwin stands with him.
Unfortunately, you both stand AGAINST the learned scholars who translated the 22 Bibles listed above. And if you consider that each of those translations had up to 100 Greek scholars working on them, that adds up to a lot of scholars who disagree with you and Jack.
But Kerwin, I'll entertain your thoughts in the matter. Tell me WHY “made” is not the appropriate translation.
peace,
mike
Mike,It is simply the wrong word in Greek for create.
The correct word translated create is “ktizō” which is translated to create or Creator every time but 1 in both the King James version and the New American Standard Version and that exception is made in Ephesians 2:15 where it also should have been translated create.
If created was mean the word “ktizo” would have been used as it was in other passages of scripture.
I don't know what to tell you, Kerwin. I must say that you insisting it's the “wrong” word for the situation doesn't hold much sway compared to the MANY scholars who DO translate it this way – including EVERY SINGLE Bible I could find.But let's focus on “ktizo” from Col 1:16 then, since you agree that this word truly means “create”.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 08 2011,12:59) Biblos.com states it is also an aorist and not a imperfect tense. Are you using another source?
Check the second use of the word in the same sentence. (The last word on the interlinear page)Mike,
Quote I don't know what to tell you, Kerwin. I must say that you insisting it's the “wrong” word for the situation doesn't hold much sway compared to the MANY scholars who DO translate it this way – including EVERY SINGLE Bible I could find. I am not a fan of experts of in any type as they often come off as a brood of vipers. Still they provide useful tools if you learn test the spirits.
God is both careful and clever with his words in order to fulfill his righteous plans for them. He carefully chose and lovingly chose not to use “ktizo” because “ktizo” did not fulfill his righteous plans involving those words.
Quote But let's focus on “ktizo” from Col 1:16 then, since you agree that this word truly means “create”. Strong’s seems to believe that.
Quote Check the second use of the word in the same sentence. (The last word on the interlinear page) Interesting as it is perfect tense to the aorist tense of the first usage.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 08 2011,01:39) Kathy, I have not yet read all your source material but I have read a large part. In particularly it teaches that though Philo called the Logos by the title God it is an improper appellation and wrongly employed. He also does not regard the Word as a person but it is an idea, a power which is occasionally symbolically personified as an angel.
Quote Throughout so many diverse concepts may be recognized a fundamental doctrine: the Logos is an intermediary between God and the world; through it God created the world and governs it; through it also men know God and pray to Him (“De Cherub.”, 125; “Quis rerum divin. haeres sit”, 205-06.) In three passages the Logos is called God (“Leg. Alleg.”, III, 207; “De Somniis”, I, 229; “In Gen.”, II, 62, cited by Eusebius, “Praep. Ev.”, VII, 13); but, as Philo himself explains in one of these texts (De Somniis), it is an improper appellation and wrongly employed, and he uses it only because he is led into it by the Sacred Text which he comments upon. Moreover, Philo does not regard the Logos as a person; it is an idea, a power, and, though occasionally identified with the angels of the Bible, this is by symbolic personification. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia the Word is a paraphrase substituted for the name Jehovah.
Quote I In Palestinian Rabbinism the Word (Memra) is very often mentioned, at least in the Targums: it is the Memra of Jahveh which lives, speaks, and acts, but, if one endeavour to determine precisely the meaning of the expression, it appears very often to be only a paraphrase substituted by the Targumist for the name of Jahveh. Quote They did not have the fuller revelation that the Word of God was actually His Son. So you believe in a doctrine that continually evolves? I do not though I do agree with what both the Targums and Philo state. There words also agree with what the writings of the Books have revealed to me.
It sure does explain the creation of Jehovah being alone yet the Word was there with the Father.
Quote Quite frequently the Old Testament represents the creative act as the word of God (Genesis 1:3; Psalm 32:9; Sirach 42:15); sometimes it seems to attribute to the word action of itself, although not independent of Jahveh (Isaiah 55:11, Zechariah 5:1-4; Psalm 106:20; 147:15). In all this we can see only bold figures of speech: the word of creation, of salvation, or, in Zacharias, the word of malediction, is personified, but is not conceived of as a distinct Divine hypostasis. In the Book of Wisdom this personification is more directly implied (18:15 sq.), and a parallel is established (9:1-2) between wisdom and the Word. Note 1: Quotes are from Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Word in the section about the word in Judaism.
Note 2:Corrected formatting and removed two orphan “I's”.
Kerwin,
What do you mean by this:Quote So you believe in a doctrine that continually evolves? Kathi
Quote
Irene,It doesn't say that was the ONLY way God spoke to us, or else you'd have to disbelieve all the scriptures where God spoke to us through His angels.
Whose voice was Jesus referring to in John 12:30?
Mike! Who are the Angels? Are they not messengers? And why are they messengers? When Jesus said in John 5:37 does it matter to whom Jesus is saying it? Is it true that what Jesus is saying? I don't think that Jesus was only saying this to the Jew only….So is Jesus a liar then? Are the Scriptures in Hebrew are also false? Yes, it was not only through Jesus that God spoke, but also Angels….In John 12:30 it was an Angel, I believe…
Jesus being our Mediator and Messenger Himself, God uses Jesus……in the end times….and even in past Old Test. times also as The Word of God, the Spokesman of God…..God speaks through Jesus now….and has in the past….Mike I am done with this….there is no sense in going on and on about it…..again, lets agree to disagree…..Georg has studied this hours in a row since He retired….And He believes like I do……Peace IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2011,12:26) 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.
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.riza nominative feminine singular noun
riza = root; Both descendant AND source just like I have been telling you Mike. The root neither begins nor ends at the plant. A root will make more roots.
4491 rhiza Meaning: 1) a root 2) that which like a root springs from a root, a sprout, shoot 3) metaph. offspring, progeny.
genos nominative neuter singular noun
UBS] genos = family, race, nation, people; offspring, descendants; sort, kind
A root is like a line drawn in the ground. at intervals, plants will develope and grow, and continue to spread the root.
If you don't or can't understand, go plant some strawberries, and watch the root system develope.
Jesus is Messiah, which was the “promised in prophecy” root of the entire Hebrew nation; the reason for Abraham being selected from the Ur of the Chaldees, and every selection made from among his descendents till Christ himself as the “Promised seed of Abraham.” He is both root and offspring, in both of which he is cause and effect.
You do not have to exist in reality to exist in prophecy.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Oct. 09 2011,13:25) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2011,10:45) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Oct. 09 2011,10:21) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2011,04:37) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 07 2011,10:26) KERWIN Quote if you believe Jesus is King IS BEING THE SON LESS THAN BEING KING
Hi Pierre,Yes, Prince is son of the King; YHVH is King and Jesus is Prince. (See Acts 3:15 and Rev.1:5-6)
Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Revelation 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead,
and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,I informed you last year that the word “prince” in old King James English proves nothing. King James was also called “Prince” James. The word 'prince' in Rev. 1:5 is old King James English. It is 'archon' which simply means 'ruler.' Jesus is EXPLICITLY called “King of kings” in Rev. 19.
But you will continue to manipulate language to your liking won't you?
KJ
Hi Jack,Are you denying that ἀρχηγός means “Prince”?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Yes! The word is 'archon' which means 'ruler' and is translated that way in ALL other translations except the KJV which is archaic English. The NKJV has it right!Young's Literal Translation
Quote 5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood,
The first King James Bibles in 1611 were dedicated to “The Mighty King, Prince James.”In old English the words 'king' and 'prince' could be equivalents. So you can't prove squat from the KJV. But go ahead and let the whole internet world see you ignore the historical usage of words.
KJ
Hebrews 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
[basileus noun nom masc sing = king=Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
[arxwn = accusative masculine plural noun
ruler; official, authority; ]Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 23 2011,11:50) 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.[/quote]Well, Mike, at least that's your claim. you have yet to identify a verse that syas “logos applies to any old word in scripture, written or spoken.” I have one that says “”And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these [reema] words: for after the tenor of these [logos] I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.” [Exo 34:7] It is obvious in this exchange, that the reema is the written record and the logos is the covenant to which the written record refers.
Quote And I've given scriptures that show the same thing about “rhema”. Right! The “same thing” being your claim that it makes no difference.
What you have to prove is that when scripture says “this one is logos” it means “any old word at all” and then prove the same thing for reema.
Quote 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. You still do not acknowledge “the logos of God” is a reference to an idea or concept, of Jesus living in you or any other saint who has given his life over to Jesus; as described by Paul in Gal 2:20; 4:19; Col 1:25-27. It was Paul who said “Christ living in you, which is “the logos of God.”
“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory”Quote 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. “And the logos was God” [John 1:1c]
“The pneuma which is the reema of God” [Eph 6:19
“The reema which I speak unto you, they are pneuma” [John 6:63]The issue does not stand or fall on the basis of “logos” or “reema” it is on the basis of “is” and “was.”
As for reading one verse that uses logos and another that says the same thing but uses reema, it still can be talking about two different things.
“Do you agree with the terms of the covenant?” [logos]
“Yes.”
“Then sign here that you agree with the reema of the testament.”
(“Covenant” and “testament” are from the same Greek word. One is an agreement about the concept, the other is an agreement about the written account, that it accurately depicts the idea to which we are in agreement.
Even the translators saw the difference, and understood; it is only theologians who say they are the same meaning.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 24 2011,13:52) 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?
All you have to do Mike is take one instance of “logos” and
prove from scripture that the particular reference you have selected could equally have used “reema” and given the same message.It is at that point you have rejected the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and present yourself as knowing better than God, what he wanted men to understand when they read his inspired account.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 24 2011,15:02) [/quote] Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
Mine is that Jesus is a spirit son of God because he continually walks according to the teachings.Your understanding has God just picking any old human out of the blue and placing His Spirit on him (like He did to MANY other prophets in the past).
Mike, can you comprehend that God did not “pick any old human out of the blue” but rather designed him who would be Messiah, him in accord with the prophecies?
God chose Abraham for a reason, to be the forebearer of Messiah, as also he chose everybody in the lineage of Jesus. Explicitly because they carried the genes God wanted in the resulting Jesus of Nazareth; within those Genes were such attributes as faith; strength of character; mercy; love for his fellow man; compassion; intense concentration on right things; an uncommon love for God's words, both logos and reema; a sense of Holy destiny; a sense of the righteousness of his cause; and a whole bunch of other characteristics, which helped prepare him for the msision assigned to him from the beginning.
Quote “… said to be God's ONLY begotten Son..” Actually, “Declared to be the son of God, with power, by the resurrection.
Quote Why Jesus and not John the Baptist, Kerwin? Because John the baptist was not prepared by God for that part in history.
Quote (Kerwin)Some even call her an angel. Proverbs 8 covers her quite well. Jesus is not a female and so is not called “she”. (Mike)That is a weak argument, Kerwin. The Church is also referred to in a FEMALE gender. Does that mean the Church of Christ is really a chick?
The church being the “bride of Christ” is reason enough for it to be feminine grammatically.
There is no direct association between Hebrew, Greek, and english as to which words are grammatically masculine, feminine or neuter. Some of them match up in two, some in three, and some in neither consistantly.
Hebrew Messiah is male gender in Dan 9:25-26; but Greek xrisma is neuter, in Dan 9:25. Both words mean “anointing.”
Plus, the Word that became flesh and had the glory of God's only begotten was described with MALE pronouns. Did Wisdom have a sex change operation upon becoming flesh? Don't let the gender or the Greek words confuse you. The word “righteousness” is a female word in the Greek language, but that doesn't mean everyone who is righteous is a female.
Kerwin, we all KNOW who God's only begotten Son is. His name is Jesus.
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
I believe both in the name of the Wisdom of God and the name of Jesus Anointed
There is only ONE name under heaven through which we can be saved, Kerwin. That name is Jesus Christ. Believe on HIS name alone if you want to be saved.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
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.
So God created him in the likeness of human kind AFTER he already WAS a human being who “esteemed others better than himself”? See, THIS is one of those “personally perceived implications” that results in absurd statements and conclusions. Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
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.
This statement also falls into the “absurd” category. Scripture speaks of a FIRST Adam and a LAST Adam. Scripture does NOT mention any “inner Adam” or “outer Adam”.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
It is the same body he ascended in and will descend with on that day.
It can't be. He was raised from the dead in the FLESH body he died in. He is now in the Kingdom of God ruling from the right hand of his God. Therefore he can no longer be flesh.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
So I don’t see where scripture states the resurrected dead are spirit beings though they are spiritual beings.
And what is a “spiritual body” in your opinion, Kerwin?Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
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.
You err on both accounts. Jesus WAS a spirit being, then was made a human being, then was raised to heaven a spirit being again. No “mixture of two kinds”. No “two bodies at the same time”. No “crossbreed”.Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 23 2011,00:57)
What verses from his two genealogies do you speak of?
Ask me that question in our debate thread, Kerwin. That is the proper place to carry out a discussion as in depth as that one will be.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 24 2011,15:10) Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 23 2011,16:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 22 2011,10:10) 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.
I don't understand. I thought you said the Messianic Prophecy began in Gen 3:15. How could that be AFTER Abraham and the others?
Please explain.
Prophecy consists of at least two, sometimes three elements.1. A foretelling of an event
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings” [Isa 7:14-16]2. An Old Testament fulfilling of the foretold event
The two kings were gone by the time isaiah's second son reached his maturity.
3. A second New Testament application of the fulfillment of the event.
Herod and Archelaus both were gone by the time Jesus reached his majority. Herod died, was replaced by Archelaus, who was exiled to spain prior to Jesus majority, and died before Jesus reached twenty years of age; the Hebrew age of maturity.
So prophecy about an event exists prior to the thing prophecied; and when it is fulfilled, may or may not have yet another application of fulfillment unfolding at a later time.
This is why some will argue that the two kings of Isaiah's time fulfilled the prophecy of 6:14, therefore deny that Jesus fulfilled it because they are ignonant of Herod and Archelaus in the new testament fulfilling that same prophecy.
The Messianic prophecy began in Gen 3:15, and covered most of the old and new testaments, sometimes having only an old testament fulfillment, (Cyrus); sometimes both testaments (the two kings); sometimes only the new testament (Thy seed as of one which is Christ [Gal 3:16]). So prophecy can have the characteristic of being foretold, and fulfilled, before it is finally fulfilled. Sometimes it causes confusion because some fail to continue to study a prophecy when they find its first fulfillment. They will draw a proper conclusion, but not a final proper conclusion because the study has been aborted, based upon the partial solution.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2011,02:24) Agreement is a good thing, Kerwin. Now if we could just get Paladin on board……………..
Paladin is already in agreement with the scriptures.That is why I agreed with Kathi when she corrected my error.
That is also why I disagreed with Kathi when she insisted the scholars are correct. Can't say I blame her on that one, because they all agree on the wrong thing. Just as they all agree when a new denomination breaks away from
“orthodoxy” and establishes a new understanding of something “everybody knows.”It was the “scholars” who developed the trinity and the pre-existant Christ, as well as “omo-ousian,” theos ho uios,” and “prwtotokus” from words not found in scripture; but supply a good bit of “orthodoxy” in churches today.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 27 2011,12:29) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 25 2011,20:20) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Kerwin, in 1 Cor 8:6, what exactly is included in the “ALL THINGS” that came from the Father? Hearing that context causes me to conclude he the “all things” of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is congruent to that of the “all things” that God has given Jesus…………
Let's see:5 For even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live………
This means that although there are many gods, both in heaven and on earth, for us there is only the one true God, from Whom all things came. In other words, OUR God is the One who created all things, and is therefore incomparable to these other gods.
Paladin, can I get an Amen to that? How about you Gene?
Kerwin, since Paul simply said “ALL THINGS”, why would you conclude that the “ALL THINGS” only refers to things that God has given Jesus? I don't see anything in the whole chapter that references “things given by God to Jesus”.
mike
Very Good Mike. Now apply that to the limiting parameter
“whether” of Col 1:16.If I give you a baseball glove, and a chair; and I give Kerwin a
baseball, a bat and a soda dispenser, I can take “all things” which I gave you and add them to the “all things” which I gave to Kerwin, and develope a baseball game with seats and a place to rest, and refreshment between “up-at-bat”s.But no one believe I gave either you or Kerwin “all things.” Yet everyone understands what is included when I ask you and Kerwin to allow me to use “all things” I gave to the both of you.
“All things” always means what is referenced within the limiting parameters, whether naming you as the recipient, or naming Kerwin as the recipient, or whether simply requesting the use of what is understood by both recipients as “Please let me have the use of all the things I gave you guys.”
Supopose I only need part of what I gave you and Kerwin, in the illustration? I can say “Please give me the use of the things I gave you guys whether balls or gloves.” I do not expect to get the bat, nor the chairs, nor the dispenser, because they have been eliminated from my “want list” by that little limitting parameter “whether.” And everybody understands that position. And if they do not, they would certainly ask because of the use of the word “whether” if no other reason.
Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 28 2011,23:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2011,06:22) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 27 2011,07:38) Mike, The whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 8 is concerning food sacrificed to idols, even the clause “all things”. I also know that godly knowledge comes from God through, by, and for Jesus Anointed. Paul was just supplying a tool that his readers could do as Peter instructs them in this passage.
Kerwin, you seem to have a real hangup with the phrase “ALL THINGS”. In Col 1:16, you think it means “NEW things” for some reason. And in 1 Cor 8:6, you think it means “FOOD things” or “KNOWLEDGE things”. Kerwin, can you give me ANY scriptural or logical reason Paul could not actually mean “ALL things” in 1 Cor 8:6?? Those are the words he wrote, after all.
When God is called the Maker of heaven and earth and EVERYTHING in them, you don't automatically start imagining the word “everything” really means only “NEW things”, or only “FOOD things”, do you?
Mike,The specific meaning of “all things” depends on the topic of conversation among other things; such as whether it spoken in generalities or not.
Are you allowed to use “whether” in this conversion? WoW!I am not allowed to use it because it seems to have changed its meaning when applied to the scripture.
Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 08 2011,23:39) I don't think that Jesus was only saying this to the Jew only….
Jesus also said in that same sentence: “you do not believe the one He sent”. Was he also saying this to EVERYBODY who ever lived? Were the Apostles who were there at the time included in this statement?It was to the same exact people Jesus said “you do not believe the one He sent” that he also said “you have never heard God's voice”.
Your belief says Moses and the Israelites really didn't hear God speak from Horeb when the scriptures say they did.
Your belief says Job and the other four really didn't hear God speak out of the storm when scripture says not only that they heard Him, but Job also answered back to Him.
Your belief says that God really didn't say, “This is my beloved Son” at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration when scripture says He did.
Something to think about.
peace,
mikeQuote (kerwin @ Oct. 08 2011,21:58) Interesting as it is perfect tense to the aorist tense of the first usage.
And since, as you pointed out, “Aorist verbs can be speaking of when the action started, ended, or its totality“, the fact that the second mention is in the perfect tense points to the conclusion that the first mention, although aorist, is defining “its totality“.So the undeniable bottom line of Col 1:16 is that all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, had ALREADY BEEN created through Jesus Christ in a “once for all time” action.
There is no way it could speak of the new heavens and earth, for they are still yet to come.
Do you agree?
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,03:48)
riza = root; Both descendant AND source just like I have been telling you Mike.
And like I keep telling you, Jesus would have been redundant in saying, “I am the offspring AND the offspring of David”. So since you agree that “riza” can refer to either what came before OR to what came AFTER, which meaning makes more sense in Rev 22:16? Which one doesn't have Jesus senselessly repeating the same thing twice in a row? And which one fits in with the teaching of Matthew 22:41-46?Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,03:48)
Jesus is Messiah, which was the “promised in prophecy” root of the entire Hebrew nation;
Meaning that “Jesus the prophecy” came BEFORE the entire Hebrew nation? Or AFTER?Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,03:48)
You do not have to exist in reality to exist in prophecy.
So did Jesus, as a prophecy, exist BEFORE David? And is that what is signified by Jesus saying he is both the Root AND the Offspring of David?Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,06:38) Well, Mike, at least that's your claim. you have yet to identify a verse that syas “logos applies to any old word in scripture, written or spoken.” What you have to prove is that when scripture says “this one is logos” it means “any old word at all” and then prove the same thing for reema.
1 Cor 2:4
And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
Both the bolded words above are “logos”, and they refer to “any old written or spoken word by anyone”.Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,06:38) You still do not acknowledge “the logos of God” is a reference to an idea or concept,
What is the “idea or concept” behind Paul's TWO uses of “logos” in 1 Cor 2:4 above?Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,06:38) “And the logos was God” [John 1:1c]
The logos was Jesus, who was a god that was with THE God in the beginning. He then became flesh and appropriately had the glory as of exactly what he was – the only begotten from the Father.Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,06:38) “The pneuma which is the reema of God” [Eph 6:19]
Kathi has shown you your error in this matter.Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,06:38) As for reading one verse that uses logos and another that says the same thing but uses reema, it still can be talking about two different things.
Agreed. Consider the following:
The word of God came to me in a dream, and I tried my best to convey their meaning in everyday human utterances.The utterance of God came to me in a dream, and I tried my best to convey their meaning in everyday human words.
Can you see that my choice of “utterance” versus “word” is not what distinguishes “word of God” from “human words”? “Utterance” and “word” are just two words I used to express my idea. The same idea was expressed whether I used “utterance” first or last in the sentence. It is the CONTEXT that tells us the first “word” referred to something greater than “everyday human words” – not my choice of “utterance” versus “word”.
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,06:38) “Covenant” and “testament” are from the same Greek word.
Add to those the word “will”.Hebrews 9
In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.Now, is “will” the “idea/concept”, or does it refer to the actual written “will”? It could refer to EITHER, and only CONTEXT will tell us which one.
Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,06:46) All you have to do Mike is take one instance of “logos” and
prove from scripture that the particular reference you have selected could equally have used “reema” and given the same message.It is at that point you have rejected the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and present yourself as knowing better than God, what he wanted men to understand when they read his inspired account.
Matthew 15:6
he does not need to honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God on account of your tradition.Mark 7:13
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.”These are two accounts of the same exact teaching from Jesus. Yet Mark uses “logos” to convey the SAME EXACT thought that Matthew uses “entole” to convey.
So while the word Matthew used was not “rhema”, the conclusion is the same: “Logos” is just ONE word used to convey the same idea that can be conveyed with OTHER words.
Is that enough to end this charade once and for all?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
