Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,07:25)

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.”

Thank you, Paladin.

So we know we can't exclude Jesus from being the one metaphorically referred to as “the Wisdom of God” in Proverbs 8 simply based on the gender of the Hebrew word.

October 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm#260326

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,07:48)

That is why I agreed with Kathi when she corrected my error.

Then why do you STILL state that the spirit is the rhema of God when Kathi showed you that it is clearly the SWORD OF the spirit that is meant?

October 9, 2011 at 4:11 pm#260329

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,08:02)

Very Good Mike. Now apply that to the limiting parameter “whether” of Col 1:16.

We don't have to go down this road again, for you've already lost the point by agreeing that 1 Peter 2:13-14 referred, not ONLY to the kings and governors specifically mentioned, but to ALL authority – “even down to the cop on the corner beat”. (YOUR words)

But here is another one for you:
1 Corinthians 10:31
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
Notice how the phrase “or WHATEVER you do” makes the word “whether” refer to things SUCH AS eating and drinking instead of limiting the things we do to the glory of God to ONLY eating and drinking. The word “whether” in this scripture takes on the meaning of “SUCH AS” because of the phrase “or whatever you do”. Just like the word “whether” in Col 1:16 takes on that same meaning of “SUCH AS” because of the phrase “ALL THINGS”.

New Living Translation (©2007)
for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see–such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him.

October 9, 2011 at 4:15 pm#260330

Blocked

Kerwin,

I await your response about the phrase “Maker of ALL things” in Eccl 11:5. Does it refer to God only making CERTAIN things just because the “internally consistent teaching” of the chapter is not about the “act of creation”?

October 9, 2011 at 5:55 pm#260346

Participant

Kathi,

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.

You words describe a change in tenet of who God is as neither the Targums nor Philo were stating that the Word was literally God himself while you believe the Word is God. Evolution is a process of change.

I believe that God is the Word of God because he manifests his own words in all he does and says and so the Targums are correct to call him by the title of the Word just as the New Testament is correct to call Jesus by the title of Christ. Sometime a person is referred to by just their title such as calling Queen Elizabeth by her title of the Queen.

I, like Philo, believe that the Word of God is the Wisdom of God and is symbolically personified in Scripture as a woman. Philo, himself uses that same symbolic personification in his works.

Neither of these supports the idea that the Word, much less Jesus, is either God or an angel in the historic Christian religion that existed before Jesus was conceived.

In this world are many false teachings to lead the wicked and those who lack the knowledge of God into error. We must be wary of them and they can only be avoided by seeking God and his righteousness.

October 9, 2011 at 6:07 pm#260347

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,20:05)

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.

Paladin,

God has not prevented me from using it and for that grace and others I am glad.

October 9, 2011 at 6:46 pm#260349

terraricca

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 10 2011,12:07)

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,20:05)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 28 2011,23:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2011,06:22)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 27 2011,07:38)

Mike,

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.

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.

Paladin,

kerwin

Quote

God has not prevented me from using it and for that grace and others I am glad.

looks like you have reach perfection .

October 9, 2011 at 10:17 pm#260354

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 01 2011,13:34)

Quote (Paladin @ Sep. 30 2011,08:54)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

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.

Claims without examples.

1 Cor 2:4
My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

Mat 22:15
Then the Pharisees went out and planned together to entrap him with his own words.

1Co 14:19
but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Joh 10:19
Another sharp division took place among the Jewish people because of these words.

The above “words” are all “logos”, and seem to refer to ordinary, everyday WORDS.

1 Peter 1:25
but the word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word that was proclaimed to you.

Eph 5
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,

Rom 10:8
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach)

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

These bolded “words” are ALL “rhema”, Paladin. Pay close attention to Heb 11:3 and 1 Peter 1:25 and tell me how that's a “record” and not a “concept”.

Tell me how the phrases “word of God” and “word of the Lord” mean something different because of the word “rhema” than they would have meant if the writer used the word “logos”.

Paladin, I can post scriptures like this all day long. I can post uses of “logos” AND “rhema” that refer to the mystical “word of God”, and I can post instances where BOTH words are used to describe just a simple spoken or written word by ANYONE.

Your theory is debunked. Like I told Kerwin (to which he agreed), if you took one scripture at a time, I might agree with your “concept versus record” theory 50% of the time. But you are careless to make a blanket statement that includes EVERY mention of “logos” or “rhema” in the entire scriptures. The scriptures simply don't bear this claim out.

The problem you are having Mike, is that you are trying to dictate to God whjich word he should use because of your own faulted understanding.

Instead of telling us what his wrods mean, why don't you try asking him, then believing what he says? If he calls it “logos” accept that it is logos, if he calls it reema, accept that it references reema. Quit trying to correct me because I do accept the Holy spirits guidance.

October 9, 2011 at 10:22 pm#260356

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2011,20:30)

Quote (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?

Mike,

I have no verification but hypothetically the first use does sound like an totality aorist and the second use lie a past perfect where main event happened in the past and the effects are still ongoung.

October 9, 2011 at 10:24 pm#260357

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 10 2011,00:46)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 10 2011,12:07)

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,20:05)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 28 2011,23:47)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 28 2011,06:22)

Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 27 2011,07:38)

Mike,

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.

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.

Paladin,

kerwin

Quote

God has not prevented me from using it and for that grace and others I am glad.

looks like you have reach perfection .

Pierre,

I have not yet finished the race.

October 9, 2011 at 10:30 pm#260358

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,01:57)

It is scriptural that David is the root of Jesus – ACCORDING TO THE FLESH – making Jesus the branch of David. But it is equally scriptural that Jesus is ALSO the Root of David, meaning that in some way, Jesus came BEFORE David.

Exactly Mike. And I have told you many times what that
[“some way” is. It is called “PROPHECY”.

You admit Jesus is the root of David, and you acknowledge it is “some way,” so why can't you put aside your “pre-existant Jesus” bias and see the truth of the effect of prophecy?

October 9, 2011 at 10:43 pm#260359

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,03:16)

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,09:04)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 01 2011,13:34)

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.

Pay close attention to Heb 11:3 and 1 Peter 1:25 and tell me how that's a “record” and not a “concept”.

Tell me how the phrases “word of God” and “word of the Lord” mean something different because of the word “rhema” than they would have meant if the writer used the word “logos”.

The problem is, sometimes in scripture the two seem to get mixed as though it doesn't matter, and that adds to the confusion among scholars.

You've hit the nail right on the head, Paladin. They “seem to get mixed as though it doesn't matter” because it DOESN'T matter.

They are two words that mean “word”. The context tells us what “word” in each particular scripture means, not the choice of “rhema” over “logos” or vice versa.

Please DIRECTLY answer the bolded question above.

mike

Because Paul uses the expression “The LOGOS OF GOD” when describing the concept of “Christ being formed in you” and
“Christ living in you.” He never uses “Reema” when speaking of this concept.

Gal 2:20; 4:19 and others

And he uses the word “REEMA” when describing the spirit of the scriptures, and never applies “LOGOS” to the concept.

Eph 6:17; John 6:63 and others.

And whenever God uses the word logos, he is telling us something specific we should try to understand, instead of trying to make a different word fit. And when he chooses to use reema, we should look to the record and wuit trying to make it mean what logos means.

I have told you before, the fact that both logos and reema can be applied to the terms of an agreement, there remains a difference between the acknowledged agreement to the terminology of the ideas to which we are in agreement, and the termionology found in the written contract. You would expect to see some of the same language in both. That does not mean the contract is the idea. It means that the terms of the contract should agree with the terms of the agreement.

“Terms” is found in both sentences, but agreement and contract do not mean the same thing, even though “terms” applies to both.

When I said “sometimes the terms seem to reference the same thing” I was not saying that they mean the same thing, I was saying that sometimes a more careful reading must take place to discern the two; just like when you are reading the terms of agreement, you must determine BEFORE you sign, whether you are signing the agreement or the contract. If you are not careful, you may find later, when it becomes important, that you have only signed an agreement, that results in simple agreement, when your income depends upon having an ironclad contract.

October 9, 2011 at 10:47 pm#260360

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,03:17)

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,09:04)

When Paul tells us the Spirit is the reema of God; and John tells us the logos was God, you don't discern a difference?

Paul doesn't tell us the spirit is the “rhema” of God, nor does John tell us the “logos” is God.

Knowing is half the battle, Paladin.

Who said he does?

Reading what is said is the first half of the battle Mike.

I did not say “John said the logos is God.” So why the switch?

Paul said the reema IS the spirit; [Eph 6:17]
John tells us the reemata ARE spirit [John 6:63]

John tells us the logos WAS God. [John 1:1]

October 9, 2011 at 10:52 pm#260361

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:12)

Gene,

Although what you posted was in English, I haven't a clue what you are saying.

I will remind you that the logos BECAME flesh. He did not come to be IN someone who was flesh. If one must change the scriptures for their doctrine to be realized, then something is wrong with that doctrine.

Actually Mike, the logos “was formed” in flesh,[Gal 4:19] thus “became flesh.” [John 1:1]

Why do you insist on reading the last book first? you cannot possibly get a correct understanding of the meaning of words by turning to the back of the book, when the meanings are already established in the front of the book.

For you to change the scriptures for your doctrine to be realized, something must be wrong with your doctrine.

October 9, 2011 at 10:54 pm#260362

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:53)

Gene,

You need to research John 1:1 a little more. The Word is never called “THE God” in that verse. And “THE God” is the only one we call “God”, with a capped “G”.

All others are called “gods” in English, with a lower case “g”.

And since the Word was WITH “THE God” in the beginning, he couldn't possibly have BEEN “THE God”.

1:1 speaks of TWO persons. One of them was “THE God” while the other one was was WITH “THE God”. That other one was also a mighty one, and therefore called a “god” in Biblical times – just like Satan was called a “god” in Biblical times.

Mike, please give me one translation that says “And the word was god.” [lower case g]

Notice, I do not say there is not one, I only say I am not aware of one.

Are you?

October 10, 2011 at 12:00 am#260363

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 02 2011,10:36)

Paladin?

Quote

Paul tells us reema I S the Spirit. [Eph 6:17]

Eph 6:10Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might. 11Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 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, put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. 14Stand therefore, having the utility belt of truth buckled around your waist, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and having fitted your feet with the preparation of the Good News of peace; 16above all, taking up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. 17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

The context of this passage is not about the Spirit but of the armor of God and it lists each piece. From this passage, you cannot declare as fact that Paul is stating that the Spirit IS the word of God. That doesn't fit the flow of the passage, not to mention the grammar lesson that Dr. James Boyer gave, a professor of the New Testament and Greek grammar.

Sorry, Paladin but I don't think you should use this verse as a proof text of that idea that the Spirit is the 'rhema.'

Kathi

So let me see if I understand correctly what you are saying.

I find a proof text.

You don't see it as a proof text.

I therefore should not use it as a proof text.

That about it?

Do you understand what it means when a Greek grammar book introduces a page called “rules?”

If the rules do not take precedence over exceptions to the rules, they cease to be rules, and become “suggestions.”

The Greek grammar rule is “The relative pronoun “MUST AGREE WITH ITS ANTECEDENT IN GENDER AND NUMBER.

If you do not find an antecedent, then you apply the second rule, and look for the word-form that fits the second rule. If you do not find a second-rule word-form, you proceed to the next rule and search for the agreeing word-form.

Sind Eph 6:17 has a word form that has an antecedent, why are you looking for and applying a second-rule word-form?

Or are you saying that the antecedent is not an antecedent?

Based upon what? The “SCHOLARS?”

October 10, 2011 at 12:39 am#260366

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,16:30)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,01:57)

Exactly Mike. And I have told you many times what that
[“some way” is. It is called “PROPHECY”.

You admit Jesus is the root of David, and you acknowledge it is “some way,” so why can't you put aside your “pre-existant Jesus” bias and see the truth of the effect of prophecy?

Thank you for clearly stating what I thought you had said in the first place, Paladin.

It seems you AGREE with me that “Root of David” in Rev 22:16 refers to [the prophecy of] Jesus coming BEFORE David, and that is a step in the right direction.

Please pass your findings on to Gene and Kerwin for me.

October 10, 2011 at 12:44 am#260367

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,16:52)

Actually Mike, the logos “was formed” in flesh,[Gal 4:19]……………….

And since that word is “Christ”, it seems you agree that Jesus IS the Word?

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 09 2011,16:52)

………….thus “became flesh.” [John 1:1]

That's right. Not, “came to be IN someone who was already flesh”, but “BECAME FLESH”.

October 10, 2011 at 12:54 am#260369