Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by Proclaimer.

Viewing 20 posts - 3,001 through 3,020 (of 3,216 total)

←1 2 3…150151152…159 160 161 →

Author
Posts

October 12, 2011 at 6:22 pm#260563

terraricca

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 13 2011,09:31)

Terricca……………Do you even know what Means? to make such an ignorant statement as that. The only ones here that is Biased is you. What Kerwin wrote is absolutely correct that was a ASPECT of GOD KNOWLEDGE> rather you understand it or not>. God is Alone the MAKER of ALL THINGS> rather you like it OR NOT. Jesus created Nothing ever , God “ALONE” and BY “HIMSELF” did it all. As scripture plainly say in many places.

gene

as·pect [as-pekt] Show IPA
noun
1.
appearance to the eye or mind; look: the physical aspect of the country.
2.
nature; quality; character: the superficial aspect of the situation.
3.
a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision.
4.
part; feature; phase: That is the aspect of the problem that interests me most.
5.
facial expression; countenance: He wore an aspect of gloom. Hers was an aspect of happy optimism.
EXPAND
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English < Latin aspectus appearance, visible form, the action of looking at, equivalent to aspec- (variant stem of aspicere to observe, look at; a- a-5 + -spicere, combining form of specere to see) + -tus suffix of v. action

October 12, 2011 at 11:16 pm#260570

kerwin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 12 2011,05:01)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 11 2011,11:51)

The past perfect tense reveals that the subject occurred in the past and that event has ongoing effects.

Wrong. The perfect tense reveals an act that has ALREADY BEEN completed in a “once for all time” manner. It says NOTHING about a continuing “ripple effect” resulting from that “once for all time” action.

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 11 2011,11:51)

Jesus sacrificed himself that all things in heaven and on earth would be made new and the effect of that creative event is still ongoing and will be ongoing until creation is delivered from its bondage to decay.

The word means “CREATED”, Kerwin. It is YOU who told me that if God wanted to imply “creation”, He would have used the word “ktizo”, right? Well, God DID use “ktizo” in Col 1:16, right?

And the perfect tense of “ktizo” doesn't indicate a still ongoing action. Instead, it refers to an action that was completed once for all time, and has since ceased. So if “ALL things”, for some PERSONAL reason, were to imply only NEW things, then it would STILL speak of things that have ALREADY BEEN made new.

Nor, is there ANY scriptural indication whatsoever that non-believing humans or righteous angels have a need to be “made NEW” anyway. And the words “ALL things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” would INCLUDE non-believing men and righteous angels. So “ALL things” cannot possibly mean “NEW things” in this case.

Also consider that although the heavens and earth WILL BE made new, that future tense does not match the perfect tense of “ktizo” in 1:16. So while the sun, moon and stars are obviously included in the things that will someday BE MADE new, they are likewise included in the “ALL things” that have ALREADY BEEN created through Jesus in a once for all time PAST action.

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 11 2011,11:51)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

Now that it seems you are on board with this scriptural fact, does it make sense that Jesus is the literal firstborn of every creature simply because all other creatures were then created through him?

Scripture states Jesus has supremacy over both creations because of his self sacrifice.

“Firstborn” has the automatic default meaning of “the one born first” everywhere in scripture. And the default meaning is ALWAYS the one meant…………UNLESS………..there is CONTEXT to the contrary.

For example, we know from context that David wasn't LITERALLY the firstborn king of the earth.

But where is the context that tells us Jesus isn't LITERALLY the firstborn creature ever to exist?

Just because the “supreme” meaning is always a possibility for “firstborn” doesn't mean we just get to pick and choose when to use that alternate meaning based on our own personal doctrine. There has to be a scriptural reason to divert from the default meaning. And no context in the whole of scripture offers a reason for 1:15 NOT to be saying Jesus was the first creature ever created.

Mike,

Quote

You are speaking about the English perfect and not the Greek perfect as the following quote informs us.

Quote

Perfect Tense
The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.
For example, Galatians 2:20 should be translated “I am in a present state of having been crucified with Christ,” indicating that not only was I crucified with Christ in the past, but I am existing now in that present condition.
“…having been rooted and grounded in love,” Eph 3:17

Quote

The word means “CREATED”, Kerwin.

Ktizo means created or a derivative thereof.

Quote

It is YOU who told me that if God wanted to imply “creation”, He would have used the word “ktizo”, right? Well, God DID use “ktizo” in Col 1:16, right?

These passages from the King James Version also use a translation of the word ktizo and they are clearly speaking of the new creation.

Quote

Eph 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Eph 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 4:24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Col 3:10
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Quote

Firstborn” has the automatic default meaning of “the one born first” everywhere in scripture. And the default meaning is ALWAYS the one meant…………UNLESS………..there is CONTEXT to the contrary.

Quote

Psalm 89
King James Version (KJV)

20I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
21With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
22The enemy
shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
23And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
24But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
25I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
26He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
27Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

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

Colossians 1
King James Version (KJV)

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

In verse 17 we are taught that all things are united in him. What are we taught about that union in other scriptures?

October 13, 2011 at 12:35 am#260579

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 12 2011,17:16)

[/quote]

Quote

mikeboll,64 wrote:

You are speaking about the English perfect and not the Greek perfect as the following quote informs us.

Quote

From NETNotes:
The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.” Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above.

So it seems our sources disagree with each other. No matter, for your source says:
……..the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence……

So either way, the things created through Jesus in Col 1:16 are “NOW IN EXISTENCE”. But the new heavens and the new earth don't yet exist. Some of the heavenly things that DO now exist are angels, the sun, the moon, and the stars. So if “all things visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth, that NOW exist” were created through Jesus, then this would have to include the things I just mentioned.

Kerwin, I didn't see any context in the scriptures you quoted that would change the default meaning of “firstborn of every creature” in Col 1:15.

And I await your responce to this question:
Is the act of creation the internally consistent teaching of the WHOLE CHAPTER of Eccl 11?

peace,
mike

October 13, 2011 at 1:04 am#260581

kerwin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 12 2011,05:25)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 11 2011,16:49)

Mike,

The creational force is internal teaching of Ecclesiastes 11:5. I have never stated anything else but I instead pointed out why it is.

Quote

The creational force is internal teaching of Ecclesiastes 11:5. I have never stated anything else but I instead pointed out why it is.

Of course it is the teaching of that ONE verse. But is “the act of creation” the “internally consistent teaching” of the WHOLE CHAPTER of Eccl 11? YES or NO?

Mike,

There are two separate teachings in Ecclesiastes; of which the second one extends into chapter 12. The first one is contained in verses 1 to 6 and is the one we speak of. The teaching itself is about the knowledge of the future and verse 5 ties God into that knowledge through his creative power and therefore his authority.

October 13, 2011 at 1:23 am#260584

kerwin

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 12 2011,06:12)

kerwin

Quote

Ecclesiastes 11 speaks about the works, authority, and a different aspect of the knowledge of God.

Ecc 11:5 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.

where do you see that that verse talks about a different aspect of Gods knowledge it talks about men not understanding Gods knowledge ,no wander you argue for nothing ,and not read scriptures in truth.

and tell me where in scriptures does God tells anyone about how he made his creation ?? so that men would know ?? the only comment we have is that God created all things, in the past and will in the future,

so what Paul and Ecc 11;5 says ALL THINGS ARE CREATED just means what it says ,unless you know better than the prophets and the apostles ,

In Col 1:15 He(JESUS) is the image of the invisible God, the(JESUS) firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him(JESUS) 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(JESUS) and for him.(JESUS)

what is it that you do not understand in what it say is it not the proper English ???ASK A CHILD ABOUT GRADE 3 SEE WHAT HE OR SHE WOULD TELL YOU WHAT IT MEANS ?

when it comes to the new creation trough Christ ,we are responsible for the allowing actions of the word of God to do the new creation by obeying the word of God and bring our knowledge to maturity and so become a full mature son of God as Adam was ,but totally obedient.having past the test .

so stop being BIAS

Pierre,

You choose to call me biased even though you too agree that the knowledge of God's righteousness comes from God through Jesus. Does that also mean you are biased?

If you disagree that the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 implies that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is speaking collectively of the knowledge of God's righteousness so that it may be weighed by those who read it.

If you do not then look more into the matter in your search of God's righteousness and his kingdom.

October 13, 2011 at 1:44 am#260586

terraricca

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 13 2011,19:23)

Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 12 2011,06:12)

kerwin

Quote

Ecclesiastes 11 speaks about the works, authority, and a different of the knowledge of God.

Ecc 11:5 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.

so what Paul and Ecc 11;5 says ALL THINGS ARE CREATED just means what it says ,unless you know better than the prophets and the apostles ,

what is it that you do not understand in what it say is it not the proper English ???ASK A CHILD ABOUT GRADE 3 SEE WHAT HE OR SHE WOULD TELL YOU WHAT IT MEANS ?

so stop being BIAS

Pierre,

You choose to call me biased even though you too agree that the knowledge of God's righteousness comes from God through Jesus. Does that also mean you are biased?

If you disagree that the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 implies that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is speaking collectively of the knowledge of God's righteousness so that it may be weighed by those who read it.

If you do not then look more into the matter in your search of God's righteousness and his kingdom.

kERWIN

you are a specialist of diversion,jumping subjects,and not stay on track or point,

it does not matter is it Mike or me you do not answer question in a strait line or with scriptures and if you do it does not mean anything (most of the times)you argue much on words and yet end up saying the same thing what Mike said in the first place,

so I can see in your respond ,that either you have not much knowledge of scriptures (Gen to Rev) and so not understand the full knowledge of Gods word,and you also possessed falls interpretation of scriptures that you try to defend within the truth of God s word and so make some parts lie to the ones you propose,when they all should point to the truth.(one direction)

this is not a game for those who takes God s truth for real.

now you quoted;

Quote

Ecclesiastes 11 speaks about the works, authority, and a different aspect of the knowledge of God

and answer me in a different context ;

Quote

Pierre,

You choose to call me biased even though you too agree that the knowledge of God's righteousness comes from God through Jesus. Does that also mean you are biased?

If you disagree that the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 implies that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is speaking collectively of the knowledge of God's righteousness so that it may be weighed by those who read it.

If you do not then look more into the matter in your search of God's righteousness and his kingdom.

you see how you are create the diversion ? my conversation was related to Ecc 11.
because of your declaration,and now you answer me to prove a point that is not in question and related to 1Cor 8;6

if this is how I have treated you please show me ,because this is not an Christian way to talk and learn from the word of God ,

Pierre

October 13, 2011 at 2:08 am#260588

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 12 2011,19:04)

The first one is contained in verses 1 to 6 and is the one we speak of. The teaching itself is about the knowledge of the future and verse 5 ties God into that knowledge through his creative power and therefore his authority.

Okay, so the “internally consistent teaching” of verse 1 thru 6 is NOT “the act of creation”, right?

Nevertheless, when God is called (out of the blue) the Maker of all things, we still know that “all things” really MEANS “all things”, right? We don't assume that God is the Maker of ONLY “knowledge”, just because “knowledge” is the internally consistent teaching of verses 1 thru 6, right?

October 13, 2011 at 2:23 am#260589

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 12 2011,19:44)

kERWIN

you are a specialist of diversion,jumping subjects,and not stay on track or point,

Pierre,

I have started to keep my posts smaller and more focused on ONE thing. It leaves less “wiggle room” for others that way.

It was in this manner that I broke Kerwin down about the Word. Little by little, I solidly refuted his points until he had no other choices left except to agree that Jesus is the Word, OR claim that God has an UNKNOWN only begotten Son out there somewhere.

Unfortunately, he is so biased AGAINST Jesus being the Word that he chose the latter. But when someone has to claim that God has an UNKNOWN only begotten Son, when everybody knows exactly who God's only begotten Son is, it is a true sign that HIS doctrine is flawed. And that makes it only a matter of time until this FACT sinks into his own brain. And maybe then, he'll be able to come around to the truth of the matter that Jesus being the Word matches ALL of the scriptures, while God having an unknown only begotten Son matches NONE of them.

Kerwin, I hesitated before “ganging up” on you with Pierre. But I can sense the frustration in his last post, and know exactly what he's going through with you – because you've put me through these same diversionary and avoidance tactics many times.

peace and love to both of you,
mike

October 13, 2011 at 4:16 am#260593

kerwin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 13 2011,06:35)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 12 2011,17:16)

Quote

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

You are speaking about the English perfect and not the Greek perfect as the following quote informs us.

Quote

Kerwin, I didn't see any context in the scriptures you quoted that would change the default meaning of “firstborn of every creature” in Col 1:15.

And I await your responce to this question:
Is the act of creation the internally consistent teaching of the WHOLE CHAPTER of Eccl 11?

peace,
mike

Mike,

I do not believe our two sources are in contradiction if you carefully read which each states. Here is a third source that ties the two together.

Quote

In Level I, Lesson 2, we made note of three kinds of action: linear, punctiliar, and ongoing result. The Perfect Tense indicates ongoing result.

If you remember that the meaning of the word perfect is complete, then you can remember that the perfect tense has to do with completed action. But the perfect tense is a primary tense because it emphasizes the present, or ongoing result of a completed action. The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and is illustrated in the following sentences. In each sentence, observe what is suggested about the present status.

Here is my source.

I plan on addressing the rest later, if God so wills.

October 13, 2011 at 9:16 am#260595

Paladin

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 02 2011,08:23)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 22 2011,04:26)

Paladin,
I fail to see what you claim is 'even more interesting.'

I do not doubt you kathi. you know your own failures better than I.

Quote

What would be the 'sword' of the word of God?

There are two classes of weapon in spiritual warfare. There is the spirit which is the reema, weilded as a sword, used for both offense and defense. If you know your scripture, you can defeat any false doctrine as far as book teaching goes.

But there is a much sharper weapon than any sword, and that is the logos, the idea behind the written word.

If you know the logos, you can delve into the very thought proccesses and discern the hearts of men – and thus defeat their false doctrines that supercede the written word.

Heb 4:12 For the logos of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

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.

Quote

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

If I am told to put on shoes, that does not make it a command about shoes, it makes it a command about me being fully prepared to walk over uneven or destructive ground.

You are correct, it is not about explaining spirit, but putting on spirit is an integral part of being spiritually prepared.

October 13, 2011 at 9:39 am#260596

Paladin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2011,02:34)

[/quote]

Mike, if I ask you to tell me what you know about all things whether black, brown, or blue, would you tell me of things that include those are red, green or yellow?

Yes Paladin,

Because the phrase “ALL things” stipulates how the word “whether” is to be understood. We've been through this discussion before………..remember?

If you asked me about CERTAIN colors, whether they be black, brown, or blue, the word “CERTAIN” gives the word “WHETHER” the meaning of “ONLY these three colors and no others”.[/quote]

So, when I ask you about black, what are you “uncertain” about? How exactly is this an “uncertain” coplor?

And Blue? How is that “uncertain” in your thought proccess?

Brown? “Uncertain?” Do you have to decide whether I really meant a muddy shade of red? Is “Brown” really an “uncertain” color to you Mike?

It is not necessary for me to include the word “certain” in my question, for you to understand the colors I listed, nor are they confusing to the readers. No “uncertainty” except in your own desire to find, in your desparation, some way to turn a conversation to something you can control. But you cannot control my questions, nor my answers, because
“certain” is YOUR requirement for comprehension, not mine, when everybody else on the board had no
“uncertainty” as to what colors I was enquiring about.

Quote

But if you asked me about ALL colors, then the word “WHETHER” takes on a meaning of “SUCH AS” or “INCLUDING these three colors”. It does not exclude any of the other colors known to man because of the phrase “ALL colors”.

Nope! Just another exam[ple of Mike trying to manipulate the conversation.

Quote

For those of you who didn't witness the first exchange about this between Paladin and me, he tries to say that the word “whether” in Col 1:16 limits the things that were created through Jesus to ONLY thrones, powers, rulers and authorities; and then tries to say that the word “created” in this scripture means these four things “stepped down a notch in authority” when Jesus was exalted. He likes to gloss over the words “through him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible; all things were created through him and for him.

Paladin, “SUCH AS” is the true meaning of “whether” in this scripture.

The reader is invited to go to page 143, post number 3 and apply Mikes methodology to the reference material I gave there and test his philosophy. He obviously didn't get it, but maybe you will.

Quote

Paul does say “ALL things” twice, Paladin. Why do you think that is?

Because the Holy Spirit directed him as to what to say and how many times to say it? If you have a point to make about Paul saying “all things” twice, make your point, don't play word games with me. They are your frustration, not mine.

October 13, 2011 at 12:01 pm#260602

Paladin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 04 2011,12:18)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 03 2011,08:50)

Irene……….Get it God and his words are one and the SAME, Yes Just as your words are with You so GOD'S words are with him and Yes even in the “BEGINNING was those words of His with Him Just as your words are with YOU there is no difference GOD'S word are with him also.

Gene,

ANYTHING that can be said to be WITH you cannot possibly BE you. That is just simple common sense, dude. ESPECIALLY when that thing is described with a masculine, personal pronoun like “HE”. Is the Word of God a “HE” that was both WITH God AND God?

Mike, you really desparately need to study a little more about Greek pronouns and definite articles.

God is called both “he” and “it”.[page 41, post 4]

God is also depicted both with and without the definite article.

You are making a lot of clains you cannot substantiate from the Greek.

John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; Is theou the same God as ton theon?

Luke 20:37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord [ton theon]the God of Abraham, and the [theon]God of Isaac, and the [theon] God of Jacob.

Does Abraham worship a different God [“ton theon”] than his son Isaac worships [theon] or his grandson Jacob [theon]?

October 13, 2011 at 12:09 pm#260603

Paladin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 04 2011,12:21)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 03 2011,18:24)

Is “aeons” “singular” or “plural”? Does it make a difference?

It is plural in Hebrews 1:2. It refers to MORE THAN ONE AGE that was created through God's Son.

Mike –

“Poiew” has a lot of meanings that have nothing to do with creation;
4160 poiew – poieo
Meaning: 1) to make 1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc. 1b) to be the authors of, the cause 1c) to make ready, to prepare 1d) to produce, bear, shoot forth 1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one's self 1f) to make a thing out of something 1g) to (make i.e.) render one anything 1g1) to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that 1g2) to (make i.e.) declare one anything 1h) to put one forth, to lead him out 1i) to make one do something 1i1) cause one to 1j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about) 2) to do 2a) to act rightly, do well 2a1) to carry out, to execute 2b) to do a thing unto one 2b1) to do to one 2c) with designation of time: to pass, spend 2d) to celebrate, keep 2d1) to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover 2e) to perform: to a promise

The frequency table of how it is used in the New Testament: AV – do 357, make 113, bring forth 14, commit 9, cause 9, work 8, show 5, bear 4, keep 4, fulfil 3, deal 2, perform 2, not tr 3, misc 43, vr do 3; 579

To say the age was created through God's son misses the meaning of Heb 1:2. It is a reference to the age of Judaism fading [being ended] from the scene, and the age of Christianity being introduced to the scene.

The ages were not created in the way creation was made from nothing. The ages were introduced, fulfilled their rightful place in God's plan, then faded, to be replaced by introduction of the next age in God's scheme of things.

October 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm#260604

Paladin

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 04 2011,12:51)

I think that ya'll should study how the Jews spoke about 'the Word of God' in their paraphrase of the scriptures. I believe it is called the Talmud or the Targums but if you want to know more, I can dig it up for you.

From what I remember, the Jews would replace 'Jehovah' with 'the Word of God' when Jehovah was seen or heard since they knew that no man has seen God or heard His voice.

Kathi

That is incorrect. Suppose you look it up.

I think you will find that “Adon” or “Adonai” is closer to what was used; meaning “Lord.”

October 13, 2011 at 12:19 pm#260605

Paladin

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 04 2011,14:05)

Mike and Kathi! Just this morning I came across some Scriptures of who has seen God…

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.

Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Exd 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Exd 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

Exd 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

Exd 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

So nobody has ever seen God, and Moses who seen only Gods back, His hair was white as snow after that…..
I also believe that nobody has heard Gods voice, so when the Israelite heard YAHVEH, if Scriptures are true, that was not YAHVEH….
Peace Irene

Exo 24:9
Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:10 And they [saw] the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.[eidon = ind. aor. act. 3rd pl. form of verb oraw].

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

October 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm#260606

Paladin

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 05 2011,13:37)

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27)

Do you really think John is not familiar with the concept of “calling” something by a name? John does not say “and the word was called God, does he Mike? He says “the word was God.

Do YOU think that John was unaware that he only spoke of one “THE god” in 1:1? Only ONE of the TWO mentioned is called by John “THE theos”.

Nor did I ever attempt to say John was saying the Word was “called god”. I know that John was saying the Word was A god who was with THE God in the beginning.

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27)

Later, John tells us that this “word” became something other than God; i.e., “the word became flesh.” God did NOT.

And that right there shoots your whole theory in the foot. If “God” did not become flesh, but the Word DID, then isn't is obviousl that the Word was NOT “God”?

Do you want us to believe that the Word was truly God Himself, but when the Word became flesh, it WASN'T God Himself?

Paladin, why don't you address the NETNotes info I included in my last post? Explain to those of us who DO have common sense how God Almighty could possibly be WITH God Almighty. If the Word was God Almighty, then it is just simple common sense that the Word couldn't have possibly been WITH God Almighty.

Can the Being of God be WITH the Being of God? Maybe in Bizzaro World.

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 04 2011,03:27)

Actually Mike, you have John speaking of three, not two; God who was with the word, and God who was the word, and the word who was both God and with God, and changed to being “not God.” (flesh).

Really Paladin? You're counting “God who was the word” and “the word who was God” as TWO things?

That's like saying, “David, the King of Israel” and “King David of Israel” are TWO people.

John 1:1 speaks of TWO, Paladin. One of whom was WITH the other. And only one of them became flesh. And since we agree that God Himself did not become flesh, the one who DID become flesh had to have been someone OTHER THAN God Himself.

Not only that, but the one who DID become flesh had to be the only begotten OF the Father, because after becoming flesh, that one had the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. And only ONE being in existence has EVER had the glory as of the ONLY begotten of the Father. That one is not only called the Word of God in Rev 19, but also in John 1:1 and 14.

mike

Mike – One God or two?

Luke 20:37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord [ton theon]the God of Abraham, and the [theon]God of Isaac, and the [theon] God of Jacob.

One God, or two?
John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; [theou][ton theon]

October 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm#260608

kerwin

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 13 2011,10:16)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 13 2011,06:35)

Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 12 2011,17:16)

Quote

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

You are speaking about the English perfect and not the Greek perfect as the following quote informs us.

Quote

Kerwin, I didn't see any context in the scriptures you quoted that would change the default meaning of “firstborn of every creature” in Col 1:15.

And I await your responce to this question:
Is the act of creation the internally consistent teaching of the WHOLE CHAPTER of Eccl 11?

peace,
mike

Mike,

I do not believe our two sources are in contradiction if you carefully read which each states. Here is a third source that ties the two together.

Quote

In Level I, Lesson 2, we made note of three kinds of action: linear, punctiliar, and ongoing result. The Perfect Tense indicates ongoing result.

Here is my source.

I plan on addressing the rest later, if God so wills.

Mike,

Quote

Hebrews 11
King James Version (KJV)

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

The King James errs in using a simple past instead of a perfect past. I believe that an English perfect past translation is “the ages have been framed” and leaves open whether or not they are still being framed. An example of a past perfect is:

The grass has grown long.

Two other examples that have end points included are:

Many cars had been repaired by George before he received his mechanic's license.

The restaurant's fantastic dinners had been being prepared by Chef Jones for two years before he moved to Paris.

In the first example the grass could still grow longer and in the second and third respectively George could still repair more cars and Chef Jones could still prepare fantastic dinners.

So in Hebrews 11:3 more ages may still be framed by the Word of God and we know there were indeed more ages to come at the time of the writing of Hebrews. We also do not know from that sentence alone when things started being framed, though from other passages we do.

Paladin makes much the same argument in regards to Hebrews 1:2 with the following words.

Quote

I will also address the clause from Colossians 1:16 which is written as follows “all things were created by him, and for him.”

Once again the King James errs in using a English simple past instead of an English perfect past so I believe the words “have been created” is a better translation according to the idea the English and Greek perfect past senses of verbs are equivalent.

So using what we know of Hebrews 11:3 as a pattern we learn that for a time a collective of things were both created by and for Jesus Anointed. We do not know from that clause when they started being created and whether or not they will continue to be created. Like in Hebrews 11:3 other passages will teach us more.

Note 1: My examples come from this source as well as the source I linked to in my last post.

No
te 2: Our discussion is covering more aspects than I have time to address so I will limit which ones I cover so as to cover them better.

October 13, 2011 at 3:55 pm#260611

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Paladin and Kerwin ……………Thanks for your efforts in explaining these thing it really helps to hear sound teachings . I believe all of your efforts helps clear away the confusions surrounding the distortions of God word in modern Christianity.

peace and love to both of you and yours…………………………………………….gene

October 14, 2011 at 3:43 pm#260675

Pastry

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 13 2011,23:19)