- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 28 2011,01:08)
To interpret your words, my studies make you uncomfortable because they challenge your current worldview as I am certainly linking the words in Colossians 1:17 to the fact that those that believe are unified with the Spirit of adoption, by being in him.
Not at all. My point is that you think because Jesus is said to unify believers to God, it somehow changes the meaning of the scriptural words “all things were created through him”.Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 28 2011,01:08)
The word “Sunistao” is in Colossians 1:17 and I advanced the hypothesis for you to test that the “all things” in Colossians 1:17 was the same “all things” written of in “Colossians 1:16.
And what if it is the same “all things”? How does that discredit the claim that all things were created through him?Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 28 2011,01:08)
If as you claim each human being was originally created through Jesus then each human being was created enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, and were partakers of the Holy Ghost before falling away to be recreated in Christ and “crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame” in keeping with the words of Hebrews.
So it's okay if God created flawed human beings, but it's not okay if flawed human beings were created through Jesus?
Where does scripture say that those created through Jesus before he became flesh were “enlightened” or “partakers of the Holy Spirit” back then?
Your scripture refers to those who have accepted Christ as their Savior and who have believed in his name. This couldn't refer to the beings who were created through him that lived and died before the light of the world came into what was his.
In other words, your point is a non-point, and has no bearing on all things being created through Jesus.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 28 2011,01:08)
There is simply no need to interpret Colossians 1:16 in such a way as to support the idea that all things were originally created through Jesus because it is clear that all new things are created through him, by him, and for him.
It is this claim I want you to fully understand, Kerwin. You have NO scriptural basis to claim that just because new things are created through Jesus that old things weren't also created through him.It is like seeing a scripture that speaks of God creating a new heaven and a new earth; and then concluding that God couldn't have also created the old heavens and the old earth simply because He will create the new ones.
Your whole theory hindges on this point, and it is a very flawed point, my friend.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 28 2011,01:08)
Notice that both all things and we are of God and through Jesus. All things clearly does not include we or there would be no reason to state “and we”, “kai ēmeis” in common Greek.
Another flawed point. Consider: GOD MADE EVERY SINGLE THING THAT EVER EXISTED, AND WE LIVE FOR HIM.How does the statement “we live for Him” exclude “we” from being a part of the “every single thing that ever existed”?
It doesn't.Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 28 2011,01:08)
I don’t know about you but the word “makes” leads me to believe it is speaking of all made things. Strangely enough 1 Corinthians 8 is not speaking of made things, unless you speak of the food, but rather of the knowledge of God.
Let's just cut to the chase here, Kerwin. 1 Cor speaks of ALL THINGS coming FROM God and THROUGH Jesus. But because you don't like the idea that ALL THINGS came through Jesus, you will make a totally unfounded and unsupported claim that the “all things” can't possibly literally mean “all things”.But your claim is simply out of thin air, and not even worth the breath it takes you to claim it. The FACT is the Eccl 11:5 throws a claim of God being the Maker of ALL THINGS into a teaching that isn't about God creating all things. Yet it STILL means God made ALL things.
And the prayer in Acts 4 mentions the fact that God made the heavens, the earth and EVERYTHING in them. And even though the act of creation is not mentioned anywhere in the entire prayer, “everything in them” STILL refers to literally EVERYTHING in them.
And Revelation 4:11 throws in a praise to God for making everything also. And even though the act of creation isn't the “internally consistent teaching” of Rev 4, the “all things” that God created literally refers to ALL things.
So there is NO reason whatsoever, (except of course for your PERSONAL wishes), to understand the “all things” in 1 Cor 8:6 as anything other than a LITERAL ALL THINGS.
Those are the FACTS of the matter. Claim what you want, Kerwin. But at least now I've made it crystal clear to you that you are making totally unfounded claims just to keep your flawed, unscriptural doctrine.
Kerwin, do you have UNDENIABLE, SCRIPTURAL PROOF that the phrase “ALL things” in 1 Cor 8:6 doesn't literally refer to ALL things?
(Don't bother answering, for we all know the answer is “NO”.)
Mike wrote:
Quote How does that discredit the claim that all things were created through him?
The word “through” (dia) means “because of.”“He is the Firstborn over all creation for because of Him all things were created.”
KJ
Yes Jack,
“Because of” is ONE of the many meanings of the Greek word “dia”. “By means of” and “through” are two other options.
The clincher in 1 Cor 8:6 is the big huge FROM God contrasted with THROUGH Jesus.
Notice Jack, that all things did not come FROM God and FROM Jesus.
Mike,
Quote So it's okay if God created flawed human beings, but it's not okay if flawed human beings were created through Jesus? According to scripture God created mankind in such a way that he did not fall short of the glory of God but that mankind took it on themselves to go in search of many schemes.
According to scripture those that walk according to the Spirit of God do not fall short of the glory of God and so reconciles mankind to God.
According to Scripture that Spirit could not come until he ascended.
It seems clear from these scriptural points that each man is not created with the spirit of God dwelling in him but only receive that spirit as the result of the self-sacrifice of Jesus the anointed.
Quote Your scripture refers to those who have accepted Christ as their Savior and who have believed in his name. This couldn't refer to the beings who were created through him that lived and died before the light of the world came into what was his. You are using the words of another as some of what you wrote, so I am not sure of what your point is.
Are you claiming that even though the world was created through Jesus Christ that in another way it was not created through Jesus Christ?
Quote It is this claim I want you to fully understand, Kerwin. You have NO scriptural basis to claim that just because new things are created through Jesus that old things weren't also created through him. Since I already pointed out that you have no scriptural basis to claim that the old creation was created through Jesus the Anointed it seems we are at loggerheads on this one. The difference is that you are adding to God’s word something that has no bearing on the gospel of salvation.
Quote Another flawed point. Consider: GOD MADE EVERY SINGLE THING THAT EVER EXISTED, AND WE LIVE FOR HIM. How does the statement “we live for Him” exclude “we” from being a part of the “every single thing that ever existed”? It doesn't.
Here is what I speak of when I talk of mental rigidity since you are so used to being taught that the original creation took place through Jesus Christ that you see “created” even though the word is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8:6, much less the rest of the chapter. Since it is not mentioned why are you so sure it speaks of created things?
The words “and we” are a red flag that it is not speaking about the original creation as there would be no reason to use the words “and we” as the word “all things” would already cover it just as you wrote. Their very mention reveals that “and we” is not included in the group “all things”. That is because “all things” are the “all things” revealed by the Spirit of God and “and we is the kind of first fruits of creation.
Quote But your claim is simply out of thin air, and not even worth the breath it takes you to claim it. The FACT is the Eccl 11:5 throws a claim of God being the Maker of ALL THINGS into a teaching that isn't about God creating all things. Yet it STILL means God made ALL things. Again I face your mental rigidity as even though you know that that God fashions (asah) all things you fail to connect that fact to how it affects the future. It is that very fashioning of all things that our faith is in part based on.
Quote And the prayer in Acts 4 mentions the fact that God made the heavens, the earth and EVERYTHING in them. And even though the act of creation is not mentioned anywhere in the entire prayer, “everything in them” STILL refers to literally EVERYTHING in them. Acts 4:30 tells of the reason that the people called on God’s power of creation.
I question why you choose disagree with the idea that a teaching of God is in agreement with itself. I doubt that you really do but instead you have been tricked into debating it by the evil one. The line of investigation you would be wiser to follow is to test whether or not Romans your own understanding about 1 Corinthians 8:6 is in agreement with the teaching that it is part of. That is what internally consistent means.
Quote Kerwin, do you have UNDENIABLE, SCRIPTURAL PROOF that the phrase “ALL things” in 1 Cor 8:6 doesn't literally refer to ALL things? Yes!
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Oct. 31 2011,04:48) Mike wrote: Quote How does that discredit the claim that all things were created through him?
The word “through” (dia) means “because of.”“He is the Firstborn over all creation for because of Him all things were created.”
KJ
Kangaroo Jack!Thank you as I plan to look into that.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 30 2011,19:32) Since I already pointed out that you have no scriptural basis to claim that the old creation was created through Jesus the Anointed it seems we are at loggerheads on this one.
Let's let it be loggerheads then, Kerwin. In conclusion, let me say:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The Word is Jesus Christ, and without him NOTHING was made that has been made. I believe it, you don't.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For through him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created through him and for him.
Jesus was the first creature ever to be created by God, and all things were created through him. I believe it, you don't.
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
The same “all things” that came FROM the Father also came THROUGH Jesus Christ. I believe that when Paul wrote “all things”, Paul meant “all things”. You don't.
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
I believe these scriptural words, you don't.
One of the differences between us, Kerwin, is that I have no personal agenda to maintain. It wouldn't matter one bit to me whether or not Jesus pre-existed.
Another difference is that I believe what the scriptures actually say, while you try to manuever around the scriptures, forcing them to meet your doctrine – no matter how illogical the claims you have to make get.
I pray that God opens your eyes by removing the blinders the god of this world has placed on them.
peace,
mikeMike,
Quote 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. The Word is Jesus Christ, and without him NOTHING was made that has been made. I believe it, you don't.
Scripture does not state that the Word is Jesus Christ. It instead calls Jesus by the title of the Word of God. That is not the same thing.
Jesus is called the Word of God because he is manifests the word of God by his words and actions.
In conclusion what you state you believe is not the message of Scripture though you are adding it to the word of God if you also believe that Jesus reveals the word of God with both his words and actions.
Quote 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For through him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created through him and for him. Jesus was the first creature ever to be created by God, and all things were created through him. I believe it, you don't.
Scripture does not testify that Jesus was the first being created by God. Instead it testifies that he was formed in the womb of Mary.
Colossians 1:15-16 tells us he that he reveals God and is king over all thing in heaven and on earth because through him and in him all things in heaven and on earth are created anew. That is why the Word of God declares that those that are born again are a kind of first fruits of creation.
In conclusion what you state you believe is not the message of Scripture though you may be adding it to the word of God if you also believe that Jesus is over all things and that all things are created through him and in him.Quote 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. The same “all things” that came FROM the Father also came THROUGH Jesus Christ. I believe that when Paul wrote “all things”, Paul meant “all things”. You don't.
You believe that Paul was speaking of everything, even those things of the evil one, while I believe he was speaking of the all things of the same type of things he was speaking of in the rest of his teaching. Scripture testifies that only good and perfect things come from above.
Quote 1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. I believe these scriptural words, you don't.
Really! How can one be an heir if they have no predecessor to inherit from?
Scripture declares Jesus was appointed king of all things after his self sacrifice.
So already I question your claim to believe the words of Hebrews 1:1-2.
It is my thoughts hat you do believe that God fulfilled the ages through Jesus Christ.
Quote One of the differences between us, Kerwin, is that I have no personal agenda to maintain Right! (Sarcasm intended)
You suffer from the malady, which is common to men, of having the personal agenda of maintain a secure worldview as that change appears threatening to you.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 31 2011,07:34) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Oct. 31 2011,04:48) Mike wrote: Quote How does that discredit the claim that all things were created through him?
The word “through” (dia) means “because of.”“He is the Firstborn over all creation for because of Him all things were created.”
KJ
Kangaroo Jack!Thank you as I plan to look into that.
Jack,So according to you the last clause of Colossians 1:16 is best translated as
“all things have been created on “account of” him and for him.”
That certainly sounds like a rational translation.
By your wording I believe you actually meant “hoti” and not “dia” as you wrote, since “hoti” is translated “for” in the initial clause of Colossians 1:16 which would declare that Jesus is the firstborn of creation because “in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities”.
I do not think Mike is able to comprehend that Jesus is the firstborn of creation because all things in heaven and on earth were created in him at this time.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 01 2011,11:19)
Jesus is called the Word of God because he is manifests the word of God by his words and actions.
Jesus is called the Word of God because he is God's main angel/messenger/spokeman. Just like the spokeman for the King of Abyssinia was called “the Word of the King”.Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 01 2011,11:19)
You believe that Paul was speaking of everything, even those things of the evil one, while I believe he was speaking of the all things of the same type of things he was speaking of in the rest of his teaching. Scripture testifies that only good and perfect things come from above.
Who is it that sent the EVIL spirit upon Saul? Who CREATED that EVIL spirit in the first place? If you think God only created things that are good in YOUR eyes, then you are mistaken. God created the heavens, the earth, and EVERYTHING in them………INCLUDING SATAN. Did Satan “come from above”, Kerwin?Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 01 2011,11:19)
Really! How can one be an heir if they have no predecessor to inherit from?
What does that even mean? Jesus inherited all things from his own Father.I believe the scriptures, Kerwin. You simply do not. You have your mind made up as to what they SHOULD teach, and spend your time trying to conform the scriptures to that view.
When my Lord says, “I came down from heaven”, I believe him. You do not. It's really that simple.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 01 2011,12:16) By your wording I believe you actually meant “hoti” and not “dia” as you wrote, since “hoti” is translated “for” in the initial clause of Colossians 1:16 which would declare that Jesus is the firstborn of creation because “in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities”.
That is what Paul was saying. Jesus HAS TO HAVE BEEN the firstborn of every creature, BECAUSE all subsequent creatures were then created THROUGH him.Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 01 2011,12:16) I do not think Mike is able to comprehend that Jesus is the firstborn of creation because all things in heaven and on earth were created in him at this time.
Oh, I fully understand the claim you are making, Kerwin. I understand it and have addressed it a number of times.Rule of Firstborn:
The DEFAULT meaning of “firstborn” in the scriptures is “THE ONE BORN FIRST”. On occasion, the scriptures identify someone who is not actually “THE ONE BORN FIRST”, but has had the title of “firstborn” applied to them. IN EACH AND EVERY CASE like this, it is made crystal clear from the context that “firstborn”, in this case, does NOT refer to “THE ONE BORN FIRST”. There are NO exceptions in the scriptures.So………….show me the CONTEXT that makes it CLEAR that “firstborn” in Col 1:15 is NOT the default meaning of “THE ONE BORN FIRST”.
If you cannot show CLEAR context to the contrary, then the default meaning will always prevail.
From the Book of Enoch, this first part is for Jack, to show that Jesus is someone OTHER THAN the Ancient of Days:
46
1There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was and why he accompanied the Ancient of days.2He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.
This next part is for Kerwin:
48
2In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days.3Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations.
5And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for evermore.
(Also for Jack, “his name was invoked IN THE PRESENCE OF the Ancient of Days”, distinguishing him as someone OTHER THAN the Ancient of Days.)
Mike,
Quote Rule of Firstborn: The DEFAULT meaning of “firstborn” in the scriptures is “THE ONE BORN FIRST”. On occasion, the scriptures identify someone who is not actually “THE ONE BORN FIRST”, but has had the title of “firstborn” applied to them. IN EACH AND EVERY CASE like this, it is made crystal clear from the context that “firstborn”, in this case, does NOT refer to “THE ONE BORN FIRST”. There are NO exceptions in the scriptures.
This is an illogical argument that reasons that just because something has not happened means it will not happen. Since the reasoning is not valid there is no reason to test if the premise themselves are sound.
I am not telling you anything you should not already know, so you should have spotted the flaw in the reasoning you are using as you should be aware that their are exceptions that prove rules unsound.
Quote If you cannot show CLEAR context to the contrary, then the default meaning will always prevail. I am quite sure that I have not previously heard an argument how a particular word combination has a default meaning. So let’s test it by assuming it is true about the word “flesh”. Given that premise, Jesus taught his disciple to be cannibals. That is an absurd interpretation of his teaching even though it was made using the “default” definition of “flesh”. You should be careful to test what you believe.
Never the less, Jack is obviously advancing the hypothesis that Jesus is the firstborn because in him all things are created, which is the clear context you are asking for. You are asking for what is already clearly written in scripture.
Quote That is what Paul was saying. Jesus HAS TO HAVE BEEN the firstborn of every creature, BECAUSE all subsequent creatures were then created THROUGH him.
You are assuming the content of Colossians 1:16 infers the word “subsequent” and Jack does not. The only ”logical” reasoning you have to base that inference on is the word “firstborn” which means you are committing the logical fallacy of bagging the question. Jack therefore has a stronger case.Quote This next part is for Kerwin:
48
2In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days.3Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations.
5And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for evermore.
I consider the existent manuscripts of the book of 1st Enoch to be adulterated as I have not yet tested one who’s spirit is true to scripture. The one you seem to prefer seems to have been corrupted by Hellenistic thought much like manuscripts of the book of Jubilees. Still I hold it use for giving insight in the ideas of the people of that age.What do you think the clause “his name was invoked” means?
You also might want to look at chapter 46:1 where it states about the Son of Man that “His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels”.
I also find the use of the title “Son of Man” interesting.
kerwin
if your testing only cover your own views ,logic and opinions then why use the bible at all ,God should bow down to you
son of man ? look in Ezekiel it is common their because this is a prelude to the work that the Christ will perform.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2011,15:19)
This is an illogical argument that reasons that just because something has not happened means it will not happen. Since the reasoning is not valid there is no reason to test if the premise themselves are sound.I am not telling you anything you should not already know, so you should have spotted the flaw in the reasoning you are using as you should be aware that their are exceptions that prove rules unsound.
Translation: Mike, the word “firstborn” in Col 1:15 MUST BE an “exception to the rule”, because that's the only way the scriptures will form around my own flawed doctrine.Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2011,15:19)
Never the less, Jack is obviously advancing the hypothesis that Jesus is the firstborn because in him all things are created, which is the clear context you are asking for. You are asking for what is already clearly written in scripture.
Translation: Jack has offered an oddball translation that I could possibly fit around my own flawed doctrine…………so I'm taking it, man!
Kerwin, were the dinosaurs created “because of” Jesus? In what way, considering that you don't believe he even existed to experience them.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2011,15:19)
The only ”logical” reasoning you have to base that inference on is the word “firstborn” which means you are committing the logical fallacy of bagging the question. Jack therefore has a stronger case.
Actually, it is because you think “Jack's case” offers you a way to build scripture around your own flawed doctrine that you think it is “stronger”. I'll await your answer about the dinosaurs before commenting more on Jack's translation (which is not used in any Bible).And if you think the word “firstborn” in Col 1:15 is the “only logical reasoning” I have, you have apparently been sleep-walking through our whole discussion.
Kerwin, yesterday you tried to make a distinction between the Word of God, who you DO admit is Jesus, and the Word from John 1:1. Exactly WHOSE Word do you think John 1:1 talks about? The Word of Satan? The Word of Michael the archangel? Of course it refers to GOD'S Word, ie: the Word OF GOD.
That Word OF GOD in John 1:1 BECAME flesh, Kerwin. And not only did HE BECOME flesh, but HE dwelt on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son. How dense can a person be to not see that the one John called “the Word of God” in Revelation 19:13 is the same one he called “the Word” in John 1:1?
Once you get past that hurdle, then you will be able to understand John 1:3, which says all things were created through the Word, and that NOT ONE THING CAME INTO BEING WITHOUT THAT WORD.
Now if you believed THOSE scriptural words, then you'd have no problem understanding that Paul was saying the same exact thing in Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6, and Heb 1:2.
See, you can play with words all you want in Col 1:16. And you can play with “internally consistent teachings” in 1 Cor 8:6. But you can't twist John 1:3 to form around your own flawed doctrine. Because the words, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made“ allow you no wiggle room.
And because I understand that the Word of God in Rev is the same Word from 1:1, I also understand the true meaning of Col 1:16 and 1 Cor 8:6. But because YOU would rather imagine some UNKNOWN “only begotten from the Father”, you can't understand what I understand right now.
When and if you ever come to terms with the fact that the Word in 1:1 is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY referring to Jesus Christ, then the rest of what I've been patiently showing you will all fall into place for you.
Until then, we will remain at loggerheads.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 02 2011,15:19)
I consider the existent manuscripts of the book of 1st Enoch to be adulterated as I have not yet tested one who’s spirit is true to scripture. The one you seem to prefer seems to have been corrupted by Hellenistic thought much like manuscripts of the book of Jubilees.
Translation: I have no basis from which to make this statement – I just know the words don't align with my doctrine, so they're out!Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 02 2011,15:53) kerwin if your testing only cover your own views ,logic and opinions then why use the bible at all ,God should bow down to you
Spot on, Pierre.What happened to Paladin? I hope his health is okay. Personally, I think that once Kathi showed up and proved her prowess with the Greek language, Paladin realized he wouldn't be able to get away with claiming whatever fit his doctrine, and justifying those claims with the Greek grammar rules he made up as he went. So he just left.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 03 2011,10:36) What happened to Paladin? I hope his health is okay. Personally, I think that once Kathi showed up and proved her prowess with the Greek language, Paladin realized he wouldn't be able to get away with claiming whatever fit his doctrine, and justifying those claims with the Greek grammar rules he made up as he went. So he just left.
Hi Mike! Could be that Paladin did that… But my guess is that His health is going bad…. Lots of people at this time are having health problems because of our weather here in the USA…. I was sick, still are somewhat, our Daughter-In-Law and our Son are having a hard time with allergies…..Peace and Love IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 03 2011,17:03) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 02 2011,15:53) kerwin if your testing only cover your own views ,logic and opinions then why use the bible at all ,God should bow down to you
Spot on, Pierre.Quote (Pastry @ Nov. 03 2011,05:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 03 2011,10:36) What happened to Paladin? I hope his health is okay. Personally, I think that once Kathi showed up and proved her prowess with the Greek language, Paladin realized he wouldn't be able to get away with claiming whatever fit his doctrine, and justifying those claims with the Greek grammar rules he made up as he went. So he just left.
Hi Mike! Could be that Paladin did that… But my guess is that His health is going bad…. Lots of people at this time are having health problems because of our weather here in the USA…. I was sick, still are somewhat, our Daughter-In-Law and our Son are having a hard time with allergies…..Peace and Love Irene
Yeah, you're probably right Irene. That's why I chose to live in sunny Arizona! I went through 36 Iowa winters, and that was enough for me. It gets hot here in the summer, but you don't have to shovel the heat!Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 03 2011,03:53) kerwin if your testing only cover your own views ,logic and opinions then why use the bible at all ,God should bow down to you
son of man ? look in Ezekiel it is common their because this is a prelude to the work that the Christ will perform.
Pierre,The book of Enoch contradicts the words of Jesus in that the later teacher angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage and Jesus describes a different version of Sheol.
That is two witnesses. Currently many of the 1 Enoch manuscripts are remnants with the most extent ones coming from Ethiopia. There is a 2 Enoch and a 3 Enoch that exist.
Hi Kerwin,
Where does Enoch teach that angels marry?
Enoch 15
6But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever.7Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.
Also, how does Enoch describe Sheol as contrasted to how Jesus describes it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
