- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 29 2011,13:10) [/quote]
I will try this once more. Bolded letters designate a simple question I've asked but Paladin has not yet answered.I said:
Quote (M) We've already discussed this Paladin. There is nothing above the Name of YHWH. Read the LXX translation of this Psalm and tell me what it says. Because apparently you didn't believe me when I showed you. Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 25 2011,09:53)
Psa138:2 “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” [Psa 138:2]
Paladin, how is Psalm 138:2 translated in the LXX?I have gone back and researched the issue Mike, and find that the Septuagint is very often off by one number, when you are trying to find a comparison between Hebrew and LXX.
Look at Psalm 137:2 and you will find “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” I answered this before on thread page 39, post #2 but failed to make clear the difference in chapter numbers. I apologize for that error.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 25 2011,09:53)
Really! You see a “new, unused, unfamiliar” name as a reason it could not be a “new” name? Well, that does explain a little.No, I see a name that NO ONE KNOWS EXCEPT FOR JESUS as a reason “Word of God” cannot be that new name.
Paldin, of the THREE names of Jesus that we DO KNOW that are mentioned in Rev 19, why would you pick only ONE of them, the “Word of God”, and conclude that this name we DO KNOW is the new name of Jesus that NO ONE BUT HE HIMSELF KNOWS?
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 25 2011,09:53)
Your reference to “no man knowing” is according to the use of “ginosko” knowledge, but John does not use “ginosko” here, he uses “oiden” which is a reference to knowledge gained through experience, so John is saying no one knew it because it was beyond their experience.
Forget about the “oiden” for a minute and deal with the “ei me autos”, (but he himself). Get it? ONLY JESUS KNOWS THIS NEW NAME. If John also knows it, then it can't be said that no one knows it but Jesus himself.[/quote]See thread page 39, post #2. It has been answered.
(Mike)
Quote If people around here would answer a simple question when it is put to them, there would be no need for drill sergeant behavior. The question remains: How is it that you pick only ONE of the three names Jesus is called in Rev 19 as this “new name that no one knows BUT HE HIMSELF”? Why do you not pick one of the other two names mentioned? Why only “Word of God”? Is it because only this one works in support of your theory?
Because “The logos of God” is the only one of the three names that qualifies in scripture.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,23:00) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 29 2011,12:49) [/quote] Wispring,Mar. wrote:Hi Paladin,
Quote Jesus is not the personification of the logos.
So, more precisely, the logos is personified in Jesus. When a saint relenquishes his/her life pattern to Jesus's life pattern this makes:Quote Mark 8:35 (King James Version) 35For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Quote John 14:23 (King James Version) 23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
a spiritual reality for the saint.
I understand, brother, your tweaking of my understanding as correction of splitting the Logos as it were and appreciate your advise in that respect.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote Our live is nothing against Jesus. He never was a mere man, like some want to believe. Splitting the logos? Never heard such a thing….. if the Word of God is not Jesus then God Himself became flesh. I am sorry Paladin, I don't buy any of it. And I also don't believe it is not in the original transcript. It is….i also have a German Bible it is in there too….We have five different Bibles and in the Rye Study Bible it tells us to go to for crass reference…. Pro 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:24 When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
Pro 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Pro 8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
Pro 8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Pro 8:30 Then I was by him, [as]a master craftsman one brought up [with him]: and I was daily [his] delight, rejoicing always before him;This is not wisdom, because God always had wisdom. and wisdom could not be a master craftsman…
The Rye Bible puts words in that are not in the Greek. “Master Craftsman” is not in the Greek. So it ceases to be an issue. That is simply an evaluation expressed by the translators of the Rye version.
Jesus is masculine, Wisdom is feminine. Paul tells us Jesus was not wisdom in the beginning, because as Paul put it “who of God is made unto us wisdom;” If He was already wisdom, he would be wisdom to all, not just to “us.”
And he could not, as a child, have increased in wisdom – “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” [Luke 2:52] Wisdom cannot increase in wisdom. That is like saying “God grew into God.”
That is the least Scripture I am concerned about. It would have to be in the Hebrew, since its the Old Testament, right?
As far as John 17:5 Since in verse 4 Jesus talks about the glory ofHis Father, I am not so sure what you present is so…..I will pray about it….And will get back with you then…..Peace and love Irene
Quote (karmarie @ Mar. 29 2011,21:07) Hi Irene. Regarding Sheppard of Hermas,
You quoted;
Quote Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.Quote John 1:1 says in the beginning was The Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God. And verse 14 tells us that The Word became flesh. I am not certain what is meant by in the beginning. If it is the beginning of Jesus, or the time of all creation. In Hermas, the Son was the Holy Spirit.
I think the Holy Spirit is also known as the Word or Logos.
The Word or Holy Spirit pre-existed from what I can gather (in Hermas).
Jesus the Man didn't.So when Jesus spoke, he spoke as the Holy Spirit spoke through him (the Holy Spirit being the Son of God).
Gets confusing but sometimes I just get it.
Example where it says “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is to come.”
Hi Karmarie! That is interesting, because Ed believes that The Word of God in John 1:1 is the Holy Spirit too. I don't.
Thanks
Peace and Love IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 29 2011,13:24) [/quote] Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,09:04) mikeboll64,Mar. wrote:OH…………….THAT'S RIGHT! We're talking about GENE! He has the same comprehension problems when it comes to scripture, too.
MikeI don't agree with Gene in most things and he ticks me off at times.
But you are a so-called Moderator, so why do you run around this sight belittling others and constantly puking ad hominems at others that disagree with you?
WJQuote Says the man who is puking an ad hominem at me! 
What's your name again Worshipping Jesus? Keith, right? Well then, KEITH is the only one on this site that you need to concern yourself with, okay? 
I'll post and moderate as I see fit. And if t8 sees fit to remove me, then he will. He asked me to do this job………I didn't ask him for it. And my only stipulation to accepting his offer was that I could continue to post with the same quality, quantity, and personal style that I had been posting with. I believe the words I used were, “As long as I am still able to dish out exactly how it's dished to me, I'll do it.” He agreed to that, so I agreed to moderate.
Really Keith, have you ever seen Irene post ANYTHING on this site that would lead you to believe she worships Jesus as God? Yet this is the implication Gene made. Along with years of implications that we are Trinitarians, Gnostics, and antichrists.
What I said was warranted, and true. For Gene is famous around here for adding words to scriptures to make those scriptures fit around HIS beliefs, instead of forming his beliefs around those scriptures.
mike
Well, Mike that helps me to understand a problem I have been having also. As I have previously posted, I knew nothing about the beliefs of those who say Jesus pre-exist his birth. Then I asked Irene. Funny how much one can learn by asking a question of the one who believes the “issues” that arise.
I always assumed that to believe Jesus pre-existed, one had to believe trinity doctrine. I have been appropriately corrected on tha tissue. I still from time to time mistake
“trinity doctrine” and “pre-existent Jesus doctrine”,because they use some of the same scriptures for proof-texts.I think sometimes we get into difficulties with eachother because we assume conclusions about each other that are not apporpriate to the issues.
I assumed, for example, that because you also reference the LXX you were knowledgeable about some of the things I know about, and responded to your questions accordingly. I see now, that is not the case, and I will try to remember that you do not know some of the Septuagint issues with which I am familiar, having done the research for myself.
For example, most believe the LXX is an inacurate translation of the Hebrew scriptures, because for over two thousand years scholars have said “The Septuagint is just a bad translation of the hebrew.” It is not so. It is not a translation at all. It is a separate revelation from God given to the Hebrew people for safekeeping until the Gentiles begin to come into the kingdom.
Understanding this will make a world of difference in understanding why some scriptures say differently than others when one goes from hebrew O.T. to Greek O.T. and back.
It is not because one is misreading, or leading astray, but because one knows of this difference and another does not.
Septuagint sometimes is a chapter off, but not always. The reason is because of the revelatory nature of LXX, as opposed to translation. Then there are times when Hebew scriptures cover stuff never found in LXX. Again, because it is not a translation.I hope this will serve to allay some of the difference that has risen between us.
Peace!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 29 2011,14:43) [/quote] Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 28 2011,21:17)
Mike……….If anyone is adding to scriptures it is you say things like Like God originally created everything through Jesus
Yep, I DO say that, because scripture says that.Hello Mike;
May I see if I can make it plain here? There are two creations in scripture, two foundations, two destructions, all of which makes for a certain ammount of confusion.
I think we mostly agree, when we read “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second,” that the language
“that he may” is not speaking of permission, but of probability, and it is a way of asserting what will be, not what might happen.If you disagree, please let me know and I will try again to make it clear.
Isaiah used the same reference of probability in Isaiah 51:11, 16 –
TWO FOUNDATIONS
[Isa 51:11]”…the LORD…that HATH STRETCHED forth the heavens, AND LAID the foundations of the earth;”[Isa 51:16] “And… THAT I MAY plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth…”
Isaiah told his people that he both did and will do, “hath” and “may” do what he already “hath done.”
The first is a reference to the original, which according to Isaiah, he did “monos” alone; the second is a reference to the new creation by which all things became new through and by and for Jesus Christ.
TWO CREATIONS
“O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou monos [alone], of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.” [Isa 37:16; 44:24]“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things gegonen [are become] new.” [II Cor 5:17]
All things egeneto [became] by him; and without him was not any thing egeneto [became] that gegonen has become.” [John 1:3]
TWO DESTRUCTIONS
“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” [Heb 1:10-12]“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?” [II Pet 3:10-12]Isaiah tells us of a “world-ending” which is compared with a folding of a garment, as for storage; Peter tells us of a
“fervent heat” and a melting away of the elements.“Fervent heat” is not the same as a “fading garment.” The first will be changed as a garment is changed; the second will be destroyed with fervent heat of a fire.
This is so powerful, it requires its own thread to examine in depth. I can only relate the basic foundation here.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 28 2011,21:17)
and Jesus said he existed before Abraham , and you assume the is saying He was (alive) before Abraham,
Yeah, when Jesus says he existed before Abraham, I take that to mean he existed before Abraham. What do YOU take it to mean?[/quote]But jesus did not say he existed before Abraham, which would require at least some form of past tense verb. Instead, he said “I am” which is the present active form of the verb “To Be,” though it can be understood to mean “was” if you understand it is prophetic language; This is a reference to existence in prophecy, wherein God speaks of things not yet as though they were [Rom 4:17].
Quote John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.[/color]1. Gene, does this scripture say the Word BECAME flesh, or “came to be IN someone who was flesh?”
I think under examination, my friend, you will find it does not say “and the word became a man,” because it did not; instead, it becomes flesh again everytime someone yields his life to Christ so that it is no longer he that lives, but Christ lives in him. THAT is “the logos of God” personified; references produced already in several posts in the thread.
Peace to you Mike.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,21:24) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,09:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,22:18) OH…………….THAT'S RIGHT! We're talking about GENE! He has the same comprehension problems when it comes to scripture, too.
MikeI don't agree with Gene in most things and he ticks me off at times.
But you are a so-called Moderator, so why do you run around this sight belittling others and constantly puking ad hominems at others that disagree with you?
WJ
Says the man who is puking an ad hominem at me! What's your name again Worshipping Jesus? Keith, right? Well then, KEITH is the only one on this site that you need to concern yourself with, okay? I'll post and moderate as I see fit. And if t8 sees fit to remove me, then he will. He asked me to do this job………I didn't ask him for it. And my only stipulation to accepting his offer was that I could continue to post with the same quality, quantity, and personal style that I had been posting with. I believe the words I used were, “As long as I am still able to dish out exactly how it's dished to me, I'll do it.” He agreed to that, so I agreed to moderate.
Really Keith, have you ever seen Irene post ANYTHING on this site that would lead you to believe she worships Jesus as God? Yet this is the implication Gene made. Along with years of implications that we are Trinitarians, Gnostics, and antichrists.
What I said was warranted, and true. For Gene is famous around here for adding words to scriptures to make those scriptures fit around HIS beliefs, instead of forming his beliefs around those scriptures.
mike
MikeYour attitutde is not what a moderator should have. I have been to other sights and no moderator acts like you do Mike.
You prance around puking ad hominems at people and acting like JA who was nothing but an intellectual bully. Of course you can't see it no more than a child can see himself growing up.
Anyway this is the wrong thread for this discussion.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2011,02:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,21:24) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,09:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 24 2011,22:18) OH…………….THAT'S RIGHT! We're talking about GENE! He has the same comprehension problems when it comes to scripture, too.
MikeI don't agree with Gene in most things and he ticks me off at times.
But you are a so-called Moderator, so why do you run around this sight belittling others and constantly puking ad hominems at others that disagree with you?
WJ
Says the man who is puking an ad hominem at me! What's your name again Worshipping Jesus? Keith, right? Well then, KEITH is the only one on this site that you need to concern yourself with, okay? I'll post and moderate as I see fit. And if t8 sees fit to remove me, then he will. He asked me to do this job………I didn't ask him for it. And my only stipulation to accepting his offer was that I could continue to post with the same quality, quantity, and personal style that I had been posting with. I believe the words I used were, “As long as I am still able to dish out exactly how it's dished to me, I'll do it.” He agreed to that, so I agreed to moderate.
Really Keith, have you ever seen Irene post ANYTHING on this site that would lead you to believe she worships Jesus as God? Yet this is the implication Gene made. Along with years of implications that we are Trinitarians, Gnostics, and antichrists.
What I said was warranted, and true. For Gene is famous around here for adding words to scriptures to make those scriptures fit around HIS beliefs, instead of forming his beliefs around those scriptures.
mike
MikeYour attitutde is not what a moderator should have. I have been to other sights and no moderator acts like you do Mike.
You prance around puking ad hominems at people and acting like JA who was nothing but an intellectual bully. Of course you can't see it no more than a child can see himself growing up.
Anyway this is the wrong thread for this discussion.
WJ
Have you been to the CARM board yet WJ?Much worse. Mike is showing frustration, not animus. (IMO)
Over there, they protect their trinitarian doctrine at all costs.
There is one four-part series addressed to me that had 41 insults, and I addressed attention to it to a moderator, and it still stands as is; though I got suspended.
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 30 2011,00:00) [/quote] karmarie,Mar. wrote:Hi Irene.
Regarding Sheppard of Hermas,
You quoted;
Quote Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.Quote John 1:1 says in the beginning was The Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God. And verse 14 tells us that The Word became flesh. I am not certain what is meant by in the beginning. If it is the beginning of Jesus, or the time of all creation. In Hermas, the Son was the Holy Spirit.
I think the Holy Spirit is also known as the Word or Logos.
The Word or Holy Spirit pre-existed from what I can gather (in Hermas).
Jesus the Man didn't.So when Jesus spoke, he spoke as the Holy Spirit spoke through him (the Holy Spirit being the Son of God).
Gets confusing but sometimes I just get it.
Example where it says “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is to come.”
Quote Hi Karmarie! That is interesting, because Ed believes that The Word of God in John 1:1 is the Holy Spirit too. I don't.
Thanks
Peace and Love IreneVery Good dear sister. The reason “ho logos” cannot be the holy Spirit is simple:
1) Holy Spirit is Reema, – “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:”[Eph 6:17]
Neuter “Which” is an adjective modifying neuter “Spirit” – Sword is Feminine, therefore cannot e modified by “which.”
The reema is sharp and can be used for both attack (thrust) and defense (parry); but 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.” [Heb 4:12]
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,10:34) Have you been to the CARM board yet WJ? Much worse. Mike is showing frustration, not animus. (IMO)
Hi PaladinAnimus; “a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will”, HMMM?
Yes, today I went to the Carm sight.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience. Of course there are 2 sides to everything.
Blessings Keith
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2011,07:21) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,10:34) Have you been to the CARM board yet WJ? Much worse. Mike is showing frustration, not animus. (IMO)
Hi PaladinAnimus; “a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will”, HMMM?
Yes, today I went to the Carm sight.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience. Of course there are 2 sides to everything.
Blessings Keith
I know. The world view, and then there's the Christian view.Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,17:05) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2011,07:21) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,10:34) Have you been to the CARM board yet WJ? Much worse. Mike is showing frustration, not animus. (IMO)
Hi PaladinAnimus; “a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will”, HMMM?
Yes, today I went to the Carm sight.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience. Of course there are 2 sides to everything.
Blessings Keith
I know. The world view, and then there's the Christian view.
PaladinWow, that is a broad statement.
Have you noticed how much Christians and even the early church had differences and divisions?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2011,09:07) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2011,07:21)
Hi PaladinOf course there are 2 sides to everything.
Blessings Keith
I know. The world view, and then there's the Christian view.[/quote]
PaladinWow, that is a broad statement.
Have you noticed how much Christians and even the early church had differences and divisions?
WJ
Oh, my goodness yes. I did a thorough research into Schaff's “History of the Christian church” a few years ago. And have dabbled in the ECF writings.Also I was raised in the Catholic church, and was forbidden to attend Catechism class in 1948 (8th grade) because I raised a question comparing world persecution of Christians with the Spanish inquisition. I had to get special permission from the Bishop of Seattle to remain in the Catholic School.
Once upon a time To me, first grade was “the early church.”
Hi Paladin,
I don't have time for this. These are the Greek words that correspond to Psalm 138:2;
emegalunav epi pan onoma to logion sou
These Greek words say: magnified over every name the word of you
The meaning of 138:2 is that Jehovah magnified His Word over EVERY name. Not that He magnified it over His own Name. Nothing is over the Name of YHWH. Compare the LXX rendering with these two passages:
Phil 2
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.Do you think the name that Jesus' God gave him is actually above the Name of the God who gave it to him? We have a similar situation in 1 Cor 15:27,
For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
Does Paul have to make this same disclaimer in every sentence he writes? It should be obvious that Jesus has been given a name BY his God that is above every other name EXCEPT for the Name of his God. Just because Paul didn't spell this out for us in Phil 2 like he did in 1 Cor 15 is no reason for us to start assuming anything could be above the Name of the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Maybe this one will help:
17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
It should be clear that when the God OF Jesus places Jesus “far above all rule, authority, power, dominion and name”, all these are to the EXCEPTION of the God who placed him in such high esteem in the first place. So I will echo Paul's prayer that God gives you the spirit of wisdom, and opens the eyes of your heart that you may become enlightened.
And you say you've answered my question about John knowing this “new name” when it says no one knows it but Jesus himself. But you haven't answered it at all. You've posted some info on “ouden” that changes nothing. The scripture doesn't say that no one knows this new name except for Jesus AND JOHN AND ANYONE WHO READS JOHN'S REVELATION. No, it doesn't say that at all. It says no one knows it except for JESUS ALONE. (Once again, we have to use our common sense and recognize that the God who GAVE this new name TO Jesus also knows it.) And since John and everyone who's read Revelation KNOWS “Word of God”, it is apparently NOT the new name Jesus has been given by his God that no one knows but he himself. I've asked why you've picked that one particular name of Jesus from Rev 19 when three names are given:
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,06:45)
Because “The logos of God” is the only one of the three names that qualifies in scripture.
And by “qualifies”, you mean “fits into my doctrine”…………..just as I thought.The main spokesman for the King of Abyssinia had the title “The Word of the King” because he spoke for the King. This is also why Jesus has the title “The Word of God”, because he is God's main spokesman. And John 1 tells the story of God's main Spokesman being with God in the beginning, then being made flesh, and dwelling among us with the glory of an only begotten Son from the Father. Contrary to what Gene will insist to the day he dies, 1:14 does NOT contain the word “in”, and does NOT say the Word “came to be IN someone who was flesh”. This Word BECAME flesh and had the glory of an only begotten Son from the Father. This same Word is the one who came after John but also was before him. This Word is the one who was in the form of God, but emptied himself and was made in the likeness of a human being. This Word is Jesus. Irene and I can only lead you to the truth by showing you the scriptures. We can't make you guys drink this truth in.
mike
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,07:03) I assumed, for example, that because you also reference the LXX you were knowledgeable about some of the things I know about, and responded to your questions accordingly. I see now, that is not the case, and I will try to remember that you do not know some of the Septuagint issues with which I am familiar, having done the research for myself.
I'm not familiar with much of the Greek language or the LXX. But I have an Internet full of resources. So if you think you “know” something about something the LXX says, then post it. I can surely find it for myself and keep you honest.As for the LXX not being a translation, I disagree. Kangaroo Jack knows the exact number, but I believe he said that Jesus and the Apostles quoted scripture from the LXX over the MT 67% to 33%.
Were Jesus and the original Apostles dealing mainly with Gentiles?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 29 2011,09:19) Mike Your attitutde is not what a moderator should have. I have been to other sights and no moderator acts like you do Mike.
Keith,When you get your own site, then you can pick your own moderator. Check the “Who would make a good moderator” poll that you started. Look at the results. And factor in that I myself voted for Wm.
If you don't like the way I post, or think I'm rough around the edges, oh well. I'm a work in progress and I am only human. When I'm posting as a mod, I'll let you know. Until that time, I'm only another member of HN who is willing to dish it out the same way I'm forced to take it.
Besides, who are you to come off all “high and mighty”? I've been discoursing with you for two years now, and I've showed no more agression than you do on a regular basis. And I show much less than your #1 cheerleader does. Also don't forget what your #2 cheerleader Dennison just told you about YOUR attitude. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Keith.
mike
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,09:00)
Hello Mike;May I see if I can make it plain here? There are two creations in scripture, two foundations, two destructions, all of which makes for a certain ammount of confusion.
Hello Paladin,Does Hebrews 1:2 say “ages”, as in PLURAL, were created through Jesus?
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,09:00)
Instead, he said “I am” which is the present active form of the verb “To Be,” though it can be understood to mean “was” if you understand it is prophetic language;
It has nothing to do with “prophetic”. The present Greek tense is often translated as an English past tense. And you must take into consideration the other verb in the sentence. If Jesus isn't saying, “before Abraham IS“, then he's not saying “I AM“. Greek expert Jason BeDuhn says, “The majority of translations recognize these idiomatic uses of 'I am', and properly integrate the words into the context of the passsages where they appear. Yet when it comes to 8:58, they suddenly forget how to translate. [Of the nine he compared……] All the translations except the LB and NWT also ignore the true relation between the verbs of the sentence and produce a sentence that makes no sense in English.”Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,09:00)
This is a reference to existence in prophecy, wherein God speaks of things not yet as though they were [Rom 4:17].
Yeah, we've been through this. I believe you proved your own assinine theory that someone can “exist” as only a prophecy to be flawed, when your own words spoke of ALMOST being able to taste the good things God has promised you. If they really exist just because they've been promised, then you should be able to taste them for “real” right now. We have been promised a new heaven and a new earth, but look outside your window………..are they EXISTING yet? I've told you many times that just because God can travel through time and speak of future things as if they've happened, doesn't mean they've happened from OUR viewpoint. And from OUR viewpoint, Jesus became flesh when Mary gave birth to him. Any prior existence he had was a REAL existence, because someone doesn't begin to “exist” just because they are prophesied about.Paladin, I don't dislike you personally. But I dislike the things that people like you and Gene say when they spout the most assinine, abstract, psychodelic crap just in order to ignore, or “explain away”, clear pre-existence scriptures. Really? Jesus began “existing” in a prophecy?
Prove it. Because that lame claim is all you are offering to “justify” all of the pre-existence scriptures that are really written quite clearly and plainly. You don't go as far as saying no scripture speaks of Jesus' pre-existence, you just try to make those scriptures nonsensically refer to Jesus' “pre-existence as a prophecy”. Take 8:58, for example. Jesus clearly says he existed before Abraham existed. Why must you twist this scripture into nonsense? Why can't you just read the words and accept them?
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011,09:00)
I think under examination, my friend, you will find it does not say “and the word became a man,” because it did not; instead, it becomes flesh again everytime someone yields his life to Christ so that it is no longer he that lives, but Christ lives in him.
See? More assinine crap. Does the Word have the glory of an only begotten Son from the Father every time it “becomes flesh in someone else”? Would John the Baptist be unfit to untie the sandals of everyone the Word becomes flesh in?You can't just claim crazy, unscriptural things while ignoring the whole first chapter of John's Gospel, can you?
Besides, the words “flesh” and “flesh and blood” refer to mankind many times. Your own argument admits this by saying the Word becomes “flesh” any time it starts living in A HUMAN BEING.Paladin, if you want to discuss Jesus' pre-existence, I'll be happy to go one scripture at a time. Let me know, for I've already started threads that discuss at least 5 pre-existence proof texts individually.
mikeHi Everyone,
I spent some time googling Psalm 138:2 for an objective critical analysis and will offer 2 links:
fairly objective textual critical analysis
Online TorahI hope by visiting these links any animosity and misunderstandings can alleviated.
With Love and Respect,
WispringHi Wispring,
Think about it in light of these scriptures.
LXX: magnified your word over every name
Phil 2:9 – Therefore God exalted [His Word] to the highest place
and gave [His Word] the name that is above every name,Eph 1 – he raised [His Word] from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above………..every name that is invoked,
When you accept that Jesus IS the Word of God, it will fall into place for you.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
