Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[terraricca]

Quote (Paladin @ April 03 2011,03:33)

Quote (terraricca @ April 02 2011,17:56) Quote (Wispring @ April 02 2011,23:44) Hi Pierre,  What folks are trying to communicate to you is that earth life is a biological process. The birds and the bees, remember? That Life itself comes from God. Hope this helps sort things out.                                                    With Love and Respect,                                                             Wispring wispring i try to find out who is Christ father ?? and no  one answer s me. why?? Pierre Hello Pierre; I think we all assume a certain ammount of knowledge from all posters, but your question makes me think maybe it is a wrong assumption. It is simply an error on our part, not a reflection on yours. Jesus is the Messiah of prophecy, throughtout the old testament, of the bloodline of the woman of Genesis 3:15, and of Abraham, David, and a host of others, all the way down through Mary, his mother. David is called the Father of Jesus, because it was in prophecy that God first promised, then bound it with an oath, that of David's loins, would come the Messiah. So, for that reason, David is called Jesus' Father. But, since God is the Holy Spirit, and begat the child in Mary's womb, he is the Father of Jesus' spirit. [Mat 1:20][John 3:6] And God made a miracle happen when Jesus was “made of a woman” [Gal 4:4] The paternal link to Jesus has been the subject of debates for over two thousand years. That is why we are careful with our responses.

Paladin and wispring

so you can t tell me who Christ father is

if you say it is God you declare yourself believing in preexistence of Christ,right.

so you believe that the holy spirit is God but not from God,right.

and so declare God is his own tool(holy spirit)

how could God be the holy spirit do I ask you now

but what i know now is that you are fallowing a man that you do not know anything about,i mean beside that he had come 2000 years ago and some of his disciples had left written words.

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Good post Pierre,

I was just discsussing this “tool” thing with Paladin in a pm. But you can handle that discussion as I'm awaiting responses to my bolded questions.

mike

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,11:16)

Good post Pierre, I was just discsussing this “tool” thing with Paladin in a pm.  But you can handle that discussion as I'm awaiting responses to my bolded questions. mike

Mike

[Paladin]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 03 2011,02:18)

Kerwin and Paladin……..Here is a thought to consider, GOD'S Soul IS HIS CREATION in which He Lives (IN). So in this sense He can Have a Body, His creation. Remember Jesus said the FATHER was (IN) HIM. Just thought i would throw that out to see what you guys think. I still hold to the idea that the Soul is the COMPLETE BEING. Containing a BODY with SPIRIT (IN) IT. peace and love to you both………………………….gene

God does not have a created body under any other guise.

[GeneBalthrop]

Paladin………. But paladin scripture says “THAT, GOD MAY BE IN ALL and THROUGH ALL”, right?, i believe he does and it is His CREATION (IN) which He Lives , remember Jesus clearly said the Father was (IN) Him doing the Works. I believe God the FATHER who we know is Spirit was truly existing (IN) Jesus and even Spoke first person at times . Like this< "DESTROY THE "TEMPLE" AND IN THREE DAYS (I) (God) shall raise it up". Jesus did not raise himself from the dead so i believe it could not have been him that said that, IMO. WE are also told to not meditate on what we need to say for in that hour it will be given you what to say and it would not be us speaking But GOD the FATHER through Us. I believe this same thing Happened to Jesus on several occasions in his ministry.

Now with your ability to translate the Greek tense and other things pertaining to the Greek language, please take time and look this up for my better understanding Brother. Paladin I see GOD as Seven Spirits (distinct Intellects) WHICH EXISTS IN ALL CREATION IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, i see the “LORD”, GOD as the controller of these seven spirit (Intellect) that can be transmitted to any creature he choses too. Also remember Jesus said he spoke of GOD the Father in a “Proverbial Language” (fictitious illustration). But a day would come when he would CLEARLY Show Him to us. So there remains a kind of Mystery there , but it also say in the day of these two Prophets the Mystery of GOD shall be Known. So this shows a mystery does exist.

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

[Wispring]

Hi Gene,
  This is what Jesus Christ said:

Quote

John 4:24 (King James Version) 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I will take his word on this since he is the truth, the light and the way. Search the scriptures diligently, if you find something that says God says he has a body, I must admit I would be truly amazed. Right now it seems to be speculation on your part. I can see how God is in all creation. I am not,however,  ready to call this his body. When God stretches out his might arm, I see that as metaphor. I can understand how one might come to the conclusion that He as a body based on a literal interpretation.

                                             With Love and Respect,
                                                    Wispring

[Baker]

Quote (Paladin @ April 02 2011,18:18)

It has come to my attention that there is a little square under my name in every post I publish. Is there a significance attatched to it I should know about? It has been there since the first post I made back on 17, June 2009, when I posted a fiction story about the ancient campfire, found on page 21 of the “truth or tradition” board. Can anyone explain what it means?

Paladin!  Have you asked t8 why He gave you a tile?  That is that square you are referring to. It is given when someone reports a abuse.  On the left side of your post it says Report to Moderator.
t8 then looks at it, and if He thinks that is abuse, He puts a tile there.  After you received 5 tiles, you are banned from posting here….
Good luck, I never seen you do anything wrong, and hope it was a mistake.   Just send t8 a PM….sorry right side….
Peace and love Irene

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,14:05)

[/quote] Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 31 2011,11:26) Paladin, does the LXX version of Psalm 138:2 say that Jehovah magnified His word above every name, or not? I'm sorry Paladin, I still don't see your answer.  Let me make it EVEN SIMPLER: Paladin, does the LXX version of Psalm 138:2 say that Jehovah “magnified His word above every name, or His name?  (The answer to this slow and simple question would be either the word “every” or the word “His”.) Do you understand that the tense of the other words in the sentence have no bearing on what I'm asking?  Do you understand why I say about you the things I do?  Do you understand why I claim that you are good at hiding your non-answers among a bunch of grammar lessons that have nothing to do with the issue?  What I'm asking is if you notice in the LXX, the word used is “pas”, meaning “each” or “every”………….and NOT the word “sou” or “your” or “thy”.  Do you see this in the actual Greek words?  Can you admit that you see it?

No! Here is the truth of the Greek in Psalm 138:2 – The word “pas” which you reference is tied directly to the other Greek words that you have asked me not to use. In the verse we are discussing, “pas” is not used, but rather a different form of the word – “pan” – is used. This word “pas” has a singular or plural form, dependant upon the words it is tied to, but in different forms; in this case, onomas, name, is singular. If it was plural, then “pas” would be used. But in Psalm 138:2
“pan” is used.

Look at Acts 17:30 or 21:28 where reference is made to “all men” and the Greek word is “pantas” – a plural form of the word you are asking about, because it references a plural noun, “men.”

You will see another example of both the singular and the plural form of “pas” used in Ezek 6:13. “Every” high hill uses
“panta” the singular form of “pas,” because it takes each hill as an individual entity in this passage, (as opposed to “all high hills”); and then it uses “pasi” to describe the idols or false Gods, because it references them in the conglomerate or plural.

Now, turning to Psalm 138:2 we find “pan onoma” which is a reference to “all of that which goes into thy name” as opposed to “all names,” because “name” is singular, and it requires a singular adjective as a modifier; and references one name, not all names.  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 31 2011,11:26)

If the King of Abyssina (described above) has a spokesman called “The Word of the King”, is it possible that God has a Spokesman called “The Word of God”?  YES or NO?

Quote (Paladin @ April 01 2011,09:50)

No!  This falls into the same category as those commentators who insist the plural hebrew nouns prove God used the plural of majesty. (M)  I didn't “insist” upon anything.  I asked if it was possible.

I did not accuse you of insisting, I said it falls into the same category with those who do.

(M)

Quote

Hmmmmm…………..it's not even POSSIBLE?   Wow, that's a pretty confident answer, considering Jesus WAS called the “Word of God” and Jesus WAS a spokesman for his God.??? Well, some claim that because Jesus was sent from God that makes him God, and some claim that because Jesus was the prophet of God in the new testament that makes him God; but both things are said about John the Baptist. And no one claims he is God because of it. And Jesus is not called “the word of God.” It is a name given to him, but no one ever in scripture called him the word of God. John only applied it to him one time, and that was not in an address to Jesus, nor was it an address to someone else, calling Jesus “the word of God.” It was a statement John made about the logos, tha tit became flesh, and John then switches subjects and reminds us of the name that was given to Jesus in an earlier book written by that same John. [Revelation] 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. (M) Paladin, does the word “flesh” relate to “human beings” during these other occasions of the Word becoming “flesh”? According to Paul, yes. As each person submits his life to Jesus, so that “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me,” according to Paul, the logos becomes flesh, i.e., is personified in that saint. (M) Quote Does this Word have a noticable glory of an only begotten son from the Father each time it “becomes flesh” when someone yields their life to Christ? In today's church? Mostly it is not even known. Too many people read it and think it says ” glory of an only begotten son from the Father” but it doesn't say that. John is making two different observations here, and separates them with a particle of comparison (ως) – This is John's way of bringing attantion to one of the effects of personifying the logos of God. Paladin wrote: 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. (M) Paladin, does Hebrews 1:2 say “ages”, as in PLURAL, were created through Jesus?

So Mike, is that your response? A sound byte not remotely connected to Isaiah's remarks?

Compare Heb 1:2-3 “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the ages; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the reema of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

with “Through faith we understand that the ages were adjusted by the reema of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” [Heb 11:3]

The writer is telling us that the work of Jesus adjusted ages; in a similar fashion to Jonah, who went and sat down to watch the prophesied destruction of Ninevah; Only Ninevah's citizens repented, causing its destruction to delay for anotehr generation, i.e., the age was adjusted due to repentance. This happened m
any many times over the ages.

When the Mosaic covenant ended, and the Christian began, it was another “age adjustment; i.e., God did not set it in stone by saying “On January umpteenth the new world worder will begin;” Instead he put everything into the capable hands of his dear son, and allowed him to accomplish the works God ahs appointed him to work. And the ages were adjusted according to the accomplishment of those works God gave him to do i.e., The “adjustment of the ages.”

Isaiah was talking about two creations; two destructions; and two foundations laid. Original creation, and new creation.

Grace and Hope to you and yours Mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ April 02 2011,20:00)

No! Here is the truth of the Greek in Psalm 138:2 – The word “pas” which you reference is tied directly to the other Greek words that you have asked me not to use. In the verse we are discussing, “pas” is not used, but rather a different form of the word – “pan” – is used. This word “pas” has a singular or plural form, dependant upon the words it is tied to, but in different forms; in this case, onomas, name, is singular. If it was plural, then “pas” would be used. But in Psalm 138:2 “pan” is used. Look at Acts 17:30 or 21:28 where reference is made to “all men” and the Greek word is “pantas” – a plural form of the word you are asking about, because it references a plural noun, “men.” You will see another example of both the singular and the plural form of “pas” used in Ezek 6:13. “Every” high hill uses “panta” the singular form of “pas,” because it takes each hill as an individual entity in this passage, (as opposed to “all high hills”); and then it uses “pasi” to describe the idols or false Gods, because it references them in the conglomerate or plural. Now, turning to Psalm 138:2 we find “pan onoma” which is a reference to “all of that which goes into thy name” as opposed to “all names,” because “name” is singular, and it requires a singular adjective as a modifier; and references one name, not all names.

Paladin posted this above quote to me in a pm, explaining how he didn't want to embarass me on the public thread.  While his intentions seemed genuine, I will answer his post with the same thing I posted to him via pm:

Hi Paladin,

I don't believe this is the correct way to handle the situation.  Because if I'm wrong about something, then I'm the first one to want to know about it.  And especially if I've been cocky about it, then I most definitely need to be humbled before everyone and apologize.  

This is the RSV rendering of 138:2,
2 I bow down toward thy holy temple
and give thanks to thy name for thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness; for thou hast exalted above everything thy name and thy word.  

In fact, there has always been much concern over this scripture, as NETNotes explains:

tc The MT reads, “for you have made great over all your name your word.” If retained, this must mean that God's mighty intervention, in fulfillment of his word of promise, surpassed anything he had done prior to this. However, the statement is odd and several emendations have been proposed. Some read, “for you have exalted over everything your name and your word,” while others suggest, “for you have exalted over all the heavens your name and your word.” The translation assumes an emendation of “your name” to “your heavens” (a construction that appears in Pss 8:3 and 144:5). The point is that God has been faithful to his promise and the reliability of that promise is apparent to all. For a fuller discussion of these options, see L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (WBC), 244.

The actual Hebrew words are:  magnify over everything name word

There is NOTHING that can possibly be OVER the Name of YHWH, so the KJV translation of this Psalm is flawed, and therefore stands virtually alone with it's rendering of the verse.  Consider the NASB, NRSV, NIV and NET translations.

But more than that, consider the LXX.  These are your own words, “'Every' high hill uses 'panta' the singular form of 'pas', because it takes each hill as an individual entity in this passage.”  

Are you saying that “every name” in the LXX can't take every single name as an idividual entity?  Also, whether singular or plural, it sure wouldn't end up meaning “YOUR name”, would it?

Paladin, the bottom line is that nothing ever has been or ever will be over the Name of YHWH.  And it's almost blasphemous IMO for one to consider that something could be over His Name.

But feel free to post on the thread, so everyone can gain the knowledge of our research.  Don't worry about my feelings, I've been wrong before, and have eaten much crow.  

mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Paladin,

I've saved the rest of your post in my Word program for later.  I'd like to address each point separately, if you don't mind.

Right now, I'm curious how the form of “pas” would possibly change the meaning to “YOUR name” instead of “each name” or “every name”.  The way I see it, if they used the plural “names”, then they would use the plural “pas”, making it say “ALL names”.  But using the singular word “name” and the singular “pan” only changes it to “EVERY name”, not “YOUR name”.  In fact, there is NOTHING to imply “YOUR name” in the LXX version at all, is there?

mike

[karmarie]

Mike, a private message should be just that, a private message. Unless you ask the person first if they don't mind you putting it on the publc forum. Did you…ask first? As another forum states in their rules….Please respect the privacy of others on the board. Do not share info you have received in private messages with others.

[Paladin]

Wispring,April wrote:

[/quote]
Hi Gene,
  This is what Jesus Christ said:

Quote

John 4:24 (King James Version) 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

(W)

Quote

I will take his word on this since he is the truth, the light and the way. Search the scriptures diligently, if you find something that says God says he has a body, I must admit I would be truly amazed. Right now it seems to be speculation on your part.

Wispering and Gene;
Gene is correct in saying “God has a body” but not in the same sense as we do. I was born into a body, and I suppose there are several ways of saying that; “I have a body,” “I am a body with a spirit,” I was born into a body” etc., and Paul does say in the Corinthian letter – “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

And again: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.  14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

So Gene correctly points out “God has a body” and it is Christ; Also “I was born into a body;” and that is also “into Christ (in baptism).”

I took his statement to mean God has a body in the same sense we have a body; but that seems to be what Paul is saying also. God is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of the body; we are the hands, feet, and all those little etceteras.

[Paladin]

Quote (terraricca @ April 03 2011,04:08)

[/quote] Quote (Paladin @ April 03 2011,03:33) Quote (terraricca @ April 02 2011,17:56) Wispring,April wrote: Hi Pierre,  What folks are trying to communicate to you is that earth life is a biological process. The birds and the bees, remember? That Life itself comes from God. Hope this helps sort things out.                                                    With Love and Respect,                                                             Wispring wispring i try to find out who is Christ father ?? and no  one answer s me. why?? Pierre Hello Pierre; I think we all assume a certain ammount of knowledge from all posters, but your question makes me think maybe it is a wrong assumption. It is simply an error on our part, not a reflection on yours. Jesus is the Messiah of prophecy, throughtout the old testament, of the bloodline of the woman of Genesis 3:15, and of Abraham, David, and a host of others, all the way down through Mary, his mother. David is called the Father of Jesus, because it was in prophecy that God first promised, then bound it with an oath, that of David's loins, would come the Messiah. So, for that reason, David is called Jesus' Father. But, since God is the Holy Spirit, and begat the child in Mary's womb, he is the Father of Jesus' spirit. [Mat 1:20][John 3:6] And God made a miracle happen when Jesus was “made of a woman” [Gal 4:4] The paternal link to Jesus has been the subject of debates for over two thousand years. That is why we are careful with our responses.

Quote

Paladin and wispring so you can t tell me who Christ father is   if you say it is God you declare yourself believing in preexistence of Christ,right.

Wrong! The only way Jesus can be “pre-existent” is if Mary, his mother was also pre-existent. Jesus began life in the same chronology as all men, i.e., he began as a zygote, developed to an embryo, etc, till he was born in Bethlehem.

His begettal by the Holy Spirit was his beginning.

Some take statements found in prophetic language, to reference a pre-existent Jesus, but it is a misunderstanding of prophetic language, and its application.

Some yet again, mistake John 17:5 to be showing a prehistoric existance for Jesus, but again, that mistates what John says. (And I mean no disrespect for those who take that position, because I have seen my own beliefs from time to time, take flight in a dose of enlightenment. I began as a Catholic, so you know what I am saying)

Quote

so you believe that the holy spirit is God but not from God,right.

Wrong! God is The Holy Spirit; and when he sends his holy spirit to perform a given task, that holy spirit is “from God” in the same way your words are you in a debate. They not only express that which your mind has developed, they also can take on a life of their own, especially when you are angry or burdened with something that is too much, and you unload in grief, sometimes by saying things you later wish you had not said.

But God tells us in the old testament “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;” [Joel 2:28] and it is quoted by Luke in Acts “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh” And there is no place in scripture where the Holy Spirit ever is independent from God the Father.

Quote

But what i know now is that you are fallowing a man that you do not know anything about,i mean beside that he had come 2000 years ago and some of his disciples had left written words. Pierre

Well Pierre, that's not quite accurate. If we know anything about anybody we have not seen with our own eyes, it is because of eye witness testimony to facts and events, which we read, and try to understand; whether it is about George washington at Valley Forge, or Nero in Rome's capitol, or Adam in the garden.

Some of us have been studying the records of the eye witness accounts for decades, and are fashioning a concept we believe to be closely accurate to the best of our abilities, and try to share that concept with others.

But we do not simply sit at our desks and make things up. We are getting different conclusions because sometimes we start at different places in the written record, and sometimes ws take another man's word for what it says.

Then we seem to choose up sides and accuse, but we all know it is because of frustration when someone disagrees with our understanding. Everybody likes to be appreciated for our effort.

[Wispring]

Hi Gene and Paladin,
The word “body” is what is messing me up. My mind has the concept of body associated with some living thing to have a limiting parameter. A “skin” of some sort. Metaphorically without a need for a “skin” I can understand what you are saying.

With Love and Respect,
Wispring

[mikeboll64]

Quote (karmarie @ April 03 2011,02:21)

Mike, a private message should be just that, a private message. Unless you ask the person first if they don't mind you putting it on the publc forum. Did you…ask first? As another forum states in their rules….Please respect the privacy of others on the board. Do not share info you have received in private messages with others.

Hi Kar,

Yes, it was okay'd by Paladin.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wispring @ April 03 2011,08:03)

Hi Gene and Paladin,   The word “body” is what is messing me up. My mind has the concept of body associated with some living thing to have a limiting parameter. A “skin” of some sort. Metaphorically without a need for a “skin” I can understand what you are saying.                                                 With Love and Respect,                                                        Wispring

Hi Wispring,

We've had some pretty heated discussions about this in the “Bodies” thread.  You have used the word “parameter”, I have used “perimeter” many times.

Consider this:  When the angels came to present themselves before God in the Book of Job, what was it that kept the angels separate from God?  If God doesn't have some kind of outer perimeter, then He is everything.  He IS those angels, because there is nothing to separate Him FROM those angels.

My bottom line, which has be heatedly disagreed with, is this:  There has to be something that separates what constitutes what IS “God” from those things that are NOT the being of God. Otherwise, you are God, I am God, everyone is God, including Satan.

But this discussion is better suited to the “Do Spirits Have Bodies” thread.

mike

[GeneBalthrop]

Wispering………..GOD is SPIRIT and Spirit has NO body, it is (INTELLECT) IMO< Now the LORD YHWH Or Jehovah is a GOD. Notice this carefully "HEAR O ISREAL THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD. It does not say the Lord our GOD is one GOD but ONE LORD.  Now If we go to Revelations to where the throne of GOD is mentioned there are Seven Spirit of GOD Before the Throne , but there still is one who sits ON the Throne right? Is this not the one Jesus or the Lamb went to get the seven sealed scrolls from. Now the Lamb Has the seven eyes which are the seven spirits of GOD on Him .

 But my point is he went to HIM WHO SAT ON the THRONE That was not the seven Spirit of GOD, but the LORD or Jehovah , the one who sits on the throne of God  because he controls the Seven SPIRIT (INTELLECTS) or EYES that make up GOD. He Jehovah CONTROLS them, He send them forth in all the world, He can put then in any of His Physical creation anytime he want to and they will cause an effect on any body they (the spirits) are IN yes even Jesus who has all seven of these Spirits which are the eyes (that give intellect to his mind) of GOD in Him.  Jesus was correct in saying the FATHER was (IN) him He was indeed in HIM and effecting all of Jesus works He was doing.

The US and the OUR mentioned in Genesis is the SEVEN SPIRIT (INTELLECTS) of GOD at work in ALL CREATION  Sent forth from ONE LORD who controls them. These Spirits is what enlightens every man coming into the world they are the eyes of understanding given in measure to His creation.  IMO

But this is a drift from this thread and would be better in the do Spirit have bodies thread as Mike said.

peace and love to you and yours………………………………gene

[karmarie]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,06:07)

Quote (karmarie @ April 03 2011,02:21) Mike, a private message should be just that, a private message. Unless you ask the person first if they don't mind you putting it on the publc forum. Did you…ask first? As another forum states in their rules….Please respect the privacy of others on the board. Do not share info you have received in private messages with others. Hi Kar, Yes, it was okay'd by Paladin. mike

Oh I'm sorry Mike, I didn't know!

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ April 03 2011,10:49)

Quote (Paladin @ April 02 2011,18:18) It has come to my attention that there is a little square under my name in every post I publish. Is there a significance attatched to it I should know about? It has been there since the first post I made back on 17, June 2009, when I posted a fiction story about the ancient campfire, found on page 21 of the “truth or tradition” board. Can anyone explain what it means? Paladin!  Have you asked t8 why He gave you a tile?  That is that square you are referring to. It is given when someone reports a abuse.  On the left side of your post it says Report to Moderator. t8 then looks at it, and if He thinks that is abuse, He puts a tile there.  After you received 5 tiles, you are banned from posting here…. Good luck, I never seen you do anything wrong, and hope it was a mistake.   Just send t8 a PM….sorry right side…. Peace and love Irene

I recall something about a “posting in the wrong board” notice, but that was when I made my first post. It seems someone complained it was not very nice.

it was moved to “messages” if I understand what that means.

I wrote what I considered a nice pleasant visit around the ancient campfire, with the ancient folks before the flood. It seems I made someone angry enough to complain, instead of commenting to me.

I guess that's their right, but it would have been nice to include me at least giving me a chance to defend the post; or even show a little mercy to a new first time poster.

It is found Click Here

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,03:07)

[/quote] Quote (karmarie @ April 03 2011,02:21) Mike, a private message should be just that, a private message. Unless you ask the person first if they don't mind you putting it on the publc forum. Did you…ask first? As another forum states in their rules….Please respect the privacy of others on the board. Do not share info you have received in private messages with others. Hi Kar, Yes, it was okay'd by Paladin. mike

What I actually posted to Mike
Inbox    
Message Title: Sent: Pas – different Greek forms for a reason
Paladin

Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: June 2009  Posted: April 02 2011,19:53
———————————————————————–

Quote

Mike, I freely confess, you are putting me on a spot. The reason may be different than you perceive, so I will explain. I have tried to avoid seeming to “talk down to you” because some will not understand what I am saying; and because I have too much admiration for your ability to just dismiss your efforts. You are asking me a question, that if I respond on the public board, some may lose respect for you, and I do not want that to happen because of something I post, so I have decided to use this method to try to explain. You have asked me [Quote]   (Mike)What I'm asking is if you notice in the LXX, the word used is “pas”, meaning “each” or “every” ………….and NOT the word “sou” or “your” or “thy”.  Do you see this in the actual Greek words?  Can you admit that you see it? (P)This is a misunderstanding on your part, but how do I post it to you without seeming to claim I am superior or you are inferior, when I do not believe it? Here is the truth of the Greek in Psalm 138:2 – The word “pas” which you reference is tied directly to the other Greek words that you have asked me not to use. In the verse we are discussing, “pas” is not used, but rather a different form of the word – “pan” – is used. This word “pas” is singular or plural dependant upon the words it is tied to, but in different forms; in this case, onomas, name, singular. If it was plural, then “pas” would be used. Look at Acts 17:30 or 21:28 where reference is made to “all men” and the Greek word is “pantas” – a plural form of the word you are asking about, because it references a plural noun, “men.” You will see another example of both the singular and the plural form of “pas” used in Ezek 6:13. “Every” high hill uses “panta” the singular form of “pas,” because it takes each hill as an individual entity in this passage, (as opposed to “all high hills”); and then it uses “pasi” to describe the idols or false Gods, because it references them in the conglomerate or plural. Now, turning to Psalm 138:2 we find “pan onoma” which is a reference to “all of that which goes into thy name” as opposed to “all names,” because “name” is singular, and it requires a singular adjective as a modifier.   Please respond by e-mail and we do not have to put this on the board for all to see and possibly misunderstand, thinking I have no respect for you because we disagree. It just is not true. Paladin

 
———————————————————————–
==========================================================
Then I suggested Mike “post the two e-mails” – nothing said about editing or cutting or modifying, or commentary.

Sent Items » Sent: Re: Pas – different Greek forms for a reason  
Message Title: Sent: Re: Pas – different Greek forms for a reason
Paladin
Group: Members
Posts: 697
Joined: June 2009  Posted: April 03 2011,03:33
———————————————————————–

Quote

Then post the two e-mails and see what happens. But I will not be responsible for shaming a brother just because he is wrong. There are shameful matters, and then there are doctrinal matters.

What I fail to understand, it even boggles the mind, is what prompted this –

Quote

mikeboll64 Group: Mods Posts: 6136 Joined: Feb. 2010 Posted: April 03 2011,13:52 ———————————————————————– [Quote] (Paladin @ April 02 2011,20:00) No! Here is the truth of the Greek in Psalm 138:2 – The word “pas” which you reference is tied directly to the other Greek words that you have asked me not to use. In the verse we are discussing, “pas” is not used, but rather a different form of the word – “pan” – is used. This word “pas” has a singular or plural form, dependant upon the words it is tied to, but in different forms; in this case, onomas, name, is singular. If it was plural, then “pas” would be used. But in Psalm 138:2 “pan” is used. Look at Acts 17:30 or 21:28 where reference is made to “all men” and the Greek word is “pantas” – a plural form of the word you are asking about, because it references a plural noun, “men.” You will see another example of both the singular and the plural form of “pas” used in Ezek 6:13. “Every” high hill uses “panta” the singular form of “pas,” because it takes each hill as an individual entity in this passage, (as opposed to “all high hills”); and then it uses “pasi” to describe the idols or false Gods, because it references them in the conglomerate or plural. Now, turning to Psalm 138:2 we find “pan onoma” which is a reference to “all of that which goes into thy name” as opposed to “all names,” because “name” is singular, and it requires a singular adjective as a modifier; and references one name, not all names. (Mike) Paladin posted this above quote to me in a pm, explaining how he didn't want to embarass me on the public thread.While his intentions seemed genuine, I will answer his post with the same thing I posted to him via pm:

What in the world is the meaning of “While his intentions seemed genuine” and you fail to post the two e-mails, which is what you had permission to do?

[Author]

Posts