Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[terraricca]

Paladin

you quote;Did you know you had the promise of eternal life before the world began? “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” [Titus 1:2]

=============================
you right ,did not God planted the tree of live right at the beginning ??yes he did even before Adam was made;

Ge 2:8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
Ge 2:9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Pierre

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ Feb. 28 2011,08:56)

Quote

Paladin! I truly don't know what to tell you? Yes, I know we didn't preexist. I know that most think that in these next scriptures talks about Wisdom, I and others don't believe so. Pro 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 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: 30 Then I was beside Him, as a master craftsman; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him; Jesus was there as Gods Spokesman, His master craftsman and our Savior, who died for us. And certain members here want to make Him just like us, is to me upsetting. No man could ever have done that…..Only who came directley from Heaven like Scriptures shows….

“The baptism of John, whence cometh it?” From heaven or of men?”

Tell me Irene, where did John's baptism come from? It came from heaven. Did you know there was no sin in heaven, and the pur[pose of John's baptism was to identify the son of God, and to wash away the sins of men? There were no sinning men inheaven, so what was Baptism doing there?

The truth is baptism was not in heaven, yet it comes from heaven. it is a reference to authority. I have told you this before.

You spoke of the one who came from God as though Jesus was the only man from God; I showed you there are many who came from God.

For almost every scripture you showed me, I showed you why your understanding is not the only possible interpretation.

Now you speak of wisdom as being Jesus. That is a decided contradiction of scripture, who speaks of and identifies wisdom as “she.” And “wisdom” is feminine, while Jesus and Christ are masculine.

Quote

You see Jesus is much better then the Angels ever were, Hbr 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

You can;'t even see the significance of your won reference material. Why is Jesus better than the angels? Because he was better to start with? No! because he was MADE BETTER THAN THE ANGELS.

Quote

Hbr 1:5 ¶ For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Why did God say “Will” “shall?” I thought you said they were father and son from eternity!

And what is the “this day” of Heb 1:5? It is the day of his resurrection.

“Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” [Acts 13:26-33]

There is no point in going over any more of your [post because you don't believe anything I am saying, so why bother?

Except this –

Quote

Remember that Lord is Jesus and LORD in all capital letters Almighty God.

Funny you should resort to the use of capital letters, because they were not an issue till much later when men began to differentiate between capitals and small letters to prove their doctrines.

[Ed J]

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 28 2011,02:02)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2011,20:21) Quote You yourself told us you got it from a book authored by a man in the present. Hi Paladin, No; he convinced me there was something to “Theomatics”. His book deals only with the Greek and Hebrew scriptures. o.k. Of course that makes me wonder how you decided what numerical value to place on the english alphabet. Is it the phonetic value, or the placement within the alphabet? You know, 1st position = 1 etc. – but then that leaves me wondering when it jumps to 20, 200, etc. Quote My research has discovered a Gematria pattern in the “AKJV Bible”. The “AKJV Bible” stands for Authorized King James Version; first published in 1611; and revised several times since. Glad you cleared that up. You just got a thumb-up in my appreciation level.

Hi Paladin,

A=1, through to Z=26; “Gematria”(74) in “English”(74) very simple.

Glad you are beginning to understand.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 28 2011,02:02)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2011,20:21) This pattern also extends back into the Greek, with links directly to both Hebrew and Greek. Whether you acknowledge Gematria or not, it doesn't change the veracity of it's truth. 1) Well, my friend, that goes without saying. Neither does your acceptance of it, thoguh, if you want the truth about it. In other words, neither my rejection of it nor your acceptance of it makes it true or false. That is the difference between your gematria and scripture, it is truth whether we accept or reject it. Quote Just like an “atheist” not believing in God, does not nullify YHVH's existence. 2) Wrong analogy my friend, because nothing a man decides has anmy effect upon the veracity of scripture; but man's practice of theomatics may very well give it a life it has no right to.

Hi Paladin,

1) God has orchestrated his “Signature” to be encoded into the “AKJV Bible”;
    weather you want to believe this “Bible Truth” OR NOT does NOT change THE FACTS.

2) Correct analogy: Your negativity towards my research is akin to an atheists negativity towards “The Bible”!
   

                        God's Signature
             The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74)

יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 28 2011,02:02)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2011,20:21) You believe there's nothing to it, because you have not examined the evidence. (1)That's where you are wrong my friend, I examined it when it was an infant, (2)and rejected it because it purported to clear up what scripture made obscure. That would automatically mean that only man was capable of communicating truth to man, God could not. I do not believe that. (3)It is not scholarship that makes scripture clear, it is “much study” that weary's the flesh, (4)and it is the Holy Spirit that brings the solace scripture is intended to bring, with the simplicity of the gospel, (5)not obscured in numerology and dark knowledge.

Hi Paladin,

1) How could you have examined my research when you were an infant?

2) Does that mean you reject most of the the New “Testament”(117),
    because man played a active roll in clearing up some obscurity in the Old Testament??

3) Are you telling us you don't read the bible that much?

4) Does the “HolySpitit” also tell us not to judge others?

5) What does numerology have to do with anything I have said to you?
    And what are you calling 'dark knowledge'?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 28 2011,02:02)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2011,20:21) Just like 'athiests' never examined the evidence of God's existence. They just 'ASSUME' that nobody can know more than they do! (1)I think that is an unfair attack on athiest's, my friend. I have discussed scripture with several athiests who have put a lifetime into studying the Hebrew/Christian scriptures, (2)and simply cannot comprehend the message entirely because of what the church has done to its message, i.e., obscured it in doctrine and creed. Quote Seems you have something in common with atheists; aye? Oh, I would agree, just not what you think it is. I have in common with some of them a love for the truth, and a constant striving to dodge around the Christian concept of “orthodoxy,” looking for truth in all the “unorthodox” places. Like “Scripture.” (3)It is the Christian “orthodox position” that has driven many athiests out of the church and made them look elsewhere.

Hi Paladin,

1) There may indeed be many atheists who give more time than you are willing to give!

2) More PROOF of my correct analogy of you and atheists!

3) I have no idea what you are defining as…    'orthodox position'   …perhaps you could explain?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 28 2011,07:36)

we both know you did not preexist your own birth.

Hi Paladin,

You mean that's what you believe!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Baker]

Paladin!
Did I know there was no Sin in Heaven? Come on give me a break.

The Baptism of John or Jesus for that matter, has nothing to do with the Preexisting of Jesus.
Math. 3 talks about when John baptized Jesus.
You go from one thing to the next, just either interpreting those Scriptures I brought up or ignoring them all together. Asking that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
So my friend that is it for me, I don't play games. For me with you this subject is closed.
Peace Irene

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 28 2011,12:32)

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 28 2011,02:02)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2011,20:21) You believe there's nothing to it, because you have not examined the evidence. (1)That's where you are wrong my friend, I examined it when it was an infant, (2)and rejected it because it purported to clear up what scripture made obscure. That would automatically mean that only man was capable of communicating truth to man, God could not. I do not believe that. (3)It is not scholarship that makes scripture clear, it is “much study” that weary's the flesh, (4)and it is the Holy Spirit that brings the solace scripture is intended to bring, with the simplicity of the gospel, (5)not obscured in numerology and dark knowledge.

Quote

Hi Paladin, 1) How could you have examined my research when you were an infant?

What is there about “it” that makes you read “I?”

When “it” was an infant.

Quote

2) Does that mean you reject most of the the New “Testament”(117), because man played a active roll in clearing up some obscurity in the Old Testament??

So you reject the concept of “the inspiration of the new testament?”

Quote

3) Are you telling us you don't read the bible that much?

Read my posts and decide for yourself.

Quote

4) Does the “HolySpirit” also tell us not to judge others?

Sometimes. Sometimes He tell us “if you would judge yourselves, ye would not be judged,” and other times he tells us “Know ye not that ye shall judge angels.” Why?

Quote

5) What does numerology have to do with anything I have said to you?

This time, read your posts.

Quote

And what are you calling 'dark knowledge'?

Scripture being light, all efforts of men are dark.

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 28 2011,12:33)

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 28 2011,02:02)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2011,20:21) Just like 'athiests' never examined the evidence of God's existence. They just 'ASSUME' that nobody can know more than they do! (1)I think that is an unfair attack on athiest's, my friend. I have discussed scripture with several athiests who have put a lifetime into studying the Hebrew/Christian scriptures, (2)and simply cannot comprehend the message entirely because of what the church has done to its message, i.e., obscured it in doctrine and creed. Quote Seems you have something in common with atheists; aye? Oh, I would agree, just not what you think it is. I have in common with some of them a love for the truth, and a constant striving to dodge around the Christian concept of “orthodoxy,” looking for truth in all the “unorthodox” places. Like “Scripture.” (3)It is the Christian “orthodox position” that has driven many athiests out of the church and made them look elsewhere.

Hi Paladin,

Quote

1) There may indeed be many atheists who give more time than you are willing to give!

So far I have had only one lifetime. some athiests are reincarnationists. I am not sure, but I think that give them a perception of advantage.

Quote

2) More PROOF of my correct analogy of you and atheists!

There is no such thing as proof. What you reference is
“evidence” and evidence is subject to analysis, and analysis is subject to personal bias, and personal bias is subject to belief systems, and belief systems is subject to background and training. I do not think you proved anything. I think you expressed your bias in line with your background and training.

3) I have no idea what you are defining as…
'orthodox position' …perhaps you could explain?

Sure. “Orthodox” is a word adaped by both camps in the trinity/no-trinity fight that began in about 55 a.d., when Paul observed “For we are not as many, which corrupt the logos of God:” [II Cor 2:17]

The “scholars” took over where the simple men of the new testament died out; and in osme cases, did not wait for that. They began to dispure with one another immediately, and fought over the “orthodoxy” issues till 451 a.d., having decided both for and against, depending upon who claimed the ascendancy in power. Bishops would proclaim a position, and die, only to have the opposing view proclaimed “orthodox” until Pope Leo I succumbed to Emperor Marcion (who had in fact called the council together) who affixed the death penalty by the state to heresy by the saints. It was the final in a long line of claims as to what “orthodoxy” meant.

[Paladin]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 28 2011,13:12)

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 28 2011,07:36) we both know you did not preexist your own birth. Hi Paladin, You mean that's what you believe! God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Nope! YOU believe that's what I believe.

I know it.

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ Mar. 01 2011,02:12)

Paladin!   Did I know there was no Sin in Heaven?  Come on give me a break. The Baptism of John or Jesus for that matter, has nothing to do with the Preexisting of Jesus. Math. 3 talks about when John baptized Jesus. You go from one thing to the next, just either interpreting those Scriptures I brought up or ignoring them all together.  Asking that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.   So my friend that is it for me, I don't play games.  For me with you this subject is closed.   Peace Irene

Actually you have been “playing games” with me since you climed aboard the thread. You never did respond to the OP, but simply began with corrections to other issues.

Go with grace and hope dear sister, but please, no more games.

[Baker]

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 01 2011,05:27)

Quote (Baker @ Mar. 01 2011,02:12) Paladin!   Did I know there was no Sin in Heaven?  Come on give me a break. The Baptism of John or Jesus for that matter, has nothing to do with the Preexisting of Jesus. Math. 3 talks about when John baptized Jesus. You go from one thing to the next, just either interpreting those Scriptures I brought up or ignoring them all together.  Asking that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.   So my friend that is it for me, I don't play games.  For me with you this subject is closed.   Peace Irene Actually you have been “playing games” with me since you climbed aboard the thread. You never did respond to the OP, but simply began with corrections to other issues. Go with grace and hope dear sister, but please, no more games.

Paladin!  You with Grace too that is our New Covenant in Faith through Christ Jesus our Lord. A gift from God.  Eph. 2 With that we agree. I climbed on board, because you made assumption that Jesus did not preexist.  There are over 40 Scriptures in the Debate section that mikeboll64 started.  The Scriptures I gave you, you interpret to your view and added to them.  That is to me not right.  To ask me a question like if I knew if there was no sin in Heaven? I found ridiculous. Any Christian should know that, and I think they do….
I wish you the best.  I know how long it took us to realize that Jesus did preexist, after Georg and I studied it.  No other religious organization taught us that.  In spite of been called to have the Spirit of Anti-Christ, we stand firm.  We have not been in any Church since 1994.  Take care in Peace Irene

PS Check out “Songs to praise God with, my every day exercise…
in Personal Writings

[Paladin]

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 28 2011,11:58)

Paladin you quote;Did you know you had the promise of eternal life before the world began? “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” [Titus 1:2] ============================= you right ,did not God planted the tree of live right at the beginning ??yes he did even before Adam was made; Ge 2:8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. Ge 2:9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Pierre

Very good – I had not made that connection. I was relying upon the fact of God's promise, not the fact of the planted tree.

Thanks

[Paladin]

Quote (Baker @ Mar. 01 2011,08:22)

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 01 2011,05:27) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 01 2011,02:12) Paladin!   Did I know there was no Sin in Heaven?  Come on give me a break. The Baptism of John or Jesus for that matter, has nothing to do with the Preexisting of Jesus. Math. 3 talks about when John baptized Jesus. You go from one thing to the next, just either interpreting those Scriptures I brought up or ignoring them all together.  Asking that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.   So my friend that is it for me, I don't play games.  For me with you this subject is closed.   Peace Irene Actually you have been “playing games” with me since you climbed aboard the thread. You never did respond to the OP, but simply began with corrections to other issues. Go with grace and hope dear sister, but please, no more games. Paladin!  You you with Grace too that is our New Covenant in Faith through Christ Jesus our Lord. A gift from God.  Eph. 2 With that we agree. I climbed on board, because you made assumption that Jesus did not preexist.  There are over 40 Scriptures in the Debate section that mikeboll64 started.  The Scriptures I gave you, you interpret to your view and added to them.  That is to me not right.  To ask me a question like if I knew if there was no sin in Heaven? I found ridiculous. Any Christian should know that, and I think they do…. I wish you the best.  I know how long it took us to realize that Jesus did preexist, after Georg and I studied it.  No other religious organization taught us that.  In spite of been called to have the Spirit of Anti-Christ, we stand firm.  We have not been in any Church since 1994.  Take care in Peace Irene PS Check out “Songs to praise God with, my every day exercise… in personal Writings

I would study with you and George if you were interested in bebinning at the old testament, and see why many observations made from new testament writings are misconstrued.

If not, o.k.

Grace and hope to you and yours from my house to your house.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,19:55)

Another issue not addressed, is, do the spaces between letters have a value? What is that value. Look at the phrase “to get her” as in “We went into the other room to get her.” Compare the numbers with “We went into the other room together.” Even though the numbers may be the same, the message is not.

A good point.

Making the numbers say what you want it to say is not that hard. There are many variables that you can play with till you get a match.

Another person can say something completely contradictory using the same method.

[mikeboll64]

Irene said:

Quote

But it also says that JESUS WAS MADE TO THE LIKENESS OF MAN. If He was made like that then He had to be something else first.

Paladin said:

Quote

He was “born to be king” but took on the likeness of the common man.

Hi Paladin,

You are correct that Phil 2:6 does not contain the definite article “the” preceeding “form”.  But the word “God” is the genetive form of the word, making the Greek say:

who   in   form   of god   existing

While most translations add the definite article, making it say “THE form of God”, the NWT renders it as “existing in God's form”, which is grammatically correct, and eliminates any problem you might have had with the article, right?

It is obvious to all here that you know some Greek.  So I was wondering if there was any reason you wouldn't render “anthropos” as “human being” in 2:7?

After all, the gist of the passage is that Jesus was in God's form, but then emptied himself, took on a slave's form, and was made in the likeness of a human being.  This is also what is supported by the Greek words as far as I can tell.

mike

[Paladin]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 01 2011,10:51)

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,19:55)

Another issue not addressed, is, do the spaces between letters have a value? What is that value. Look at the phrase “to get her” as in “We went into the other room to get her.” Compare the numbers with “We went into the other room together.” Even though the numbers may be the same, the message is not.

A good point.

Making the numbers say what you want it to say is not that hard. There are many variables that you can play with till you get a match.

Another person can say something completely contradictory using the same method.[/quote]

That's correct. But that is not the worst of the problem. When you consider a comparison between Hebresw alphabet, and Greek for example, the tenth letter in the Hebrew alphabet is “yod” and the eleventh is kaph; the tenth letter of the Greek alphabet is kappa, and the eleventh is lamda; as you can see, there is a 'slip' betweeen the alphabets. Now, when you translate the Hebrew into English, then apply the numerical system, you may get a message if you look long enough, but if you go to the Greek and translate it into englsih, there is no way you are going to get the same numerized message, as the letters do not match between the two translations. There is no way they can, assuming consistancy between the alphabets and the letter values, i.e., where thr 1st letter =1, 2nd letter = 2 etc. Before you get to the 10th letter, you have a disconnect between alphabets.Hebrew #10 is yod; Greek #10 is kappa; Hebrew #11 is kaph; Greek #11 is lamda; and there goes the consistancy so necessary for the scheme to have any meaning whatsoever.

It is a manmade scheme and should not be applied to God's word.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 01 2011,13:53)

Irene said: Quote But it also says that JESUS WAS MADE TO THE LIKENESS OF MAN. If He was made like that then He had to be something else first. Paladin said: Quote He was “born to be king” but took on the likeness of the common man. Hi Paladin, You are correct that Phil 2:6 does not contain the definite article “the” preceeding “form”.  But the word “God” is the genetive form of the word, making the Greek say: who   in   form   of god   existing While most translations add the definite article, making it say “THE form of God”, the NWT renders it as “existing in God's form”, which is grammatically correct, and eliminates any problem you might have had with the article, right? It is obvious to all here that you know some Greek.  So I was wondering if there was any reason you wouldn't render “anthropos” as “human being” in 2:7? After all, the gist of the passage is that Jesus was in God's form, but then emptied himself, took on a slave's form, and was made in the likeness of a human being.  This is also what is supported by the Greek words as far as I can tell. mike

Irene said:

Quote

But it also says that JESUS WAS MADE TO THE LIKENESS OF MAN. If He was made like that then He had to be something else first.

Paladin said:

Quote

He was “born to be king” but took on the likeness of the common man.

Quote

Hi Paladin, You are correct that Phil 2:6 does not contain the definite article “the” preceeding “form”. But the word “God” is the genetive form of the word, making the Greek say: who in form of god existing While most translations add the definite article, making it say “THE form of God”, the NWT renders it as “existing in God's form”, which is grammatically correct, and eliminates any problem you might have had with the article, right?

Most translators really should understand what they are translating. You are correct but only to a small degree. Consider, your own point is misconstrued, because the
genitive is the case of possession, not the case of what the possesser is. It is form that belongs to God, it is not the form
“God.”

All men are elohim in flesh.[Psalm 8:4-6] God is elohim, which as far as I have been able to research, has a meaning closer to “immortal” than “God;” though God is indeed much more than immortal, it is not because of the designation Elohim.

The truth is, God is much more than Elohim, which is why he is not limited to that designation. He is also El Shaddai, which tells you much about God that elohim does not. And he is Adown, yet another teaching moment. And I am not sure, but I am not satisfied from research, that God has told us all there is about God. One thing He has taught though, is that all that he possesses is not all that he is. “All the earth is mine” [Exo 19:5] but no one believes “earth” is all that goes into understanding God.

So when Paul was inspired to write “He, being in form of God” he was not telling us that Jesus was in form, God. In the same way, Paul told us Jesus “was made in the likeness of men:” “ginomai” indicates a process not common to all men; He was “ginomai of a woman.” [Gal 4:4] and “being found in fashion as a man,” indicates there was something about him men had to ascertain other than the fact he was born among men. He was “found as a man.” Not “recognized” but
“determined after investigation.”

Remember, he was born to be king [John 18:37]; could have commanded angels [Mat 26:53]; but instead, emptied himself, washed the disciples feet [John 13:4-17]; and became obedient… “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”[Phi 2:8] There is much more here, my friend, than is evident with one simple reading. We are told to “examine the scriptures” for a reason way beyond simply memorizing scripture.

Quote

I was wondering if there was any reason you wouldn't render “anthropos” as “human being” in 2:7?

Until I have further research showing it to be innappropriate, I would not contest it. But, I mostly rely upon KJV, and it does not use the term, so I do not. Though I do not question its application, I am not sure “Human being” is all there is to
“man.” For example – it was “anthrwpos” who was made a little lower than Elohim [Psalm 8:4]; and it was “anthrwpon” about whom God said “Let us make” in Gen 1:26.

The fact is, there is more than one designation for “man” in scripture, so I try to maintain consistancy in application of terminology, in order to maintain my sanity. (Too late, you say?)

Since God chose to use the designation “andros” (Genitive of “aneer”) to indicate a married man, and referred to fleshly considerations of aneer,[Gen 2:23; 24:16; 27:11; Lev 20:10]; but when he references the man in spiritual applications, he uses anthrwpos.[Hos 9:17] My research is only beginning in this subject, but so far it is consistant.

I think “anthrwpos” seems to be God's reference to man at his highest effort,and aneer (andros) seems to reference man at his flesh level. I have not completed this study, and usually do not publish anything on a matter until I have resolved the issue in my own mind, but your question requires I give you my best effort.

Your questions are fair ones' and I would far rather deal wtih issues I know, than with issues still under study.

[Baker]

Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 01 2011,09:03)

Quote (Baker @ Mar. 01 2011,08:22) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 01 2011,05:27) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 01 2011,02:12) Paladin!   Did I know there was no Sin in Heaven?  Come on give me a break. The Baptism of John or Jesus for that matter, has nothing to do with the Preexisting of Jesus. Math. 3 talks about when John baptized Jesus. You go from one thing to the next, just either interpreting those Scriptures I brought up or ignoring them all together.  Asking that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.   So my friend that is it for me, I don't play games.  For me with you this subject is closed.   Peace Irene Actually you have been “playing games” with me since you climbed aboard the thread. You never did respond to the OP, but simply began with corrections to other issues. Go with grace and hope dear sister, but please, no more games. Paladin!  You you with Grace too that is our New Covenant in Faith through Christ Jesus our Lord. A gift from God.  Eph. 2 With that we agree. I climbed on board, because you made assumption that Jesus did not preexist.  There are over 40 Scriptures in the Debate section that mikeboll64 started.  The Scriptures I gave you, you interpret to your view and added to them.  That is to me not right.  To ask me a question like if I knew if there was no sin in Heaven? I found ridiculous. Any Christian should know that, and I think they do…. I wish you the best.  I know how long it took us to realize that Jesus did preexist, after Georg and I studied it.  No other religious organization taught us that.  In spite of been called to have the Spirit of Anti-Christ, we stand firm.  We have not been in any Church since 1994.  Take care in Peace Irene PS Check out “Songs to praise God with, my every day exercise… in personal Writings I would study with you and George if you were interested in bebinning at the old testament, and see why many observations made from new testament writings are misconstrued. If not, o.k. Grace and hope to you and yours from my house to your house.

Paladin!  I asked Georg, but He is not interested.  Tell me , you said to Mike that He is right only in a small degree?
And why do you want to study in the Old Test. ??
I grant you some Scriptures about the preexisting of Jesus is in the Old test. but most are in the New Test.
Like in Micah. 5:2 and Isaiah 11:1 and Isaiah 11:10…. 
Peace Irene

[Author]

Posts