Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[mikeboll64]

What is your point, Paladin?  Did you not post on this thread the same words about Psalm 138:2 that you posted to me via pm?  Did I not also cut and copy my response to your pm and paste it on this thread?

What you said is for me to copy your pm and my response and post them both on the thread.  I told you I would just wait for you to answer it on the thread, and then I would reply.  Is that not what happened?  

As far a “seeming genuine”, it did seem to me that you were sincere in your assumption that you would “embarrass me” or something if you posted your answer in the thread.  I can see no reason for you concern, although your concern DID seem to be genuine.

And I even told you that if I've been cocky in public, and I am wrong, then I also need to be humbled in public, to set me in my place and teach me a lesson for the next time I think about being cocky.

I'm awaiting this “humbling”, because nothing you've posted about the Greek of 138:2 makes it say “YOUR name”.  It clearly says “above EVERY name”.  Those are the words, no matter how much you want to try to confuse people with your studies of the Greek language.

Btw, I've just read the campfire story and deeply enjoyed it.  It touched me.  You have a knack for fictional writing, it would seem.  Which is perhaps why your alternate fictional summations of the non-fictional teachings of scripture seem almost plausible.   But “almost” only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, right?

peace and love,
mike

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,10:47)

What is your point, Paladin?  Did you not post on this thread the same words about Psalm 138:2 that you posted to me via pm?  Did I not also cut and copy my response to your pm and paste it on this thread? What you said is for me to copy your pm and my response and post them both on the thread.  I told you I would just wait for you to answer it on the thread, and then I would reply.  Is that not what happened?   As far a “seeming genuine”, it did seem to me that you were sincere in your assumption that you would “embarrass me” or something if you posted your answer in the thread.  I can see no reason for you concern, although your concern DID seem to be genuine. And I even told you that if I've been cocky in public, and I am wrong, then I also need to be humbled in public, to set me in my place and teach me a lesson for the next time I think about being cocky. I'm awaiting this “humbling”, because nothing you've posted about the Greek of 138:2 makes it say “YOUR name”.  It clearly says “above EVERY name”.  Those are the words, no matter how much you want to try to confuse people with your studies of the Greek language. Btw, I've just read the campfire story and deeply enjoyed it.  It touched me.  You have a knack for fictional writing, it would seem.  Which is perhaps why your alternate fictional summations of the non-fictional teachings of scripture seem almost plausible.    But “almost” only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, right? peace and love, mike

Very clever Mike.

Thanks for the “brag” on my first post.

The problem you have with Psalm 138:2 Mike, is, the use of pronouns, that say “your name” instead of just “every name.”

You have found a commentator who thinks there is nothing above God's name, and he makes an excuse by claiming words that are not in the reference material.

He says, for example, “thy word and they name” but fails to explain why there is no Greek word supplied to mean “and.”

Here are two verses that include “kai” in the context, but only to show what it should be like to be included in Psalm 138:2 –

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
[kai kekleetai to onoma autou o` logos tou theou]

Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
[kai eteereesas mou ton logon kai ouk eerneesw to onoma mou]

Both verses have “name” 'and” “word.” “and” is not in Psalm 138:2, except in the articles by commentators who need it for doctrinal reasons. That is why I prefer KJV translation, Mike, it is truer to the original languages than any other including the alleged “modern” translations.

for………oti = subordinating conjunction
thou……..sou = genitive masculine singular personal pronoun
extolled….emegalunas indicative aorist active verb
above…….epi = accusative preposition
all………pan = neuter singular accusative indefinite adjective
name……..onoma accusative neuter singular noun = name
the………to = accusative neuter singular definite article
word……..logion = accusative neuter singular noun = “word”
of you……sou = genitive masculine singular personal pronoun

The use of the genitive (possessive) “sou” makes it “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”

I have changed the order of the first two words in the sentence to make sense in the English; the word order makes no difference in the Greek, only the relationship between words, determined by word-form.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,10:47)

ADDENDUM –
(M)

Quote

What is your point, Paladin? Did you not post on this thread the same words about Psalm 138:2 that you posted to me via pm? Did I not also cut and copy my response to your pm and paste it on this thread? What you said is for me to copy your pm and my response and post them both on the thread. I told you I would just wait for you to answer it on the thread, and then I would reply. Is that not what happened?

Nope! You posted part of my e-mail to you as though it was all of it, then raised the possibility there was some question about my intention by your use of “While his intentions seemed genuine, I will answer his post with the same thing I posted to him via pm:” and then failed to do so, posting only part of, and nothing to clear up this use of “seemed” that can mean many things.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ April 03 2011,19:22)

for………oti = subordinating conjunction thou……..sou = genitive masculine singular personal pronoun extolled….emegalunas indicative aorist active verb above…….epi = accusative preposition all………pan = neuter singular accusative indefinite adjective name……..onoma accusative neuter singular noun = name the………to = accusative neuter singular definite article word……..logion = accusative neuter singular noun = “word” of you……sou = genitive masculine singular personal pronoun The use of the genitive (possessive) “sou” makes it “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”

Okay, NOW we're getting somewhere.  

1.  Look at your Greek words.  Scroll down to the word “pan”.  Now honestly tell me if “pan” can also refer to “EVERY NAME” or “EACH NAME”.

2.  Show me the genitive word “sou” that follows the word “onoma”, making it refer to “name OF YOU”.

3.  Explain to me what “above all thy name” even means.  

4.  Explain to me why the KJV translation is virtually ALONE in it's translation of this Psalm, compared to these others:

NET ©
for you have exalted your promise above the entire sky.

NIV ©
for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.

NASB ©
For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.

NRSV ©
for you have exalted your name and your word above everything.

5.  Show me how the Hebrew words, “magnify above all name word” makes you so positive it's saying that God will magnify His word above His own name.

6.  Explain to me how ANYTHING in existence can possibly be OVER the Name of YHWH.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ April 03 2011,19:28)

mikeboll64,April wrote: [/quote] ADDENDUM – (M) Quote What is your point, Paladin?  Did you not post on this thread the same words about Psalm 138:2 that you posted to me via pm?  Did I not also cut and copy my response to your pm and paste it on this thread? What you said is for me to copy your pm and my response and post them both on the thread.  I told you I would just wait for you to answer it on the thread, and then I would reply.  Is that not what happened?   Nope! You posted part of my e-mail to you as though it was all of it, then raised the possibility there was some question about my intention by your use of “While his intentions seemed genuine, I will answer his post with the same thing I posted to him via pm:” and then failed to do so, posting only part of, and nothing to clear up this use of “seemed” that can mean many things.

I posted everything in this thread that I responded to you in the pm. I don't get your point, or what you're accusing me of. And I've already explained the “seemed genuine” thing……………so DROP IT unless you have an actual point to make.

I never said I posted everything YOU said to ME, but every thing I said to YOU. And I did that.

mike

[Wispring]

Hi Paladin,
This a quote using the interlinear bible on-line at http://www.studylight.org. I had to download a font set in order to use it. Why are some of the words spelled differently than what you posted?

Quote

Chapter 138 Read This Chapter 138:2 [ Greek Font Size: – / + | Toggle Font ] [ View in: BHS ] I will worship (8691) toward thy holy temple, and praise (8686) thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified (8689) thy word above all thy name. [137:2 proskunhsw prov naon agion sou kai ecomologhsomai tw onomati sou epi tw eleei sou kai th alhqeia sou oti emegalunav epi pan onoma to logion sou ]

 
                                                  With Love and Respect,
                                                         Wispring

[Wispring]

actually one word

emegalunav======>emegalunas

just curious if you know.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (Paladin @ April 04 2011,12:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,10:47) What is your point, Paladin?  Did you not post on this thread the same words about Psalm 138:2 that you posted to me via pm?  Did I not also cut and copy my response to your pm and paste it on this thread? What you said is for me to copy your pm and my response and post them both on the thread.  I told you I would just wait for you to answer it on the thread, and then I would reply.  Is that not what happened?   As far a “seeming genuine”, it did seem to me that you were sincere in your assumption that you would “embarrass me” or something if you posted your answer in the thread.  I can see no reason for you concern, although your concern DID seem to be genuine. And I even told you that if I've been cocky in public, and I am wrong, then I also need to be humbled in public, to set me in my place and teach me a lesson for the next time I think about being cocky. I'm awaiting this “humbling”, because nothing you've posted about the Greek of 138:2 makes it say “YOUR name”.  It clearly says “above EVERY name”.  Those are the words, no matter how much you want to try to confuse people with your studies of the Greek language. Btw, I've just read the campfire story and deeply enjoyed it.  It touched me.  You have a knack for fictional writing, it would seem.  Which is perhaps why your alternate fictional summations of the non-fictional teachings of scripture seem almost plausible.    But “almost” only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, right? peace and love, mike Very clever Mike. Thanks for the “brag” on my first post. The problem you have with Psalm 138:2 Mike, is, the use of pronouns, that say “your name” instead of just “every name.” You have found a commentator who thinks there is nothing above God's name, and he makes an excuse by claiming words that are not in the reference material. He says, for example, “thy word and they name” but fails to explain why there is no Greek word supplied to mean “and.” Here are two verses that include “kai” in the context, but only to show what it should be like to be included in Psalm 138:2 – Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. [kai kekleetai to onoma autou o` logos tou theou] Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. [kai eteereesas mou ton logon kai ouk eerneesw to onoma mou] Both verses have “name” 'and” “word.” “and” is not in Psalm 138:2, except in the articles by commentators who need it for doctrinal reasons. That is why I prefer KJV translation, Mike, it is truer to the original languages than any other including the alleged “modern” translations. for………oti = subordinating conjunction thou……..sou = genitive masculine singular personal pronoun extolled….emegalunas indicative aorist active verb above…….epi = accusative preposition all………pan = neuter singular accusative indefinite adjective name……..onoma accusative neuter singular noun = name the………to = accusative neuter singular definite article word……..logion = accusative neuter singular noun = “word” of you……sou = genitive masculine singular personal pronoun The use of the genitive (possessive) “sou” makes it “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” I have changed the order of the first two words in the sentence to make sense in the English; the word order makes no difference in the Greek, only the relationship between words, determined by word-form.

Paladin……….I agree with you assessment of of Psalm 138:2, that does make sense in light of other scriptures , Because GOD and His WORD are one and the Same, and GOd has Magnified (HIS)Own WORD. Jesus said “the WORDS I AM TELLING YOU ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE”. HE never told us they were (HIS) Words, in fact he said they were not his words. He also told us GOD was Spirit (intellect) AND WORDS ARE INTELLIGENT UTTERANCES and all intelligence is LIFE (IN) one form or another. God has Placed His WORD above all things. And that word is not Jesus it is what was (IN) Jesus and can be (IN) us also. If a person understands John 1;1 rightly it is made clear there , GOD and His Word are one and the same. It was this intelligent utterance or (WORD) that was in the Beginning With GOD and WAS GOD and it went forth from GOD into Flesh beings. This word was Not Jesus at all it was what was (IN) Jesus and can be in us all.
This is the common denominator between God Jesus and True Saints. It is the CHRISTOS we recieve into us that feeds our minds with the mind that Jesus had (IN) Him also. IMO

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

[terraricca]

Paladin

Quote

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.

how could God be the holy spirit and share himself by sending pieces of himself to everyone like the 120 at the Pentecost,to Cornelius and entourage??

and many others ,scriptures say that he does not give his glory to anyone .

wen God say that he will pour his spirit out to people ,this holy spirit is not a piece of him but something that he can share to make his people holy and so can be saved.since God is spirit it would be and could many things or aspect of his spirit ,He created all things with that spirit ,but his soul can not be altered by giving it away ,he as already given us of his spirit that is the part that goes back to him after we past away.

so his holy spirit is from or of God but not God,just as my words are not me but they are from me or of me.if i work for you my work is not me it is of me or from me,

Pierre

[terraricca]

Paladin

Quote

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)

if today human doctors can inject a sperm in a womb of a women and so be fertilized ,do you thing God is by any means less able?

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

those scriptures do not seem to be a allegory ,Paul clearly make a point of the position of Christ before human,human,after human,Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Other scriptures show in the same direction.

Pierre

[terraricca]

Paladin

Quote

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

to a certain degree you are right ,but wen someone disagree with someone would it not be nice to see that person come forward and show and demonstrate how he comes to that conclusion ,and so also answering the question what arise from that exchange??

I know that many have different views ,and yet we have the same book ,I believe the difference comes from our approached to the reading of Gods word,unless we are in with our total soul to the reading ,we only pick up the academic version of the scriptures,this is only my understanding.

Pierre

[Wispring]

Hi Pierre,
   Yes, I agree Jesus is a human. His mother Mary was a human. He was born into the world by the same biological process all humans are born. According to scripture his father is God via the Holy Spirit.
Whether or not God put sperm in her or not is not documented in scripture. Since God can do anything imaginable and more; it is reasonable to think he used a God created sperm or not. Both are equally valid and neither is supported by scripture. Once human always a human, unless God decides to transform someone who is human into something that is not human, say a rock or a lake or whatever.
  I have done a search of scripture and have not yet found any verbiage that specifically states “God is the Holy Spirit. Using a little logic and common sense I can deduct that “God is the Holy Spirit”. Jesus said God is Spirit. God is Holy ergo God is the Holy Spirit. Also there are those wierd creatures in Rev 4 saying “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almight, who is, who was, and is to come.” pretty straight-forward analytical process going on here. As to how God allocates His Holy Spirit. He is God he can do anything. He can pour it out, he can divvy it up, He can bless someone, He can fill someone, He can share or give it any way he sees fit. He is God with him all things are possible. Jesus was given authority by God, our father, to babtize us with the Holy Spirit. This is my understanding of these things. Hope it satisfies any questions you may have about this.

                                       With Love and Respect,
                                                 Wispring

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,12:52)

[/quote] Paladin,April wrote: [quote=mikeboll64,April 04 2011,10:47]

ADDENDUM –
(M)

Quote

What is your point, Paladin?  Did you not post on this thread the same words about Psalm 138:2 that you posted to me via pm?  Did I not also cut and copy my response to your pm and paste it on this thread? What you said is for me to copy your pm and my response and post them both on the thread.  I told you I would just wait for you to answer it on the thread, and then I would reply.  Is that not what happened?

(P)

Quote

Nope! You posted part of my e-mail to you as though it was all of it, then raised the possibility there was some question about my intention by your use of “While his intentions seemed genuine, I will answer his post with the same thing I posted to him via pm:” and then failed to do so, posting only part of, and nothing to clear up this use of “seemed” that can mean many things. (M) I posted everything in this thread that I responded to you in the pm.  I don't get your point, or what you're accusing me of.  And I've already explained the “seemed genuine” thing……………so DROP IT unless you have an actual point to make.

I am working on my response to your earlier post, Mike, and unless you “DROP” your boot camp demeanor, it will be my last post to you.

I have already made my “point” that you did not do what you claimed you did. You said you had my permission to do what you posted, but my permission was for the two posts in the reference, which you first edited, and then called into question with your “seemed” remark.

You have indeed “explained” your position, and I have not chided your effort, only corrected the mistakes and moved on.

You are not going to make it go away, Mike, so you might as well quit trying to change what was for what you wish it was.

Now, we can either move on, or dwell on past efforts. My personal choice is “move on.”

[Paladin]

Quote (Wispring @ April 04 2011,15:06)

Hi Paladin, This a quote using the interlinear bible on-line at http://www.studylight.org. I had to download a font set in order to use it. Why are some of the words spelled differently than what you posted? Quote   Chapter 138 Read This Chapter 138:2 [ Greek Font Size: – / + | Toggle Font ] [ View in: BHS ] I will worship (8691) toward thy holy temple, and praise (8686) thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified (8689) thy word above all thy name. [137:2 proskunhsw prov naon agion sou kai ecomologhsomai tw onomati sou epi tw eleei sou kai th alhqeia sou oti emegalunav epi pan onoma to logion sou ]                                                     With Love and Respect,                                                          Wispring

If you check with the publishers of Studylight.org, you may find that they are caught up in dealing in alternative readings.

A nineteenth century scholar, Tischendorf, spent a lifetime researching variant texts with a view to establishing an
“original” or as close to it as could be attained.

Here is an historical comment regarding Tischendorf's efforts on behalf ot LXX – “Of relatively lesser importance was Tischendorf's work on the Greek Old Testament. His edition of the Roman text, with the variants of the Alexandrian manuscript, the Codex Ephraemi, and the Friderico-Augustanus, was of service when it appeared in 1850, but, being stereotyped, was not greatly improved in subsequent issues. Its imperfections, even within the limited field it covers, may be judged by the aid of Eberhard Nestle's appendix to the 6th issue (1880).”

There have been many scholars over the years who introduce newly found old manuscripts and think to clear things up, but only serve to confuse and confound later scholars, who consequently have one more “version” with which to deal.

[Paladin]

Quote (Wispring @ April 04 2011,22:13)

I have done a search of scripture and have not yet found any verbiage that specifically states “God is the Holy Spirit.

El Jehovah is called “God the Lord” in teh Hbrew –  Isaiah 42:5 “Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:” [“El Jehovah”]

And in the Greek ” 1 Chr 13:6 “And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjathjearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of  God the LORD, that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it.” [tou theou kuriou]

And in the new testament: “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” [II Cor 3:17]

[terraricca]

Quote (Wispring @ April 05 2011,05:13)

Hi Pierre,    Yes, I agree Jesus is a human. His mother Mary was a human. He was born into the world by the same biological process all humans are born. According to scripture his father is God via the Holy Spirit. Whether or not God put sperm in her or not is not documented in scripture. Since God can do anything imaginable and more; it is reasonable to think he used a God created sperm or not. Both are equally valid and neither is supported by scripture. Once human always a human, unless God decides to transform someone who is human into something that is not human, say a rock or a lake or whatever.   I have done a search of scripture and have not yet found any verbiage that specifically states “God is the Holy Spirit. Using a little logic and common sense I can deduct that “God is the Holy Spirit”. Jesus said God is Spirit. God is Holy ergo God is the Holy Spirit. Also there are those wierd creatures in Rev 4 saying “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almight, who is, who was, and is to come.” pretty straight-forward analytical process going on here. As to how God allocates His Holy Spirit. He is God he can do anything. He can pour it out, he can divvy it up, He can bless someone, He can fill someone, He can share or give it any way he sees fit. He is God with him all things are possible. Jesus was given authority by God, our father, to babtize us with the Holy Spirit. This is my understanding of these things. Hope it satisfies any questions you may have about this.                                        With Love and Respect,                                                  Wispring

wispring

what does it mean HOLY ?

one question did you notice that prior to Adam sin ,scriptures always say spirit of God not the holy spirit of God, why is that ?

and you did not answer any of my questions either ,and yet i quote scriptures why is that ?

God is not a soul to pluck.or is it ?

and I can show you by deduction that God is not the holy spirit but that the holy spirit comes from him.

and in scriptures it is not difficult for  God to allow angels to become like humans,

what would be the problem to really bring one forth in the complete sense of the word ?

Pierre

[Wispring]

Hi Pierre,
  Holy means pure, uncorrupt, sanctified.
  Do you mean the scriptures in this post?.

Quote

if today human doctors can inject a sperm in a womb of a women and so be fertilized ,do you thing God is by any means less able? Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. those scriptures do not seem to be a allegory ,Paul clearly make a point of the position of Christ before human,human,after human,Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

  For some reason which I cannot fathom it has not been revealed to you from God that you are living in a new creation/kingom with Christ Jesus as your King of Kings. Therefore, any debate would be from two different two different revelations. Perhaps it is a thing of doctrine you were raised with and have yet to let go and let God. I honestly don't know. Many people during the time of Christ Jesus mission on earth had difficulty accepting that as Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you now and fully understanding it's significance. Many people still do.
  First use of the word holy:

Quote

Exodus 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

  Pierre God doesn't change. He was, He is, He always shall be holy. Praise God!

  Pierre I have already posted in numerous posts that, just like Christ Jesus said, with God all things are possible. Therefore:

Quote

and in scriptures it is not difficult for  God to allow angels to become like humans, what would be the problem to really bring one forth in the complete sense of the word ?

  Is moot.

Here, you sir, are putting limits on what God can do with his Holy Spirit. Using a semantic arguement to justify this assertion. Is this wise?

Quote

how could God be the holy spirit and share himself by sending pieces of himself to everyone like the 120 at the Pentecost,to Cornelius and entourage?? and many others ,scriptures say that he does not give his glory to anyone . wen God say that he will pour his spirit out to people ,this holy spirit is not a piece of him but something that he can share to make his people holy and so can be saved.since God is spirit it would be and could many things or aspect of his spirit ,He created all things with that spirit ,but his soul can not be altered by giving it away ,he as already given us of his spirit that is the part that goes back to him after we past away. so his holy spirit is from or of God but not God,just as my words are not me but they are from me or of me.if i work for you my work is not me it is of me or from me,

Still I love you with the same love that God has for me and I for him.

                                                  With Love and Respect.
                                                            Wispring

[GeneBalthrop]

Wispring ………….The way i understand HOLY Spirit is a Special type of Spirit some say the set aside Spirit, Spirit is still intellect even if it is a Special type of spirit (intellect). IMO

peace and love…………………………….gene

[terraricca]

Quote (Wispring @ April 05 2011,18:07)

Hi Pierre,   Holy means pure, uncorrupt, sanctified.   Do you mean the scriptures in this post?. Quote if today human doctors can inject a sperm in a womb of a women and so be fertilized ,do you thing God is by any means less able? Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. those scriptures do not seem to be a allegory ,Paul clearly make a point of the position of Christ before human,human,after human,Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.   For some reason which I cannot fathom it has not been revealed to you from God that you are living in a new creation/kingom with Christ Jesus as your King of Kings. Therefore, any debate would be from two different two different revelations. Perhaps it is a thing of doctrine you were raised with and have yet to let go and let God. I honestly don't know. Many people during the time of Christ Jesus mission on earth had difficulty accepting that as Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you now and fully understanding it's significance. Many people still do.   First use of the word holy: Quote Exodus 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.   Pierre God doesn't change. He was, He is, He always shall be holy. Praise God!   Pierre I have already posted in numerous posts that, just like Christ Jesus said, with God all things are possible. Therefore: Quote and in scriptures it is not difficult for  God to allow angels to become like humans, what would be the problem to really bring one forth in the complete sense of the word ?   Is moot. Here, you sir, are putting limits on what God can do with his Holy Spirit. Using a semantic arguement to justify this assertion. Is this wise? Quote how could God be the holy spirit and share himself by sending pieces of himself to everyone like the 120 at the Pentecost,to Cornelius and entourage?? and many others ,scriptures say that he does not give his glory to anyone . wen God say that he will pour his spirit out to people ,this holy spirit is not a piece of him but something that he can share to make his people holy and so can be saved.since God is spirit it would be and could many things or aspect of his spirit ,He created all things with that spirit ,but his soul can not be altered by giving it away ,he as already given us of his spirit that is the part that goes back to him after we past away. so his holy spirit is from or of God but not God,just as my words are not me but they are from me or of me.if i work for you my work is not me it is of me or from me, Still I love you with the same love that God has for me and I for him.                                                   With Love and Respect.                                                             Wispring

wispring

you are a good talker,

in your address to my quote you do not answer anything exept to say that Holy mean pure,uncorrupt

but you did not answer the question why God spirit is talk about before ADAMS SIN as just the spirit of God.

you do not answer anything exept giving your opinion,

as for living in the new creation you are right exept we will only succeed to that level wen we have been faithful till the end of our lives or at the return of Christ witch ever comes first,

so you are playing with words ,Paul and Peter explain this clearly.

the kingdom of God is in you ?

Mt 12:28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mt 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mt 21:31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.
Mt 21:43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
Mk 1:15 “The time has come,”he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!”
Mk 4:11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables

Mk 4:26 He also said, “This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground.

Mk 4:30 Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it?
Mk 9:1 And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”
Mk 9:47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,
Mk 10:14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Mk 10:15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
Mk 10:23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
Mk 10:24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
Mk 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mk 12:34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
Mk 14:25 “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”
Mk 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.
Lk 4:43 But he said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.”
Lk 6:20 Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.

Lk 11:20 But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

Lk 13:18 Then Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it t
o?
Lk 13:20 Again he asked, “What shall I compare the kingdom of God to?
Lk 13:28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.
Lk 13:29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God.

Lk 14:15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”

Lk 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

Lk 17:20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation,
Lk 17:21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”
Lk 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Lk 18:17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

just read the last verse ,and pickup some understanding.

if you know why Jesus say those words please share them with us all.

as for limiting God i do not understand how i did this please explain more.

Quote

For some reason which I cannot fathom it has not been revealed to you from God that you are living in a new creation/kingom with Christ Jesus as your King of Kings. Therefore, any debate would be from two different two different revelations. Perhaps it is a thing of doctrine you were raised with and have yet to let go and let God. I honestly don't know. Many people during the time of Christ Jesus mission on earth had difficulty accepting that as Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you now and fully understanding it's significance. Many people still do. First use of the word holy: Quote Exodus 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

this coment is so catholic It make me smile,you are out of context by 2000km this as nothing to do with whatever i have said.

be little other to built your own ego ? no,no, not my style,
go back and read ;Lk 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

little children see
truth is my way,Christ way is my way,God is my way,not men ,

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (terraricca @ April 04 2011,00:08)

so his holy spirit is from or of God but not God,just as my words are not me but they are from me or of me.if i work for you my work is not me it is of me or from me,

Well said, Pierre.

peace,
mike

[Author]

Posts