- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Does everyone on the board understand the problem introduced in the OP?
[From OP]
Quote We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15. Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son, sometimes through daughters (Ruth, Hagar, through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15.
If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.”
The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event.
The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ.
If I have learned anything on this board from all who disagree, I have learned that just because I know what I am saying, does not mean I can articulate it well enough for everyone else to understand it the same way I do.
It has been a somewhat humbling experience for me, and I off an altered version of the OP for your consideration.
At a time when Abraham had no children, God spoke to him of a covenant between God and Abraham's children. Now, Abraham could have been as most men, and stammerred
“B-b-but I have no children, what are you talking about? And God could just as easily said “o.k. Abraham, I will go find someone who has a little more faith.” But Abraham didn't say that, and God didn't responjd that way, and the world was not changed from what it became.The strength of prophecy in this world, is the fact it requires believers thereunto for it to have any prophetic value to men. For example, God said a thing to men. If men refused to believe it (the flood comes to mind) there is no way anyone can convince them it was prophecy, the popular conclusion that will be reached is “Mother nature betrayed us.” The reality was, all anyone had to do was accept what Noah was trying to tell them, and they could have been safely in the ark when the rains began.
The people had no reason, other than humble faith, to believe what Noah was saying, because they had never seen this thing called “rain.” 'Water falling from the sky?” Who do you think you are kidding?” “Water doesn't fall from the sky.”
Until the time water began to fall from the sky, it was only possible in prophecy, as far as those men could appreciate the reality of it. They had never seen it, heard its patter, nor seen it rise as it accumulates before saturating the earth. It was new.
When God told Noah to build an ark, the rain was real enough in prophecy to prompt Noah to act upon his faith in whatever God had to say. Was the rain real? It depends upon who you asked. Ask a citizen of the times, he would scoff. Ask Noah, he gathered his tools and went to work building an ark. And he didn't build just any old floating thing, he followed the pattern God gave him to design the ark, even to using the kind of wood God selected.
That's the way faith works in harness with work. God speaks something into prophecy, commands a thing to be done, man believes, and gathers what tools are required, whether it be hand tools, or faith tools, and begins the work according the God's pattern of design.
If God said “work” without any other direction, Noah could have built a treehouse, or plowed a field, or ran a mile; but God gave Noah much more than the simple command
“work.”God gave Abraham much more than the narrowest of insights about the seed he was to carry; in fact, the gospel was preached unto Abraham.
In fact, there is aa very interesting way of putting it found in Paul's writings, where Paul says – “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” [Gal 3:8]It occurs to me, the normal man of the world would consider this for a very short span of time, and conclude, “Huh! Everyone knows scripture can't foresee anything, it is just writing, and has no mind and no eye, so how can scripture foresee?” And how can scripture “preach” anything?
But that is the man on no faith. To the man of faith, who understands how scripture can both “foresee” and “preach the gospel unto Abraham,” should be able also to understand how scripture, forseeeing, can preach the incarnation of the manchild Jesus. Genesis 3:15 is a prophetic (foreseeing) preaching about the birth of a child (seed of the woman) who will bruise the head of the seed of the serpent. Though it is prophetic language, to the man of faith, it is so. And like the father of the faithful, Abraham, we can also proccess information found in prophecies, and read and say, “I see something wonderful” as we read the prophecies of tomorrow's events; like the victories of the saints, and eternal life.
And, since the doctrine of “incarnation” is a manmade explanation for a belief system not found in scripture, as also is not the word “incarnation” itself, we are free to use it in any fashion that does not insult or injure those who already have a doctrine about it. This post simply tries to properly adjust the timing of the event portrayed in the use of the extrascriptural language.
What say you? Gene? Irene? Wispering? Mike? Anyone? (no slight intended to those not named, simply tired and must rest)
Hi Paladin,
Before I started reading and learning from this thread I was unaware of the prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ any time before Abraham. Before I started posting on this web-site I was unaware of the debates about “doctrinal issues” that have been going on for 2000 years. I was aware that most if not all large organized religious institutions were not doing things right. I was unaware that most people that call themselves christians didn't know the new earth and new kingdom started as soon as Jesus was resurrected. I thought it was logical that if when he went up to heaven to be at his Father's right hand, that was the beginning. I have never doubted the power of God's word. Simply from a cursory reading of the bible and not “studying” it I understood “What He says Goes”. I am just now learning how to discern man-made and God-made doctrine. Having never been indoctrinated in a religion and never being exspoused to this what I view “political” element of it. I have studied most of the magor world religions. Fully aware I don't have a scholarly doctors degree in comparative religions, I can confidently state I have a fair overview of them. I never knew how mean-spirited people could get debating doctrinal issues until I read some threads on this site. The good Lord knows I have no desire to allow that spirit to rule me and I am holding out hope that my faith and trust in God will not allow to either. I have learned the meaning of zealous here hehe. Even before I became a believer, I wasn't to happy with or high on people who felt they were powerless to do anything about the state of affairs in thier life or the word. I always felt that if you wanted to change the world you have to change your view of the world. I will firmly say that having God and Christ Jesus in your life really helps one to change ones veiws. I will firmly say that I only want to render unto the Lord that which belongs to the Lord and be able to truthfully discern God's doctrine. Everyone here has been helpful in that regard. I will say waiting for some second coming of of Christ Jesus is not what Jesus taught me. I can't find the words second coming in the bible and wonder if this is a man-made doctrine. I have rambled long enough. To many 'I's in this post.
What is extrascriptural language?With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ April 07 2011,01:01)
Hi Paladin,
Before I started reading and learning from this thread I was unaware of the prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ any time before Abraham.The actual bible doctrine concerning Jesus Christ began with all the choices and promises God made prior to creating heaven and earth. He chose us in Christ; gaves us works to do; gave us glory; and a host of other things, in preparation for creation.
Quote Before I started posting on this web-site I was unaware of the debates about “doctrinal issues” that have been going on for 2000 years. Philip Schaff, Church Historian, tells of when “galloping bishops” was the name the people had for the times, because the bishops were spending what time they were not actually fighting for a superior position, galloping between the ancient capitol cities, to conspire with authorities in the church in concerted effort to overcome doctrinal opposition.
Quote I was aware that most if not all large organized religious institutions were not doing things right. I was unaware that most people that call themselves christians didn't know the new earth and new kingdom started as soon as Jesus was resurrected. I thought it was logical that if when he went up to heaven to be at his Father's right hand, that was the beginning. Paul says were were raised with him to God's right hand.”But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:” [Eph 2:4-6]
Quote I have never doubted the power of God's word. Simply from a cursory reading of the bible and not “studying” it I understood “What He says Goes”. I am just now learning how to discern man-made and God-made doctrine. Having never been indoctrinated in a religion and never being exspoused to this what I view “political” element of it. I have studied most of the magor world religions. Fully aware I don't have a scholarly doctors degree in comparative religions, I can confidently state I have a fair overview of them. Quote I never knew how mean-spirited people could get debating doctrinal issues until I read some threads on this site. has it never entered your mind, my friend, that when we enter the arena of public discussion, most of us consider ourselves champions of truth, and post because we have a perception and a desire to share that perception with others?
I have only known two persons on all the boards I have been on, whom I considered to be “mean spirited.” And neither of them are on this board. One of them is on the CARM board, and he actually responded to a post I made where I quoted a verse of scritpure, without comment, and he said “That is a doctrine right out of the pits of Hell.” That is one of the very few times I ever reported a post to a moderator, and he got corrected.
The other one, I don't even want to think about.
Sometimes we get carried away in our zeal for the Lord. That is why we need to take a break occasionally, to remember we address the image of God, and try very hard to see tha tin every person posting. We never know if perhaps God has sent you here to teach a lesson not even remotely in the back of your mind, but something only you can present in the way God wants it presented here and now.
Just as God sometimes sends a thorn in our side to calm us down and humble us. We do not have the right to ask the Lord's servants to explain themselves. He/She will answer to His/Her Lord the same as You and I. I think we tend to forget, none of us know if God sent us here to teach, but maybe God sent us here to learn something about ourselves that we need to know before we are ready to meet our judge.
Quote The good Lord knows I have no desire to allow that spirit to rule me and I am holding out hope that my faith and trust in God will not allow to either. I have learned the meaning of zealous here hehe. Even before I became a believer, I wasn't to happy with or high on people who felt they were powerless to do anything about the state of affairs in thier life or the word. I always felt that if you wanted to change the world you have to change your view of the world. I will firmly say that having God and Christ Jesus in your life really helps one to change ones veiws. I will firmly say that I only want to render unto the Lord that which belongs to the Lord and be able to truthfully discern God's doctrine. Everyone here has been helpful in that regard. I will say waiting for some second coming of of Christ Jesus is not what Jesus taught me. I can't find the words second coming in the bible and wonder if this is a man-made doctrine. I have rambled long enough. To many 'I's in this post. Jesus is coming again in judgment; some say that was his second coming in judgment when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in 70 a.d.
Quote What is extrascriptural language? Look at “extraterrestial” and you will see it references places outside of earth (known as Terra); so “extrascriptural” references doctrines that came from outside of scripture.
Go with God my friend, in Grace and in Hope.
Paladin! What are you trying to tell us? i read what you say about believing without seeing, which is by Faith through Christ. But what else are you asking? The Covenant God made with Abraham was a Covenant for Him. His faith in God was outstanding to the point were he took his Son to be the scarifies….We today have a New Covenant that Jesus gave us. Abraham used animals for the atonement for sin. Jesus is our perfect scarifies for our sins…A ransom…
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
We don't need animals no more. Then Jesus also gave us the great commandments…The incarnate doctrine is a doctrine invented by men. It is not of God as far as i can tell. It's been a while since attending the Catholic Church, but if I am not mistaken it was the Catholic church that taught it. Did you not belong to that Church?
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
In the third century much was changed, I won't go into any detail, unless you ask me to…. It was the Roman Universal Church, which is the Catholic Church, who first came up with the doctrine of the trinity, and other doctrines as well. Time or the Calendar was changed from God's to the Roman. All Holy Days became Holidays like Easter and Christmas.
i find it rather sad, to know that even our children suffer because of it. Also God is not calling all right now. Wait many are called, but few are chosen….I also believe that this site will teach you much. Some is good, and some is not. Before I joined here, i did not know how many believe like we do…. for that this site is good. As far as what Wispring is saying about the Kingdom of God. I believe it's two fold. We have the Spiritual Kingdom now, but when Christ return's it will be a physical Kingdom, at least for the thousand years. After that Jesus will give the Kingdom back to God, so God may be all in all.
1Cr 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.Peace and Love Irene
Paladin………..Right on Brother , that is exactly the way i see it . Jesus was indeed as Peter Said, “(FOREORDAINED) BUT WAS (MANIFESTED) or (brought forth) IN our time”. This from the foundation of the earth was the Plan and will of GOD to bring forth a PERFECT SON of MAN and Glorify Him to His present State as a Son of GOD, Which we also can obtain through the “WORD of GOD”. You have presented it truthfully and accurately brother. IMO
peace and love to you and Yours…………………………………..gene
Quote (Baker @ April 07 2011,02:30)
Paladin! What are you trying to tell us? i read what you say about believing without seeing, which is by Faith through Christ. But what else are you asking?Welcome dear sister; I am simply pointing out that Jesus was begun in prophecy, not in eternity.
Quote The Covenant God made with Abraham was a Covenant for Him. His faith in God was outstanding to the point were he took his Son to be the scarifies….We today have a New Covenant that Jesus gave us. Actually, Christianity is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. It was the covenant with Abraham about the seed that is fulfilled in Christ.
“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” [Gal 3:8]
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” [Gal 3:13-14]
“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” [Gal 3:16]
Quote Abraham used animals for the atonement for sin. Jesus is our perfect scarifies for our sins…A ransom…
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
We don't need animals no more. Then Jesus also gave us the great commandments…The incarnate doctrine is a doctrine invented by men. It is not of God as far as i can tell. It's been a while since attending the Catholic Church, but if I am not mistaken it was the Catholic church that taught it. Did you not belong to that Church?
Correct
Quote Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. In the third century much was changed, I won't go into any detail, unless you ask me to…. It was the Roman Universal Church, which is the Catholic Church, who first came up with the doctrine of the trinity, and other doctrines as well. Time or the Calendar was changed from God's to the Roman. All Holy Days became Holidays like Easter and Christmas.
i find it rather sad, to know that even our children suffer because of it. Also God is not calling all right now. Wait many are called, but few are chosen….I also believe that this site will teach you much. Some is good, and some is not. Before I joined here, i did not know how many believe like we do…. for that this site is good. As far as what Wispring is saying about the Kingdom of God. I believe it's two fold. We have the Spiritual Kingdom now, but when Christ return's it will be a physical Kingdom, at least for the thousand years. After that Jesus will give the Kingdom back to God, so God may be all in all.
1Cr 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.Jesus is reigning now. There will not be a physical reign upon the earth. That is another man made doctrine.
Good to hear from you dear sister.
Go with grace and hope.
Hi Paladin,
Quote has it never entered your mind, my friend, that when we enter the arena of public discussion, most of us consider ourselves champions of truth, and post because we have a perception and a desire to share that perception with others?
It has now. Good food for thought and a motivation to walk a mile in the other man's shoes. Thank you.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Paladin @ April 07 2011,05:25) Quote (Baker @ April 07 2011,02:30)
Paladin! What are you trying to tell us? i read what you say about believing without seeing, which is by Faith through Christ. But what else are you asking?Welcome dear sister; I am simply pointing out that Jesus was begun in prophecy, not in eternity.
Quote The Covenant God made with Abraham was a Covenant for Him. His faith in God was outstanding to the point were he took his Son to be the scarifies….We today have a New Covenant that Jesus gave us. Actually, Christianity is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. It was the covenant with Abraham about the seed that is fulfilled in Christ.
“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” [Gal 3:8]
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” [Gal 3:13-14]
“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” [Gal 3:16]
Quote Abraham used animals for the atonement for sin. Jesus is our perfect scarifies for our sins…A ransom…
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
We don't need animals no more. Then Jesus also gave us the great commandments…The incarnate doctrine is a doctrine invented by men. It is not of God as far as i can tell. It's been a while since attending the Catholic Church, but if I am not mistaken it was the Catholic church that taught it. Did you not belong to that Church?
Correct
Quote Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. In the third century much was changed, I won't go into any detail, unless you ask me to…. It was the Roman Universal Church, which is the Catholic Church, who first came up with the doctrine of the trinity, and other doctrines as well. Time or the Calendar was changed from God's to the Roman. All Holy Days became Holidays like Easter and Christmas.
i find it rather sad, to know that even our children suffer because of it. Also God is not calling all right now. Wait many are called, but few are chosen….I also believe that this site will teach you much. Some is good, and some is not. Before I joined here, i did not know how many believe like we do…. for that this site is good. As far as what Wispring is saying about the Kingdom of God. I believe it's two fold. We have the Spiritual Kingdom now, but when Christ return's it will be a physical Kingdom, at least for the thousand years. After that Jesus will give the Kingdom back to God, so God may be all in all.
1Cr 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.Jesus is reigning now. There will not be a physical reign upon the earth. That is another man made doctrine.
Good to hear from you dear sister.
Go with grace and hope.
Paladin ! I don't agree that Jesus didn't exist before the world was. I gave you plain written Scriptures. He is the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Jesus was not only the firstborn of all creation, but also the firstborn of the death.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
By Jesus own words He said this
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:41 ¶ The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Jhn 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John has shown us that His brother Jesus existed way before Abraham was. Question is, will you and others believe Him? You don't have to believe me, but believe Him that knew Jesus…
I don't deny that Jesus came in the flesh at all. And that Jesus is our Savior. That He had to die so we can live. God so loved the world that gave His only begotten Son, that so ever believeth, believeth in Him, will not perish, but have everlasting life….
Peace and Love to you and yours Irene.
Paladin………I am going to start a thread on the WORD of GOD and would like you commits on it especially where you have accurately brought out about GOD exulting His word above All HIS NAME.
peace and love to you and yours…………………………….gene
Quote (Baker @ April 07 2011,02:30)
Paladin ! I don't agree that Jesus didn't exist before the world was. I gave you plain written Scriptures. He is the firstborn of all creation.Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Jesus was not only the firstborn of all creation, but also the firstborn of the death.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
By Jesus own words He said this
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:41 ¶ The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Jhn 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John has shown us that His brother Jesus existed way before Abraham was. Question is, will you and others believe Him? You don't have to believe me, but believe Him that knew Jesus…
I don't deny that Jesus came in the flesh at all. And that Jesus is our Savior. That He had to die so we can live. God so loved the world that gave His only begotten Son, that so ever believeth, believeth in Him, will not perish, but have everlasting life….
Peace and Love to you and yours Irene.
Dear sister; I learned a long time ago, when two verses appear to clash, i.e., contradict in meaning, neither of them is wrong, it is my own perception that needs to be corrected.
It is true that you offered scripture that on the surface, seems to indicate that Jesus preceeded Abraham.
But, I offered in rebuttal, Paul's statement that Adam preceeded Christ.
Now, this appears to contradict one another, which God does not do.
So, we must test alternatives to see if there is another possible understanding.
If we hold to your current understanding (your position as posted by you), we have Jesus pre-dating Abraham, but not Adam pre-dating Christ; assuming I honestly report your positon.
But Paul just will not leave it there, He keeps reminding me there is more to be considered. So I allow Paul to speak for Paul, even as it was Paul who told us Jesus was before Abraham.
So Paul says “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”
I have looked back over the thread, and no one, not you, not mike, not any poster here, deals with this issue.
Why? Because it shows Jesus to be not pre-existent in eternity.
And why do you not deal with it?
Because you have a verse that says he was the firstborn of creation.
Dear sister, what you have is a contradiction, if it is not dealt with.
Now, if Jesus was pre-existent, he definitely would preceed Abraham. But, he would also just as definitely preceed Adam.
Since Paul said Adam was first, then the second Adam, there has to be a different explanation.
Since Jesus cannot be pre-existent, because Adam preceeded him, and Jesus preceeded Abraham, is there a way found in scripture, plainly stated, that solves both events with no contradiction?
Yes, there is.
If First Adam is created; then Messiah is prophecied; then Abraham is born; we have a scriptural account of events that result in First Adam's creation; Then Messiah pops up in prophecy; followed by Abraham's birth; then Gospel is preached to Abraham; followed by Abraham's joy “rejoiced to see my day;” followed by all the thousands of Messianic prophecies till their culmination in Jesus, resulting in his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, reigning till death and hades are destroyed.
Is death destroyed yet? No, it is still future.
Is death destroyed yet? Yes, by the promise of God to the saints.
If you understand how Jesus can be effective in prophecy, you can understand how his “begettal” by the spirit is his origin, his beginning, his “cause to be.” All the rest is prophecy and its fulfillment. Only in the doctrines of men can it be so mixed that it results in contradiction in God's words.
Does this contradict “Jesus is firstborn of all creation?” No; not if you understand the scriptural account of “New creation” and firstborn from the dead; which is of the new creation.
Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,07:04) Quote (Baker @ April 07 2011,02:30)
Paladin ! I don't agree that Jesus didn't exist before the world was. I gave you plain written Scriptures. He is the firstborn of all creation.Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Jesus was not only the firstborn of all creation, but also the firstborn of the death.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
By Jesus own words He said this
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:41 ¶ The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Jhn 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
John has shown us that His brother Jesus existed way before Abraham was. Question is, will you and others believe Him? You don't have to believe me, but believe Him that knew Jesus…
I don't deny that Jesus came in the flesh at all. And that Jesus is our Savior. That He had to die so we can live. God so loved the world that gave His only begotten Son, that so ever believeth, believeth in Him, will not perish, but have everlasting life….
Peace and Love to you and yours Irene.
Dear sister; I learned a long time ago, when two verses appear to clash, i.e., contradict in meaning, neither of them is wrong, it is my own perception that needs to be corrected.
It is true that you offered scripture that on the surface, seems to indicate that Jesus preceeded Abraham.
But, I offered in rebuttal, Paul's statement that Adam preceeded Christ.
Now, this appears to contradict one another, which God does not do.
So, we must test alternatives to see if there is another possible understanding.
If we hold to your current understanding (your position as posted by you), we have Jesus pre-dating Abraham, but not Adam pre-dating Christ; assuming I honestly report your positon.
But Paul just will not leave it there, He keeps reminding me there is more to be considered. So I allow Paul to speak for Paul, even as it was Paul who told us Jesus was before Abraham.
So Paul says “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”
I have looked back over the thread, and no one, not you, not mike, not any poster here, deals with this issue.
Why? Because it shows Jesus to be not pre-existent in eternity.
And why do you not deal with it?
Because you have a verse that says he was the firstborn of creation.
Dear sister, what you have is a contradiction, if it is not dealt with.
Now, if Jesus was pre-existent, he definitely would preceed Abraham. But, he would also just as definitely preceed Adam.
Since Paul said Adam was first, then the second Adam, there has to be a different explanation.
Since Jesus cannot be pre-existent, because Adam preceeded him, and Jesus preceeded Abraham, is there a way found in scripture, plainly stated, that solves both events with no contradiction?
Yes, there is.
If First Adam is created; then Messiah is prophecied; then Abraham is born; we have a scriptural account of events that result in First Adam's creation; Then Messiah pops up in prophecy; followed by Abraham's birth; then Gospel is preached to Abraham; followed by Abraham's joy “rejoiced to see my day;” followed by all the thousands of Messianic prophecies till their culmination in Jesus, resulting in his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, reigning till death and hades are destroyed.
Is death destroyed yet? No, it is still future.
Is death destroyed yet? Yes, by the promise of God to the saints.
If you understand how Jesus can be effective in prophecy, you can understand how his “begettal” by the spirit is his origin, his beginning, his “cause to be.” All the rest is prophecy and its fulfillment. Only in the doctrines of men can it be so mixed that it results in contradiction in God's words.
Does this contradict “Jesus is firstborn of all creation?” No; not if you understand the scriptural account of “New creation” and firstborn from the dead; which is of the new creation.
Hi Paladin:If we were speaking of the firstborn of all creation then that would be Cain who was firstforn son, but we are speaking in this scripture in Colossians of God's firstborn.
Jesus existed in the heart of the Father before the foundation of the world, but no, he did not exist as a sentient person. And so, he said to the Jews who thought he had said that he had seen Abraham. “Abraham desired to see my day and he saw it and was glad.” And so, Jesus was foreordained. All things were made by him and for him and without him was nothing made that was made. He is not the creator, but he is the basis for the whole of creation.
When the scripture states: “And the Word became flesh”, this speaks of the prophetic Word of God becoming a reality. No, God did not become a man, and so, if I am correct in my understanding of the term “incarnation”, this would be another misunderstanding of scripture by those who adhere to this doctrine.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ April 08 2011,07:46) Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,07:04) Dear sister; I learned a long time ago, when two verses appear to clash, i.e., contradict in meaning, neither of them is wrong, it is my own perception that needs to be corrected. It is true that you offered scripture that on the surface, seems to indicate that Jesus preceeded Abraham.
But, I offered in rebuttal, Paul's statement that Adam preceeded Christ.
Now, this appears to contradict one another, which God does not do.
So, we must test alternatives to see if there is another possible understanding.
If we hold to your current understanding (your position as posted by you), we have Jesus pre-dating Abraham, but not Adam pre-dating Christ; assuming I honestly report your positon.
But Paul just will not leave it there, He keeps reminding me there is more to be considered. So I allow Paul to speak for Paul, even as it was Paul who told us Jesus was before Abraham.
So Paul says “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”
I have looked back over the thread, and no one, not you, not mike, not any poster here, deals with this issue.
Why? Because it shows Jesus to be not pre-existent in eternity.
And why do you not deal with it?
Because you have a verse that says he was the firstborn of creation.
Dear sister, what you have is a contradiction, if it is not dealt with.
Now, if Jesus was pre-existent, he definitely would preceed Abraham. But, he would also just as definitely preceed Adam.
Since Paul said Adam was first, then the second Adam, there has to be a different explanation.
Since Jesus cannot be pre-existent, because Adam preceeded him, and Jesus preceeded Abraham, is there a way found in scripture, plainly stated, that solves both events with no contradiction?
Yes, there is.
If First Adam is created; then Messiah is prophecied; then Abraham is born; we have a scriptural account of events that result in First Adam's creation; Then Messiah pops up in prophecy; followed by Abraham's birth; then Gospel is preached to Abraham; followed by Abraham's joy “rejoiced to see my day;” followed by all the thousands of Messianic prophecies till their culmination in Jesus, resulting in his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, reigning till death and hades are destroyed.
Is death destroyed yet? No, it is still future.
Is death destroyed yet? Yes, by the promise of God to the saints.
If you understand how Jesus can be effective in prophecy, you can understand how his “begettal” by the spirit is his origin, his beginning, his “cause to be.” All the rest is prophecy and its fulfillment. Only in the doctrines of men can it be so mixed that it results in contradiction in God's words.
Does this contradict “Jesus is firstborn of all creation?” No; not if you understand the scriptural account of “New creation” and firstborn from the dead; which is of the new creation.
Hi Paladin:
If we were speaking of the firstborn of all creation then that would be Cain who was firstborn son, but we are speaking in this scripture in Colossians of God's firstborn.
Jesus existed in the heart of the Father before the foundation of the world, but no, he did not exist as a sentient person.
And so, he said to the Jews who thought he had said that he had seen Abraham. “Abraham desired to see my day and he saw it and was glad.” And so, Jesus was foreordained.As were we all who are in Christ; and maybe those who are not, being a sort of counterpoint. Like “evil is necessary for there to be “Good.” If there is no evil, how can there be good?
The whole point of my using Abraham is to show how Abraham could see Jesus' day and be glad, without Jesus ever being present in Abraham's day. It was through the preacing of the gospel to Abraham. Just as we who read the gospel can see the judgment and feel vindicated, if so be we are in Christ, and stand forgiven by his blood.
Quote All things were made by him and for him and without him was nothing made that was made. Exactly the same as John's message:
John 1:3 All things [egeneto] (became) by him; and without him [egeneto oude en] became nothing that [gegonen] has become.II Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things [gegonen] are become new.
Quote He is not the creator, but he is the basis for the whole of creation. Quote When the scripture states: “And the Word became flesh”, this speaks of the prophetic Word of God becoming a reality. The “logos of God” becomes flesh everytime a new babe in Christ matures to the point he /she can so live that they no longer live, but Christ lives in them, in their flesh, and the logos is personified yet once more among men.
Quote No, God did not become a man, and so, if I am correct in my understanding of the term “incarnation”, this would be another misunderstanding of scripture by those who adhere to this doctrine. Very astute Marty.
Thanks for joining the discussion.
Paladin! I talked to Georg who is very knowledgeable in Scriptures. I hope I can explain to you what Paul really means. First of all there is no contradiction. 1 Corinth. 15 talks about the resurrection. Also the resurrection of Jesus, who became a man in John 1:14. Because of Adams sin, Jesus died for us, and the Jesus who died was resurrected as a quickened Spirit. So all in Adam will die and all in Christ will be made alive.
Lets take Jihn 1:1
Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Jhn 1:6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.
Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jhn 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
We should also look at Rev. 19 that explains to us that The Word of God is the one that became Jesus. So many just don't want to believe it.
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.Rev 19:14 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
I have asked so many times ir there is another being that fits that description. Do you believe it is Jesus who will come again as The Word of God? Also God, The Word of God are all titles….
With all these Scriptures, there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus Yeshua who was with His Father Almighty God before the world was.. ( John 17:5)
Sorry Paladin, we're not on the same page. I hope that God shows us all the truth. I will again ask God for wisdom. BTW I did so before I explained to you 1 Corinth, 15, and I am certain that if I am wrong God will show me so……
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,09:40) The “logos of God” becomes flesh everytime a new babe in Christ matures to the point he /she can so live that they no longer live, but Christ lives in them, in their flesh, and the logos is personified yet once more among men.
Paladin………Right on Brother, The Christos is the Word of GOD living in all born of the Spirit of GOD. Just like Jesus was. IMOPaladin you are right, “Marty (IS) quite astute”.
peace and love to you and yous brother…………………gene
Quote (Paladin @ April 05 2011,07:29) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 05 2011,12:46) Quote (Paladin @ April 04 2011,06:55) 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, you are really starting to irritate me now. Let's settle this once and for all. Here is the chain of events:
1. YOU PM'D ME WITH A RESPONSE TO ONE OF MY PUBLIC POSTS, SAYING YOU DIDN'T WANT TO “SHOW ME UP” IN PUBLIC.
2. I RESPONDED TO YOUR RESPONSE TO MY PUBLIC POST VIA PM, AND ADDED THAT YOU DIDN'T NEED TO SPARE MY FEELINGS BY SENDING YOUR POST PRIVATELY.
3. YOU PM'D ME A SECOND TIME TELLING ME TO JUST POST BOTH PM'S ON THE PUBLIC THREAD THEN.
4. I RESPONDED A SECOND TIME TELLING YOU, “NO, I'LL JUST WAIT UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT IN THE PUBLIC THREAD, AND THEN I'LL RESPOND TO YOUR POST IN THE PUBLIC THREAD.”
5. THEN YOU DID RESPOND TO MY POST IN THE PUBLIC THREAD.
6. THEN I POSTED MY RESPONSE TO YOUR RESPONSE. TO DO SO, I COPIED AND PASTED MY RESPONSE FROM THE PM, BECAUSE WHAT YOU POSTED ON THE PUBLIC THREAD WAS EXACTLY THE SAME AS YOU SENT TO ME IN THE PM. SO I HAD A “READY-MADE” ANSWER TO YOUR POST JUST SITTING THERE IN MY INBOX. BUT AFTER POSTING IT ON THE PUBLIC FORUM, I NOTICED IT INCLUDED THE PERSONAL WORDS I SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT NOT NEEDING TO SPARE MY FEELINGS AND SUCH. THOSE COMMENTS WOULDN'T HAVE MADE SENSE TO SOMEONE JUST READING MY RESPONSE AND NOT KNOWING ABOUT THE PM'S. SO I HAD A CHOICE OF PROOF-READING MY WHOLE RESPONSE AND DELETING THE PM REFERENCES THAT NO ONE ON THE PUBLIC THREAD WOULD UNDERSTAND, OR JUST ADDING A PROLOGUE EXPLAINING BREIFLY ABOUT THE PM'S, SO THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY THE EXTRA PERSONAL WORDS TO YOU WERE THERE. I CHOSE THE LATTER. AND THAT'S REALLY THE END OF IT.
SO PALADIN, I NEVER COPIED OR EDITED YOUR PM IN THE FIRST PLACE. I NEVER USED YOUR PM FOR ANYTHING. I ANSWERED YOUR PUBLIC POST WITH A COPY OF MY PM TO YOU…………..ALONG WITH A PROLOGUE TO EXPLAIN THE EXTRA WORDS THAT WOULD HAVE SEEMED OUT OF PLACE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? I DIDN'T POST ONE SINGLE WORD FROM YOUR PM TO ME ON THIS THREAD. THE POST I ANSWERED WITH MY PM IS THE POST YOU YOURSELF POSTED ON THIS THREAD.
I DIDN'T EVEN USE YOU PM, LET ALONE EDIT IT. YOU ARE MISTAKEN, AND SEEM TO BE ACCUSING ME OF SOME WRONGDOING OR SLEIGHT OF HAND. AND I AM TAKING SERIOUS OFFENSE TO IT.
NOW, IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'VE JUST WRITTEN, THEN FOLLOW YOU OWN PERSONAL CHOICE AND “MOVE ON”.
mike
Mike, My Lord tells me to turn the other cheek, so I will remind you of a little something you need to be aware of –Quote (mikeboll64 @ 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.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 05 2011,12:46)
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? I DIDN'T POST ONE SINGLE WORD FROM YOUR PM TO ME ON THIS THREAD. THE POST I ANSWERED WITH MY PM IS THE POST YOU YOURSELF POSTED ON THIS THREAD.I DIDN'T EVEN USE YOU PM, LET ALONE EDIT IT.
(Mike) Paladin posted this above quote to me in a pm,
Quote (karmarie @ April 03 2011,19:21)
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.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,03:07) 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. Quote Hi Kar, Yes, it was okay'd by Paladin.
mike
Now Mike, I would be your friend if you will be nice. I will not allow anybody to manipulate me. I do not accuse you of doing that, only that there may be an appearance of it in this thread. I am willing to move on, but you need to acknowledge you are not being a good steward of the board with such posting as you have been doing, whether due to forgetfullness, or simply dodging the issue, but something needs to change here.
I will accept an explanation if it aknowledges the facts as shown in this post. I am not trying to trap you Mike, I think you do that well enough on your own. I am trying to salvage a brother. I would have preferred to handle thjis issue in a PM but we know how that turns out.
We really should make peace on this Mike, but I will not succumb to intollerant pressure.
Paladin,Do me a favor and look back to page 57 of this thread. Notice that the 8th post down on that page is from you to me. Notice the time stamp of when you posted it.
Now, scroll down to the 9th post down on that page. Notice that is my response to your 8th post down. Notice the time stamp in your quote. Do you know how that time stamp got there? It happened when I hit the “Quote” button at the top of YOUR PUBLIC FORUM POST and then answered it.
Now look at what I said:
Quote 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: Since you posted that quote (meaning: those words) to me in a pm, I was not lying, was I? But the words I answered to in my post were the words you posted in the PUBLIC FORUM, which just happened to be the same exact words you sent to me earlier via pm.
The words I answered to came from post #8 of page 57 of this thread, as proven by the time stamp. Now I could have said, “Paladin PREVIOUSLY posted this above quote to me in a pm………..”, or “EARLIER posted this above quote to me in a pm……..”, or “ONCE UPON A TIME posted this above quote to me in a pm…….”, or “ALSO posted this above quote to me in a pm………”.
But I did not choose to use one of those words. Does the fact that I did not choose to use one of those words suddenly make my statement a lie? Did you in fact post those very words to me in a pm earlier? If so, then was I lying about what I said?
Now, pay close attention the second sentence of my post:
Quote While his intentions seemed genuine, I will answer his post with the same thing I posted to him via pm: Do you see it? Did I say I would answer your PM with the same thing I said in my pm? Or your POST?
So how dare you lie about me and say I “edited” your pm and imply I've done something deceitful or dishonest? Like I said before, I NEVER POSTED ONE WORD FROM YOUR PM!
And what sucks the most about this whole thing is your intentions. I mean, you posted the exact same words on this thread as you sent to me in the pm, minus the “I don't want to embarass you” introduction. So who really cares if the words I quoted came from the pm or the public post? Would it really have made a difference? Of course not.
But what happened is that Kar suggested that maybe I did not have your permission to air the pm. And when I assured her that you DID give your permission, you saw a chance to slander me. You thought that since your exact words were for me to air both of our posts in the thread, that you could insinuate I was being shady by airing only an “edited” portion of YOUR pm.
And for what? Would it have hurt the content or context of the 138:2 information you posted if I HAD left out the “intro” part? Would it have changed my answer one bit? Would it have changed any of your “pas” information? NO!
So why in the world would you make a big deal of it even if your quoted words DID come from the pm?
This is all beyond me, Paladin. For you to be so petty about something so unimportant is beyond me in the first place. But for you to go on and on about it after I've told you I didn't post one single word from your pm is beyond unfair to me. You are in essence calling me a liar when I've lied about nothing.
So let's refresh here. What I DID:
1. I hit the “Quote” button on your PUBLIC FORUM POST.
2. I pointed out that you had posted those words in a pm, which was true.
3. I then answered your words that were posted in the PUBLICE FORUM POST you made, as per my own words.What I did NOT DO:
1. LIE about anything.
2. Post one single word from your pm in the public thread, (although I had your permission to do so).
3. Edit one single thing out of your pm.So, tell me once more what you're ACCUSING ME OF.
mike
Quote (Paladin @ April 05 2011,04:18)
Depending upon what “every name” and “each name” is a reference to. The difference, my friend, is whether “pan” is followed by possessive pronoun, or something else. The possessive “sou” is limiting “onoma” to “onoma of you.”
No, the possessive “sou” is limiting “WORD” to “WORD of you”. The “sou” does not apply to “onoma” at all. What DOES apply to “onoma” is “pan”, which means “each” or “every”. Which, reading down YOUR OWN LIST, makes the sentence say, “extolled above each name the word of you”.Quote (Paladin @ April 05 2011,04:18)
It is a reference to the totallity of the name/names of God. He has many names, and is making it clear that he is not placing his word just above one of his names, nor yet two or three of his names, but above all/every name/names he has.
Oh, I see. So NOW the singular “onoma” refers to many NAMES, as in plural?
I asked:
Quote 4. Explain to me why the KJV translation is virtually ALONE in it's translation of this Psalm, compared to these others:
You didn't actually answer this question, but instead critiqued the other translations. But I can also do that: The KJV version make no sense whatsoever. What does “above all your name” mean? You said earlier that “all your name” really means “all your names”. If so, then why didn't the writer say “all your names”? And if it implies a plural “names”, then don't your own teachings about the singular word “pan” work against you?But I'll tell you what DOES work: The same thing I posted above. The same thing the Greek LXX clearly says: “magnified above every NAME (singular) the Word of You”.
The bottom line is that there is no reference to “YOUR” name in the Hebrew. It simply says, “magnify above all name word”. How the KJV translators got what they did out of those words, I can't be sure. But I can be sure that the words THEY came up with make no sense to anyone in English………….except maybe for someone trying to prove that Jesus isn't the Word of God. Because those people are good at pretending clear teachings in scripture are really saying weird, abstract and nonsensical things.
I asked:
Quote 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.
You didn't answer this question either. Please show me what I've asked you to show me, using the actual Hebrew words.Actually Paladin, I don't really care if you answer this post or not. The Hebrew wording of 138:2 is uncertain, and has been the subject of much deliberation and controversy. But the words of the LXX are crystal clear. And they CLEARLY tell us that God “MAGNIFIED HIS WORD ABOVE EVERY NAME”, just like Eph 1:21 and Phil 2:9 confirm.
Either believe it or don't. But don't come around here with your fancy “I know the Greek language” crap and butcher what the Greek words really say in an effort to sway others with false information, okay?
I'll post the next of your points that I saved in my computer soon.
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 05 2011,06:48)
Mike……….Why are you having such a hard time understanding this, God's Word is above his names, it was by his word creation came into existence.
Hi Gene,I'm not having a hard time understanding what you guys are saying. I'm only pointing out that it is not only unscriptural, but also absurd to think ANYTHING is above the Name of YHWH.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 05 2011,06:48)
Remember Jesus said thy WORD is LIFE, not Thy (NAME) is Life.
I also remember that Jesus came to glorify and make known the NAME of his God and said, “Father, glorify your name!”To which God responded, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.”
mike
Quote (Baker @ April 08 2011,09:58) [/quote]
Paladin! I talked to Georg who is very knowledgeable in Scriptures. I hope I can explain to you what Paul really means. First of all there is no contradiction. 1 Corinth. 15 talks about the resurrection.But dear sister, Jesus did not “become a man” in John 1:14. Do you see “Ieesous” anywhere in the verse? The only reason there is even a mention of Jesus at all in John's first chapter, is because John tied his gospel [96 a.d.] to the person of Christ in [69 a.d.] revelation 3:12 and in 19:12-13 with reference to the new name he is to be given, as “the logos of God.”
Jesus was not “the logos of God” in 30 a.d; He was not “The logos of God” in 33 a.d. when he was ascended. and he was not “the Logos of God” in 69 a.d., when John prophecies about his gift-name.
John is speaking in 1:14 about an event in the life of a personification, and recalling his remarks he wrote in 69 a.d, about Jesus, here ties the two events together. But the personification of the logos of God takes place, according to Paul, everytime some saint or other, so lives hi slife that he can say “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” [Gal 2:20]
When this saint aknowledges “Christ Jesus” in his life, the logos of God is personified in the life of that saint. And “we behold the glory as of the only begotten son of God” all over again, in that saint, through Christ living in him.
And neither you nor George has yet explained how it is Adam predated Christ, other than to claim he pre-existed Abraham, and became flesh in John 1:14, which John does not say.
And to claim Christ pre-existent, AND incarnated, defies scripture; and denies everything Paul had to say about “Christ living in me” whichis the personification clearly referenced in John 1:14.
Paul spent a lifetime convincing the saints about this subject of “Jesus Christ living in me” and said, “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]
Paul told the saints in Corinth [55 a.d.] “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” [II Cor 13:5]
And in 60 a.d, Paul explains about a mystery, now revealed, named “The Logos Of God” and what it is – ” If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos of God; 6 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” [Col 1:23-27]Now, dear sister, if you will follow the clues provided in the underlined and bolded words, you will see a pattern found only in Paul's preahcing, which later is picked up by John who explains Paul's understanding of “The Logos Of God” and ties it to Jesus, not at Jesus' birth, but to “Jesus Christ lives in you” and John explains why it is “the hope of Glory” excpressed by Paul, as John expresses in 1:14 “we beheld his glory, as of an only begotten son of God”
Do you know the reason John uses [&# 969;&# 962;] in 1:14? Why does John speak of “Glory AS OF…” instead of saying “We beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten son of God?” Because John is not speaking of Jesus, he is speaking of the saint in whom Jesus is dwelling, “and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten son of God” precisel;y because it is not Jesus of whom he speaks, but the saint in whom Jesus is dwelling in 96 a.d, when John is writing of the event.
Quote
Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.Jhn 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Right! In 96 a.d., John, the brother of Jesus, is writing about way back in 30 a.d, John the Baptist bore witness of the Christ, “the only begotten of the father”. He is not saying Jesus is the logos, he is saying the glory of one who has Christ living in him, shows the glory as of the only begotten of the father, of whom John bore witness.
John has John the baptist saying “this was he of whom I spake” rather than “this is he of whom I spake,” because John is speaking of a past event, not telling his gospel in the present.
John uses [&# 951;&# 957;] which is imperfect indicative, used twice in the verse; “this was he…” and “He was before me.
You really need to pay attention to the verbs dear sister. And I would appeal to George to learn this also, as he is teaching you, as well he should. This is why I did not prefer to post to you without George, because he might underswtand it differently if he sees it for himself, rather than getting it from you second hand. And this is not any kind of denouncement of either you or George, it is simply a fact of life. No one tells a fact nearly as well as one can read for one's self. It is much easier to appeal to George through the posting screen, than through another's eyes.
Quote We should also look at Rev. 19 that explains to us that The Word of God is the one that became Jesus. So many just don't want to believe it. Because that is not what happened dear sister.
My grandson, at birth, received a name; that name was
“Christian,” And he received the name “Christian” which was his name and still is, and when he was baptized into Christ, he received another name altogether, and that name was
“Christian,” because now, he belongs to Christ.“The word of God is the one who became Jesus” is wrong. Jesus received a name, “The logos of God” but it was not who and what he was; it was a name recieved. Just as my grandson “Christian” was not “a Christian” until he accepted, obeyed, and became “a Christian.” He was already “Christian” when he became “a Christian.”
Jesus was already a man ascended to God's right hand when he received a name “The Logos Of God.” He was already “Jesus” and was already dead and resurrected, when he received this name “The Logos Of God.”
Quote I have asked so many times ir there is another being that fits that description. I know, dear sister, because I have responded so many times.
Quote Do you believe it is Jesus who will come again as The Word of God? When I see my Grandson,
am I looking at “Christian” or “a Christian?” Both are names, one given at his birth, the other given at his birth into Christ.Quote Also God, The Word of God are all titles….
With all these Scriptures, there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus Yeshua who was with His Father Almighty God before the world was.. ( John 17:5)Sorry Paladin, we're not on the same page. I hope that God shows us all the truth. I will again ask God for wisdom. BTW I did so before I explained to you 1 Corinth, 15, and I am certain that if I am wrong God will show me so……
Peace and Love IreneBut dear sister, that is what he sent me to the board to do, and you hang onto doctrines instead of truth. If you turn loose from doctrines and cling to Paul's own teaching, verified by John, you will see it. Watch for Paul's words “Christ living in you” throughout Paul's writings and try to explain them any other way. I will be waiting to hear from you.
Go in grace and in hope of glory as you allow “Christ Jesus to live in you,” so others can “behold his glory as of an only begotten son of God.”
Quote (Istari @ April 05 2011,09:54) Paladin,
Sounds of echo from my own thought and deed… Mike knows he did the same with me: said go ahead – post away then – do your worst … Then went bursurk when I did..!But Paladin, your response shall shown true desire for brotherhood with Mike – the brother I had in the beginning with him until his fall from grace by disputing with the king of spin (KJ) not realising that he was wrong and KJ was right.
I PM'd him showing him how he could use it to his advantage by simply letting go of his wrongful thoughts (Let Go Luke (your personal view!!) – use the Force (the Holy Spirit))
WHO went “bursurk”?
Which one of us was banned from this site, just to be “forgiven”, just to be banned again, just to be “forgiven” again?People who “go bursurk” have pretty colored tiles by their names. I have never received a tile here in two years. And I wasn't the one who gave you any of the four you currently have. The owner of the site gave all of them to you, didn't he?
The truth is that Istari said he had “begotten me” as a brother a long time ago. Then I had the audacity to disagree with him on a point of scripture. How dare I disagree with the great Istari?
Now I'm a “enemy of the state” in his eyes. 
And when I said, “Do your worst”, I seriously didn't contemplate being told (in vulgar curse words) that I smell like feces because I play with my own feces and wipe it on my face and eat it. That's not what I had in mind at all because I thought I was discoursing with an adult. I'll remember to make myself more clear to you in the future.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
