- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,14:59) 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 mess
ages 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 wrote:Hey Brother Mike –
Everyone knows you posted a post and forgot what you posted, as have we all from time to time.
You have explained it. I accept your explanation, as long as you aknowledge I was not lying about the things that seemed to upset you so.
Now come on back to the board, and let's be brethren, and behave like citizens in the kingdom we both claim.
I am working on another effor tto present the incarnation as real in prophecy and will need your input.
What say you? Brothers?
What “accusation” do you see in this post? I do not intend to rehash old errors. I offer you the hand of a brother, in full fellowship. Accept and move on or reject and move on. Let's begin with a new beginning, not pretend with old feeliongs between us. I see in you the image of God, will you see Him in me? Brothers?
You gotta be out of your flippin' mind, Paladin. No “brother” of mine would make a federal case out of implying I did something deceitful, and then CONTINUE in his efforts after I told him he was mistaken – as if my word was a lie. And then REFUSE to even acknowledge that HE is the one who actually made the mistake and offer an apology.
You do that last thing, and all is forgiven. I wouldn't even have asked for that last thing if you had just let it go when I point blank told you I didn't edit your pm or post it.
mike
Quote (Paladin @ April 05 2011,13:45) Now, Mike my friend, it cannot be referencing Jesus because the context is a reference to the mosaic Jews in Jehovah's presence waaaay back in Old Testament history.
13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.Let's see……………in CHRIST the veil is removed. When one turns to THE LORD, the veil is removed. Hmmmmmmm……..sounds like Christ is this particular “Lord” to me. And who's image are we being transformed into?
This scripture says nothing about “God being the Holy Spirit”.
Nor do your other scriptures.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,15:38) Actually Paladin, I don't really care if you answer this post or not. But don't come around here with your fancy “I know the Greek language” crap …
Until you present the post in which I ever make such claim, I will not post to you again.
Which of God's names do you perceive as not included in “above every name?”
Which of God's names do you perceive as left out of “above every name?”
Please check the statement below that best illustrates your position on this verse:
Psalm 138:2 tells us God placed his name above every name except Jehovah
Psalm 138:2 tells us God placed his name above every name except Adonai_
Psalm 138:2 tells us God placed his name above every name except El_
Psalm 138:2 tells us God placed his name above every name except Elohim___
Please fill in the blank that agrees with your position.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,16:30) You gotta be out of your flippin' mind, Paladin. No “brother” of mine would make a federal case out of implying I did something deceitful, and then CONTINUE in his efforts after I told him he was mistaken – as if my word was a lie. And then REFUSE to even acknowledge that HE is the one who actually made the mistake and offer an apology. You do that last thing, and all is forgiven. I wouldn't even have asked for that last thing if you had just let it go when I point blank told you I didn't edit your pm or post it.
mike
Then why did you respond to this –Quote (karmarie @ April 03 2011,19:21) [/quote]
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.–With this –
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,03:07) [/quote] karmarie,April wrote:Mike, a private message should be just that, a private message. Unless you ask the person first if they don't mind you putting it on the publc forum. Did you…ask first? As another forum states in their rules….Please respect the privacy of others on the board. Do not share info you have received in private messages with others.
Hi Kar,
Yes, it was okay'd by Paladin.
mike
To all,
Ephesians 1
19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
Philippians 2
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,1 Corinthians 15:27
For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
Are some stating that God made Jesus superior to himself? If so I certainly disagree as that is not what these scriptures state.
Paladin,
You quoted:
Quote 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.”
Actrually I am convinced that Paul being a Jew was speaking a Jewish tenet which is that there are two Adam's the first Adam being his fleshly side created from the earth and the secound Adam being his spirit side which gave life to his flesh.
Never the less; at least some of those, who hold to the tenet of preexistence, interpret that scripture as evidence that Jesus is a spirit being.
You may have located an internal conflict in their scripture.
If they choose to answer you that all things are possible with God then how are you prepared to respond?
Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2011,20:05) Paladin, You quoted:
Quote 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.”
Actrually I am convinced that Paul being a Jew was speaking a Jewish tenet which is that there are two Adam's the first Adam being his fleshly side created from the earth and the secound Adam being his spirit side which gave life to his flesh.
Never the less; at least some of those, who hold to the tenet of preexistence, interpret that scripture as evidence that Jesus is a spirit being.
You may have located an internal conflict in their scripture.
If they choose to answer you that all things are possible with God then how are you prepared to respond?
With a statement showing not all things are possible even with an “all things possible” God.It is impossible for God to lie.
It is impossible for God to break his oath.
It is impossible for God to break his counsel.
And the reason for it is because God cannot do anything contrary to his character.
He cannot do anything that would heap shame upon his name;
like become his own creation.Since God cannot break his oath nor his counsel, how is it possible for him to tell us “that which is begotten in her is of the Holy spirit” if in fact, Jesus was not “begotten” but was only inserted into flesh of Mary? And why would God (if Jesus was God) leave the perfect love of God (His Father) to learn obedience through suffering, because of the joy that was set before him? What Joy? only to return to second place in the kingdom of heaven, after having shared first?
No, my friend, Jesus was never pre-existant, other than in the Messianic prophecies. And God does not anoint God. He anoints men. And God is not anointed; Men are.
Oh, there are many reasons why Jesus could not have pre-existed his own begettal; including the meaning of “begettal.” It MEANS “to cause to be.”
That phrase “With God all things are possible” is in contrast to what men think they can do, i.,e., “all things.” God can do all things in the realm of the possible, in keeping with who He is.
Paladin……..Another thing GOD can not do is recreate GOD himself. Because He has existed from eternity so how could something created later be his equal the GOD from eternity.
Another thing remember what the Angel said to Joseph, Mat 1:20 …>”for (THAT) which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost> Notice the expression is THAT Not as if He already Know what the THAT WAS.
Notice this also……..Luk 1:35…..> And the angel answered and said unto here The Holy Ghost shal come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you, therefore also (NOW NOTICE), THAT holy THING > now does that sound like the angel had any past association with the THAT holy THING , no it does not because THAT holy THING was a Human being coming into his (existence) and having No past preexistence existence at all. IMO
Peace and love to you and yours brother……………gene
Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2011,20:05) Paladin, You quoted:
Quote 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.”
Actrually I am convinced that Paul being a Jew was speaking a Jewish tenet which is that there are two Adam's the first Adam being his fleshly side created from the earth and the secound Adam being his spirit side which gave life to his flesh.
Never the less; at least some of those, who hold to the tenet of preexistence, interpret that scripture as evidence that Jesus is a spirit being.
You may have located an internal conflict in their scripture.
If they choose to answer you that all things are possible with God then how are you prepared to respond?
kerwin! The Scripture that says the fist Adam was a living Soul is Adam. The Scripture that says the second Adam was made a quickened Spirit, is talking about the person that was Jesus. When God resurrected Jesus, He went back to the glory He had with God before the world was. John 17:5 At that time He was known as The Word of God. John 1:1 and Rev. 19:13-16.
In the Greek John 1:14is present. In the Lexicon it is omitted. What exactly that means, I don't know. However when first I found it in the Greek and then can compare it in Rev. 19 I believe it to be true…..
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.
This is how Jesus will come back and strike the nations, with the wrath of God.
Jesus has several titles. God John 1`:1, Hebrew 1:8 who is
The Word of God, and Yeshua, and Jesus….Tell me kerwin, since you don;t believe i Corinth. 15:45 is talking about Jesus, then who is it in Rev. 19?
Peace Irene
Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2011,19:50) To all, Ephesians 1
19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
Philippians 2
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,1 Corinthians 15:27
For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
Are some stating that God made Jesus superior to himself? If so I certainly disagree as that is not what these scriptures state.
Agreed! There is no way God is going to put his creation above himself.
But, he can give him a name which is above every name.
As far as putting everything under his feet, we are in agreement. I don't know whether you know the terminology or not, I haven't discussed much with you, but the words that tell us “then shall the son also be subject to the father, are misleading. The Greek has “will be subjected.”[passive voice] For Jesus to subject himself would require an active verb.
The word I am talking about is “upotageesetai” [Υποταγηςεται] and it is future passive.
Hi Paladin:
John 1:14 the Logos became flesh. Thanks, for showing me this, this confirms my understanding.
Love in Christ,
MartyGene said:
Quote remember Jesus clearly said the Father was (IN) Him doing the Works.
Jesus also said that the Father was IN Him. It was reciprocal and so you prove nothing.Paladin said to Mike:
Quote Until you present the post in which I ever make such claim, I will not post to you again.
Yeah Mike! Cough up the post. You gave me a tile when I could not present the post.To 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.So, this is the Scripture about Jesus. Until then Jesus has a job to fulfill, to bring all things under subject. That will happen yet. It show us here
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.
Then the last enemy to bring unto subject is
1Cr 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.1Cr 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Cr 15:55 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?
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.
To that day I am forever looking forward too.
However that has nothing to do with the preexisting of Jesus.John 1:14 is in the Greek, you will not get away from that. Besides we have other Scriptures like
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.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 is not only the firstborn of al creation, He is also the firstborn from 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.
And here comes John telling us what Jesus Himself said in
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.
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
God send his Son into the world!!! Where did God send him from?
?? I can answer that question. However the question is can you, and you, and you….. Jesus had a glory with His Father before the world was. Will you believe Jesus?
You don;t have to believe me, I am nothing compared to Jesus our Savior and King of Kings and Lord of Lords.Peace Irene
Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,00:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,16:30) You gotta be out of your flippin' mind, Paladin. No “brother” of mine would make a federal case out of implying I did something deceitful, and then CONTINUE in his efforts after I told him he was mistaken – as if my word was a lie. And then REFUSE to even acknowledge that HE is the one who actually made the mistake and offer an apology. You do that last thing, and all is forgiven. I wouldn't even have asked for that last thing if you had just let it go when I point blank told you I didn't edit your pm or post it.
mike
Then why did you respond to this –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.–With this –
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. Hi Kar,
Yes, it was okay'd by Paladin.
mike
Paladin,I'm glad you asked………….instead of accusing me of wrongdoing. I wish you had done that from the beginning of this mess.
Whether you had posted those same words from the pm on the public thread or not, the simple fact that I revealed the contents of your pm might have been perceived as wrong by some here.
If I post something on the public thread, and you say, “Hey, that's what you said in the pm to me!”, I would think nothing of it. But others here, who are more personal, might not like the idea that you even revealed what it was they pm'd you about.
So to end Kar's well meaning but seemingly nosey interest in our business, I told her the truth that I did have your permission to reveal what was in the pm to me. Which I did, right?
Forget about the apology. It's all out in the open now, and hopefully I've cleared up any misunderstandings your accusations might have caused others to have about me.
Let's let it go.
mike
Quote (Paladin @ April 07 2011,23:57) Which of God's names do you perceive as not included in “above every name?”
Hi Paladin,We're getting closer and closer to an understanding with each post, it seems.
I perceive it to mean “above every name WITH THE OBVIOUS EXCEPTION OF YHWH”. Now you might not want to agree with that for obvious reasons. But let me show you just two other examples from scripture:
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
Paladin, do you think the “all” in this verse literally means ALL, as if the Father has no authority left whatsoever? Does the Son OF God now have even more authority than his own God and Creator? Of course not. The “all” must be taken in context and viewed as astatement of emphasis rather than taken literally, wouldn't you agree? Here's another:
27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
The word is “everything”, which would include every single thing in existence, if taken literally. Which means it would also include God Himself if taken literally. Thankfully, we don't have to think too hard on this one, because Paul thoughtfully added the disclaimer excluding God Himself.
So what we have is Jesus being given ALL authority………….WITH THE OBVIOUS EXCEPTION OF AUTHORITY OVER HIS OWN GOD.
And we have EVERYTHING under Jesus………………..WITH THE OBVIOUS EXCEPTION OF HIS OWN GOD.
And we have God's Word being magnified above EVERY name……………WITH THE OBVIOUS EXCEPTION OF THE NAME OF HIS OWN GOD.
Can you at least see the point I'm making?
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 09 2011,01:46) Paladin……..Another thing GOD can not do is recreate GOD himself. Because He has existed from eternity so how could something created later be his equal the GOD from eternity. Another thing remember what the Angel said to Joseph, Mat 1:20 …>”for (THAT) which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost> Notice the expression is THAT Not as if He already Know what the THAT WAS.
Notice this also……..Luk 1:35…..> And the angel answered and said unto here The Holy Ghost shal come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you, therefore also (NOW NOTICE), THAT holy THING > now does that sound like the angel had any past association with the THAT holy THING , no it does not because THAT holy THING was a Human being coming into his (existence) and having No past preexistence existence at all. IMO
Peace and love to you and yours brother……………gene
Well my friend, remember when the “sons of God” presented themselves before God in Job? Three times the scene repeated, as Satan joined himself to the crowd to pose his questions to God, about Job's fidelity.Notice however, that when Satan confronted Jesus in teh desert, he did not recognize any “son of God” but kept saying
“If thou be the son of God.” If Jesus was God with God in eternity, why would not Satan recognize this specialness of the son of God in flesh? Just one more piece of evidence against it.Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2011,02:50) Are some stating that God made Jesus superior to himself? If so I certainly disagree as that is not what these scriptures state.
Hi Kerwin,I've never even heard a trinni say Jesus was SUPERIOR to the Father. Equal……….yes. But not “superior”.
And that's certainly not what I believe or was implying. If you read my post to Paladin right above this one, I'm sure you'll get my meaning.
mike
Quote (Baker @ April 09 2011,07:51)
To 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.So, this is the Scripture about Jesus. Until then Jesus has a job to fulfill, to bring all things under subject. That will happen yet. It show us here[/quote]
That is not Jesus' job dear sister, it is the Father who will put all things under the son's feet.
Quote 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.
Then the last enemy to bring unto subject is
1Cr 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.1Cr 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Cr 15:55 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?
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.
To that day I am forever looking forward too.
However that has nothing to do with the preexisting of Jesus.John 1:14 is in the Greek, you will not get away from that. Besides we have other Scriptures like
Precisely because it is in the Greek is why it cannot be as you have described.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.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 is not only the firstborn of al creation, He is also the firstborn from the death.[/quote]
Being firstborn from the dead is what makes him forstborn of all creation. It is one and the same event.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
