- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 08 2011,12:05) 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.
Where in that post did I say that Paladin ever spoke those words? My use of “crap” meant “attitude”.Besides, is Paladin now admitting that he DOESN'T know Greek? If he doesn't, then he shouldn't be trying to teach people here what the LXX of Psalm 138:2 says. Because he got it wrong, implying that the genitive “sou” applied to the NAME of God, instead of the WORD of God………..to which it DOES apply.
And that kind of “I know Greek so let me teach you what it means” crap could possibly be misleading others here who don't want to take the time to look into it. And that is what I meant with the quotes……………not that he spoke those exact words.
You guys do realize that quotes are used for more than just highlighting the exact words of another, right? So since I didn't claim that Paladin actually SAID those words…………..get off my back, Jack!
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,09:23) Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,00:17) mikeboll64,April wrote:Paladin, I'm glad you asked………….instead of accusing me of wrongdoing. I wish you had done that from the beginning of this mess.
Quote 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.
Please show me the post in which I accuse you of anything Mike. I can find plenty where I asked questions, or for explanations, but accusation? Not my style.
Where is the post in which I have accused you, and of what?
I noticed in a post or two you said I accused you of lying. Again, not my words my friend. maybe your own conclusion, but I did not say you lied. I asked you to explain something which I thought was a reasonable request.
Now you ask me to “let it go.” Too late Mike. I already “let it go” and asked you to join me. Brothers?
Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,17:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,09:23) [/quote] Paladin,April wrote:[quote=mikeboll64,April 08 2011,16:30]Paladin, I'm glad you asked………….instead of accusing me of wrongdoing. I wish you had done that from the beginning of this mess.
Quote 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.
Please show me the post in which I accuse you of anything Mike. I can find plenty where I asked questions, or for explanations, but accusation? Not my style.
Where is the post in which I have accused you, and of what?
I noticed in a post or two you said I accused you of lying. Again, not my words my friend. maybe your own conclusion, but I did not say you lied. I asked you to explain something which I thought was a reasonable request.
Now you ask me to “let it go.” Too late Mike. I already “let it go” and asked you to join me. Brothers?
Paladin,Was your assumption of what I did a CORRECT assumption? YES or NO?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,09:54) 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
Mike, does heaven contain God?When God gave Jesus all power in heaven and earth – “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”[Mat 28:18] He did not give him power over God, because God is not contained in heaven and earth. All the constellations are his playground, and the universes ar ehis parks and strolling paths. [paladin 3:12]
Can I see the point you are persuing? Sure. is the point valid? nope! Because God gave Jesus “a name above every name,” without exception. You are making an exception not referenced in scripture. Are you right? I guess we'll see at the judgment.
Paladin! This is not going to happen?
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.
There is anther punishment coming, and this time not only Israel will be involved, but the whole world will be. look around you, how evil has things gotten. It will be easier in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, then these days…..
IreneQuote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,17:30) Because God gave Jesus “a name above every name,” without exception.
Hi Paladin,You're coming along rather nicely. You see now that it IS “Jesus” who was given “a name above every name”. And I see that you are now using “every” name instead of “all your name”. Now if I could only get you to see that your “without exception” comment is equal to you saying that God gave Jesus a name above His very own Name…….I'd call it a hat-trick.
But we are making progress, and that's important, right?
Next on the agenda………….the point you've previously made to me, and made again to Irene last night:
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011 @ 09:00)
I think under examination, my friend, you will find it does not say “and the word became a man,” because it did not; instead, it becomes flesh again everytime someone yields his life to Christ so that it is no longer he that lives, but Christ lives in him.And I previously responded with:
Quote Paladin, does the word “flesh” relate to “human beings” during these other occasions of the Word becoming “flesh”? To which you said:
Quote According to Paul, yes. As each person submits his life to Jesus, so that “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me,” according to Paul, the logos becomes flesh, i.e., is personified in that saint. So let's finish this point, shall we?
First, I don't know of any scripture that says the logos became flesh except for John 1:14. Nor do I suppose you actually know of a scripture that states what you just claimed was “according to Paul”. Do you? Because “Christ lives in me” couldn't possibly say “the Word became flesh” UNLESS you agree that Jesus IS that Word. Do you believe this? Because even if you did believe this you would have to realize that, unlike John 1:14, which DOESN'T have the word “IN”, (contrary to Gene's version of the scripture), “Christ lives IN me” DOES have the word “IN”. So first, you would have to accept that the Word IS Jesus, and then you would have to accept the difference between the Word BECOMING flesh, and the Word “being personified” IN someone who is flesh.
You have also made a distinction between “flesh” and “man” in 1:14. Yet when asked if “flesh” referred to human beings in YOUR theory, you answered “According to Paul, yes.” So how come “flesh” CAN mean “man” in YOUR theory, but CAN'T mean “man” in 1:14?
That should be enough to get us started.
mike
Mike………..Jesus is not (the) Christ or Christos, He is the one who is Anointed with the CHRISTOS. The anointing is of GOD and that SAME anointing or CHRISTOS is in all who GOD has Anointed with it. It is the SAME CHRISTOS, or “Holy Spirit” Anointing That was (IN) Jesus and this Same CHRISTOS is (IN) all GOD has chosen to give it to. Your making the Anointed, the Anointing, a completely wrong understanding that scripture does not uphold. When it say it was Christ that was following the childern of Israel in the wilderness , that does not mean it was Jesus, It means it was the Anointing SPIRIT of GOD the Christos This Spirit was on Moses and the Elders in the wilderness it was this CHRISTOS or anointing that was following them in the wilderness Not JESUS Who is an anointed one. You making the anointing the anointed just like you make the Word the Person Jesus. IMO
peace and love…………………………….gene
Hi Gene,
I hear you, but disagree.
Matt 2
4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied………..Messiah means EXACTLY the same thing as Christ. Are you saying this “anointing Spirit” was born in Bethlehem, Gene?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,05:07) 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
I was brousing through a number of posts and that was impression I obtained from them but it clearly apears to be in error at this time.Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,16:20) 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.
Excellent Answer!Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,22:44) 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.
Paladin,Even if scripture did not exist anyone who knows God should know that Jesus has been subject to him from and including the time he was created in Mary's womb.
That is because the Spirit of God will give them that knowledge.
Irene,
Your wrote:
Quote Tell me kerwin, since you don;t believe i Corinth. 15:45 is talking about Jesus, then who is it in Rev. 19?
The passage you speak of from Revelations 19 is speaking of Jesus but I do not follow you one how it is linked to 1 Corinthians 15:45. Could you please explain that link. Thank you.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,10:16)
Besides, is Paladin now admitting that he DOESN'T know Greek? If he doesn't, then he shouldn't be trying to teach people here what the LXX of Psalm 138:2 says. Because he got it wrong, implying that the genitive “sou” applied to the NAME of God, instead of the WORD of God………..to which it DOES apply.Paladin is “admitting” no such thing brother . Paladin is demonstrating for all to see, that nowhere is the issue now, or ever, going to be Paladin's credentials.
The issues with me, are always going to be what does scripture say. Never will I get into a contest with another poster on any board, as to who has the most prestigious credentials, or who has more scholastic honors, or who has more preachers in their geneologicl background, nor any other of the many ways men have of comparing the glory they have received of men. Period! Not negotiable.
All this means, my friend, is that if you have an argument about my presentation in the
Greek, your burden will never be to see if you can find out my scholastic record, but will always be “that cannot be because,” followed by a reasonable argument as to why I am wrong from the Greek perspective.Quote And that kind of “I know Greek so let me teach you what it means” crap could possibly be misleading others here who don't want to take the time to look into it. And that is what I meant with the quotes……………not that he spoke those exact words. Well, my friend, it might help to quit using [“”]'s for emphasis, and save them for when you are quoting.
Quote You guys do realize that quotes are used for more than just highlighting the exact words of another, right? Nope! Though I also occasionalloy use [” “]'s for emphasis when I am on a new board and have no clue how to use their signs and signals tools; and they don't allow HTML.
Quote So since I didn't claim that Paladin actually SAID those words…………..get off my back, Jack! I will address this in a post to all, soon.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,10:22)
Paladin,Was your assumption of what I did a CORRECT assumption? YES or NO?
mike
Please explain how a question constitutes an “assumption.” I asked questions to allow you opportunity to clear up questions raised either by the actual wording of your post, that was open to interpretive possibilities, or by insinuation or innuendo, all of which can be cleared up by a simple, humble, Christian response.
You know what's wrong beteen us Mike? We are too much alike. Quick with the lip and easily distracted.
I am willing to see in you “the image of God;” not because I see God all the time, in you, but because I get occasional glimpses in some of what you post. Just as occasionally I am reminded by God's spirit, who I am supposed to be representing on the boards.
I do not intend to brag on your post when I agree with you, because it can be taken the wrong way, and I never do that with an adversary. Instead, I try to post to that image of God that I see lurking in the glimpses.
I just wish all on the board could understand that “image of God” thingie, and reciprocate. Is that too much to ask? I realize there may be some traces of old enmities lingering, but hasn't there been enough time on the board to realize to whom you are addressing your posts? All it takes is to send a carbon copy addressed to “Almighty Father” for each post you publish; you will be amazed at how quickly you can begin to truly represent that “Christ living in You” attitude Paul always talked about.
What say you good people? Brothers? Sisters? Brethren of our older brother Christ?
Quote (Baker @ April 09 2011,10:51) Paladin! This is not going to happen?
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.
There is anther punishment coming, and this time not only Israel will be involved, but the whole world will be. look around you, how evil has things gotten. It will be easier in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, then these days…..
Irene
Dear sister, it will be much easier for me to respond if there is a reference to what post you are quoting from. Othewise I have to spend too much time trying to find a three or four word quote out of many word on many posts.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,11:44) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,17:30) Because God gave Jesus “a name above every name,” without exception.
Hi Paladin,You're coming along rather nicely. You see now that it IS “Jesus” who was given “a name above every name”.
Nope! I do not “see now,” it has always been my claim that God gave Jesus a name above every name. [Phil 2:9] And I have quoted this many times in my posts on this thread.
Quote And I see that you are now using “every” name instead of “all your name”. now, my friend, you are mistaking my response to Psalm 138:2 with a far different response to Phil 2:9.
The use of “all you names” was not a quote from anything, other than an explanation of what a word mean you were talking aobut in our discussion of Psalm 138:2. You asked my in a closing question on a post, something about what the language of Psalm 138:2, as I expressed it, “even means.”
Often we both, you and I, will express what we understand the scripture to be saying, using [” “]'s when in fact we are not quoting the scripture but emphasising the explanaton.
Quote Now if I could only get you to see that your “without exception” comment is equal to you saying that God gave Jesus a name above His very own Name…….I'd call it a hat-trick. I don't have a clue what that sentence is saying.
I offered you an opportunity to express your understanding of what Psalm 138:2 was saying, listed some names of God and asked you to check the one that you “excepted” or something like that. You rejected “Jehovah” as the only exception. I could show you where any name excepted is equivalent to all names excepted, but I think our plate is full for now.
Quote But we are making progress, and that's important, right? I think so. Now if you will see that God gave Jesus a name above every name without “exception” we will have even more progress.
Quote Next on the agenda………….the point you've previously made to me, and made again to Irene last night: Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 29 2011 @ 09:00)
I think under examination, my friend, you will find it does not say “and the word became a man,” because it did not; instead, it becomes flesh again everytime someone yields his life to Christ so that it is no longer he that lives, but Christ lives in him.And I previously responded with:
Quote Paladin, does the word “flesh” relate to “human beings” during these other occasions of the Word becoming “flesh”? To which you said:
Quote According to Paul, yes. As each person submits his life to Jesus, so that “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me,” according to Paul, the logos becomes flesh, i.e., is personified in that saint. So let's finish this point, shall we?
Probably not for a while, as you do not see what Paul is saying. Even John in his epistles backs up what Paul is saying. The problem is a simple one; the chruch scholars have been arguing for two thousand years over how to outdo their brethren by finding new and unctious ways to speak of God and his son Jesus.
For example, the first three hundred nd fifty years (approximately) yielded a new formula for pontificating, that was adopted not only by the scholars and leaders, they acually excommunicated brethren over their failure to adhere to the new way of saying things, and tha new phrase that caused so much trouble, among several, was when they insisted Jesus was “very God of very God.”
I ask you Mike, is there a significant difference between “God” and “very God?” Yet people were cast out of the church for failure to “say it the way we say it,” until many of them learned the value of recanting their heresy, and saying it right.
Quote First, I don't know of any scripture that says the logos became flesh except for John 1:14. Nor do I suppose you actually know of a scripture that states what you just claimed was “according to Paul”. Do you? Don't fall into that trap my friend, of course I do, to both questions.
When John in his epistles [1st and 2nd John] speaks of “Jesus
Christ came in flesh,” he is not speaking of the birth of Jesus, he is speaking of “Christ living in me, in my flesh” spoken of by Paul – “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]There is no way you can find a place to separate Paul's life in the flesh, from Jesus Christ living in Paul.
Furthermore, John himself said “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God:”
John did not use the article, and neither should we if we are going to understand exactly what John is saying. He is not speaking of Jesus own body his flesh, for then he would have said “Jesus came in the flesh,” and everybody would be in agreement. But John did not say that , he said “Jesus Christ came in flesh,” which he did when he lived in Paul “in the flesh.”
And to show it is no mistake of language, John repeats in II John 7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
In neither verse does John use the aorist tense verbs, which would be necessary if he was speaking of the life of Jesus in his flesh; but John used a perfect active participle when he said – “… Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God:”
The significance of the “perfect active” is that Jesus has accomplished to the fullest, the fact of “com[“-ing”] in flesh” as he lives in the lives of the saints. It is not a reference to his having been born “in the fle
sh.”The present participle in II Jn 7, which if you know anything about Greek participles, they are “-ing” words, and being present tense, means that in 85 – 90 a.d., John is saying Jesus is still com[“-ing”] in flesh. check it out with any Greek scholar you wish, if he knows what he is doing, and is honest, he will lay aside all doctrinal bias and admit the truth of this.
Quote Because “Christ lives in me” couldn't possibly say “the Word became flesh” UNLESS you agree that Jesus IS that Word. Of course it can. And it works if you believe “Christ lives in me, and the life I now live in flesh, I live by the faith of the son of God”
Mike, the whole proccess of Christ living in me, and in you, and in Irene, and in Gene, and etc., that proccess has a name, and the name applied to that proccess is “The Logos Of God,” according to Paul [Col 1:25-27]
Paul said that he preached to the whole world, the “logos of God” and was appointed thereunto as a minister; that this “logos of God” was at one time, hidden in a mystery, but now is made known to the Gentiles, this “logos of God” which is “Christ in you.” “Christ” is not the logos of God, Mike, but the activity known as “Christ living in you.” So it is improper to say “christ is the logos” when the truth is “Christ living in you” is “the logos of God.”
Quote Do you believe this? Because even if you did believe this you would have to realize that, unlike John 1:14, which DOESN'T have the word “IN”, (contrary to Gene's version of the scripture), “Christ lives IN me” DOES have the word “IN”. So first, you would have to accept that the Word IS Jesus, and then you would have to accept the difference between the Word BECOMING flesh, and the Word “being personified” IN someone who is flesh. John 1:14 is reminding the readers in 96 a.d., of that which Paul has been preaching to the whole world, about “Christ living in me” being named “The Logos Of God” – and coincidentally, Jesus himself was also given the name “The Logos Of god” not because he was “the logos of God,” but because without him to live in our flesh, “the logos of God” would have been a failure as a concept.
Quote You have also made a distinction between “flesh” and “man” in 1:14. Yet when asked if “flesh” referred to human beings in YOUR theory, you answered “According to Paul, yes.” So how come “flesh” CAN mean “man” in YOUR theory, but CAN'T mean “man” in 1:14? If you think “Christ living in me” is my theory then please explain how I got Paul to tell the whole world about it using my words.
“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; 26 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,” [Col 1:25-27]
“… 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]
Quote That should be enough to get us started. I think that should fill our plate.
Quote (kerwin @ April 09 2011,15:51) Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,22:44) 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.
Paladin,Even if scripture did not exist anyone who knows God should know that Jesus has been subject to him from and including the time he was created in Mary's womb.
That is because the Spirit of God will give them that knowledge.
Precisely! Agreement abounds!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
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
Paladin! This is the post, that you responded that Jesus will not come to punish the nations, in Rev.19:15
I said that Jesus job was not done yet, and He had to come yet to do what Rev. 19;15 says…He will come back as The Word of God. To punish the nations…..
IreneQuote (Paladin @ April 09 2011,10:12) 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
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 firstborn of all creation. It is one and the same event.[/quote]
That is the same event, He is both the firstborn of all creation, and firstborn of the death. Since you also have Rev. 3:14 that says He is the beginning of the creation of God. So He may have preeminence….Irene
Quote (kerwin @ April 09 2011,15:55) Irene, Your wrote:
Quote Tell me kerwin, since you don;t believe i Corinth. 15:45 is talking about Jesus, then who is it in Rev. 19?
The passage you speak of from Revelations 19 is speaking of Jesus but I do not follow you one how it is linked to 1 Corinthians 15:45. Could you please explain that link. Thank you.
kerwin! I think what I was saying that 1 Corinth. 15:45 is not only talking about Adam, but the second Adam is made a quickened Spirit is revered to Jesus. I don't remember why I gave you Rev. 19…..
But I am glad you think that Rev. 19 is talking about Jesus. Now what I can't understand then that You don't believe John !;1-14 is talking about Jesus also!!!! It is the same Jesus!!!!!
Peace and Love Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
