- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ April 08 2011,22:51) 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.
Hi Kerwin,I agree that Jesus has always been subject to his God, from and including the time that he was begotten before the ages, for the ages were created through him.
mike
Quote (Baker @ April 09 2011,20:57) 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…..
IreneI can see why you don't understand what I post dear sister. You are not reading what I write.
This is my post you referenced as your source –
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. My response was dealing with your remark that “Jesus has a job to fulfill, to bring all things under subject.” I said that I Cor 15 reference is not Jesus, it is God putting all things under Jesus' feet.
My remark had nothing to do with your Revelation reference.
Quote (Paladin @ April 09 2011,20:26) 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 s
ignificance 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 flesh.”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.
Paladin………..Brother i follow everything you have said , but on point i may not be clear on. To me it is not Jesus the person that lives in us , but the Christos or Christ, I see the Christos as the common denominator in this equation , that Christos puts God in Jesus through the Christos, and it also aliens us with that Same GOD and Jesus, “That God may be all and in you all”. and where it say the life i now live i live by the faith of the son of GOD , to me Paul is describing a certain “TYPE” of Faith that was (IN) the Anointed Jesus and He is saying he has that same “TYPE” of Faith in Him also. Am i following this right Brother?peace and love to you and yours…………………………gene
Hi Everyone,
I would like to propose we make an agreement here in order to avoid mis-communications and mis-understandings. Firstly, we only use grammatical quotes (i.e. ” “) when actually quoting something. Whether that be scripture, one another, or some text-based source material. We have available for emphasizing; the bolden, the italicize, the underline. We can nest these text enhancing modifiers many ways.Examples:
1.)Quote Here is a quote from the bible. Quote 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2.) I would like to use a post of Paladin's to illustrate how he could use my proposed method.
He has:Quote 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. Using my proposed method subject to agreement. It would be presented something like so.
Quote
“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.”3.) And again.
Quote 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 flesh.”
Would be presented something like so.Quote
“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 flesh.”See? No messy quotation marks cluttering up text where they are not really needed. Still maintaining the spirit and nuance of the concepts being expressed! Voila!
I would like to confess that I have worked in the printing business. I would also like to confess that I am not always grammaticaly perfect in accordance with english grammer rules. Just the same, I truly think my proposal is reasonable. Even if no one agrees with my proposal; I will be moving forward with it in the spirit of honest and clear text-based communications.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ April 10 2011,02:15) Hi Everyone,
I would like to propose we make an agreement here in order to avoid mis-communications and mis-understandings. Firstly, we only use grammatical quotes (i.e. ” “) when actually quoting something. Whether that be scripture, one another, or some text-based source material. We have available for emphasizing; the bolden, the italicize, the underline. We can nest these text enhancing modifiers many ways.Examples:
1.)Quote Here is a quote from the bible. Quote 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2.) I would like to use a post of Paladin's to illustrate how he could use my proposed method.
He has:Quote 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. Using my proposed method subject to agreement. It would be presented something like so.
Quote
“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.”3.) And again.
Quote 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 flesh.”
Would be presented something like so.Quote
“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 flesh.”See? No messy quotation marks cluttering up text where they are not really needed. Still maintaining the spirit and nuance of the concepts being expressed! Voila!
I would like to confess that I have worked in the printing business. I would also like to confess that I am not always grammaticaly perfect in accordance with english grammer rules. Just the same, I truly think my proposal is reasonable. Even if no one agrees with my proposal; I will be moving forward with it in the spirit of honest and clear text-based communications.With Love and Respect,
Wispring
Very good, W, my friend.Now, if I can just remember all that.
Hi Paladin,
I have painstakenly gone back through this thread to show how this story of me “editing your pm”, or doing something else shady, progressed:
Quote (Paladin @ April 03 2011,19:28) Nope! You posted part of my e-mail to you as though it was all of it
See? No question there, but a FALSE accusation.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……….. 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.
Again, no question, but another accusation – this time flat out saying I LIED by saying I did NOT do what I said I did. Then you added a comment that makes me look like I'm trying to “cover up” something I did wrong.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,19:46) 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.
This was my second or third attempt of trying to tell you that you were mistaken, and that I did not do what you ACCUSED me of doing.Quote (Paladin @ April 05 2011,06:24) O.K. Mike, are you putting your reputation on the line with that explanation?
I took this as an insinuation that I was “lying” when I explained what happened, compounded with an insinuation that you were going to “show me the truth” about my “lie”.Quote (Paladin @ April 05 2011,07:29) 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.
We really should make peace on this Mike, but I will not succumb to intollerant pressure.
Do you see how this went down? All I did was follow the rules of the board and tell you the truth about what really happened. But you called me a “bad steward”, and implied I was either “forgetful” or “dodging the issue”. You claimed you would “accept an explanation”, but you hadn't done that the whole time I had already been explaining it to you. You suggested I “trapped myself”. In what, I wondered? A lie? And then you finished by implying that I was the one “pressuring” you, when YOUR misunderstanding was the reason this whole thing started.Quote (Paladin @ April 06 2011,06:26) 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.
Here you imply that not only YOU, but “everyone” knows I messed up. Then you say you accept my explanation, as long as it doesn't include you speaking falsely. Well, how noble of you. But it's not really practical to think that we were arguing from opposite sides of the fence but neither of us was speaking falsely. And I have PROVEN that I didn't speak falsely once on this whole issue………….so what does that imply? And although you said you “accepted” my explanation, you really didn't, because you later posted:Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,00:17) 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?With this –
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,03:07)
Hi Kar,Yes, it was okay'd by Paladin.
mike
And this is the first time you actually ASKED me about what happened, instead of TELLING all of us your false version of what happened, which is why I said:Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,16:23) Paladin, I'm glad you asked………….instead of accusing me of wrongdoing. I wish you had done that from the beginning of this mess.
To which you responded with:Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,17:20) 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?
Well, now you know the answer to this last question, don't you? You started off with an accusation, then refused my truthful answer, then FINALLY actually asked for an explanation – which is what you should have done from the beginning. Paladin, you wrung me and my good name on HN through the wringer on this one. The least you could do is admit that it was your misunderstanding that was at fault the whole time.Which catches us up with today:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,17:22) Paladin, Was your assumption of what I did a CORRECT assumption? YES or NO?
The answer should be, “No, Mike, and I apologize.” But instead, your answer is:Quote 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 see? I just can't win with you, can I? You will not admit fault, no matter how plainly I show you it WAS your misunderstanding at fault.And it seems you are about to do it again with the “quotation mark” issue. You are implying once again that I've done something shady by using quotes for separation:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,10:16) You guys do realize that quotes are used for more than just highlighting the exact words of another, right? Quote (Paladin @ April 09 2011,01:54) 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.
Now compare your answer above with this one below that you posted only a short time later:Quote (Paladin @ April 09 2011,03:26) 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.
Come on, “brother”. Why would you try to paint me out to be “shady” with one post, and then turn right around and acknowledge that we BOTH do the same thing with quotation marks?mike
Paladin,
I am still wrapping my mind around concepts such as perfect active and aorist. HTML is a method of presenting text. I am only proposing conventional usage.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Paladin @ April 09 2011,03:26) “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]
Hi Paladin,Let's add the last scripture of Gal 2 that you omitted:
Gal 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”Was this abstract “activity of Christ” brutally tortured, ridiculed, and KILLED? You can't claim Paul is speaking of “an activity” when he finishes his thoughts about Christ by saying he DIED. Nor can an “activity” be “born in Bethelehem”. Nor can an activity “BECOME flesh, dwell among us, and have a visible glory of an only begotten Son from the Father”.
You are out there, man. And you post too much “extras” that really have nothing to do with the topic. Keep it short and to the point and tell me how this “activity” died, according to Paul.
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 10 2011,02:00) Paladin….
Brother i follow everything you have said , but on point i may not be clear on. To me it is not Jesus the person that lives in us….“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free….” [Rom 8:2]
“…Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” [Rom 8:9]“For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,” [Php 1:19]
Jesus' spirit dwells in the saints as they yield their life to their Lord in following His example. I agree it is not the body of Jesus, for that is ascended to the right hand of God; but God has mad eit possible that Jesus' spirit can dwell in each saint that yields to Jesus' in faith in the new and living way.
Quote but the Christos or Christ, I see the Christos as the common denominator in this equation , that Christos puts God in Jesus through the Christos, and it also aliens us with that Same GOD and Jesus, “That God may be all and in you all”. and where it say the life i now live i live by the faith of the son of GOD , to me Paul is describing a certain “TYPE” of Faith that was (IN) the Anointed Jesus and He is saying he has that same “TYPE” of Faith in Him also. Am i following this right Brother? Mostly –
It helps if you remember, as Mike pointed out, Xristos is the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew Messiah. And both words simply mean The anointed of God.
Kings and prioests of the old testament were given the reference ho xristos in the same form of the same word as Jesus. He was not the first,nor the only ho xristos in scripture.
Quote peace and love to you and yours…………………………gene And grace and hope to you and yours my friend.
(And thanks to Wispering for the emphasis clue.)
Quote (Baker @ April 09 2011,07:47) 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
Bravo, Irene!Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 09 2011,09:00) Paladin………..Brother i follow everything you have said , but on point i may not be clear on. To me it is not Jesus the person that lives in us , but the Christos or Christ,
Yes Gene,It is confusing how Paladin calls Christ an “activity”, but then supports his theory using scriptures that say “JESUS Christ came in the flesh”. Apparently, this “activity” also has the personal name “JESUS”, huh?
Gene, reading Palain's posts are similar to reading the confusing way the early church fathers tried to explain how Jesus is the same God he is the Son of. They start by quoting scriptures, but then come to an assinine conclusion FROM those scriptures that can't even be supported by the scriptures they quoted.
It's like this:
“Scripture says the sky is blue. It also says the sky is big. Therefore, we've come to the understanding that the sky is red and small from these scriptures.”
Paladin does the same thing, and I'm glad you saw how he used the personal name of JESUS and applied it to this “activity” that is the Christ.
mike
Quote (Paladin @ April 09 2011,09:29) Quote (Wispring @ April 10 2011,02:15) Hi Everyone,
I would like to propose we make an agreement here in order to avoid mis-communications and mis-understandings. Firstly, we only use grammatical quotes (i.e. ” “) when actually quoting something. Whether that be scripture, one another, or some text-based source material. We have available for emphasizing; the bolden, the italicize, the underline. We can nest these text enhancing modifiers many ways.Examples:
1.)Quote Here is a quote from the bible. Quote 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2.) I would like to use a post of Paladin's to illustrate how he could use my proposed method.
He has:Quote 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. Using my proposed method subject to agreement. It would be presented something like so.
Quote
“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.”3.) And again.
Quote 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 flesh.”
Would be presented something like so.Quote
“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 flesh.”See? No messy quotation marks cluttering up text where they are not really needed. Still maintaining the spirit and nuance of the concepts being expressed! Voila!
I would like to confess that I have worked in the printing business. I would also like to confess that I am not always grammaticaly perfect in accordance with english grammer rules. Just the same, I truly think my proposal is reasonable. Even if no one agrees with my proposal; I will be moving forward with it in the spirit of honest and clear text-based communications.With Love and Respect,
Wispring
Very good, W, my friend.Now, if I can just remember all that.
I concur that it is a good idea. I also echo the sentiment that I might not be able to remember it all.Are you saying I should have written:
Paladin has come around with his I know Greek, so listen to me crap? Instead of quotes? I'll consider it. What if it messes up the times I normally use italics?
mike
Quote (Paladin @ April 09 2011,10:04) Mostly – It helps if you remember, as Mike pointed out, Xristos is the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew Messiah. And both words simply mean The anointed of God.
Kings and prioests of the old testament were given the reference ho xristos in the same form of the same word as Jesus. He was not the first,nor the only ho xristos in scripture.
Amen.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2011,02:35) Hi Paladin, I have painstakenly gone back through this thread to show how this story of me “editing your pm”, or doing something else shady, progressed:
Quote (Paladin @ April 03 2011,19:28) Nope! You posted part of my e-mail to you as though it was all of it
See? No question there, but a FALSE accusation.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……….. 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.
Again, no question, but another accusation – this time flat out saying I LIED by saying I did NOT do what I said I did. Then you added a comment that makes me look like I'm trying to “cover up” something I did wrong.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,19:46) 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.
This was my second or third attempt of trying to tell you that you were mistaken, and that I did not do what you ACCUSED me of doing.Quote (Paladin @ April 05 2011,06:24) O.K. Mike, are you putting your reputation on the line with that explanation?
I took this as an insinuation that I was “lying” when I explained what happened, compounded with an insinuation that you were going to “show me the truth” about my “lie”.Quote (Paladin @ April 05 2011,07:29) 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.
We really should make peace on this Mike, but I will not succumb to intollerant pressure.
Do you see how this went down? All I did was follow the rules of the board and tell you the truth about what really happened. But you called me a “bad steward”, and implied I was either “forgetful” or “dodging the issue”. You claimed you would “accept an explanation”, but you hadn't done that the whole time I had already been explaining it to you. You suggested I “trapped myself”. In what, I wondered? A lie? And then you finished by implying that I was the one “pressuring” you, when YOUR misunderstanding was the reason this whole thing started.Quote (Paladin @ April 06 2011,06:26) 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.
Here you imply that not only YOU, but “everyone” knows I messed up. Then you say you accept my explanation, as long as it doesn't include you speaking falsely. Well, how noble of you. But it's not really practical to think that we were arguing from opposite sides of the fence but neither of us was speaking falsely. And I have PROVEN that I didn't speak falsely once on this whole issue………….so what does that imply? And although you said you “accepted” my explanation, you really didn't, because you later posted:Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,00:17) 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?With this –
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,03:07)
Hi Kar,Yes, it was okay'd by Paladin.
mike
And this is the first time you actually ASKED me about what happened, instead of TELLING all of us your false version of what happened, which is why I said:Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,16:23) Paladin, I'm glad you asked………….instead of accusing me of wrongdoing. I wish you had done that from the beginning of this mess.
To which you responded with:Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,17:20) 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?
Well, now you know the answer to this last question, don't you? You started off with an accusation, then refused my truthful answer, then FINALLY actually asked for an explanation – which is what you should have done from the beginning. Paladin, you wrung me and my good name on HN through the wringer on this one. The least you could do is admit that it was your
misunderstanding that was at fault the whole time.Which catches us up with today:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,17:22) Paladin, Was your assumption of what I did a CORRECT assumption? YES or NO?
The answer should be, “No, Mike, and I apologize.” But instead, your answer is:Quote 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 see? I just can't win with you, can I? You will not admit fault, no matter how plainly I show you it WAS your misunderstanding at fault.And it seems you are about to do it again with the “quotation mark” issue. You are implying once again that I've done something shady by using quotes for separation:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,10:16) You guys do realize that quotes are used for more than just highlighting the exact words of another, right? Quote (Paladin @ April 09 2011,01:54) 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.
Now compare your answer above with this one below that you posted only a short time later:Quote (Paladin @ April 09 2011,03:26) 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.
Come on, “brother”. Why would you try to paint me out to be “shady” with one post, and then turn right around and acknowledge that we BOTH do the same thing with quotation marks?mike
Mike I apologize.Now, are we going to go back through the thread and count insults? Or are we going to come together as brethren and set an example that is correct?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2011,03:15) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 09 2011,09:00) Paladin………..Brother i follow everything you have said , but on point i may not be clear on. To me it is not Jesus the person that lives in us , but the Christos or Christ,
Yes Gene,It is confusing how Paladin calls Christ an “activity”, but then supports his theory using scriptures that say “JESUS Christ came in the flesh”. Apparently, this “activity” also has the personal name “JESUS”, huh?
Gene, reading Palain's posts are similar to reading the confusing way the early church fathers tried to explain how Jesus is the same God he is the Son of. They start by quoting scriptures, but then come to an assinine conclusion FROM those scriptures that can't even be supported by the scriptures they quoted.
It's like this:
“Scripture says the sky is blue. It also says the sky is big. Therefore, we've come to the understanding that the sky is red and small from these scriptures.” Paladin does the same thing, and I'm glad you saw how he used the personal name of JESUS and applied it to this “activity” that is the Christ.
mike
Mike………My post to Paladin was sincere and was not meant for you or anyone else to Use as a Personal put down by ridiculing him. He by far here is the most knowledgeable Person when it come to the Greek translation, I admit my lack of understanding the Greek language , so i tend to go more on summation of scriptures rather then focusing on a particular word or phrase that can be taken many way.Paladin is far better of bring out the tense and way the Greek infers then anyone i have seen here in nearly 6 years. o please try to keep your stupid sarcasms to yourself if you can. Putting people down to try to get you own way is hardly productive here. IMO
peace and love…………………………..gene
Irene,
I believe you wrote:
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
If I understand you correctly then you should realize Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation as that is also how he is the firstborn from among the dead. As the firstborn of the new creation God lives in him and he lives in us by the Spirit of Love which gives him preeminence.
You wrote:
Quote 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.
What Paul taught the people of Corinth in Corinth is a Jewish interpretation of Genesis 2:7 and the Church considered themselves as the true version of the Jewish religion at that time, Acts 24.
Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Acts 24(KJV)
5For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
….
14But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
16And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void to offence toward God, and toward men.You wrote:
Quote 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!!!!!
I am convinced that the can be more than one person or thing called The Word of God as after all my bible is The Word of God and yet it is not Jesus.
Quote (kerwin @ April 09 2011,15:31) I am convinced that the can be more than one person or thing called The Word of God as after all my bible is The Word of God and yet it is not Jesus.
And what is your reason for thinking the Word who became flesh, dwelled among us, and had the glory of an only begotten Son from the Father is not the same Jesus who is the only begotten Son of the Father and the Word of God in Revelation?Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 09 2011,12:14) Mike………My post to Paladin was sincere and was not meant for you or anyone else to Use as a Personal put down by ridiculing him
But it was you, Gene, who pointed out this particular error in his theory. I had noticed it among the other errors, but did not approach the subject in my last post. I chose not to bring this point up because for every word I type, Paladin seems to type 100. I must pick and choose my rebuttals from among the many points I could rebut, or else I end up coming back to a million word post. (This is not a slam against Paladin, btw. He is allowed to post with as many or few words as he likes. It is more a comment about the fact that I personally don't like dealing with long, drawn out posts. Too many points end up lost in the many words if the posts and rebuttals reach epic proportions.
)Anyway, YOU brought up this particular error, Gene. I only pointed out that his whole theory about Christ being “an activity” if full of similar errors.
mike
Hi:
Paladin stated and I agree that:
Quote Jesus is not the logos of God. “The logos of God” is not a person That is to say that the Logos of God is not a sentient person, but comes from Almighty God. Therefore, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
This defines God's plan to make man in His own image by His Word as man learns to put that Word into practice in His daily living, that is the man's spirit is formed through obedience to God's Word, and thus reflecting God's character.
The first man was made a living soul, like God in that he has a mind, a will and emotions.
The scriptures state that Jesus is the express image of God's person, but he was not that at his birth. He was born as an infant into this world, a man child, a living soul with a mind a will and emotions, and at the age of 12 we see him discussing the scriptures with the scribes, and the scriptures state that grew in wisdom, and stature and in favor with God and man, and at the age of 30, he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and we hear God saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”.
And the scriptures state, that though he were a Son of God, he humbled himself and became obedient even unto death on the cross, and the scriptures state that he was confirmed to be the Son of God through the spirit of holiness.
He is the last Adam, the culmination of God's plan for humanity. The scriptures state that God made all things by him and for him, and without him was nothing made that was made. He is the basis for the whole of creation, but he is not the creator.
The following scripture which sister Irene uses to promote the pre-existence of Jesus states:
Quote Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.This states that: “his name is called The Word of God”, and not that “he is called “The Word of God”. When the scripture states “his name is called”, it referring to his character and his authority as the head of the church, and the judge of the living and the dead. This what he has become through the perfect obedience to God's Word.
I also would like to point out the following scripture:
Quote 1 Corinthians 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Love in Christ,
Marty
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
