- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 02 2011,11:39)
Paladin! I was reading your post to Mike again. Are you by any chance going by the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner?
Never heard of him. I do not read what men ahve to say, other than the translation KJV. I am too old to try to remember if something I believe is from scripture or out of something I read about scripture. I try to keep it simple.
Quote did you misspell anthrwpos it is not in our Random House Dictionary. Sorry! should have made it clear, it is a transliteration of the Greek.
Quote I also question why you trying to understand what the mysteries of God is. Questioning about man or woman. I don't think that any man will ever understand the fullness of our Creator God. God made us in His image, it is not the flesh, it is our Spirit. Without it we could never communicate with God, through our Savior Jesus Christ. Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, the things prepared to them that love Him. I find it much more important to have a relationship with our God, then trying to figure out what God is. Many men have tried it in the past, and have not succeeded in doing so…. Not trying to figure out God. Trying to defend myself against trinity doctrine believers who are willing to kill their adversaries for not believing it. Trinitarians have been killing their adversairies for two thousand years.
Quote you say you use the KJV of the bible, and mine does say in Phil. 2;5 “the form of God.” I said I use the King James “Translation” – and my own research and study. I certainlyu do not trust my soul's salvation to a translator's judgment.
Quote Peace Irene And hope and grace
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,12:24) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 02 2011,11:32) Hi Paladin, Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 01 2011,02:14)
All men are elohim in flesh.[Psalm 8:4-6]
I don't agree with your understanding of this Psalm. First of all, the LXX has rendered “elohim” as “angels”, not “God” in this Psalm. The LXX, while not explicitly considered as “scripture inspired of God”, was nevertheless used by the early church fathers as the final say about scriptural discrepancies. And the LXX was quoted much more than the Hebrew text by Jesus, and the NT writers. Not to mention that the LXX is the reading quoted by the writer of Hebrews. And Hebrews, as far as I'm concerned, IS considered “scripture inspired of God”. And Hebrews 2:7 says “lower than angels”, not “lower than God”.peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike and Paladin,The “AKJV Bible” has Psalm 8:5 rendered as “Angels” too,
do either of you consider the “AKJV Bible” to be inspired?Christ(77) = Glory(77)
Psalm 8:4-6 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory(77) and honor.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
no! I consider the scriptures to be inspired. Translations are translations, not to be confused with scriptures. I certainly could not accept 130 translations, all saying something different, as all being inspired. but the sources, remaining the same, are inspired, which si why I turn to the sources when needed.Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,22:05) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,21:14) He introduced himself to Moses by saying –
EGW = Singular Personal Pronoun = “I”
EIMI = Singular Present Active Verb “AM”
HO = Singular Definite Article = “THE”
WN = Singular Present Active Participle = “BEING”
Hi Paladin,God's Signature
The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)You're right, you do need to study the Old “Testament”(117) more,
because what you say is no-where to be found there!
You are quoting from the Septuagint Bible!YHVH(63) = will be(63)
יד(14). וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ־לֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם:
Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be),”
and He said, “So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'”God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Jesus and the apostels quoted more from the Septuagint bible as “scripture” than they did the Hebrew, in proportion approximating 74/26%.Hi Paladin,
HA Ha ha ha ha …glad to see you have a sense of humor!
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:49) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:43) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:24) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,11:24) Hi Paladin, It doesn't matter what you 'think'! …What matters is what YHVH says!
(117)יהוה האלהים ↔ JEHOVAH Son(117)
You may be right. show me where you find “Jehovah son = 117” in scripture and you might have a convert.
Hi Paladin,Rev.21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I(YHVH=63) “will be”(63) his God,
and he shall be MY SON.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Mayhap I failed to make myself clear –Quote You may be right. show me where you find “Jehovah son = 117” in scripture and you might have a convert. Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:53) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:44) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:38) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:27) I am in a learning mode, always.
Hi Paladin,Always? …I question this?
o.k.What was the question?
Always in a learning mode?
Always in a learning mode!Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 03 2011,00:03) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:53) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:44) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:38) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:27) I am in a learning mode, always.
Hi Paladin,Always? …I question this?
o.k.What was the question?
Always in a learning mode?
Always in a learning mode!
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 03 2011,00:02) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:49) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:43) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:24) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,11:24) Hi Paladin, It doesn't matter what you 'think'! …What matters is what YHVH says!
(117)יהוה האלהים ↔ JEHOVAH Son(117)
You may be right. show me where you find “Jehovah son = 117” in scripture and you might have a convert.
Hi Paladin,Rev.21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I(YHVH=63) “will be”(63) his God,
and he shall be MY SON.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Mayhap I failed to make myself clear –Quote You may be right. show me where you find “Jehovah son = 117” in scripture and you might have a convert.
Hi Paladin,You found Rev.21:7 to be unsatisfactory?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:27) If it was good enough for Jesus, and he said “Doth not the scriptures say…” or “It is written in the law…” or some such, just before he quoted the Septuagint, it is good enough for me. And I consider it not only inspired of God, but even the new testament writer said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” [II Tim 3:16] So how can you pick and choose which scripture was inspired and which was not?
did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Paladin……..Also Paul said the Bereans were more noble then those in Thesolinicia because the searched the Scriptures to see if the things that were being said were true or not. Now when you consider that there were NO Bibles of the NEW Testament at the time he said that what Scriptures were they SEARCHING , it had to be the Old Testament scriptures they were searching. So those who say the old testament is irrelevant don't seem to understand it is that the New Testament cannot contradicts the Old Testament. And as you have said nearly all the quotations in the New Testament were from the Old Testament by Jesus and all the apostles also.peace and love to you and yours……………………………..gene
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 03 2011,00:12) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 03 2011,00:02) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:49) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:43) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,23:24) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 02 2011,11:24) Hi Paladin, It doesn't matter what you 'think'! …What matters is what YHVH says!
(117)יהוה האלהים ↔ JEHOVAH Son(117)
You may be right. show me where you find “Jehovah son = 117” in scripture and you might have a convert.
Hi Paladin,Rev.21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I(YHVH=63) “will be”(63) his God,
and he shall be MY SON.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Mayhap I failed to make myself clear –Quote You may be right. show me where you find “Jehovah son = 117” in scripture and you might have a convert.
Hi Paladin,You found Rev.21:7 to be unsatisfactory?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
no. I find it does not respond toQuote You may be right. show me where you find “Jehovah son = 117” in scripture and you might have a convert. Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 03 2011,01:02) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:27) If it was good enough for Jesus, and he said “Doth not the scriptures say…” or “It is written in the law…” or some such, just before he quoted the Septuagint, it is good enough for me. And I consider it not only inspired of God, but even the new testament writer said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” [II Tim 3:16] So how can you pick and choose which scripture was inspired and which was not?
did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Paladin……..Also Paul said the Bereans were more noble then those in Thesolinicia because the searched the Scriptures to see if the things that were being said were true or not. Now when you consider that there were NO Bibles of the NEW Testament at the time he said that what Scriptures were they SEARCHING , it had to be the Old Testament scriptures they were searching. So those who say the old testament is irrelevant don't seem to understand it is that the New Testament cannot contradicts the Old Testament. And as you have said nearly all the quotations in the New Testament were from the Old Testament by Jesus and all the apostles also.peace and love to you and yours……………………………..gene
Very astute observation, my friend.Also, Inspiration did not stop with the new testament.
The Holy Spirit inspires all who understand his instructions that comes with every new testament –
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the logos of truth.” [II Tim 2:15]
And in keeping with Paul's statement – “For we are not as many, which corrupt the logos of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” [II Cor 2:17]
Everyone who begins new testament study with John 1:1 to understand the logos of truth corrupts the logos of God. It is basically that simple.
And grace and hope to you and yours from me and mine
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,23:54) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 02 2011,11:39)
Paladin! I was reading your post to Mike again. Are you by any chance going by the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner?Never heard of him. I do not read what men ahve to say, other than the translation KJV. I am too old to try to remember if something I believe is from scripture or out of something I read about scripture. I try to keep it simple.
Quote did you misspell anthrwpos it is not in our Random House Dictionary. Sorry! should have made it clear, it is a transliteration of the Greek.
Quote I also question why you trying to understand what the mysteries of God is. Questioning about man or woman. I don't think that any man will ever understand the fullness of our Creator God. God made us in His image, it is not the flesh, it is our Spirit. Without it we could never communicate with God, through our Savior Jesus Christ. Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, the things prepared to them that love Him. I find it much more important to have a relationship with our God, then trying to figure out what God is. Many men have tried it in the past, and have not succeeded in doing so…. Not trying to figure out God. Trying to defend myself against trinity doctrine believers who are willing to kill their adversaries for not believing it. Trinitarians have been killing their adversairies for two thousand years.
Quote you say you use the KJV of the bible, and mine does say in Phil. 2;5 “the form of God.” I said I use the King James “Translation” – and my own research and study. I certainlyu do not trust my soul's salvation to a translator's judgment.
Quote Peace Irene And hope and grace
Paladin! First of all, we do not believe in a trinity. They believe Jesus always existed, while we believe He is the firstborn of all creation. Col.1:15 and Re. 3:14. you say you go by the KJV, so do we. That version says “in the Form of God.”Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
the reason I asked you about Rudolf Steiner is because he belonged to the Anthropological Society., in Austria Germany. He lived from 1861-1925. He left the Church as a 14 year old boy.
As far as being a woman, I am out numbered, and don't mind debating with men. I too am old. BTW we both came from Germany. I came with my Parents in 1955, and Georg came all by Himself in 1958. We met here……
Peace to you and yours IrenePS Is this the way you spell it Anthroposophy?
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 03 2011,02:24) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 02 2011,11:39)
Paladin! First of all, we do not believe in a trinity. They believe Jesus always existed, while we believe He is the firstborn of all creation. Col.1:15 and Re. 3:14.So do I, the difference being I believe it is a reference to the new creation, of which Jesus is first.
Quote you say you go by the KJV, so do we. That version says “in the Form of God.” Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
As I said, I go by the KJV AND my own research and notes.
Quote
PS Is this the way you spell it Anthroposophy?Reference previous post.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 03 2011,03:56) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 03 2011,02:24) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 02 2011,11:39)
Paladin! First of all, we do not believe in a trinity. They believe Jesus always existed, while we believe He is the firstborn of all creation. Col.1:15 and Re. 3:14.So do I, the difference being I believe it is a reference to the new creation, of which Jesus is first.
Quote you say you go by the KJV, so do we. That version says “in the Form of God.” Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
As I said, I go by the KJV AND my own research and notes.
Quote
PS Is this the way you spell it Anthroposophy?Reference previous post.
Paladin, I know what you said, but not that Phil. says :in the form of God” are you trying to ignore that?Also, is the new creation, after Jesus resurrection? I think that is what you mean, right???
However Rev. 3:14 says that He is the beginning of the creation of God. God created all through Jesus, and for Jesus.
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:
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.Now to the new creation in Jesus…..
That is inCol 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.
Col 1:19 ¶ For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, , whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.Peace irene
Hi Paladin,
I find you to be intelligent, passionate about scriptural knowledge, and down to earth. You are a welcome arrival to Heaven Net. I hope you stick around.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
The reason for translating elohim “angels” is because it is quoted that way in Hebrews 2:7,9.
Ah, but Heb 2:7 is a quote OF the LXX, not the other way around. And that translation is thought to have been produced by 70 Greek speaking Hebrews scholars who were experts in the Law and the Prophets. Plus, if the inspired writer of Hebrews understood it as “angels”, then that is good enough for me.Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
But when Hebrews speaks of Jesus as “God” trinitarians insist it means co-equal with Jehovah God;
Boy don't I know it! I've been fighting the good fight against that comically flawed, man-made doctrine for two years here. I've made quite a bit of headway too.Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
when it may be a translation of Adown, or Elohim, or El, all of which have also beenied to men at some point or another.
Well, not so much “adon”, because that one was used for men frequently. It was “adonay” that was said to ONLY be used of God Himself in the scriptures. But I've recently proved that one false. “Elohim” is simply the plural form of “el”. In Hebrew, they used what is commonly referred to as the “plural of majesty”, so the word “elohim” could refer to more than one el, or to one majestic el. And you are correct, the word was used in referrence to Moses, Deborah, other judges and prophets, angels, Satan, Jesus and God. The word “el” did not mean what the word “God” means to us today. We would never call Judge Judy “God Judy”. But the Hebrews DID use the word to refer to human judges.Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
If it was good enough for Jesus, and he said “Doth not the scriptures say…” or “It is written in the law…” or some such, just before he quoted the Septuagint, it is good enough for me. And I consider it not only inspired of God, but even the new testament writer said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
Good call. I was about to edit the way I worded that last night, but I noticed that Irene had already posted after me. The rules here say that you can't go back and change context after someone else has posted behind you.Of course all scripture is inspired of God, no matter which translation…………..IF THE TRANSLATORS STICK TO THE ORIGINAL MEANINGS. What I meant to imply was that the LXX didn't hold any kind of “inspired upper hand” over the original Hebrew texts. But I worded it really stupidly.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
Men are Elohim, but that doesn't make them equal with God. And it doesn't make Jesus equal with God when God calls him “Elohim,” either.
Only certain men were referred to as “elohim” in scripture……….NOT ALL MEN. But you are right that being called “elohim” or “theos” in no way implied any equality with Jehovah. And after months of brutal battles, I finally got our leading resident trinitarians here to admit that. Click Here and read the first post to see what I mean.Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
I would like very much to see what you have learned about Elohim. I am in a learning mode, always.To start an “elohim” discussion with me, Click Here. Read the third post from the top (my opening statement), and the green colored information in the 5th post from top. You can reply in that same thread, for the debate is long since over, and that will get us started.
I will get to the rest of you post soon.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Baker @ Mar. 03 2011,09:39) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 03 2011,03:56) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 03 2011,02:24) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 02 2011,11:39)
Paladin! First of all, we do not believe in a trinity. They believe Jesus always existed, while we believe He is the firstborn of all creation. Col.1:15 and Re. 3:14.So do I, the difference being I believe it is a reference to the new creation, of which Jesus is first.
Quote you say you go by the KJV, so do we. That version says “in the Form of God.” Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
As I said, I go by the KJV AND my own research and notes.
Quote
PS Is this the way you spell it Anthroposophy?Reference previous post.
Quote Paladin, I know what you said, but not that Phil. says :in the form of God” are you trying to ignore that? Nope! I already spent two dealing with it. You are mixing the Greek with the translation. The Greek (which is where the translation comes from) does not have the article. And in the Greek, that is significant. If I am in a fom of God, that does not mean I am God; but if I am in the form of God, that limits me to being the God of scripture. Jesus was in form of God; if you wnat to apply the indefinite article, to aid in reading, that would possibly be alright, I am not sure, but the definite article does not apply in this application.
Quote Also, is the new creation, after Jesus resurrection? I think that is what you mean, right??? Right! God said in Psalm 2:7 “This day have I begotten thee;” and Acts 13 ties that staterment to the day Jesus was raised from the dead.
“And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years. 22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: 24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. 27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. 28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” [Acts 13:21-33]This is the day Jesus became the son of God. When he was firstborn, and only born from the dead.
You must remember, when John wrote his gospel, and used present tense verbs to tell us Jesus is in the bosom of the Father, that was sixty years after the resurrection and ascension. So be careful with the verb tenses as you apply them to understanding.
Quote ver Rev. 3:14 says that He is the beginning of the creation of God. God created all through Jesus, and for Jesus. No it doesn't. It says he is “the beginning of the creation of God.” Please consider what you say in quoting, not to mix the quote with what you know about it.
You and I both know God created all through Jesus Christ, but not from Rev 3:14. And I know that he is speaking of the new creation, because I have already shown you that God alone, (without Jesus) created heaven and earth.
Quote
Now watch God establish who created heaven and earth:
O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, su theos monos [thou art the God, even thou alone], of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.” [Isa 37:16]su is singular “thou.”
theos is singular “God.”
Monos is singular “alone.”So God established person-singular-God-alone created heaven and earth. [God ouk monos {not alone} if with Jesus]
“For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: su ei o`theos monos [thou art God alone].” [Psa 86:10]
[“ouk monos” {not alone} if with Jesus]su = singular pronoun “thou”
ei = 2nd person singular form of verb “TO BE” = “art”
theos = singular noun “God”
monos = singular adjective = “alone”“su ei auto kurios monos [Thou, even thou, art LORD alone]; su [thou] hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” [Neh 9:6]
su = singular personal pronoun “thou”
ei = 2nd person singular form of verb “TO BE” = “art”
auto = singular personal pronoun = “even thou”
kurios = singular noun “Lord”
monos = singular adjective “alone.”
[“ouk monos” {not alone} if with Jesus]God established there is no other that is designated God, with [Deut 32:39];before [Isa 43:10], after [Isa 43:10], beside [isa 43:11; 45:6], or equal to Him [Isa 40:25; 46:5]
El Jehovah [Isa 42:5] prophesied through Isaiah [7:14
], that his sone would be born of a virgin; Then he said this – “For who in the heaven can be compared unto Jehovah [the LORD]? who among the sons of El [the mighty] can be likened unto the LORD?“Who among the sons of El can be compared to Jehovah?” Jesus is the son of el Jehovah, and El Jehovah said no son is equal with him.
And there is plenty of testimony in the new testament that shows Jesus is a man who knows he is not God equal with God. “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” [John 7:17]; ” But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God” [John 8:40]; and many many more.
That leaves the new creation for Jesus to be involved in.
Remember, Acts 2:22 tells us Jesus was “a man approved of God…” not a God approved of men.
Quote 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:
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.Why are we going back over material already covered on page one of the thread, post #5; and ignored?
Quote
Now to the new creation in Jesus…..That is in 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.
Col 1:19 ¶ For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, , whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Until you grasp the truth of page one post five, there is no point in going over further material. You really should consider aknowledging truth when it becomes truth to you, before moving on to other points of disagreement. This is not a criticism, it is simply an effort to make it easier for me to resolve issues one time instead of repeatedly.
Quote Peace irene And grace and hope
(P)
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
The reason for translating elohim “angels” is because it is quoted that way in Hebrews 2:7,9.(M)
Quote Ah, but Heb 2:7 is a quote OF the LXX, not the other way around. That's what I said. It's quoted that way in Hebrews. I didn't say it's quoted that way from Hebrews.
(M)
Quote And that translation is thought to have been produced by 70 Greek speaking Hebrews scholars who were experts in the Law and the Prophets. Plus, if the inspired writer of Hebrews understood it as “angels”, then that is good enough for me. 72 scholars (two from each tribe) and rounded off as was common practice in writing, unless taking a census of people or animals.
(P)
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
But when Hebrews speaks of Jesus as “God” trinitarians insist it means co-equal with Jehovah God;(M)Boy don't I know it! I've been fighting the good fight against that comically flawed, man-made doctrine for two years here. I've made quite a bit of headway too.
It is all defined by understanding the difference in meaning found in studying the names of God as He applies them to defining himself. Why, for example, does Jehovah make a point of telling us “My name was known to the fathers as El Shaddai, but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them?”
[Exo 6:3](P)
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
when it may be a translation of Adown, or Elohim, or El, all of which have also been applied to men at some point or another.(M) Well, not so much “adon”, because that one was used for men frequently. It was “adonay” that was said to ONLY be used of God Himself in the scriptures. But I've recently proved that one false. “Elohim” is simply the plural form of “el”.
May I correct you? The plural form of El is El'm [Exo 15:11]; Elohim is the plural form of Eloahh. Eloahh is the singular form of Elohim. You may need to access the Hebrew script, as Strong may not differentiate this “El'm” business.
(M)
Quote In Hebrew, they used what is commonly referred to as the “plural of majesty”, so the word “elohim” could refer to more than one el, or to one majestic el. The significance of the Hebrew plural noun is lost on the trinitarian doctrinaires, because they apply it as though it has individual significance; i.e., a plural noun has a plural application. Not so. For a Hebrew plural noun to have a plural application, a plural verb is required.
…………………….Elohim………created
“In the beginning [plural noun][singular verb] heaven and earth.” [Gen 1:1]……….Elohim………said
“And [plural noun][singular verb]Let there be light.” [Gen 1:3If you compare the Hebrew account with the Greek account, this application of plural/singular is verified. To reference a plurality of God, requires a plural noun effected by a plural verb, and is verified in the Greek. Where the Greek has a singular noun and the Hebrew has a plural noun, the Greek verb will be singular as will the Hebrew verb. Where the Greek noun has a plural, it will also have a plural verb, as also the Hebrew.
(M)
Quote …the word was used in referrence to Moses, Deborah, other judges and prophets, angels, Satan, Jesus and God. The word “el” did not mean what the word “God” means to us today. We would never call Judge Judy “God Judy”. But the Hebrews DID use the word to refer to human judges. Well said
(P)
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
If it was good enough for Jesus, and he said “Doth not the scriptures say…” or “It is written in the law…” or some such, just before he quoted the Septuagint, it is good enough for me. And I consider it not only inspired of God, but even the new testament writer said “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,(M) Good call. I was about to edit the way I worded that last night, but I noticed that Irene had already posted after me. The rules here say that you can't go back and change context after someone else has posted behind you.
And how do you edit on this board? I see no “edit” button to push. sometimes I need it desparately.
(M)
Quote Of course all scripture is inspired of God, no matter which translation…………..IF THE TRANSLATORS STICK TO THE ORIGINAL MEANINGS. What I meant to imply was that the LXX didn't hold any kind of “inspired upper hand” over the original Hebrew texts. But I worded it really stupidly. I wouldn't have applied that word to it. “Hindsight” probably applies.
The LXX has been libled “a bad translation of the Hebrew” for well over two thousand years. It does not apply. The Septuagint was not only planned by God [Isa 28:11-13], it had a reason for being – The Hebrew scriptures led the Hebrews to Christ [Gal 3:24] but the Greek scriptures allowed the Gentile converts to beat the Jews in every debate they had with them for well over a hundred years, till the Jews caught on and began to try to make the Greek agree with the Hebrew through what they called “Recisions.” The Septuagint was a separate revelation from God, given into the hands of the Jews for safekeeping till the Gentiles began to convert to the kingdom of God in Christ.
Now, look at how it is referenced pertaining to the “direct revelations” given to the Jews, and held in abbeyance for the Gentiles;
“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” [Rom 3:1-2]This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:” [Acts 7:38]
“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have
need of milk, and not of strong meat.” [Heb 5:12]“If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
(P)
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
Men are Elohim, but that doesn't make them equal with God. And it doesn't make Jesus equal with God when God calls him “Elohim,” either.(M) Only certain men were referred to as “elohim” in scripture……….NOT ALL MEN. But you are right that being called “elohim” or “theos” in no way implied any equality with Jehovah. And after months of brutal battles, I finally got our leading resident trinitarians here to admit that.
Click Here and read the first post to see what I mean.I look forward to examining the links you have provided.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 02 2011,06:27)
I would like very much to see what you have learned about Elohim. I am in a learning mode, always.To start an “elohim” discussion with me, Click Here. Read the third post from the top (my opening statement), and the green colored information in the 5th post from top. You can reply in that same thread, for the debate is long since over, and that will get us started.
I will get to the rest of you post soon.
peace and love,
mikeand grace and hope to you and yours from me and mine.
Paladin………..Have you thought of this, If (ONE)GOD were a composite of SEVEN SPIRITS As revelations seems to indicate would that not meet the singular,plural concept of GOD also. Also we have Scripture where Jesus said in Prayer “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD.”
I did a word study once on the word GOD and a Hebrew Scholar named Jeff Beanner in his research said the ancient Pictorial language of the ancient Hebrews showed the word for God as a Head of a OX with a Staff beside it. The OX represent (POWERS) and the Staff was something they lend on for support. So the word seem to imply Power to force or forge and while men can posses some of that power it is God the Father alone who posses it all. The ALL MIGHTY GOD or POWER.
Would like to know you thoughts on this brother.
peace and lvoe to you and yours………………………………………..gene
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 03 2011,19:52) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 03 2011,09:39) [/quote] Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 03 2011,03:56) Baker,Mar. wrote:Quote (Baker @ Mar. 02 2011,11:39)
Paladin! First of all, we do not believe in a trinity. They believe Jesus always existed, while we believe He is the firstborn of all creation. Col.1:15 and Re. 3:14.So do I, the difference being I believe it is a reference to the new creation, of which Jesus is first.
Quote you say you go by the KJV, so do we. That version says “in the Form of God.” Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
As I said, I go by the KJV AND my own research and notes.
Quote
PS Is this the way you spell it Anthroposophy?Reference previous post.
Quote Paladin, I know what you said, but not that Phil. says :in the form of God” are you trying to ignore that? Nope! I already spent two dealing with it. You are mixing the Greek with the translation. The Greek (which is where the translation comes from) does not have the article. And in the Greek, that is significant. If I am in a fom of God, that does not mean I am God; but if I am in the form of God, that limits me to being the God of scripture. Jesus was in form of God; if you wnat to apply the indefinite article, to aid in reading, that would possibly be alright, I am not sure, but the definite article does not apply in this application.
Quote Also, is the new creation, after Jesus resurrection? I think that is what you mean, right??? Right! God said in Psalm 2:7 “This day have I begotten thee;” and Acts 13 ties that staterment to the day Jesus was raised from the dead.
“And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years. 22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: 24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. 27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. 28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” [Acts 13:21-33]This is the day Jesus became the son of God. When he was firstborn, and only born from the dead.
You must remember, when John wrote his gospel, and used present tense verbs to tell us Jesus is in the bosom of the Father, that was sixty years after the resurrection and ascension. So be careful with the verb tenses as you apply them to understanding.
Quote ver Rev. 3:14 says that He is the beginning of the creation of God. God created all through Jesus, and for Jesus. No it doesn't. It says he is “the beginning of the creation of God.” Please consider what you say in quoting, not to mix the quote with what you know about it.
You and I both know God created all through Jesus Christ, but not from Rev 3:14. And I know that he is speaking of the new creation, because I have already shown you that God alone, (without Jesus) created heaven and earth.
Quote
Now watch God establish who created heaven and earth:
O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, su theos monos [thou art the God, even thou alone], of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.” [Isa 37:16]su is singular “thou.”
theos is singular “God.”
Monos is singular “alone.”So God established person-singular-God-alone created heaven and earth. [God ouk monos {not alone} if with Jesus]
“For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: su ei o`theos monos [thou art God alone].” [Psa 86:10]
[“ouk monos” {not alone} if with Jesus]su = singular pronoun “thou”
ei = 2nd person singular form of verb “TO BE” = “art”
theos = singular noun “God”
monos = singular adjective = “alone”“su ei auto kurios monos [Thou, even thou, art LORD alone]; su [thou] hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” [Neh 9:6]
su = singular personal pronoun “thou”
ei = 2nd person singular form of verb “TO BE” = “art”
auto = singular personal pronoun = “even thou”
kurios = singular noun “Lord”
monos = singular adjective “alone.”
[“ouk monos” {not alone} if with Jesus]God established there is no other that is designated God, with [Deut 32:39];before [Isa 43:10], after [Isa 43:10], beside [isa 43:11; 45:6], or equal to Him [Isa 40:25; 46:5]
El Jehovah [Isa 42:5] prophesied through Isaiah [
7:14], that his sone would be born of a virgin; Then he said this – “For who in the heaven can be compared unto Jehovah [the LORD]? who among the sons of El [the mighty] can be likened unto the LORD?“Who among the sons of El can be compared to Jehovah?” Jesus is the son of el Jehovah, and El Jehovah said no son is equal with him.
And there is plenty of testimony in the new testament that shows Jesus is a man who knows he is not God equal with God. “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” [John 7:17]; ” But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God” [John 8:40]; and many many more.
That leaves the new creation for Jesus to be involved in.
Remember, Acts 2:22 tells us Jesus was “a man approved of God…” not a God approved of men.
Quote 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:
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.Why are we going back over material already covered on page one of the thread, post #5; and ignored?
Quote
Now to the new creation in Jesus…..That is in 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.
Col 1:19 ¶ For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, , whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Until you grasp the truth of page one post five, there is no point in going over further material. You really should consider aknowledging truth when it becomes truth to you, before moving on to other points of disagreement. This is not a criticism, it is simply an effort to make it easier for me to resolve issues one time instead of repeatedly.
Quote Peace irene And grace and hope
Paladin! I know that you went through Phil 2, however we never settled anything.
I gone to both the NET and the Blue Letter Bibles. Both have the Greek or any kind of Translation you want. What I found about the Form of God is different in NET and Blue letter.
The whole translation of “Form of God is? en morph e fe-lo-theos.
Since it is in there I believe the KJV. Are you still going to deny this or ignore this.
We should never interpret Scripture to our view, rather the way the Scripture is written.
I would not say any of this again, if you my friend would have acknowledged it.
In our Rye Study bible of KJ in the footnotes it says
verse 5 the form of God, Christ is the same nature and essence as God, did not think to be to His own advantage. But emptied Himself etc. I read what you said to Mike. All this goes along with all other Scriptures….
Peace Irene
PS really for the last time….Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 03 2011,04:12)
May I correct you? The plural form of El is El'm [Exo 15:11]; Elohim is the plural form of Eloahh. Eloahh is the singular form of Elohim. You may need to access the Hebrew script, as Strong may not differentiate this “El'm” business.
Absolutely………..if you have facts to back up what you say! I checked, you are correct. Although my source lists “elim” as plural for “el”. And I've known that the “im” is used to determine a word as plural in Hebrew. Yet you posted “El'm”. Are both correct?And since you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, what's the deal with “adon”? I know that “adonim” exists, but is “adonay” also a plural form of “adon”?
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 03 2011,04:12)
And how do you edit on this board? I see no “edit” button to push. sometimes I need it desparately.
You must request those rights from t8. Click Here and make a request. In the mean time, make use of your “Preview Post” button. Proof read BEFORE you post.More later. Thanks for the info.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
