- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,01:27) Mike; Do you believe as I do, that Jesus was so different from us in many ways pertaining to sin and human nature, that there is no way we can ever be exactly like he was?
Hi Paladin,I am certain that you and I believe alike on many scriptural issues and could be great comrades crusading against the Trinity Doctrine, for one.
It is truly a shame that we have met discussing a point of scripture over which we disagree most vehemently.
I will have to soak the “a sinner” versus “the sinner” in and think about it.
peace to you,
mikeQuote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,02:26)
He didn't. You are confusing John's narative with the chronology of facts.
I believe it is you who is either confused or trying TO confuse. John 3:18 was put in written word by John some time after the conversation took place………….this much is true. But you forget that John recorded a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus that happened in “real time”. It is not a matter of John looking back and telling about the NOW only begotten Son of God. It's a case of Jesus referring to himself as the ALREADY only begotten Son of God to Nicodemus in “real time”. And Jesus, AT THIS TIME – BEFORE HE EVER DIED, said that some had ALREADY been condemned because they had ALREADY not believed (past tense) in the name of God's only begotten Son.So it was the words of Jesus himself way before he was raised that referred to himself as the (already) only begotten Son of God. John was merely remembering the exact conversation years later and putting it down on paper.
Nor was it John who said the words of 3:16, but Jesus who said also those words to Nicodemus in “real time”. So again, way before Jesus was raised from the dead, he told Nicodemus that God had already given His only begotten Son.
Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,02:26)
Nope! God promised “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee,
And so your contention is that Jesus BECAME this “prophet” when he was raised to heaven after he died? Because that's what you're trying to say, right?So I ask again: What promise did God fulfill by raising Jesus from the dead? I told you to look further back in the passage you quoted for the answer. Here's what I was referring to:
Acts 13:23
From this man’s descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised.
Do you see the answer to the question? Do you understand that Jesus became our Savior by being raised from the dead………..leading the way for us. He did not become God's only begotten Son by being raised from the dead, nor did he become the foretold prophet by being raised from the dead.Paul throws in Psalm 2:7 anytime he can for one reason:
Acts 9:20
At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
See Paladin, not too many people knew this fact back then – like we all know it today. And if you were Paul and wanted to get people to believe that Jesus was truly the Son of the Living God, what OT scriptures would you have to choose from? What Paul was doing was showing that the begotten Son God spoke of in Psalm 2:7 was really this Jesus Christ whom they had crucified.I will grant you that the wording of it could lead many to mistakenly believe that being raised was the act of being “begotten”. But Paul specifically links the raising of Jesus to a promise that God had fulfilled. And he tells what that promise was in verse 23. And we know that God never promised to one day beget a son. And we also know that Jesus referred to himself as “the only begotten Son of God” way before he died and was raised.
Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,02:26)
Do you begin to comprehend why you need a good working knowledge of the old testament and the prophecies to understand the new testament, Mike?
I do alright, thanks.Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,02:26)
Did you know God used 783,137 words to teach us what it is all about, and you object to just a few hundred?
I wouldn't object to a billion words if those words were the words of God. (Just so you know, there is no hidden, secret meaning in my choice of the word “words”.
) But you are not God, are you? And my personal thoughts are that you are much like Worshipping Jesus. He was the master of the “million word post” before you came along. He figures if can flood the post with so many scriptures and thoughts, no one will even notice that not one of the scriptures he listed says “Jesus is God Almighty”. But to refute all of them would be a monumental undertaking, so I have learned how to deal with people like that from working with him for over two years. I have slowly trained myself to not be diverted from the point in question. I'm getting better at it slowly but surely. See how I answered all of your “prophet” scriptures with one swift point that Jesus didn't BECOME a prophet after he died? This way I didn't have to take every scripture apart and debate it with you. Keith is the one who accidentally taught me how to do that. Paladin, I figure that you are a lot like him. I figure that when you can't actually answer someone's very direct questions, you instead flood the post with so many scriptures and thoughts, (most of which don't even address the point one way or the other), that your opponent becomes overwhelmed by sheer volume, and the point gets lost in the chaos.
Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,02:26)
As for responding to your latest version of “back to the question,” not interested. I respond to it when you thought you had a proof-text in John 6:62, when you applied “blepo” to John's question, and I gave you what you asked for, a respond to what John said, only it was not “bleop” oriented.
I've directly asked you five questions. (Six, if you count the “ages” question of Heb 1:2) And your response is “The word isn't 'blepo', so there”?Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,02:26)
Now, you don';t like that answer, and are fishing for a way to trap me in your word, not in scripture's words.
Now how could I possibly “TRAP YOU” in any word at all if what you say is always backed by scripture itself?
Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,02:26)
John 6:62 is not a proof-text to your position, it is a proof-text to mine. I am satisfied to leave it at that, without continually trying to rectify a previous effort.
Translation: “Mike, I can't actually ANSWER your questions truthfully and still claim that Jesus was speaking of ascending from Hades to the earth, for no one would ever buy it. So I instead will just IGNORE your questions altogether, but still claim that I was right.”That's too much, man!
Paladin, suit yourself. Just know that I will always be able to answer anyone's direct questions. Because the things I claim were learned FROM the scriptures, and are therefore easily backed up BY the scriptures. You have brought up Eph 4:9 to support your theory, even though Jesus didn't mention three days in the grave in John 6. But you failed to quote 4:10: He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)
Where again did he “ascend” to? It's really a bummer when I have ammo I don't even get to use because you can't answer the first 5 questions, let alone the 100 follow up ones.
peace,
mikeQuote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,09:19) Amazing what power doctrine holds over scripture.
It sure does. Just check out the power your doctrine holds over you:Jesus – I came down from heaven.
Paladin – Jesus did NOT come down from heaven.
Paul – The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
Paladin – The Son is NOT the firstborn of every creature. All things were NOT created through him.
Yep. That's some power, eh?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2011,20:51) Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,01:27) Mike; Do you believe as I do, that Jesus was so different from us in many ways pertaining to sin and human nature, that there is no way we can ever be exactly like he was?
Hi Paladin,I am certain that you and I believe alike on many scriptural issues and could be great comrades crusading against the Trinity Doctrine, for one.
It is truly a shame that we have met discussing a point of scripture over which we disagree most vehemently.
I will have to soak the “a sinner” versus “the sinner” in and think about it.
peace to you,
mike
Mikewould it not be that ;a sinner ' means just being part of a sinner group ?
and the “the sinner ” being the one that sins
but would it not be counter productive in the spirit of Christ to belong to either since we stop to sin or should be then either verb as no bearing, no ?
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2011,13:51) Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,01:27) Mike; Do you believe as I do, that Jesus was so different from us in many ways pertaining to sin and human nature, that there is no way we can ever be exactly like he was?
Hi Paladin,I am certain that you and I believe alike on many scriptural issues and could be great comrades crusading against the Trinity Doctrine, for one.
It is truly a shame that we have met discussing a point of scripture over which we disagree most vehemently.
I will have to soak the “a sinner” versus “the sinner” in and think about it.
peace to you,
mike
It is like I told you in a much earlier post, I have too much regard for your ability and knowledge to insult you Mike. I really do appreciate your efforts, but I would much rather increase my own to where I could know how to make you understand the importance of beginning with the old testament, then in the new testament, starting at the correct book, leaving John's gospel till last, for your understanding of “the Logos Of God” as defined by Paul the Apostle.That is the major difference between us Mike, or I would be your best friend.
Quote (terraricca @ April 26 2011,22:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2011,20:51) Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,01:27) Mike; Do you believe as I do, that Jesus was so different from us in many ways pertaining to sin and human nature, that there is no way we can ever be exactly like he was?
Hi Paladin,I am certain that you and I believe alike on many scriptural issues and could be great comrades crusading against the Trinity Doctrine, for one.
It is truly a shame that we have met discussing a point of scripture over which we disagree most vehemently.
I will have to soak the “a sinner” versus “the sinner” in and think about it.
peace to you,
mike
Mikewould it not be that ;a sinner ' means just being part of a sinner group ?
and the “the sinner ” being the one that sins
but would it not be counter productive in the spirit of Christ to belong to either since we stop to sin or should be then either verb as no bearing, no ?
Pierre
Hi Pierre,Don't you think that's just a bit harsh? You and I don't see eye to eye on every scriptural matter, but you are my brother and I love you.
I have agreed to disagree with you about the nature of the body Christ was raised from the dead in, but we still kick some butt together on other issues, right?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2011,14:59) Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,02:26)
He didn't. You are confusing John's narative with the chronology of facts.I believe it is you who is either confused or trying TO confuse. John 3:18 was put in written word by John some time after the conversation took place………….this much is true. But you forget that John recorded a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus that happened in “real time”.
[/quote]No my friend, John's narative takes over at verse 13, beginning with his narative about Nehushtan.
As for your continual accusation about “it is you who are trying to confuse…” that is not appropriate language to use in a disagreement here Mike. While i completely disagree with your position, in no way do i believe you are trying to confuse anybody. I do believe some may become confused by your post, but the same can be said for mine, or anyone else's. But to accuse a post's author of “trying to confuse” really should not appear in the pages of discourse between us. I do not believe it of you and I do not do it.
Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,23:13) I do not believe it of you and I do not do it.
Fair enough. Point taken.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2011,15:12) Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,09:19) Amazing what power doctrine holds over scripture.
It sure does. Just check out the power your doctrine holds over you:Jesus – I came down from heaven.
Paladin – Jesus did NOT come down from heaven.
Paul – The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
Paladin – The Son is NOT the firstborn of every creature. All things were NOT created through him.
Yep. That's some power, eh?
mike
You haad best be very careful when you start putting words into the mouth of another poster. I did not say the things you have placed after my name.Hi Paladin,
Quote If I aknowledge I am a sinner, what have I said? Only that I am just like everyone else. But if, when in prayer, I acknowledge that between God and I, He is my God, and I am the sinner. I think the article makes a vast difference in this case.
Here is how using the article “the” is vastly different in my view. Using it means taking individual personal responsibility for my sins and asking for forgiveness and guidance from God to sin no more. It puts the focus on my own sins and seeks no excuse for being like everyone else in any respect.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,12:31) Quote (Paladin @ April 24 2011,15:47)
He was not an angel:Sure he was. “Aggelos” simply means “messenger”, and Jesus, Gabriel and John the Baptist were all “aggelos” of their God.
No, he wasn't. No scripture ever applies “aggelos” to Jesus. I think you are thinking of Hebrews 3:1 where Jesus is called the “Apostle and high priest” of our profession.”
Bbut Jesus was “made a little lower than the angels” [Psa 8:5][Heb 2:9]
Quote (Wispring @ April 27 2011,16:56) Hi Paladin, Quote If I aknowledge I am a sinner, what have I said? Only that I am just like everyone else. But if, when in prayer, I acknowledge that between God and I, He is my God, and I am the sinner. I think the article makes a vast difference in this case.
Here is how using the article “the” is vastly different in my view. Using it means taking individual personal responsibility for my sins and asking for forgiveness and guidance from God to sin no more. It puts the focus on my own sins and seeks no excuse for being like everyone else in any respect.With Love and Respect,
Wispring
Exactly!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,13:48) Hi Marty, I don't personally believe 3:15 to be a messianic prophecy, but I get your point. And I understand what you claim with 1 Peter 1, but tell me this: Does Jesus being manifest to us in these last days mean that he couldn't have already existed with glory alongside God before the creation of the world?
Hi Mike; It is not “manifest to us in these last days” that precludes a pre-existent Jesus; it is “that which is gennao in her is of the Holy Spirit” [Mat 1:20] in conjunction with That which is gennao of the Spirit is spirit, [John 3:6]
This tells us Jesus' Spirit was gennao of the Holy spirit in Mary's womb, and his flesh was “genomenon of a woman [Gal 4:4] These passages determine for all time, the beginning of Jesus insofar as his spirit and his flesh are concerned.
Quote (942767 @ April 24 2011,20:07)
This is what the scripture states:1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Quote No, actually…………THIS is what the scripture states:
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all people.It is saying that the one who NOW mediates between us and God WAS once the man who gave himself as a ransom for all people.
That is not scripture Mike, that is pure doctrinal biased rending of scripture to promote a point of view. “Man” is a noun; “mankind” is an adjective.
1 Timothy 2:5 says “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
and the Greek uses anthrwpwn and anthrwpos Xristos Ieesous
anthrwpwn is the genitive masculine plural form of anthrwpos;
anthrwpos is the nominative masculine singular form of anthrwpos; both anthrwpos and anthrwpwn are masculine nouns.
The word “mankind,” a masculine adjective, is found several places in the new testament, and comes from the Greek word
anthrwpinosActs 17:25 “Neither is worshipped with [men's] hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;” [anthrwpinwn = the genitive feminine plural form of anthrwpinos]
Rom 6:19 “I speak after the manner of [men] because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” [anthrwpinon = adverb form of anthrwpinos]
1 Cor 2:13 “Which things also we speak, not in the words which [man's] wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
[anthrwpinees = genitive feminine singular adjective]1 Cor 4:3 “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of [man's] judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.”[anthrwpinees = genitive feminine singular adjective]
1 Cor 10:13 “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to [man]: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” [anthrwpinos = nominative masculine singular form of anthrwpinos]
James 3:7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of [mankind]: {mankind: Gr. (Adjective) nature of man}
[anthrwpinee = dative feminine singular form of anthrwpinos]
1 Pet 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of [man] for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
[anthrwpinee = dative feminine singular form of anthrwpinos]
This is the grammatic application of the Greek. Your application is the doctrinal application of the doctrine.
Paladin! There are three Scriptures talking about the Mediator, you mentioned 1 Tim. 2:5
Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Jesus gave us a new covenant under His blood, and is He not the Mediator so we can go to the Throne of God to ask for the forgiveness of sin?
Hbr 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.
In the old covenant animals (Lamb) was used, for atonement for sins, now we are under Jesus Blood and no other Scarifies is needed….
Peace IreneQuote (Baker @ April 27 2011,23:48) [/quote]
Paladin! There are three Scriptures talking about the Mediator, you mentioned 1 Tim. 2:5Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Jesus gave us a new covenant under His blood, and is He not the Mediator so we can go to the Throne of God to ask for the forgiveness of sin?
I would not disagree with that assessment, but I would also offer this – A “mediator” is a middleman, between two extremes. God who cannot sin, and man who will not refrain from sinning. Since Jesus was tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin, he knows the strength of lustful flesh, and can speak to the Father of these things with the knowlege of experience as to the pull of temptations.
Quote Hbr 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel. In the old covenant animals (Lamb) was used, for atonement for sins, now we are under Jesus Blood and no other Scarifies is needed….
Peace Irene
Hmmmm…!!
Not quite dear sister – You must remember we are priests,whose job it is to offer our bodies a daily sacrifice, Holy, Acceptible to God – “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” [Rom 12:1]
There are actually six verses that deal with one aspect or another of this issue;
Mesitees = Mediator;
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Grace and Hope to your house from my house
Paladin! First I want to say to you, I know about Grace and Hope, we're under Grace….
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
That I've known for some time now. I aslso know that we are in the New Covenant in
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.
And then Jesus gave us the Great Commandment
Mat 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
I believe the difference between the Old Covenant that God made with Israel is that we are not under the Sabbath, it was a sign between God and with the Children of Israel. A perpetual covenant…
I don't know if I would say we are Priests. The first Christians that died a cruel and bloody dead, are more qualified then we are. Jesus is our High Priest……And Jesus offered His body once for all.
Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
Hbr 10:11 ¶ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
And I don't think that our scarifies will take away our sins. Jesus blood did, once for all. That is why I think when the Catholic Church's Mass daily being said as a scarifies for sin, is the abomination talked about in Math. Daniel and Prov.
Mat 24:15 ¶ When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)On the Tiara that the Pope wears, written in Latin is V I C A R I V S – F I L I I – D E I
5 1 100 0 15 0 0 1 50 1 1 500 0 1 = 666
Until Georg was 46 and I was 45 we belonged to the Catholic Church….We are forever thankful to God that He called us out of that Church…..It cannot be done. Christ paid the prize once for all. Since He is our High Priest and Mediator to go to the Throne of God and if we sin, to ask for the forgiveness of our sins….
Peace Irene
.
Quote (Baker @ April 28 2011,03:21) Paladin! First I want to say to you, I know about Grace and Hope, we're under Grace…. Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
That I've known for some time now. I aslso know that we are in the New Covenant in
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.
And then Jesus gave us the Great Commandment
Mat 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
I believe the difference between the Old Covenant that God made with Israel is that we are not under the Sabbath, it was a sign between God and with the Children of Israel. A perpetual covenant…
I don't know if I would say we are Priests. The first Christians that died a cruel and bloody dead, are more qualified then we are. Jesus is our High Priest……And Jesus offered His body once for all.
Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
Hbr 10:11 ¶ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
And I don't think that our scarifies will take away our sins. Jesus blood did, once for all. That is why I think when the Catholic Church's Mass daily being said as a scarifies for sin, is the abomination talked about in Math. Daniel and Prov.
Mat 24:15 ¶ When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)On the Tiara that the Pope wears, written in Latin is V I C A R I V S – F I L I I – D E I
5 1 100 0 15 0 0 1 50 1 1 500 0 1 = 666
Until Georg was 46 and I was 45 we belonged to the Catholic Church….We are forever thankful to God that He called us out of that Church…..It cannot be done. Christ paid the prize once for all. Since He is our High Priest and Mediator to go to the Throne of God and if we sin, to ask for the forgiveness of our sins….
Peace Irene
.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:Grace and Hope to your house from my house
Quote (Paladin @ April 28 2011,00:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,12:31) Quote (Paladin @ April 24 2011,15:47)
He was not an angel:Sure he was. “Aggelos” simply means “messenger”, and Jesus, Gabriel and John the Baptist were all “aggelos” of their God.
No, he wasn't. No scripture ever applies “aggelos” to Jesus. I think you are thinking of Hebrews 3:1 where Jesus is called the “Apostle and high priest” of our profession.”
Bbut Jesus was “made a little lower than the angels” [Psa 8:5][Heb 2:9]
Paladinwrong;there is one here;MAL 3:1 “ Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and ;the messenger of the covenant;, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts.
the messenger of the covenant,this is Christ.
Pierre
Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,23:46) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2011,15:12) Quote (Paladin @ April 26 2011,09:19) Amazing what power doctrine holds over scripture.
It sure does. Just check out the power your doctrine holds over you:Jesus – I came down from heaven.
Paladin – Jesus did NOT come down from heaven.
Paul – The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
Paladin – The Son is NOT the firstborn of every creature. All things were NOT created through him.
Yep. That's some power, eh?
mike
You haad best be very careful when you start putting words into the mouth of another poster. I did not say the things you have placed after my name.
Hi Paladin,Tell me which words I applied to you that you disagree with, so I can correct them.
Because if you DO believe that the person Jesus came down from heaven, then you are believing according to the very words of the one you call your Lord. If you DO NOT believe this, then I have paraphrased you accurately.
If you believe that God's only begotten Son was the firstborn of every creature, and that all other things came into existence through him, then you agree with scripture, and I need to adjust my post.
If you DON'T believe the above, then I again have paraphrased you accurately.
I don't see the problem. Are you ashamed to see the core of your claims laid out so directly – without all the “Greek past participle this” and the “logos makes it mean something different here that”? When I post your claims straightforwardly like I've done, they don't really seem to align with scripture at all, do they? And I suspect that's what bugs you about my post. To bad. The things I've posted are the core of your beliefs, and I thought everyone should look at them without all the fancy words, unrelated scriptures, and botched Greek understandings you usually add.
Do you hear that Paladin? Your Lord says HE came down from heaven. Not some “spirit inside of him” or some “word” or “christing” or whatever. He said “I came down from heaven”. Do you believe him, Paladin?
mike
Quote (Paladin @ April 27 2011,00:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,12:31) Quote (Paladin @ April 24 2011,15:47)
He was not an angel:Sure he was. “Aggelos” simply means “messenger”, and Jesus, Gabriel and John the Baptist were all “aggelos” of their God.
No, he wasn't. No scripture ever applies “aggelos” to Jesus. I think you are thinking of Hebrews 3:1 where Jesus is called the “Apostle and high priest” of our profession.”
Bbut Jesus was “made a little lower than the angels” [Psa 8:5][Heb 2:9]
I'm speaking of Galatians 4:14. And I'm speaking of the fact that the Greek word “aggelos” means “messenger”. Well? Was Jesus a messenger of his God? Okay then, he was an angel of his God. So was John the Baptist. The Greeks didn't distinguish between the two words “angel” and “messenger” as we in English do. They only had the one word, and you had to decide from the context whether the writer referred to a human messenger of God (called “messenger” in most English translations), or a heavenly spirit messenger of God (called “angel” in most English translations).But either way, Jesus was most definitely an “aggelos” of God, both as a human and as a spirit being. (See Rev 1:1 where Jesus is still delivering messages from his God as a spirit being.)
Besides, the word used in Psalm 8:5 that you listed is “elohim”, not “malak”. It because of the context of Heb 2, we know that this particular use of “aggelos” refers to the SPIRIT messengers of God, and not the human ones. And for a time, Jesus WAS made a little lower than them – when he became flesh by being made in the likeness of a human being.
Paladin, we need to pick a subject and discuss it. We are all over the place and most times off topic in this thread. For example, we're discussing the pre-existence of Jesus, whether or not he is/was an angel, and whether or not he is still a human being. (Which btw, not one of the scriptures you listed so far says that he is, while I have at least five that clearly say he is not.)
So…………..what do you want to discuss? We can either finish what we started with John 6, or pick one of the other topics. I find it hard to answer all your long posts about this, that, and the other thing, but at the same time it's hard for me to read the botched Greek, unrelated scriptures, and unscriptural claims you make, and just walk away without correcting you. I'm drawn to so many of the millions of words you post because so many of them are just downright wrong.
I'm hesitant to debate you, for I like my debates to be Q and A debates. Each poster can post 250 words or less (scriptures and secular sources included), and ask ONE question of the other. The other then MUST DIRECTLY answer the first person's question, make their own post, and ask a question of their own – ALL IN 250 WORDS OR LESS.
Do you think you could do that? (This post has 537 words, just so you get the feel of what you'd be agreeing to.)
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
