- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Paladin @ May 12 2011,04:09) Right! Let's test the flavor of what you call “debunked!”
Paladin,I'll tell you what: YOU admit that you were wrong when you claimed “para” can mean “by way of promise”, and acknowledge that the word “promise” is not even IN John 17:5 – and THEN I'll explain the scriptures you listed to you………okay?
mike
Quote (942767 @ May 12 2011,07:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2011,12:41) Quote (942767 @ May 11 2011,19:01) You say: Quote But you left out the part where he was existing in the form of God BEFORE he was made as a human being. This is what I mean by your having a vivid imagination.
Where do the scriptures specifically state this?
To which part do you refer? What exact word(s) do you take issue with, Marty?mike
Hi Mike:There is one “big word” that you are adding to this scripture in Philippians and that word is “Before”. This is an assumption on your part that word in not there.
Love in Christ,
Marty
Okay Marty,Now I know how to respond.
6Who, being in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but emptied himself,
taking the form of a servant,
and was made in human likeness.
Okay, let's test YOUR theory about Phil 2:6Who, being in the form of God…………while he was a human being
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,………while he was a human being
7but emptied himself,……………while he was a human being (but emptied himself of what, I might ask)
taking the form of a servant,…………………while he was a human being
and was made in human likeness………….while he was a ? ? ?
It seems we've hit a snag ol' boy.
If I have understood you wrong, please clarify how you DO understand this passage by posting it the same way I did, so there's no question about how you understand it. (You don't need to add your commentary on what Paul was teaching and all that. I just want you to tell me how Jesus WAS a human being when he was made into the likeness of a human being.)
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2011,10:21)
But most importantly, you keep avoiding Hebrews 1:2 in your assertion that only the “new age” was created through Jesus. And I keep asking you why 1:2 says “through whom He created the ages”, as in “more than one age”, but you keep ignoring my question.Perhaps you could answer it now?
Quote (Paladin @ May 12 2011,09:11) You mean again? This has also been addressed before. Look back on thread page 31 post #9; 3rd and 4th sentence from the bottom. Oh, you mean this post to Tim Kraft, which I didn't even read? I remember asking you about 1:2 at least three times, yet you didn't answer ME. So if I say you avoided a question, I don't refer to a question from TIM KRAFT, but to a question FROM ME………….okay? I don't read every post in the thread, Paladin.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:45) When his reference is to the ages, he uses aiwnos, not kosmos, though mostly it is mistranslated “world” as though it references “kosmos.” For example in Heb –
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the aiwnas;Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the aiwnas were (adjusted) framed by the reema of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The first one is most often used to prove Jesus made the world, but it is a reference to the fac tthat the timing of the end of the Jewish age, and the beginning of the Christian dispensation were dependant upon the timing of Jesus' mission and its successful completion.
The second reference is to the fact that Jesus adjusted (tweaked as it were) the ages by his influence upon governments and peoples as they reacted to his ministry and teaching.
How does that enlarged part say that the ages were NOT made through Jesus? Please “dumb it down” for me, because to me it looks like gibberish.thanks,
mikeQuote (Paladin @ May 12 2011,17:37) Tell that to God who uses “whether” 171 times in 148 verses, and every time uses it as a limiting parameter to choices offered.
Really? Do any of those 171 times have the word “whether” AFTER the words “ALL THINGS”?And you didn't answer my points at all…………….LIKE USUAL. If I said I give you ALL OF MY THINGS, whether it be my car or my stereo, I am not excluding the other things I own, am I? No. In fact, in that case, the word “whether” actually takes on more of a meaning like “even including”.
Paladin, ALL THINGS were created through Jesus. They were not “shifted one person” or whatever, or it would say that.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 08 2011,21:16) Quote (kerwin @ May 07 2011,15:40) Worshipping Jesus and Mike Boll, I believe you understand what John writes here when he states that false teachers went forth from them literally but were not of them spiritually and yet you seem not to understand John 6:38, where Jesus teaches he came from God spiritually even though we know he came from his mother literally.
Quote 1 John 2:19 (Young's Literal Translation) 19out of us they went forth, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but — that they might be manifested that they are not all of us.
You should though since you seem to be aware Jesus teaches Spiritual truths and not worldly ones.
Hi Kerwin,I understand 1 John 2:19 to be saying that the antichrists LITERALLY came out of the group of Jesus' discples. They were not spirits, but people who WERE a part of that group, and then manifested themselves as enemies of that group as time went by.
I do, however, understand your point that some teachings are spiritual, and do not speak of the flesh. But your assertions that John 6 is one of those teachings remains unfounded, for Jesus literally says he came down from heaven, suggests he will ascend back there again, and then many disciples saw him do this…………LITERALLY.
And that is just one passage out of many that eliminate any possibility of Jesus “metaphorically” coming from heaven. For example, Phil 2 makes it pretty clear that Jesus was existing in the form of God, but then was made as a human being. And there are the many times Jesus is said to have “taken on flesh” or had the phrase “according to the flesh” attributed to him. These are phrases not said about any other human being, for no other human has ever been anything BUT flesh, so the phrases would not make sense. The only way they make sense for Jesus is if he was at some time something OTHER THAN flesh.
peace to you,
mike
Mike Boll,These are a couple of other scriptures that Jesus refers to the Spirit of God within him as himself.
Quote John 17 (Young's Literal Translation) 23I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send me, and didst love them as Thou didst love me.
Quote John 8 (Young's Literal Translation) 23and he said to them, `Ye are from beneath, I am from above; ye are of this world, I am not of this world;
24I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.'
The word “form” in both verses 6 and 7 of Philippians 2 speaks of the outward appearance of Jesus. You can check the common Greek word translated to form and discover that is what Strong’s basically defines it as.
Quote Philippians 2 (Young's Literal Translation) 6who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,
7but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,
Jesus speaks of the same outward appearance in John 14:9-10.
Quote John 14 (Young's Literal Translation) 8Philip saith to him, `Sir, shew to us the Father, and it is enough for us;'
9Jesus saith to him, `So long time am I with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip? he who hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how dost thou say, Shew to us the Father?
10Believest thou not that I [am] in the Father, and the Father is in me? the sayings that I speak to you, from myself I speak not, and the Father who is abiding in me, Himself doth the works;
Quote (Pastry @ May 12 2011,20:25) Quote (kerwin @ May 12 2011,22:17) Pierre, A person's life and doctrine is the result of the Spirit they live by whether that Spirit is of God or of the world. If a person walks according to the Spirit of God they come from above but if they walk according to the Spirit of the world they come from below. False teachers come from below for their teachings are based on the principles of this dark world and not on the principles of God.
Young’s Luke 1:35 is worded to foretell that Jesus’ formation was holy while the NIV is worded to foretell that Jesus is holy. I felt is deserved a mention but then assumed Young’s was in error in order to address your point.
Just as I have been stating Jesus is the human son of Mary, for he comes from her in the flesh, and the spiritual Son of God, for he comes from heaven in the spirit.
He is the Son of God because he inherited the Spirit of God not because he is the physical offspring of God.
God is his Spiritual father, not his material one.
Jesus is a son of God even as this scripture describes.
Quote John 1 (Young's Literal Translation)[b] 12but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God — to those believing in his name,
13who — not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but — of God were begotten.
He is the Son of God because he never fallen short of the glory of God even though he was tempted as is common to “mere” humans.
Note: I am attempting to differentiate between two states of being an offspring as does John in John 1:12-13.
Kerwin! I find it ironic what you state about the Holy Spirit of God. We all received Gods Holy Spirit at Baptism. The difference is that some will fall on good ground and will flourish, and some will fall on bad ground….
Some have not been chosen to understand what Scriptures say, while others do. Some will interpret them to their liking, while some will read how they are written. But just remember that we are all Christians in spite of it all. We are not from the earth. We are bought with Jesus blood, under His Covenant. To say what you did is uncalled for….
We all fall short of the glory of God….Peace Irene
Irene,I assure you that those that live according to the ways of the flesh are from below while those who live according to the spirit. That is why scripture declares to Christians, that if they live by the sinful nature then they will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Quote [u]Galatians 5 (Young's Literal Translation) 19And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects,
21envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit.More is expected of those in which the Spirit of God incarnated through faith in Jesus the Anointed because they have more.
Quote Luke 12 (Young's Literal Translation) 47`And that servant, who having known his lord's will, and not having prepared, nor having gone according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes,
48and he who, not having known, and having done things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few; and to every one to whom much was given, much shall be required from him; and to whom they did commit much, more abundantly they will ask of him.
As it is I was only pointing that Jesus was speaking of the Spirit within him when he speaks of coming from above just as he speaks of the spirit of this world in those that heard him in John 8 when he stated they came from below. John speaks of the Spirit of this world that is in the false prophets as not coming from him and his association though the prophets themselves did.
Kerwin
Quote As it is I was only pointing that Jesus was speaking of the Spirit within him when he speaks of coming from above just as he speaks of the spirit of this world in those that heard him in John 8 when he stated they came from below. John speaks of the Spirit of this world that is in the false prophets as not coming from him and his association though the prophets themselves did. ————–
Your Fellow Student,Kerwin
wen Jesus says he is from above ;this mean he is from heaven because there is nothing in the world that is from heaven not even reflect heaven by there actions,this is why Christ came to train and atract to him the men that will be brothers in heaven,,the 144k.
and the ones who will be on earth.
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 11 2011,12:07) That's a cop-out Marty. I posted words straight out of the scriptures, and you joked about my “vivid imagination”. Stop joking for a minute and SHOW ME the thing I posted that is NOT the words of the scriptures.
Mike, when God istructed Adam in the garden, and Adam passed on those instructions to Eve, and Satan added a “not” to what God had said, everything Satan told Eve was
“scripture,” because that's where God chose to record it. But not everything “scriptural” is truth, nor is everything
“scriptural” necessarily appropriately applied to situations for our learning.Sometimes it requires that we “unlearn” what we know, in order to learn what God is saying to us.
I would hazzard a guess that very much of what you have posted to me can be considered “scriptural” in that most of it is found within the pages of scripture. But, “being found in scripture” is not all it takes to qualify to be understood to be God's truth.
Much of your disagreement with me actually has nothing to do with whether it is scriptural or not, because you certainly do quote scripture, albeit, some of it you place emphasis where it does not belong, (like explaining portions of scripture with paranthetic asides, “para means by the side of” for one example), but for the most part, your knowledge of where scripture is found seems to me to be a cut above average.
But your understanding of truth lacks the finnesse necessary to establish the definitive application that would demonstrate for all time, that it is in fact that “truth” it claims to be.
I have repeatedly tried to demonstrate for your understanding, that studying God's word out of chronological order is devastating to proper understanding of truth. You scoff. I try again. You scoff again. You have attacked my explanations of the application of Greek principles and definitions to the point you have even told the readers I am misrepresenting the Greek. You have yet to demonstrate where this has happened. You may disagree on the use of “para” for example, but nowhere have you said my use of “para” is wrong for this reason…” with following explanation.
You showed me “from scripture” that Jesus came from God and used “para” to prove your point that Jesus had been
“along side of” the Father. I countered with “there was a man sent from God” using “para” to show John was in the same relationship according to the Greek, as your use of “para” applied to Jesus. You have not shown me to be wrong by proving “para” was not used concerning John being sent
“para” (from) God.You continually try to prove your point by appealing to scholars and theologians, and I have continually told you that the scholars and theologians are blinded by their own education. It was scholars who developed the trinity after the authors finished penning the scriptures, and sometimes, the scholars did not even wait till the author's ink was dry.
Scholars have said concerning John 1:1 “Pros ton followed by an accusative” references a close intimate relationship between Father and son.” [“And the logos was [pros ton theon] with God”]
The problem with that “scholarship” is it is not true. When the disciples brought the colt to Jesus so he could ride into Jerusalem, pros ton followed by an accusative is the form in scripture, but I daresay Jesus never had a close intimate relationship with that colt.
And when the people laid a lame man at the gate, “pros ton followed by an accusative” was used in scripture, but I do not believe anyone had a close intimate relationship with a gate.
When the scholars decided “ho logos” was not convertible with “theos” in John 1:1c, the failed to comprehend the simplicity of their findings, and went on to proclaim a pre-existant Jesus became flesh as God in 1:14, never even seeing that their scholarship proved otherwise. since 'ho logos” and “theos” are inconvertible terms, when “ho logos” became flesh, “theos” did not. Simply another case where
“scholarship” outsmarted itself. (I acknowledge, you are not a trinitarian, but bear with me for a moment)After God's inspired men wrote the scriptures, the few scholars were already tearing the church apart with their attempts to gain mastery over the many. Remember Paul's admonition to Corinth? “Some say I am of Apolis, some say I am of Paul, some say I am of Cephas, Some say I am of Christ;” Paul never said “all of you are wrong except those who said “I am of Christ.” No, my friend, Paul said they were all wrong.
Now you consider yourself one of those who are “of Christ” and I do not fault you for that, for I think it safe to say, we all do the same who post here. What I do fault you for, is thinking that those with whom you disagree, are not also “of Christ” for it has not been left to you to decide who the master sends to the boards to give what lessons to others who may have been sent here to learn lessons totally unknown by the rest of us.
You speak of “scourging with whips” those of us with whom you disagree, intimating that all that stops you is lack of proximity, divided as we are by the internet.
I would rather say to you Mike, and to your friends on the board, “Me and my friends would pray with you and your friends, seeking council of God as to how to understand those issues that divide us, lest we be like those brethren in Corinth whom Paul corrected so long ago.”
Can we please do away with the caustic remarks, the heated rhetoric, the clever rejoinders and the “put downs” we see from time to time?
Can we come together long enought o actually examine the claims made by posters as to the Greek language or grammar issues, to see if the scholars are correxct, or if they have once more, simply applied their own ego to the issue?
Look at what A.T.Robertson had to say about that issue long ago: “After all is done, instances will remain where syntrax cannot say the last word, where theological bias will inevitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through.”
[A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament: page 389]It was scholars who brought down upon the word a thousand year judgment upon the earth, with their development of the trinity and proclaimed it as “orthodox position” then turned the church over to the emperor for capital punishment for those who disagreed with that “orthodox position.”
That was in 452 a.d. The dark ages lasted a thousand years, till the bible came off the printing press and “orthodox position” was taken out of the hands of the clergy and given into the hands of humble students of scripture rather than scholars. That was in 1452, and scriptural truth never went back to the scholars exclusively.
The humble student will tie the hands of the scholars with their own words every time, because God is not with the scholars were scriptur is concerned. And the reason for that is, ego must be served in contests of “My scholar has more degrees than your scholar.” You hear it all the time on all the boards. Attacks and observations of “you have no credentials” are commonplace, usually by men who are frustrated by their inability to defeat their opponent on the field of scholarship, because the student does not play by the same set of rules.
The scholar sets out to establish a standard by which to bind all who come after him. The student sets out to understand the standard already established by God, and apply that to all that become an issue between brethren.
Now, Mike, can we please come together in fellowship on this board, and stop with all the sniping? You are a moderator, a
nd have the ability to calmly admonish those who may occasionally forget. Or do you really want to scourge wthose with whom you disagre? I think perhaps that was said in haste. What say you?Quote (Pastry @ May 13 2011,06:36) Paladin! My dear friend, you didn't respond to my lat post either…..Is that a common practice with you? Peace Irene
Yes dear sister.When you post something so outrageous I have to take two or three days to cool down before posting so I may rmemeber I am to see in you the image of God, I have to have time to reflect upon my own mortallity before I am guided by the Spirit of God how to respond to your remarks.
Please be patient dear sister.
Grace and Hope to you
Paladin: A man of truth is recognized by his open willingness to create peace. You have chosen that way. Mike has great learning and I believe that in his zeal for God, to reveal the truth he believes, he places a few words that seem to condescend or degrade what he considers the error of another. I have learned greatly from both of you. I would like to take this time to tell you both how much I appreciate your great learnings of God. In my long term studies, without many commentaries or imput from others over the years or from anyone else, I can attest that I have a somewhat wierd and unique understanding of the truth of God. I try to share as I can, what I can but I also fall short of the ability to write down what I believe to be true. I hate to feel the strife between differing opinions especially when there is any degradating terms or words against the others beliefs. We are all learning. No one has the full understanding yet IMO.
I know of certain people that can nearly quote the old and new testaments by heart. Yet, they show me little or no spiritual insite and understanding. God says in all “things” (either rhema or logos, words of God) get understanding. This is all IMO, Peace and love to all, TK
Paladin
Quote o also, sonme things happened before the birth of jesus and some things happened after the birth of Jesus, but scripture does not mix them up in telling about them.
And again, some things happened before the resurrection, and some things happened after the resurrection, and scripture does not mix them up in telling the stories about them.
This is what I responded to, because this Scripture says that we should take it this way..
Isa 28:9 ¶ Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:
And that is why I said your wrong….Is that why you are upset?
I do go by precepts upon precepts.
Peace IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 13 2011,12:36) Quote (Paladin @ May 12 2011,04:09) Right! Let's test the flavor of what you call “debunked!”
Paladin,I'll tell you what: YOU admit that you were wrong when you claimed “para” can mean “by way of promise”, and acknowledge that the word “promise” is not even IN John 17:5 – and THEN I'll explain the scriptures you listed to you………okay?
mike
Mike; I'll tell you what –When you explain the difference between these verses, I'll respond to your post. o.k?
What did Jesus receive? The Holy Spirit.
How did Jesus receive it?
Jesus received by way of promise para the father.
Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received *of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hearHow did men learn of God?
Men learned para the father.
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned *of the Father, cometh unto meWhere did the Apostles receive commandments?
“we have received a commandment para the father.”
2 John 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment *from the Father.Why is it so important to you for us to “admit we are wrong” when you cannot demonstrate the “wrongness” of our position?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 13 2011,13:39) Quote (Paladin @ May 12 2011,17:37) Tell that to God who uses “whether” 171 times in 148 verses, and every time uses it as a limiting parameter to choices offered.
Really? Do any of those 171 times have the word “whether” AFTER the words “ALL THINGS”?[/quote]yes!
Quote And you didn't answer my points at all……………LIKE USUAL. If I said I give you ALL OF MY THINGS, whether it be my car or my stereo, I am not excluding the other things I own, am I? yes!
Quote In fact, in that case, the word “whether” actually takes on more of a meaning like “even including”. Well, if “whether” means “even including” what does “even including” mean? “Whether” in this use is more akin to
“excluding” as in “excluding all else.Paladin, ALL THINGS were created through Jesus. They were not “shifted one person” or whatever, or it would say that.
O.K. so you would completely re-arrange the new creation because God didn't say it the way you expected to read it?
I understand better now Mike, Thanks.
Quote (Tim Kraft @ May 13 2011,21:58) Paladin: A man of truth is recognized by his open willingness to create peace. You have chosen that way. Mike has great learning and I believe that in his zeal for God, to reveal the truth he believes, he places a few words that seem to condescend or degrade what he considers the error of another. I have learned greatly from both of you. I would like to take this time to tell you both how much I appreciate your great learnings of God. In my long term studies, without many commentaries or imput from others over the years or from anyone else, I can attest that I have a somewhat wierd and unique understanding of the truth of God. I try to share as I can, what I can but I also fall short of the ability to write down what I believe to be true. I hate to feel the strife between differing opinions especially when there is any degradating terms or words against the others beliefs. We are all learning. No one has the full understanding yet IMO. I know of certain people that can nearly quote the old and new testaments by heart. Yet, they show me little or no spiritual insite and understanding. God says in all “things” (either rhema or logos, words of God) get understanding. This is all IMO, Peace and love to all, TK
Actually tim, I see in Mike a kindred spiritmeaning only there is a zeal for truth in his expression of study.Where we differ, in my own estimation, is he depends a certain ammount on commentators and scholars, while I read commentators and scholars only for the purpose of tripping them in their own words. They all depend upon the errors of their forbearers for scholastic accolades. Scholarship does not require one be right, only that one agree with the scholarship that has gone before; errors and all.
Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,21:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 11 2011,12:07) That's a cop-out Marty. I posted words straight out of the scriptures, and you joked about my “vivid imagination”. Stop joking for a minute and SHOW ME the thing I posted that is NOT the words of the scriptures.
Mike, when God istructed Adam in the garden, and Adam passed on those instructions to Eve, and Satan added a “not” to what God had said, everything Satan told Eve was
“scripture,” because that's where God chose to record it. But not everything “scriptural” is truth, nor is everything
“scriptural” necessarily appropriately applied to situations for our learning.Sometimes it requires that we “unlearn” what we know, in order to learn what God is saying to us.
I would hazzard a guess that very much of what you have posted to me can be considered “scriptural” in that most of it is found within the pages of scripture. But, “being found in scripture” is not all it takes to qualify to be understood to be God's truth.
Much of your disagreement with me actually has nothing to do with whether it is scriptural or not, because you certainly do quote scripture, albeit, some of it you place emphasis where it does not belong, (like explaining portions of scripture with paranthetic asides, “para means by the side of” for one example), but for the most part, your knowledge of where scripture is found seems to me to be a cut above average.
But your understanding of truth lacks the finnesse necessary to establish the definitive application that would demonstrate for all time, that it is in fact that “truth” it claims to be.
I have repeatedly tried to demonstrate for your understanding, that studying God's word out of chronological order is devastating to proper understanding of truth. You scoff. I try again. You scoff again. You have attacked my explanations of the application of Greek principles and definitions to the point you have even told the readers I am misrepresenting the Greek. You have yet to demonstrate where this has happened. You may disagree on the use of “para” for example, but nowhere have you said my use of “para” is wrong for this reason…” with following explanation.
You showed me “from scripture” that Jesus came from God and used “para” to prove your point that Jesus had been
“along side of” the Father. I countered with “there was a man sent from God” using “para” to show John was in the same relationship according to the Greek, as your use of “para” applied to Jesus. You have not shown me to be wrong by proving “para” was not used concerning John being sent
“para” (from) God.You continually try to prove your point by appealing to scholars and theologians, and I have continually told you that the scholars and theologians are blinded by their own education. It was scholars who developed the trinity after the authors finished penning the scriptures, and sometimes, the scholars did not even wait till the author's ink was dry.
Scholars have said concerning John 1:1 “Pros ton followed by an accusative” references a close intimate relationship between Father and son.” [“And the logos was [pros ton theon] with God”]
The problem with that “scholarship” is it is not true. When the disciples brought the colt to Jesus so he could ride into Jerusalem, pros ton followed by an accusative is the form in scripture, but I daresay Jesus never had a close intimate relationship with that colt.
And when the people laid a lame man at the gate, “pros ton followed by an accusative” was used in scripture, but I do not believe anyone had a close intimate relationship with a gate.
When the scholars decided “ho logos” was not convertible with “theos” in John 1:1c, the failed to comprehend the simplicity of their findings, and went on to proclaim a pre-existant Jesus became flesh as God in 1:14, never even seeing that their scholarship proved otherwise. since 'ho logos” and “theos” are inconvertible terms, when “ho logos” became flesh, “theos” did not. Simply another case where
“scholarship” outsmarted itself. (I acknowledge, you are not a trinitarian, but bear with me for a moment)After God's inspired men wrote the scriptures, the few scholars were already tearing the church apart with their attempts to gain mastery over the many. Remember Paul's admonition to Corinth? “Some say I am of Apolis, some say I am of Paul, some say I am of Cephas, Some say I am of Christ;” Paul never said “all of you are wrong except those who said “I am of Christ.” No, my friend, Paul said they were all wrong.
Now you consider yourself one of those who are “of Christ” and I do not fault you for that, for I think it safe to say, we all do the same who post here. What I do fault you for, is thinking that those with whom you disagree, are not also “of Christ” for it has not been left to you to decide who the master sends to the boards to give what lessons to others who may have been sent here to learn lessons totally unknown by the rest of us.
You speak of “scourging with whips” those of us with whom you disagree, intimating that all that stops you is lack of proximity, divided as we are by the internet.
I would rather say to you Mike, and to your friends on the board, “Me and my friends would pray with you and your friends, seeking council of God as to how to understand those issues that divide us, lest we be like those brethren in Corinth whom Paul corrected so long ago.”
Can we please do away with the caustic remarks, the heated rhetoric, the clever rejoinders and the “put downs” we see from time to time?
Can we come together long enought o actually examine the claims made by posters as to the Greek language or grammar issues, to see if the scholars are correxct, or if they have once more, simply applied their own ego to the issue?
Look at what A.T.Robertson had to say about that issue long ago: “After all is done, instances will remain where syntrax cannot say the last word, where theological bias will inevitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. When the grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian is through.”
[A.T.Robertson: A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament: page 389]It was scholars who brought down upon the word a thousand year judgment upon the earth, with their development of the trinity and proclaimed it as “orthodox position” then turned the church over to the emperor for capital punishment for those who disagreed with that “orthodox position.”
That was in 452 a.d. The dark ages lasted a thousand years, till the bible came off the printing press and “orthodox position” was taken out of the hands of the clergy and given into the hands of humble students of scripture rather than scholars. That was in 1452, and scriptural truth never went back to the scholars exclusively.
The humble student will tie the hands of the scholars with their own words every time, because God is not with the scholars were scriptur is concerned. And the reason for that is, ego must be served in contests of “My scholar has more degrees than your scholar.” You hear it all the time on all the boards. Attacks and observations of “you have no credentials” are commonplace, usually by men who are frustrated by their inability to defeat their opponent on the field of scholarship, because the student does not play by the same set of rules.
The scholar sets out to establish a standard by which to bind all who come after him. The student sets out to understand the standard already established by God,
and apply that to all that become an issue between brethren.Now, Mike, can we please come together in fellowship on this board, and stop with all the sniping? You are a moderator, and have the ability to calmly admonish those who may occasionally forget. Or do you really want to scourge wthose with whom you disagre? I think perhaps that was said in haste. What say you?
Paladin………….Well said brother. The Spirit of our GOD shines through you IMO, please don't lose patience with us and continue to give soundness to God's Words as the Spirit guides you brother. Strive with us until we ALL come into the unity of the Faith. Your are to me indeed a breath of fresh air here. I was emailed by Adam a brother who was Kicked of the site the other day and He agree with what you are explaining also. I hope Martian is also following this also and others who have gotten discouraged and left the sit in times past to.peace and love to you and yours ………………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 13 2011,13:33) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2011,10:21)
But most importantly, you keep avoiding Hebrews 1:2 in your assertion that only the “new age” was created through Jesus.I think you will be hardpressed to come up with a post in which I said any such thing. Especially since I don't believe any such thing.
I said the only creation in which Jesus is involoved is the “new creation” and i say that because God the Father created heaven and earth “monos.” [alone]
And since “In Christ all things are made new.” [II Cor 5:17]
Quote And I keep asking you why 1:2 says “through whom He created the ages”, as in “more than one age”, but you keep ignoring my question. Perhaps you could answer it now?
Quote (Paladin @ May 12 2011,09:11) You mean again? This has also been addressed before. Look back on thread page 31 post #9; 3rd and 4th sentence from the bottom. Oh, you mean this post to Tim Kraft, which I didn't even read? I remember asking you about 1:2 at least three times, yet you didn't answer ME. So if I say you avoided a question, I don't refer to a question from TIM KRAFT, but to a question FROM ME………….okay? I don't read every post in the thread, Paladin.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 19 2011,12:45) When his reference is to the ages, he uses aiwnos, not kosmos, though mostly it is mistranslated “world” as though it references “kosmos.” For example in Heb –
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the aiwnas;Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the aiwnas were (adjusted) framed by the reema of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The first one is most often used to prove Jesus made the world, but it is a reference to the fac tthat the timing of the end of the Jewish age, and the beginning of the Christian dispensation were dependant upon the timing of Jesus' mission and its successful completion.
The second reference is to the fact that Jesus adjusted (tweaked as it were) the ages by his influence upon governments and peoples as they reacted to his ministry and teaching.
How does that enlarged part say that the ages were NOT made through Jesus? Please “dumb it down” for me, because to me it looks like gibberish.[/quote]
It doesn't.
And I didn't say it does.
As for why I don't answer every question when you post it, Mike, because 1) there are several posters on the board; 2) I try to prioritize my responses to things I actually said; 3) sometimes I have to quit in the middle of a response for medical reasons; 4) sometimes I just think I need to consider your question a little more than a quick response will cover.
I may disagree with your questions and responses Mike, but I have never belittled your thoughts as you express them in your posts. They are different than mine would have been, but then Jesus had twelve apostles for a reason; he could have just cloned Peter.
Quote (Tim Kraft @ May 14 2011,04:58) Paladin: A man of truth is recognized by his open willingness to create peace. You have chosen that way. Mike has great learning and I believe that in his zeal for God, to reveal the truth he believes, he places a few words that seem to condescend or degrade what he considers the error of another. I have learned greatly from both of you. I would like to take this time to tell you both how much I appreciate your great learnings of God. In my long term studies, without many commentaries or imput from others over the years or from anyone else, I can attest that I have a somewhat wierd and unique understanding of the truth of God. I try to share as I can, what I can but I also fall short of the ability to write down what I believe to be true. I hate to feel the strife between differing opinions especially when there is any degradating terms or words against the others beliefs. We are all learning. No one has the full understanding yet IMO. I know of certain people that can nearly quote the old and new testaments by heart. Yet, they show me little or no spiritual insite and understanding. God says in all “things” (either rhema or logos, words of God) get understanding. This is all IMO, Peace and love to all, TK
TKQuote A man of truth is recognized by his open willingness to create peace. You have chosen that way. witch one is your example,Paul,Peter,Jesus,John,or Samson….?
Pierre
Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,06:11)
Jesus received by way of promise para the father.
Ahhh…………so you've changed your claim a little, huh? Before, you were claiming that the word “para” itself could mean “by way of promise”, remember? And it is THAT claim that I took issue with, for it is inaccurate and misleading.You have now reworded your previous statement (which can be found on page 128, third post from the top), but your revised statement is STILL inaccurate and misleading. What Acts 2:33 says is that Jesus received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father. There are no words there to imply “by way of”, and it seems to me you are muddying up a perfectly understandable scripture in an effort to find support for your unfounded claim that “para” didn't mean “close beside” in John 17:5.
Paladin, the words “with” and “by” have different meanings in English also. Sometimes “I'm with you” means “I'm close beside you”, and sometimes it means “I'm with you in spirit”, or “I'm with you in thought”, or even “I'm supporting you”.
The words “I live by Jesus” could mean that I live by the teachings of Jesus, or that I live only because of the sacrifice of Jesus, or it could mean that I live “close beside” some dude named “Jesus”.
Here's an example of “para” that you didn't list:
Acts 10:6 NIV ©
He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.Would you try to compare THAT scripture to your others in an effort to make it also not mean “close beside”? We could go back and forth comparing the different uses and meanings of “para”, right? But instead, let's get down to the heart of the issue, shall we?
New International Version (©1984)
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.This is how I understand it:
And now, Father, glorify me CLOSE BESIDE yourself with the glory I had CLOSE BESIDE you before the world began.Please show me how YOU understand those two uses of “para” in that scripture. Please write it out like I did, capping the words you choose for “para”, so I at least know what exactly you are claiming.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
