Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,06:17)

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.

1 Peter 2:13-14
Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good.
So Peter is saying we should shun all human ruling institutions unless they are specifically a king or a governor? YES or NO, please.

mike

May 14, 2011 at 4:25 am#245924

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ May 13 2011,22:21)

To all,

Who among you disagrees that Acts 2:33 declares that Jesus the Anointed received the the Holy Spirit from God?

If you do disagree then why?

Not I, Kerwin.

May 14, 2011 at 4:26 am#245925

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2011,22:07)

Pierre,

Do the words and actions of Jesus reflect God because the Spirit of God dwells fully in him?

Who or what knows the deep things of God and thus can reveal them to others?

Does the Spirit of God teach, train, etc. in righteousness?

Kerwin

how could Jesus the men reflect the Spirit being of God ?
it can not be in the physical aspect but the mental qualities,that Jesus shows that he is one with God s will ,doing all the things his father told him to do ,and there are many.

Paul says that the full knowledge of God will be known to the 144k wen they will be in heaven,because they will see things the way they really are.

for men on earth the knowledge of God will always be limited because our state as human.

but it will be extremely increased because of the new heaven and the new earth in witch we would then live,and truth will be the standard

so for now we have to research the truth of God and apply it so that God can give us more understanding to grow in maturity and become righteous and holy

Pierre

May 14, 2011 at 4:51 am#245927

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2011,22:21)

To all,

Who among you disagrees that Acts 2:33 declares that Jesus the Anointed received the the Holy Spirit from God?

If you do disagree then why?

Kerwin

Act 2;33 is the same than what Jesus have promised to give and send;
AC 2:33 “Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear

JN 14:16 “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
JN 14:17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

Jn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Pierre

May 14, 2011 at 10:16 am#245930

Tim Kraft

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ May 14 2011,09:33)

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

Quote

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

Pierre: I would say Jesus, “The prince of peace” Also anyone who is in alignment with Jesus & the Father is also creating peace WITH GOD on every level.

Paul said if at all possible be at peace with everyone!

Love is peace! Love creates peace. We are talking about peace with God. In the “religious world” you will have tribulation. I know from your writtings that you are looking for tribulation. But in God/Jesus there is peace.

Peace, Love and Joy. If you have missed those you have missed the spirit of God intended!!

There is peace between God and man if you don't know it! If you ever find peace with God you will shun the ridiculous doctrines you have accepted as truth for some new world to come or maybe consider yourself one of the lucky 144k to make it to some new heaven and earth that comes floating down to bump the old earth into oblivion.

Where is any spiritual insite in that doctrine? Any moron walking down the street could read and interpret the scriptures literally. Where is the spirit? What is the real truth being said? One must be born again to “SEE” the Kingdom. One must see through understanding. One who has ears to hear what the “Spirit” says.

Anyone quoting the truth of the scriptures is creating peace between God and man! IMO, TK

May 14, 2011 at 11:16 am#245932

Pastry

Participant

Tim! First of all, we IMO don't qualify to be one of the 144,000…. Those Saints that died for Christ in the first three centuries do…. W ether we will be one of the multitudes of those that washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, has to be seen.. Rev. 7:13-17…..

Peace be with you, the peace which we get by Gods Truth…. and Gods Holy Spirit. In Spirit and in truth You shall worship God…. So what is the Truth? That too has to be seen. But what is true to some, may not be true to others….To love God and others is the Great Commandment that Jesus gave us…..
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.

Peace Irene

May 14, 2011 at 4:16 pm#245952

Blocked

Quote (Tim Kraft @ May 13 2011,04:58)

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.

Hi Tim,

Let me demonstrate what Paladin, the “man of peace”, is really saying to ME.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

Sometimes it requires that we “unlearn” what we know, in order to learn what God is saying to us.

Translation: YOU need to unlearn what YOU know because it is YOUR understanding of scripture that is wrong.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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.

Translation: The fact that YOU post scriptures should not be mistaken for a realization that YOU actually understand God's truth.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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.

Translation: What YOU think is scriptural truth is not the truth you claim it to be because YOUR understanding is lacking.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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.

Translation: In MY ultimate wisdom, I have desparately tried to make you see that Jesus is NOT the Word in John 1:1 – but you have to read the Bible backwards in order to be swayed by my alternate theology and my claims that “logos” has some hidden mystical meaning that “rhema” does not have. So YOU could not possibly understand God's truth in the scriptures unless you read the Bible the way I tell you to.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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.

Translation: Even though I've also made this claim about Psalm 138:2, and then you DID repost your demonstration of how I was wrong for all to see (which is why I didn't respond to that post), I will claim it again about the word “para”, which you've clearly showed doesn't ever mean “by way of promise”. I recognize that you HAVE shown my claim about both of these to be wrong, but if I keep claiming that you didn't, maybe someone out there will believe me.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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?

Translation: I used the word “WE”, but it is YOU who does these things, not me.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

Now, Mike, can we please come together in fellowship on this board, and stop with all the sniping?

Translation: Mike, can YOU please get with the program and start being nice like I am?

Am I wrong here Tim? Am I reading insults to my understanding, intelligence, behavior, and truth that are masked in the guise of peace………..or is it just me? Maybe Paladin has good intentions here, but I would have taken his post much better had he mentioned that HE is also guilty of every single thing he accused me of doing. Had he made the post from his own point of view, claiming the things that HE has done wrong and promising to amend HIS ways, I would have been moved to tears by his humility and would have responded in a much different way than I'm doing right now.

But the way he did this makes me think that he is taking the high road at my expense. He is saying, “Mike, look at me and how humble and peaceable I am. Won't you please put away your petty ways and come join me in the high place I've always been?”

Tim, I have similar disagreements on this site with you, Marty, Kathi, and Kerwin – yet we seem to discourse quite peaceably. On the other hand, I have many wars against Keith, Istari and Kangaroo Jack in which they taunt me and ridicule me – so I return like for like with them. I am like a mirror on this site. You speak respectably to me even when we disagree, so I return like for like. The way I post to Paladin is a mirror image of the way he's posted to me. This may not be what Jesus had in mind with “turn the other cheek”, but it fits right in with “do unto others”.

You might not remember, but my first post on this thread was a glowing accolade of Paladin's intelligence and passion. That accolade was soon answered by him with a false accusation of wrongdoing I had committed, another accusation that I lied about that wrongdoing, and yet another one that I was trying to cover up my wrongdoing. It has set the tone for my relationship with Paladin. I have forgiven him for running my good name through the mud, but will continue to post to him in the manner he posts to me. If the hopes he expresses in this post are sincere, then we will see a difference in the way he posts to me. If and when that happens, you will see a like difference in the way I post to him.

peace and love to the one who is still always welcome at my table,
mike

May 14, 2011 at 4:49 pm#245954

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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.

I use scholars only when their views match the scriptures. Instead of condemning my use of NETNotes about “son of God WITH POWER”, how about you refute the claim they made – with which I happen to agree.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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.

You mean to say that God is not NECESSARILY with the scholars. After all, it was scholars who composed the information you so often use to explain the definitions of certain Greek words, right?

But I wholeheartedly agree with you that when it is clear that these scholars are being driven by their own biases, it is easy to refute them using their own words. I've done this myself many times. Here's a recent example:
John 1:1 NET ©
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

FULLY God? Here's some of what the NETNotes scholars say about their own translation:
Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos is one in essence with God the Father.

Isn't that saying that they chose their translation based on how they themselves wanted the average English reader to understand this passage? In other words, they ADDED TO the scriptures to further their own doctrine because they didn't have enough faith that their own “truth” was sufficiently taught by the actual words of the scripture.

But here's the best part of what they posted about John 1:1,
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”);

Hmmm…………..how many persons are there said to be in our “Trinity Godhead”? Yet they say the Word is obviously not THE PERSON OF GOD because of 1:1b. In other words, they clearly admit that Jesus, who was WITH GOD in the beginning, was obviously NOT the God he was with. Yet this is a Trinitarian sponsored website.

So I know full well how the scholar's own words trip their own doctrine up many times. But that doesn't mean we still can't learn much from them. One simply needs to realize which things, out of what they teach, are actually supported by the scriptures themselves, and which things are only supported by their own biases.

mike

May 14, 2011 at 10:04 pm#245964

kerwin

Participant

Pierre,

I agree that Jesus received the Spirit of Christ in its role of Counselor from God then asked his Father and our Father that it be given to those that believed in him and so obey his teachings in accordance with the words of Acts 2:33. He asks that the Holy Spirit be sent as the Counselor in John 17.

Quote

John 17:20-26(NIV)

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

I agree with you that Jesus cannot reflect the physical aspects of God but instead reflected the invisible mental and emotional aspects of his Father and our Father. That is the effect of living according to the teachings of the Holy Advocate which is why scripture declares “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.”, Jeremiah 31:31.

I also agree that scripture is a useful tool for training those that have received the Spirit of God to live according to Spirit of truth, which is our Teacher and Lord; 2 Timothy 3:16.

May 14, 2011 at 10:33 pm#245965

Participant

Quote (Tim Kraft @ May 15 2011,04:16)

Quote (terraricca @ May 14 2011,09:33)

Quote (Tim Kraft @ May 14 2011,04:58)

Quote

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

Pierre: I would say Jesus, “The prince of peace” Also anyone who is in alignment with Jesus & the Father is also creating peace WITH GOD on every level.

Paul said if at all possible be at peace with everyone!

Peace, Love and Joy. If you have missed those you have missed the spirit of God intended!!

Anyone quoting the truth of the scriptures is creating peace between God and man! IMO, TK

[QUOTEPaul,Peter,Jesus,John,or Samson][/QUOTE]

neither of them are here ,Christ is in heaven ,but the scriptures are on hand,so use them ,and remember Satan also change himself and a angel of good (light)deceit sits deep in this world,

so what is it that make us different it is our hearths for the truth and only the truth of God.

Pierre

May 14, 2011 at 10:34 pm#245966

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2011,16:04)

Pierre,

Quote

John 17:20-26(NIV)

I also agree that scripture is a useful tool for training those that have received the Spirit of God to live according to Spirit of truth, which is our Teacher and Lord; 2 Timothy 3:16.

kerwin

Pierre

May 15, 2011 at 12:01 am#245968

kerwin

Participant

To all,

Here are two events in the life of Jesus where the Spirit of Christ is mentioned.

Quote

Matthew 3 (Young's Literal Translation)

16And having been baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water, and lo, opened to him were the heavens, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him,
17and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, `This is My Son — the Beloved, in whom I did delight.'

Quote

Luke 1 (Young's Literal Translation)

35And the messenger answering said to her, `The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God;

According to the following scriptures, which of the two above events is the most likely to be the one when Jesus was made High Priest by God?

Quote

Hebrews 5 (Young's Literal Translation)

5so also the Christ did not glorify himself to become chief priest, but He who spake unto him: `My Son thou art, I to-day have begotten thee;'
6as also in another [place] He saith, `Thou [art] a priest — to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;'

Quote

Psalm 2 (Young's Literal Translation)

4He who is sitting in the heavens doth laugh, The Lord doth mock at them.
5Then doth He speak unto them in His anger, And in His wrath He doth trouble them:
6`And I — I have anointed My King, Upon Zion — My holy hill.'
7I declare concerning a statute: Jehovah said unto me, `My Son Thou [art], I to-day have brought thee forth.

According to the following scriptures, which of the two events described initially is the most likely to be the one when Jesus received the Spirit as Comforter?

Quote

John 14 (Young's Literal Translation)

26and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you.

Quote

Galatians 5 (Young's Literal Translation)

22And the fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
23meekness, temperance: against such there is no law;
24and those who are Christ's, the flesh did crucify with the affections, and the desires;
25if we may live in the Spirit, in the Spirit also we may walk;

Quote

Hebrews 4:15 (Young's Literal Translation)
15for we have not a chief priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but [one] tempted in all things in like manner — apart from sin;

May 15, 2011 at 2:20 am#245970

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2011,15:24)

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,06:17)

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.

mike

A King, or a governor, or those he commissions. That covers everything down to the cop on the corner beat.

In other words, obey the law.

May 15, 2011 at 4:39 am#245971

Wispring

Participant

To Thread Readers,

Google the grammatical use of wether. I did. It appears to mean when more than one thing is referred to or are offered as a choice for selection. I believe Paladin has that which is the formally correct usage of the word “wether” understood correctly.

With Love and Respect,
Wispring

May 15, 2011 at 9:56 am#245973

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2011,11:01)

To all,

Here are two events in the life of Jesus where the Spirit of Christ is mentioned.

Quote

Matthew 3 (Young's Literal Translation)

1) 16And having been baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water, and lo, opened to him were the heavens, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him,
17and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, `This is My Son — the Beloved, in whom I did delight.'

Quote

Luke 1 (Young's Literal Translation)

2) 35And the messenger answering said to her, `The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God;

According to the following scriptures, which of the two above events is the most likely to be the one when Jesus was made High Priest by God?

Quote

Hebrews 5 (Young's Literal Translation)

3) 5so also the Christ did not glorify himself to become chief priest, but He who spake unto him: `My Son thou art, I to-day have begotten thee;'
6as also in another [place] He saith, `Thou [art] a priest — to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;'

Quote

Psalm 2 (Young's Literal Translation)

4) 4He who is sitting in the heavens doth laugh, The Lord doth mock at them.
5Then doth He speak unto them in His anger, And in His wrath He doth trouble them:
6`And I — I have anointed My King, Upon Zion — My holy hill.'
7I declare concerning a statute: Jehovah said unto me, `My Son Thou [art], I to-day have brought thee forth.

According to the following scriptures, which of the two events described initially is the most likely to be the one when Jesus received the Spirit as Comforter?

Quote

John 14 (Young's Literal Translation)

26and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you.

Quote

Galatians 5 (Young's Literal Translation)

Quote

Hebrews 4:15 (Young's Literal Translation)
15for we have not a chief priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but [one] tempted in all things in like manner — apart from sin;

Your references are off. According to the following, which of the two above…?”

The “two above” have nothing to do with his priesthood. Number one is a reference to the baptism scene in which John identifies the Messiah. John testified that the one who sent me to baptize told me to watch for the one on whom the spirit descends, and I testify that this is the son of of God.”

“And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. [John 1:31-34]

Number two is a reference to the annunciation to Mary concerning her part in the wonderful story of Messiah soon to be born.

Number three is a reference to the priesthood, because God had peophesied that the Messiah would be a priest after the order fof Melchizidec; requiring a resurrection, because priesthoods die when the priest dies. At the death of Jesus, he was raised and proclaimed the son of God by the resurrection, qualifying him for that priesthood.

Number four is the day God raised Jesus from the dead, and proclaimed him “Lord and Christ” [Acts 2:36] and declared him to be the son of God, from death begotten.

Numbers five and six; Neither. When Jesus returned from the desert immediately following his temptation by Satan, the Spirit came and “ministered unto him.”
[Mat 4:11][Mark 1:13]

May 15, 2011 at 10:01 am#245974

Participant

Quote (Wispring @ May 15 2011,15:39)

To Thread Readers,

With Love and Respect,
Wispring

Thanks W;

I find it more profitable to simply researcfh every instance of how the word is used in scripture, and it consistantly is used that way. Of course, when you do it my way, you have to consistantly remember you are dealing with a translation of possibly several different words in the original languages, and need at least to be aware of it.

I would say in that respect, it depends upon what you are asserting.

May 15, 2011 at 12:05 pm#245979

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2011,03:16)

Let me demonstrate what Paladin, the “man of peace”, is really saying to ME.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

Sometimes it requires that we “unlearn” what we know, in order to learn what God is saying to us.

Translation: YOU need to unlearn what YOU know because it is YOUR understanding of scripture that is wrong.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

Translation: The fact that YOU post scriptures should not be mistaken for a realization that YOU actually understand God's truth.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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.

Translation: What YOU think is scriptural truth is not the truth you claim it to be because YOUR understanding is lacking.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

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?

Translation: I used the word “WE”, but it is YOU who does these things, not me.

Quote (Paladin @ May 13 2011,04:03)

Now, Mike, can we please come together in fellowship on this board, and stop with all the sniping?

Translation: Mike, can YOU please get with the program and start being nice like I am?

peace and love to the one who is still always welcome at my table, mike

The time is January 6, 1885. The event is the publication of the 38 volume set of the Early Church Fathers; the first ten of which are designated “Ante-Nicene Fathers” which references the fact they cover the historical period prior to the Nicene Council of 325 a.d.

In the very first volume, in the introductory note to the “Epistle Concerning The Martyrdom Of Polycarp” page 37 of Vol. I, is found this statement by A. Cleveland coxe, D.D, who revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes:

Quote

As an encyclical of one of “the seven churches” to another of the same seven, and as bearing witness to their aggregation with others into the unity of “The Holy and Catholic church,” it is a v
ery interesting witness, not only to an article of the creed, but to the original meaning and acceptation of the same.

More than this, it is evidence of the strength of Christ perfected in human weakness; and thus it affords us an assurance of grace equal to our day in every time of need.

When I see in it, however, an example of what a noble army of martyrs, women and children included, suffered in those days “for the testimony of Jesus,” and in order to hand down the knowledge of the gospel to these boastful ages of our own, I confess myself edified by what I read, chiefly because I am humbled and abashed in comparing what a Christian used to be, with what a Christian is, in our times, even at his best estate.”

This is quite an indictment upon a people alledgedly devoted to this same Jesus, separated by two centuries of study and scholarship, and consequently, supposedly a better administration of what is meant by what is written in the scripture.

Why are there so many denominations, all pledging allegiance to the one and same Christ? Did not this Christ deny that he is divided?

What is that to me? To me it is a reminder that the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ is today, entrusted to vessels of clay. When brethren meet on boards in dispute, we all think to present the truth of the gospel, and are disappointed when our adversaries do not see things our way.

Frustrations abound, and feelings are disturbed on all sides. I have caused my brother anguish, and for that Mike, I ask forgiveness. It was not my intent, but we all know about
“good intentions” when the result is not perceived to be that at all.

I cannot agree to admit error when I do not perceive the error, though the whole board may accuse. I can only try to make my case, and move on. I am still faulted clay, and will continue ever so to be.

I will be ever cognizant of the feelings of other posters on this board, and will continue to request your patience, and your indulgence with my posting, as I ever strive to make clear what seems to be a contentious assortment of issues between us.

I disagree with you Mike. That does not change the fact you are my brother, and two thousand years of scholarship comes between us, but remember, that two thousand years of scholarship has produced a thousand yearsw of dark ages and many thousands of denominations all in the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

If you did not react with zeal and emotion, I would be disappointed. I would rather have you as a brother in disagreement, than as an enemy in agreement. I have testified before, and will continue so to do, that I appreciate your knowledge in scripture, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions. It is not necessary that you say it the way I say it in order for me to be comfortable. I ask only that you be tollerant with my views as we differ, even as we both try to proclaim for the understanding of all, the gospel of Jesus christ.

It matters not whether I use “I” or “WE” since you seem to “translate” both to mean “YOU” – and I will honor your disappointment in me, as [you] a brother admonishing [me] a wayward brother.

I will readily admit this was not the original response I had prepared, but our mutual spirit-gift admonished me to rather find a way to see the image of God in you and emulate that, so I have done, and so I will strive to continue to do.

And no, Mike, I do not perceive myself as “Holier Than Thou;” I see myself as almost a mirror image of you, as we both strive to present the image of God to the readers on the board. We both suffer from frustraton, and from the constant flow of a feeling of inadequacy to make our position known sufficiently to cause agreement in the other.

Perhaps we are sent by God to offer different perspectives in the eyes of the readers, I will not pretend to know the answer to that one. I will only continue to try to present my understanding to the best of my faulted ability, and apologize before hand, for any hurt I cause in presenting my case. It is not my intent.

May 15, 2011 at 3:07 pm#245981

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2011,03:49)

Mike……….The word or LOGOS is fully GOD and was and is (IN) Jesus, all seven Spirits of GOD indwell Him and all who have God Logos (IN) them have GOD in them also through the CHRISTOS or anointing Logos of GOD.

John 1:14……..> And the LOGOS was made (came into being) in flesh.

Mike what part of Jesus word do you not believe, when he said the FATHER WAS IN HIM . If you could come to see as Thomas finely did when he said my Lord and my God. Why can't you understand that GOD the Father was actually in working through him reconciling the world back to him. Take what Thomas said literally God the Father was indeed in Jesus and speaking his words through him. That does not make Jesus the God that was (IN) him though. When Jesus said he was not alone he was not lying GOD the Father was with him , When Jesus spoke the words destory this temple and in three day I shall raise it up, that was not Jesus saying that it was God the Father that was literally in him speaking through him God was in Jesus in bodily form. Jesus' body was God the Father's temple he was living in and speaking his LOGOS through.

God who in times past has spoken to us through the prophets has in these latter days Spoken to us through a son. IMO

peace and love…………………………..gene

May 15, 2011 at 3:12 pm#245982