Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ May 16 2011,07:31)

Mike! I also found that when one confronts Paladin with an error He does not respond. that He did when I pointed out that I take what Isaiah says about precepts upon precepts line upon line. Paladin has not responded to say He was wrong. And I really don't expect him to either. That too is te second time He did that. So i don't trust Him at all, unless He stands up to His error….Peace Irene

And exactly how do you think paladin was wrong? Paladin uses that same reference in many posts, because it precisely describes the same way Jesus used the scriptures, “here a little, there a little.” Why would Paladin think it was wrong?

Just because I worded it differently does not make it wrong.

What I objected to, and which still has me wondering Irene, is the part that is bolded in this:

Quote (Pastry @ May 12 2011,01:04)

[/quote]

Quote

Irene, do you read what you post before you post it?

Yes, I do…. And i will say this much…. Whether the translators wrote all in sequence, I go by the saying “here a little and there a little.”

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:

You logic is drinking milk? Mine is eating meat, and I like it…..

I stand by that the New creation is in Jesus. While Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. He was brought forth by God, not men…. A literal Son of God…
Firstborn of all creation, AND FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD……. SO IN ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE PREEMINENCE…..

What is certain, my friend, that you are wrong…. But will you admit it?
BTW I always make sure what I say is correct…; I have proven that Jesus preexisted by Scriptures…. At least to myself…. Can I prove it to you? No…. that you have to do yourself….

Go in peace Irene, and ponder your attitude.

May 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm#246055

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ May 13 2011,22:26)

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 Irene

Paladin, remember this, that is why i think you were wrong. because you think that all go by the flow of the story,. I think that we should go by precept upon precepts. line upon line,like the Scripture in Isaiah says…. Peace irene

May 16, 2011 at 2:47 pm#246056

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ May 17 2011,01:26)

Quote (Pastry @ May 16 2011,07:31)

Just because I worded it differently does not make it wrong.

What I objected to, and which still has me wondering Irene, is the part that is bolded in this:

Quote (Pastry @ May 12 2011,01:04)

[/quote]

Quote

Irene, do you read what you post before you post it?

Yes, I do…. And i will say this much…. Whether the translators wrote all in sequence, I go by the saying “here a little and there a little.”

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:

You logic is drinking milk? Mine is eating meat, and I like it…..

Go in peace Irene, and ponder your attitude.

That is not what you said before, did you… And who has an attitude,,,,…. Peace Irene

May 16, 2011 at 2:48 pm#246057

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Paladin………..Just for my clarification, Jesus said GOD was a Spirit, as i believe you also believe, then he said , The “WORDS” i am telling you ARE spirit and life. My problem is separating GOD from His word, it is like trying to separate a man from his words. Jesus also said the Father was in Him. This show the very presents of GOD himself residing (IN) Jesus right. would that not be the case brother, i can not yet comprehend how a being and his word can be seperated. So i see it as God in all and Through all brother. What is you understanding on this Paladin?.

peace and love to you and yours………………………………………gene

May 16, 2011 at 10:05 pm#246071

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ May 16 2011,07:31)

How about you setting us an example Irene, show us what you mean. Like for example, show us where you are wrong and willing to admit you learned your error on this thread.

Don't be so eager to tell others how, show us.

May 16, 2011 at 10:07 pm#246072

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,11:10)

Quote (Paladin @ May 15 2011,16:11)

And “ho logos een pros ton theon” the logos was with the God. So ho logos was not the same one with whom he was with.

Hi Paladin,

Isn't that what I just said to Gene? Ho logos is NOT the same One that he was with. Therefore TWO are mentioned in John 1:1, and only ONE of them is “ton theon” (THE God). So who is this other one that is also called by the title “theos”?

I know of someone who is called by the name “the Word of God” and is also referred to by the title “theos” in other scriptures.

Could this person be the same person who is referred to as “theos” and “ho logos” in John 1:1? Well, we know that the Word described in John 1:1 had the glory of an only begotten from the Father. How about the Word described in Rev 19?

mike

I thought you said you know the Greek Mike?

“Ton theon” and 'theos” are references to the same person.

Do you know why?

May 16, 2011 at 10:24 pm#246075

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ May 17 2011,09:05)

Quote (Pastry @ May 16 2011,07:31)

How about you setting us an example Irene, show us what you mean. Like for example, show us where you are wrong and willing to admit you learned your error on this thread.

Don't be so eager to tell others how, show us.

Paladin! a long time ago I believed in the trinity. Thanks to Almighty God that He showed us how wrong it is. To come out of the Catholic Church where I was very active in was not easy. I had started a Rosary Society, and a Woman's Organization, and was the president for that Organization for awhile.
Then my Husband Georg was watching Mr. Armstrong. He was talking about how wrong that Church was. I went to a Bible Store to get a Book on Him, because I had heard that, that Church was a cult. I got a small Booklet on Mr. Armstrong and my eye caught a big book called the “Two Babylonians”. I put it under my arm and waited in line to get checked out. I gave the lady the small booklet and she asked me if I wanted the Book
under my arm too. I was rather embarrassed and took it too. It so happened that that book opened my eyes. We shocked .all of our friends when we left that Church. We owned a Pastry shop at the time, and in order to keep the Sabbath, we sold it to our oldest Son. All that was not easy on me especially. Then came the day when Nick one of the Moderators here told me I was wrong. He showed me a Scripture to prove it. I then said, that I was wrong and he was right. Now its your turn….
Peace Irene

May 16, 2011 at 10:42 pm#246079

Participant

Why are we entering the same territory for the third time Mike?

Do you have a printer?

Please, print this our so we don't have to go over it again.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,11:10)

Ho logos is NOT the same One that he was with. Therefore TWO are mentioned in John 1:1, and only ONE of them is “ton theon” (THE God). So who is this other one that is also called by the title “theos”?

“Ton Theon” is a reference to God, in the accusative case, which means “ton Theon” is the direct object of the verb
“with,” which is what the logos was; i.e, it was with God.

“Theos” on the other hand, is the same person, God, only this time it is in the nominative case; only it is not the subject, it is lacking the definite article necessary for it to be the subject of this verse. “ho logos” is the subject, and “Theos” is the predicate nominative form of the wrod describing the same God that was earlier described by “Ton Theon.”

Quote

I know of someone who is called by the name “the Word of God” and is also referred to by the title “theos” in other scriptures.

No you don't mike. Tell me of a scripture where this “someone who is called by the name “the word of God” was ever called by that name. Scripture does not say “He was called by the name;” it says “His name is called…” – If you try to give any of the references where “The logos of God” are used in scripture, I will show where you are wrong, because Jesus is never called “The logos of God” in scripture where you can demonstrate that to be the case.

In fact, I can show you where “The Logos of God” is a plan in the mind of God, that is fulfilled whenever a saint so lives that he yields his life to Christ, and Christ lives in him, and the “Logos of God” is personified in the saint.

This has been posted over and over again on this thread, never refuted, not even successfully denied, yet you continue to mislead the readers to think Jesus is the logos of John 1:1.

Now, I already know you disagree with this Mike, but disagreement is not rebuttal. Suppose you try refuting it this time, from the scriptures, and with full application of the Greek you claim to know, and we shall meet on the plain of battle, to defend the word of God.

Quote

No you don't Mike. You know only that concerning the one described as “became flesh, it is said “we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,” [John 1:14]

“As of” is not synonymous with “of.” He did not have “the glory of” – he had “the glory as of…“

“ws” is a Greek particle of comparison. John is telling us that when the saint so lives that he gives his life over to Jesus, and Jesus Christ lives in his flesh, “We beheld the glory, as of an only begotten son” becasue it is no longer the saint that people see, but Christ living in him.

Please, print this our for reference and stop bringing it back for rediscovery every few hundred pages.

May 16, 2011 at 10:48 pm#246080

Participant

Quote (Tim Kraft @ May 16 2011,22:19)

When the dust settles from this highly energized debate all I hope is that both Mike and Paladin continue on this site. I try to learn with pro's and con's of truth. You are both highly respected by all who read and hear. Sometimes we can major on a minor and its hard to let go. God has blessed you both. Your blessing is needed in this world and on this site. There are others that excell, but I won't list. There is much understanding needed of what Jesus actually did on earth and what it means today, now and into the future. Love to all and blessings from God, TK

Hello Tim; Thanks for such a gracious observation. I would invite Mike to join with me in examinging just exactly what the Greek does say, if he can lay aside his anger (I do not say he is wrong, only that he is angry) and work with me on this thread only. We can present a verse, break it down into its component parts,. examine it not only from the original language, but also from how it matches what else is written, and go from there.

It becomes harder for me to deal with Mike, because I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge, but I cannot sit by and allow doctrine to be promoted just because truth is unpopular.

I do not think Mike believes me when I say I appreciate him, because we mostly disagree on scripture, but look at how I treat him, and tell me he is not my brother. He is my brother, and in my house he holds a special seat. Now if I can just get him to agree…..

May 16, 2011 at 10:58 pm#246081

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ May 17 2011,01:47)

Quote

And who has an attitude,,,,…. Peace Irene

Any one…?

May 16, 2011 at 11:02 pm#246082

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ May 17 2011,09:24)

Quote (Paladin @ May 17 2011,09:05)

Quote (Pastry @ May 16 2011,07:31)

How about you setting us an example Irene, show us what you mean. Like for example, show us where you are wrong and willing to admit you learned your error on this thread.

Don't be so eager to tell others how, show us.

I have already told you Irene, I was raised a Catholic, and studied my way out of that error; joined myself to the Church of Christ, studied my way out of that error, and now am a Christian, attatched to no denomination whatsoever.

I have admitted I was wrong, at least twice. so, now it's your turn again…

Grace and Hope is looking better all the time.

May 16, 2011 at 11:31 pm#246083

Participant

Quote (Paladin @ May 17 2011,10:02)

Quote (Pastry @ May 17 2011,09:24)

Quote (Paladin @ May 17 2011,09:05)

Quote (Pastry @ May 16 2011,07:31)

How about you setting us an example Irene, show us what you mean. Like for example, show us where you are wrong and willing to admit you learned your error on this thread.

Don't be so eager to tell others how, show us.

I have admitted I was wrong, at least twice. so, now it's your turn again…

Grace and Hope is looking better all the time.

Paladin! Where did you show me that you are wrong as far as the precepts upon precepts go? Prove all things… you didn't…

May 17, 2011 at 12:45 am#246085

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 16 2011,05:51)

Peter is simply pointing out that the king is supreme, and all others are commissioned, whether governors, or cops on the beat.

Okay. So was I right that Peter's use of “whether” did not exclude “cops on the beat”, even though they were not specifically mentioned?

May 17, 2011 at 12:59 am#246086

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 16 2011,05:56)

That is my use of “or” where Peter said “as.” I was showing you (well, trying to show you at least) that Peter is saying that supreme kings commission all lessor men through authority bestowed by his supreme authority. That are all authorities, just some with more, some with less.

Paladin,

You don't need to show me this. I already understood this from Peter's own words. What I'm trying to get YOU to acknowledge is that Peter's use of the word “whether” did not EXCLUDE all authorities EXCEPT FOR kings or governors. You are right that Peter means even down to the cop on the beat.

And what that shows you is that the use of the word “whether” does not limit the meaning of “EVERY HUMAN INSTITUTION” to ONLY kings or governors just because those are the only two Peter specifically names by title.

Are we now in agreement on this FACT?

mike

May 17, 2011 at 1:13 am#246087

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 16 2011,16:07)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2011,11:10)

Quote (Paladin @ May 15 2011,16:11)

And “ho logos een pros ton theon” the logos was with the God. So ho logos was not the same one with whom he was with.

Hi Paladin,

Isn't that what I just said to Gene? Ho logos is NOT the same One that he was with. Therefore TWO are mentioned in John 1:1, and only ONE of them is “ton theon” (THE God).

I thought you said you know the Greek Mike?

“Ton theon” and 'theos” are references to the same person.

Do you know why?

Hmmmm…………..seems to me like you're sending mixed signals here. In your first quote above, you say the Word was NOT the same one as the One he was with. (Notice that you do say “HE”, not “IT”. )

Now in this post, you seem to be saying they ARE the same person.

So yes, I would like to know why you make this claim.

mike

May 17, 2011 at 1:52 am#246091

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 16 2011,16:42)

Scripture does not say “He was called by the name;” it says “His name is called…”

You know only that concerning the one described as “became flesh, it is said “we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,” [John 1:14]

“As of” is not synonymous with “of.” He did not have “the glory of” – he had “the glory as of…“

Listen to yourself Paladin. You don't think the phrase “His name is called” means “His name is”?

Could you tell me what 100% of sane people would think my name was if I said, “My name is called Mike”?

And does “Glory as of” mean there was a different only begotten of the Father, and the Word's glory was AS OF the glory of this OTHER only begotten?

Paladin, have you ever heard the phrase, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it IS a duck”? Let's word that well known phrase like John worded 1:14. “If it has the walk AS OF a duck, and it has the quack AS OF a duck, then it's a duck.” The Word had the glory AS OF the only begotten from God because HE WAS the only begotten from God. Do you know of another ONLY begotten of God that the Word's glory was AS OF?

Are these petty points, along with some imagined difference between the words “logos” and “rhema”, your big rebuttals to Jesus' clear and direct words, “I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN”?

Oh brother!

May 17, 2011 at 2:03 am#246092

Blocked

Quote (Paladin @ May 16 2011,16:42)

Well then WHO EXACTLY IS “the only begotten Son of God”? Was it the Word of God that lived IN Jesus Christ? Or was it the man Jesus Christ?

May 17, 2011 at 4:51 am#246103

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Mike………….Gods seed that produces a son is the Spirit or Logos that is (IN) Jesus or anyone who has it. John says concerning a Christian , “NOW YOU ARE THE SONS OF THE LIVING GOD”, and again Paul says “know you Not that your bodies are the temple of the living GOD”. I still see God and His Word as one and the Same and He was truly (IN ) Jesus and is also in His Saints Also and they are all Sons of the living GOD NOW, if so be that spirit of God is Dwelling in you. This is what John meant when he said “for his seed abides (IN) you.” IMO

Mike i see God and us kinda like this, We has right and left haves in our brains, right?, it kinda like that i see GOD residing (IN) Me and I in him and can talk to him in my mind because he is ever present (IN) me, I ask him things , for help and advice , he comforts me and gives me peace, he removes anxiety and weary from me. It is like he is right there walking with me even when i screw up at times, he never forsakes me, he disciplines me and scourges me at times, but i know its for my own good he does it, i alway trust in him and ask him about things and for help for my family and friends and those who are suffering. I feel he is my Father and Jesus is My brother we are all one Family. IMO

peace and love………………………………………gene

May 17, 2011 at 9:21 am#246113

Participant

Quote (Pastry @ May 17 2011,10:31)

Quote (Paladin @ May 17 2011,10:02)

Quote (Pastry @ May 17 2011,09:24)

Quote (Paladin @ May 17 2011,09:05)

Quote (Pastry @ May 16 2011,07:31)

How about you setting us an example Irene, show us what you mean. Like for example, show us where you are wrong and willing to admit you learned your error on this thread.

Don't be so eager to tell others how, show us.

I have admitted I was wrong, at least twice. so, now it's your turn again…

Grace and Hope is looking better all the time.

Paladin! Where did you show me that you are wrong as far as the precepts upon precepts go? Prove all things… you didn't…

I didn't. Because I'm not. I use that reference quite often because it shows how God taught Israel, but Israel could not learn it as he taught it. To them, they had to have it precept upon precept, line upon line, and they still did not understand, because their eyes were blinded and their ears were dull of hearing. So he proclaimed he would teach them with a foreign tongue, a prophesy about the LXX (Septuagint);

God was not saying this is the way to learn, Irene, he said this was the only way Israel could handle the truth; and still they could not understand it; but God's word was unto Israel, here a little, there a little, that they might go and fall backward, and be broken and snared and taken.

“For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” [Isa 28:11-13]

Most scholars I know will teach young Christians that this is the way to learn and apply scripture; but it is actually the opposite of what God is saying about Israel, and the learning proccess.

May 17, 2011 at 9:53 am#246116