- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2011,15:32) Quote (Paladin @ May 23 2011,07:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2011,14:41) Quote (Paladin @ May 22 2011,16:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,14:53) Paladin, is Peter EXCLUDING all other authorities EXCEPT FOR kings and governors by his use of the word “whether”? YES or NO?
Yes! since it is the king who appoints the governors, how can there possibly be any other options? Peter himself excludes all others when he says ” Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him…(the king)“
So then it DOESN'T include “the cop on the corner beat” like you claimed a week ago? Your new claim is that Peter is saying we must subject ourselves ONLY to kings and governors?
Paladin, you had it right the first time. Since Peter used the word “EVERY”, the word “whether” is listing only a couple of the “EVERY”. Peter is NOT telling us we can ignore “the cop on the beat”, or the President, or the judge in the courtroom, is he? He is NOT really saying we can ignore everyone EXCEPT FOR kings and governors, is he?
How is anyone here supposed to take you seriously if you keep changing your clearly posted answers after you've been showed they don't fit in with your claims?
Do you acknowledge that your first answer to this scripture was that it included law enforcement even “down to the cop on the corner beat”?
Do you acknowledge that you've now changed that answer and are claiming it applies ONLY to “kings” and “governors”?
Why would you do that?
mike
Mike, I have not changed anything. It is your attempt to meddle with my words that makes everyting I say loook like something else.If you go back and post what I actually say, and post under my words, the words you ar einserting to make it look like something else, you will see why you are so bewildered by everything I say.
If you will just take my words, and stop trying to figure out some secret meaning, or some alternate reference you may begin to see what my words are actually saying.
as for the cop on the corner, it even includes the nun in the classroom, if authority is of an hierarchial nature, and the king supports those whom he appoints, which in turn would include thoe whom his governors appoint, and those whom his appointees would appoint, they are all subordinate appointees of those who are appointed by the king as supreme, therefore, are included in the two choices, the king as supreme, or to governors as appointed by the supreme king.
Okay Paladin,I took your advice and looked up what you originally said. Here is a bit of our conversation about “whether”:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2011,15:24) So Peter is saying we should shun all human ruling institutions unless they are specifically a king or a governor? YES or NO, please. Quote (Paladin @ May 14 2011,20:20) 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.
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.
So you see, you have mentioned many times that Peter's intent was never to say we should subject ourselves ONLY to kings and governors, right? Even in today's post, you mention nuns, right? But here's the thing: Peter only mentions kings as supreme, and governors as those commisioned by the kings. You see? No mention of “cops on the corner beat”. No mention of “nuns”. And no mention of “ANYONE ELSE” that the king or governor commissions either.Do you see what you're doing, Paladin? You are admitting that you KNOW Peter was including the cops and nuns and judges and whatever. But you are conveniently forgetting that Peter mentioned none of them by name, NOR DID HE MENTION THEM BY SAYING “OR THOSE THE GOVERNOR COMMISIONS”.
Peter mentions:
1. THE KING AS SUPREME
2. THE GOVERNORS THAT THE KING COMMISSIONS.THAT'S IT. NO ONE ELSE IS MENTIONED AT ALL.
Yet we all KNOW that others are included because Peter says EVERY human institution, right? But only TWO are mentioned specifically.
I haven't “changed your words” at all, Paladin. You are playing games because you KNOW the word “whether” in this scripture does not EXCLUDE all authorities EXCEPT FOR kings and governors.
Will you admit this? (Btw, I've only briefly searched, but I've found two other scriptures where “whether” has the meaning of “even including” instead of “all others excluded”. But let's see if you're willing to own up to the truth of this scripture first.)
Oh, I have no problem admitting to the truth of this scripture, it is the truth of Mike I am finding inpossible.I have asked you to quit making letters so big it distracts from the message. I want to find my own focus, not have it directed by one with whom I am in disagreement.
You have “'s for quotes, or brackets with “
Quote (kerwin @ May 24 2011,16:32)
Paladin,Thank you for your answers. I believe you have previously mentioned that the Spirit of God is the Word of God according to other scriptures.
That is a reference to reema, not logos.
Quote Is it plausible the John 1:1 is speaking about the Spirit which is a part of God also has an independent existence? Not that I am aware of.
Quote I ask this because that is similar to the belief common among Rabbinical Jews at the current time according to the Wikipedia article on the issue. Rabbinical Jews have had two thousand years to deal with the scriptures, whice were designed to lead the Jews to Christ. They have not found him, for the most part. Why would I turn to Rabbinical scholars for understanding in the scriptures?
Quote
Wikipedia article on Holy Spirit reads:Quote
The Rabbinic “Holy Spirit,” has a certain degree of personification, but it remains, “a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes”I do not believe or in any way accept that the Holy Spirit is an “attribute” of God. God is not an attribute. When he “pours out of his spirit upon all flesh” [Jeol 2:28] he is not sharing an attribute, he is sharing himself with his creation.
Quote I learned that “join” is a possible English translation of the Greek Word “ginomai” from the online Lexicon at searchtgodsword.org which uses Strong;’s 1096. The New American Standard version translated “ginomai” to “joined” in at least one case Paul’s letter to the Romans. The King James Version translates it to “married” instead. Thus I believe it is plausible to say the Word married (joined) Flesh.
Look, my friend, at the consequences of playing the translations of different verses against each other. There is no end to the number and quality of doctrines that can be developed by this practice.
And I do not say it is wrong. I say simply, be aware of unintended consequences. If it is alright for you to do this one, it is equally alright for another to do it somewhere else, where it might have more serious repercussions.
And I have no problem with using synonyms to clarify a meaning of a word. Just as long as you make your position clear, it is a clarifying synonym, and not a doctrinal difference.
Otherwise, I actually think you may be on to something.
Quote (Pastry @ May 24 2011,23:34) Quote
“There was a man sent from God”Where did God send this man from?
Paladin! Almighty God is in Heaven. Almighty God send his only begotten Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that through Him all will be saveth. And He came down from Heaven to do the will of Him that sent Him….
That has nothing to do with my question.“There was a man sent from God”
From where did God send this man? THAT is the question.
grace and hope to you and yours from me and mine precious sister.
Quote (Pastry @ May 25 2011,09:53) Revelation 19:15-19 confirm this in that this is about the judgment of God being rendered through Jesus:
No Marty! Judgement will come soon enough.
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Read this very slowly…. His NAME IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD……
God created all things with him in mind knowing that a particular point in time he would bring forth His Son in whom his plan for this world would be fulfilled. Jesus existed in the heart of the Father as someone who he would bring forth at a particular point in time.
But that is not what it says…..
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
As Colossians 1 states, God made all things by him and for him, and without him was nothing made that was made. It does not mean that Jesus was the creator. This is what you said first….Now you say something else………God did not create all with Jesus in His mind, jesus was there, to be able to create, by THE POWER OF ALMIGHTY GOD…..
Marty, you should never add to Scriptures….
Peace Irene
Hi Mrs:Please tell me who is adding to the scriptures:
The scripture states: IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
Where do you see the word “Jesus” in this scripture?
And if in Colossians 1:16 was speaking of Jesus doing the creating then the scripture would read that all things were created for “himself”. It does not. It says all things were created by him and for him.
And you ignored the following scripture which adds clarity to what is being said in Colossians:
Quote Hebrews 1
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he(God) made the worlds;
3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
And so, in Revelation 19, has his name been changed from Jesus to the Word of God?
1 Timothy 2:5 states:
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
It does not appear that his name has changed to me by virtue of the scriptures.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Gene Balthrop @ May 25 2011,00:41) Paladin………..Brother lets address the difference between is and was . Now if i were to say “in (the) beginning or (a) beginning , GOD was with the or a man, and the God was man. What i am saying is the GOD and the man are one and the same being. The use of the word was is only referencing what existed in the past is that not what was means. Is it not expressionism of time in the past, just as the word (beginning) represents a (start time), and if i say > at that start time was am i not tying both the start time and was time together as one and the same point of existence in time. My focus is the (start time) and (the was time) is the same point in time. Do you follow what i am saying brother. I am not going to add futher here because i want us to get this straight first brother. Thanks for your replies Paladin. peace and love to you and yours…………………………………gene
The difference between “is” and “was” is far more consequential that that, my friend. It is not just a matter of differentiating between two time-words, is the the difference between asserting something is, and not asserting something is. THAT is the significance of John's terminology.John never states, nor does any scripture anywhere, that the logos is God. THAT is significant in itself, because it takes John 1:1 out of the proof-text collumn for trinity doctrine, and for pre-existant Jesus doctrine.
Not only is God never identified by such terminology as “is the logos,” but logos is never identified as Jesus, the son of God.
The argument should not get bogged down in time-words, my friend, it should be focussed on the fact that John uses the only possible terminology that allows him to say the logos was with God, and the logos was God; and the logos became something not God, in seventeen words, stating the most profound message in all of scriptural history. There is no other way to say it, eliminating both Sabellianism and Arianism in one simple sentence.
Hi Pierre:
You say:
Quote so what seems to be your confusion?? you never heard a prince among men that received that authority from his father the king??
and also sins is wickedness and God does not touch wickedness so he give all judgement to the son,
I am not confused and niether I am the author of confusion.
It was you who were questioning the fact that he was in the “form of God” as a man. I have showed you by the scriptures that indeed he was that by virture of the authority given him by God. In addition to what I have already states about this. Is there any other man who has ever been appointed Lord over all of God's creation?
What I am showing you by this is that he was in “the form of God” as a man in his ministry on earth and not in some pre-existing position which you are preaching.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ May 25 2011,17:54) Hi Pierre: You say:
Quote so what seems to be your confusion?? you never heard a prince among men that received that authority from his father the king??
and also sins is wickedness and God does not touch wickedness so he give all judgement to the son,
I am not confused and niether I am the author of confusion.
It was you who were questioning the fact that he was in the “form of God” as a man. I have showed you by the scriptures that indeed he was that by virture of the authority given him by God. In addition to what I have already states about this. Is there any other man who has ever been appointed Lord over all of God's creation?
What I am showing you by this is that he was in “the form of God” as a man in his ministry on earth and not in some pre-existing position which you are preaching.
Love in Christ,
Marty
MartyQuote What I am showing you by this is that he was in “the form of God” as a man in his ministry on earth and not in some pre-existing position which you are preaching. Love in Christ,
Martysorry for the confussion,but explain to me how a men can be in the form of God,but if you know then you also know Gods form ?
right?Pierre
Quote (Paladin @ May 24 2011,04:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2011,13:53) Quote (Paladin @ May 22 2011,16:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,15:15) Quote (Paladin @ May 20 2011,06:25)
In the beginning was the logos; and the logos was theon [Greek form of Direct Object of preposition (was”)];and “theos een ho logos.” Here, John is not saying the logos is the same person as ton theon, he is saying the logos was the same person as ton theon; but John later tells us the logos became not God (flesh) [1:14] This God cannot do. God cannot become “not God.”Hi Paladin,
I don't really see the difference between the two explanations. You are still saying the Logos WAS “the same person as God”, but then became “not God”, which is something God cannot do. But if the Word WAS GOD, then it could not become “not God”, right?
Wrong!
Try again Mike.
I said, the logos was theon, [Greek form of direct object of the preposition (“was”). I never said anything about “The logos was the same person as God.” That is your interpretaion of my words.
Okay, my mistake. When you said the logos was the SAME PERSON as ton theon, I assumed that you knew “ton theon”, which means “the god”, was referring to God Almighty. You've also said:Quote (Paladin @ May 16 2011,16:07) “Ton theon” and 'theos” are references to the same person. Every English translation says, “And the Word was with God“. Do you think this is wrong? Do you think it was some other person that the Word was with in the beginning? And since, according to you, “ton theon” and “theos” are the same person, but you don't seem to be sure that “ton theon” is really God Almighty, then perhaps John 1:1 doesn't mention God Almighty at all. Is this what you're claiming as a possibility?
My statement was simple; John never said logos is the person of God; John said logos was the person of God.The difference is between “is and was.
John never said logos is God.
As soon as logos became (It does not matter what it became if it was not God) flesh, it was not God. logos changed by becoming what it was not. God did not.
And round and round and round he goes; where he'll stop nobody knows.
Okay, so John said the logos WAS the PERSON OF GOD? So when the logos changed to something other than God, the PERSON OF GOD changed into what was “not God”?
You keep circling, but all your claims are right here for us to see.
Paladin, do you believe “ton theon” in John 1:1 referred to “God Almighty”? Do you believe John was saying the logos was also “God Almighty”?
Quote (Paladin @ May 24 2011,03:53) “There was a man sent from God” Where did God send this man from?
Could “para” be translated to say, “There was a man sent BY God”?Quote (Paladin @ May 24 2011,17:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2011,15:32) Peter mentions: 1. THE KING AS SUPREME
2. THE GOVERNORS THAT THE KING COMMISSIONS.THAT'S IT. NO ONE ELSE IS MENTIONED AT ALL.
Yet we all KNOW that others are included because Peter says EVERY human institution, right?
Oh, I have no problem admitting to the truth of this scripture,
Okay, would you then do so please? Would you admit that the word “whether” in this scripture doesn't exclude cops and nuns and judges and such, even though ONLY kings and governors are mentioned?Quote (Paladin @ May 24 2011,03:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 22 2011,13:36) Quote (Paladin @ May 21 2011,03:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,15:00)
Perhaps you could try my template and break it down line for line like I asked Marty to do?I don't even know what that means.
Paladin,Here's the “template”, filled in with your answers for all but the last line. Just fill in the last line for me, please.
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
taking the form of a servant: While he was a human being
and was made in human likeness: While he was a ? (Fill in the question mark)
Please show me the post from which you got “my answers” you have listed in this post.
Do you disagree with the answers I posted for you? If so, then place your own answers on those lines. I'm really only interested in the last line – the one with the question mark.Quote (Paladin @ May 25 2011,10:46) The difference between “is” and “was” is far more consequential that that, my friend. It is not just a matter of differentiating between two time-words, is the the difference between asserting something is, and not asserting something is. THAT is the significance of John's terminology.
Paladin………..I think i did not make myself clear in that last post , what i am saying is ( beginning) is a reference to time and (was) is also a reference to time. right?. So John could have been saying The word was with GOD (in the beginning) and the word (was GOD) in that same beginning. In other words the word and GOD were one and the same thing.But what i do is break down the word WORD to mean the MIND of GOD. Because i see a Man and his words as the same thing, because those word proceed from that particular mind, I see it that way with Jesus and GOD the Father. Jesus was not speaking HIS words but the Word being given Him By GOD the FATHER very presents (IN) HIM. Which was GOD”S very Spirit Self. That is why Jesus said the FATHER WAS (IN) HIM. I believe GOD is also with all who Has His HOLY SPIRIT in them . I have a hard time separating GOD and His Word Just as i would have separating a Man and his Words, because they both are derived from Spirit, and GOD is Spirit, and Can Pour forth His Spirit Self upon us all. Remember Jesus said GOD was Spirit. This is just the way i percieve it now brother.
peace and love to you and yours……………….gene
Paladin,
Jesus was and is a Jew as God appointed the Hebrew people as a people chosen to spread his word throughout the world. That is why Jesus restricted himself to teaching only the Hebrew peoples in order to prepare those that would spread the word from Jerusalem in accordance with prophecy. Therefore the Jews of today have a common root with those that adhere to the true doctrine of Christ as it is also the true Jewish doctrine. I admit the Rabbinical Jews are heretics but so are many Christian sects and yet the opinions of both can be helpful in correctly understanding scripture as they present another viewpoint. Of course it is necessary to test that viewpoint in order to see if it is from God.
I see that you have tested this one and have trouble with the word “attribute”. I certainly would not use that word to describe the Spirit's relationship to God even in the context of an object belonging to God.
God’s spirit is to him as our spirit is to us. Since I believe that I would say that God’s spirit is part of him with some traits of individuality but yet not a separate person.
From what I understand Rhema and Logos are two different aspects of the Word of God. Rema is the revelation of the Logos and Logos in this case is the deep things of God.
So the deep things of God were God and were with God.
Looking at “married to” as a plausible interpretation of “Ginomai” we would find that the deep things of God united with flesh in the same context that a woman is married to a man in Romans 7:3 and Christians are married to Christ in Romans 7:4.
It is the Spirit of God that reveals the deep things of God.
The following references are from King James Version of Scripture.
Quote Quote Ro 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Quote Ro 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2011,14:18) Paladin, Here's the “template”, filled in with your answers for all but the last line. Just fill in the last line for me, please.
6Who, being in the form of God: While he was a human being
Not my answer Mike, your answer.
Quote did not consider equality with God something to be grasped: While he was a human being Not my answer Mike, your answer.
Quote 7but emptied himself: While he was a human being Not my answer Mike, your answer.
Quote taking the form of a servant: While he was a human being Not my answer Mike, your answer.
Quote and was made in human likeness: While he was a ? (Fill in the question mark) Perhaps you missed this from an earlier post:
[page 108/ Post #3]Quote (942767 @ April 24 2011,20:07)
This is what the scripture states:1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
<!–QuoteBegin–Mike] No+actually…………THIS is what the scripture states:
Quote (Mike’>No @ actually…………THIS is what the scripture states:
ForthereisoneGodandonemediatorbetweenGodandmankind,themanChristJesuswhogavehimselfasaransomforall/>ItissayingthattheonewhoNOWmediatesbetweenusandGodWASoncethemanwhogavehimselfasaransomforall/>ThatisnotscriptureMike,thatispuredoctrinalbiasedrendingofscripturetopromoteapointofview.“Man”isanoun;“mankind”isan/>1Timothy2:5says“ForthereisoneGod,andonemediatorbetweenGodandmen,themanChrist/>andtheGreekusesanthrwpwnandanthrwposXristos/>anthrwpwnisthegenitivemasculinepluralformofanthrwpos;/>anthrwposisthenominativemasculinesingularformofanthrwpos;bothanthrwposandanthrwpwnaremasculine/>Theword“mankind,”amasculineadjective,isfoundseveralplacesinthenewtestament,andcomesfromtheGreek/>anthrwpinos/>Acts17:25“Neitherisworshippedwith[men's class="bbcode-color"> hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;” [anthrwpinwn = the genitive feminine plural form of anthrwpinos]Rom 6:19 “I speak after the manner of [men] because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” [anthrwpinon = adverb form of anthrwpinos]
1 Cor 2:13 “Which things also we speak, not in the words which [man's] wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
[anthrwpinees = genitive feminine singular adjective]1 Cor 4:3 “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of [man's] judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.”[anthrwpinees = genitive feminine singular adjective]
1 Cor 10:13 “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to [man]: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” [anthrwpinos = nominative masculine singular form of anthrwpinos]
James 3:7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of [mankind]: {mankind: Gr. (Adjective) nature of man}
[anthrwpinee = dative feminine singular form of anthrwpinos]
1 Pet 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of [man] for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
[anthrwpinee = dative feminine singular form of anthrwpinos]
This is the grammatic application of the Greek. Your application is the doctrinal application of the doctrine.[/quote]
How in the world does this post answer my red question mark?Quote I will discuss your misunderstanding of 1 Timothy some other time. I will not be in that travesty of a discussion. I have shown you that you completely misuse the Greek of the verse, and you claim it is I who misunderstand it. If you are insisting Jesus was somehow a different man from the man he was, other than resurrection, you are way off base.
Quote Answer the Phil 2 point for now, okay? Only if you will give me a number that represents how many times I must deal with this issue before you move on to something else. It has already been answered enought times to make it clear.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2011,14:40) Quote (Paladin @ May 23 2011,07:30) The reason being, if “theos” is translated “a god” it gives credence to the Jehovah's Witness theology.
“JW theology”? What's that? Of course the indefinite article is implied and by all means should be added in the English translations. 1:1 OBVIOUSLY speaks of TWO, one of which was WITH the other. If only one of them is THE god, then the other is a DIFFERENT god who was WITH “THE god”. Hence, the Word was A god who was WITH THE God. God cannot be WITH God, nor would an “essence” or “attribute” OF God be said to be WITH God. For example, the “love of God” is never said to be WITH God, as if it's a separate entity from Him, right?Acknowledging that the JW's are the only one's to translate John 1:1 correctly is not to give any credence to any other thing they say. (Although they are right on track with 99% of their understanding of the scriptures, IMO.)
And Kerwin, the definite article “the” is present before the god in 1:1b, so “No”, the God that the Word was with cannot be translated as “a god”, if that's what you were asking. John has specified that the word was with THE God, so it cannot be translated “the Word was with A god”.
Proof that Mike does not read his own post before he publishes it.
Quote Of course the indefinite article is implied and by all means should be added in the English translations. 1:1 OBVIOUSLY speaks of TWO, one of which was WITH the other. If only one of them is THE god, then the other is a DIFFERENT god who was WITH “THE god”. Quote it cannot be translated “the Word was with A god” Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2011,15:32) Quote (Paladin @ May 23 2011,07:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2011,14:41) Quote (Paladin @ May 22 2011,16:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,14:53) Paladin, is Peter EXCLUDING all other authorities EXCEPT FOR kings and governors by his use of the word “whether”? YES or NO?
Yes! since it is the king who appoints the governors, how can there possibly be any other options? Peter himself excludes all others when he says ” Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him…(the king)“
So then it DOESN'T include “the cop on the corner beat” like you claimed a week ago? Your new claim is that Peter is saying we must subject ourselves ONLY to kings and governors? Paladin, you had it right the first time. Since Peter used the word “EVERY”, the word “whether” is listing only a couple of the “EVERY”. Peter is NOT telling us we can ignore “the cop on the beat”, or the President, or the judge in the courtroom, is he? He is NOT really saying we can ignore everyone EXCEPT FOR kings and governors, is he?
How is anyone here supposed to take you seriously if you keep changing your clearly posted answers after you've been showed they don't fit in with your claims?
Do you acknowledge that your first answer to this scripture was that it included law enforcement even “down to the cop on the corner beat”?
Do you acknowledge that you've now changed that answer and are claiming it applies ONLY to “kings” and “governors”?
Why would you do that?
mike
Mike, I have not changed anything. It is your attempt to meddle with my words that makes everyting I say loook like something else.If you go back and post what I actually say, and post under my words, the words you ar einserting to make it look like something else, you will see why you are so bewildered by everything I say.
If you will just take my words, and stop trying to figure out some secret meaning, or some alternate reference you may begin to see what my words are actually saying.
as for the cop on the corner, it even includes the nun in the classroom, if authority is of an hierarchial nature, and the king supports those whom he appoints, which in turn would include thoe whom his governors appoint, and those whom his appointees would appoint, they are all subordinate appointees of those who are appointed by the king as supreme, therefore, are included in the two choices, the king as supreme, or to governors as appointed by the supreme king.
Okay Paladin,I took your advice and looked up what you originally said. Here is a bit of our conversation about “whether”:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2011,15:24) So Peter is saying we should shun all human ruling institutions unless they are specifically a king or a governor? YES or NO, please. Quote (Paladin @ May 14 2011,20:20) 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.
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.
So you see, you have mentioned many times that Peter's intent was never to say we should subject ourselves ONLY to kings and governors, right? Even in today's post, you mention nuns, right? But here's the thing: Peter only mentions kings as supreme, and governors as those commisioned by the kings. You see? No mention of “cops on the corner beat”. No mention of “nuns”. And no mention of “ANYONE ELSE” that the king or governor commissions either.Do you see what you're doing, Paladin? You are admitting that you KNOW Peter was including the cops and nuns and judges and whatever. But you are conveniently forgetting that Peter mentioned none of them by name, NOR DID HE MENTION THEM BY SAYING “OR THOSE THE GOVERNOR COMMISIONS”.
Peter mentions:
1. THE KING AS SUPREME
2. THE GOVERNORS THAT THE KING COMMISSIONS.THAT'S IT. NO ONE ELSE IS MENTIONED AT ALL.
Yet we all KNOW that others are included because Peter says EVERY human institution, right? But only TWO are mentioned specifically.
I haven't “changed your words” at all, Paladin. You are playing games because you KNOW the word “whether” in this scripture does not EXCLUDE all authorities EXCEPT FOR kings and governors.
Will you admit this? (Btw, I've only briefly searched, but I've found two other scriptures where “whether” has the meaning of “even including” instead of “all others excluded”. But let's see if you're willing to own up to the truth of this scripture first.)
Why is it mike, you can see only one half of a verse?Did you not see this?
Quote Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him…(the king)” The king is supreme. The kings sends subbordinates, who speak in his stead. The issue is “obey the laws of subbordinates as you the laws of the king.”
Peter's reference is “whether unto the king as supreme or unto governors as tham that are sent.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2011,14:15) Quote (Paladin @ May 22 2011,17:00) No Mike, It is YOU who are making changes to what I said. I said the logos which was God, became not God. I did not say God became not God. Stop trying to confuse the readers.
I'M confusing the readers? Look at you own words above.If the logos was GOD and then became “not God”, then aren't you saying that the GOD the logos WAS became “not God”. Which exact “God” do you think the logos WAS?
And don't the words “WAS God” indicate something that “used to be God but isn't anymore”? How does that align with “God cannot become 'not God'”?At first I thought I was just confused. Now I know why.
Well Mike, that's because you decided to pick a fight with Paladin, when your fight is with John.It was John who said
“in the beginning was the logos
and the logos was with ton theon
and the logos was theos.”“And ho logos became flesh”
All Paladin did was point out the obvious flaws that began with Catholicism's trinity doctrine. Then moved on to show why the “pre-existance of Jesus” doctrine falls by the wayside by the same arguments.
It is Mike that is struggling so hard to make Paladis say what Paladin did not say.
Let's examine what John said; Forget anything that stumbling bumbling fool Paladin might have said. He will be the first to tell youhe is faulted clay, not to be taken seriously.
John, on the other hand, was quite clear in his use of words, and he was inspired clay, so try to listen to what he was inspired to write: “In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God.”
“And the logos became flesh.”
John tells us there was a beginning, and that the logos was identifed in that beginning, as being with God, and was God.
John further tells us the logos became something other than God; i.e., an actuall creation of God; flesh.
There is a parallel account of this type of transition, found in the sixtieth anniversary issue of Life Magazine, on page 42; in which is stated, “Colonel Charles Lindbergh “The first man to fly from North America to Europe was the American dream made flesh.”
Both accounts are references to a personification of a concept.
The “American Dream” is a concept that anyone who works hard, and follows his aspirations can make it and make it big. That concept has a name, and that name is “The American Dream.”
“The Logos Of God” is a concept that anyone who so lives his life that it is no longer he that is seen by his neighbor, but Christ living in him, so that the glory of a son of God is seen by that neighbor, the logos of God is personified again in that saint of God. And everytiome it happens again, the concept is personified again.
Now, mike, you can tesst John's concept against what John actually said. And you can test John's concept against the “American Dream” concept for a parallel account, but you cannot attribute Paladin as the source for the logos of God personification doctrine. THAT belongs to John and Paul the Apostle.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 25 2011,12:05) Quote (Paladin @ May 24 2011,03:53) “There was a man sent from God” Where did God send this man from?
Could “para” be translated to say, “There was a man sent BY God”?
Written…
Egeneto anthrwpos apestalmenos para theou…Translated…
There was a man sent from God…If Mike wants to change the scriptures to read
(Mike's translatin)
There was a man sent by God…I cannot correct you for you do not take correction too well.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 25 2011,12:16) Quote (Paladin @ May 24 2011,17:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 24 2011,15:32) Peter mentions: 1. THE KING AS SUPREME
2. THE GOVERNORS THAT THE KING COMMISSIONS.THAT'S IT. NO ONE ELSE IS MENTIONED AT ALL.
Yet we all KNOW that others are included because Peter says EVERY human institution, right?
Oh, I have no problem admitting to the truth of this scripture,
Okay, would you then do so please? Would you admit that the word “whether” in this scripture doesn't exclude cops and nuns and judges and such, even though ONLY kings and governors are mentioned?
What, did you miss all those other times?You are focussing on the wrong part of the message Mike.
It is not about what can be included in what the author includes, it is what is excluded by what the author excludes.
Paul excluded everything except thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, by his use of the limting paramater “whether.”
Peter used “whether” to reference the king as supreme, and any subbordinate chosen by the king.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 25 2011,12:19) Quote (Paladin @ May 24 2011,03:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 22 2011,13:36) Quote (Paladin @ May 21 2011,03:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 21 2011,15:00)
Perhaps you could try my template and break it down line for line like I asked Marty to do?I don't even know what that means.
Paladin,Here's the “template”, filled in with your answers for all but the last line. Just fill in the last line for me, please.
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
taking the form of a servant: While he was a human being
and was made in human likeness: While he was a ? (Fill in the question mark)
Please show me the post from which you got “my answers” you have listed in this post.
Do you disagree with the answers I posted for you? If so, then place your own answers on those lines. I'm really only interested in the last line – the one with the question mark.
You are missing the point Mike.You do not have the right to assign answers to anyone else's post and label it “your answers.”
Anyone who reads that post may very well think “honest Mike” would not say it if it was not so.
I just can't seem to get you to see the importance of this Mike.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
