Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Ed,

Paladin won't agree, and he knows why.

But if he does, it is to be a one question and one answer within a post that is 250 words or less……………and only for me and Paladin.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2011,14:03)

[/quote] Quote (Paladin @ June 21 2011,04:10) Of course you do Mike, why all the false disclaimers? People who really don't care don't come online to demonstrate how much they don't care. Paladin, Read my words more carefully.  I will bold the important word in this statement for you: Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2011 @ 13:41) I don't really care any more what you believe. To this – Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 12 2011,03:07) Paladin,June wrote: Well, Mike, that's what happens when you “translate” everything to accomodate your doctrinal needs. Paladin, Unlike you and many others, I have no “doctrinal needs”.  I've said 100 times that it wouldn't change my faith one way or the other if Jesus didn't pre-exist.  But my understanding is based on the scriptures, while YOU seem to be the one translating “everything to accomodate your doctrinal needs”.  And usually with very illogical, mind numbing results.   For example, take the words “the glory I was having”.  You want this to mean “the glory that the thought of me in your mind/heart was predestined to someday have”.  What Greek words in that scripture lead you to this conclusion?  It's completely assinine IMO to come to this conclusion from the words that are actually there, and is a clear cut example, also IMO, of someone trying to illogically translate a scripture to fit their doctrinal needs.

I responded with this –

Quote (Paladin @ June 21 2011,21:10)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2011,13:41) Quote Paladin, if there is no Greek rule prohibiting 17:5 to have Jesus asking to be glorified IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE of his God (which there isn't), then all of this is just a waste of time. I have been quoting Greek rules to you for several hundred pages now Mike, and you still will ignore all of them. I showed you that it was not Peter, nor was it John, but rather it was Mathew who told us Jesus was gennao of the spirit, and it was John who told us that which is gennao of the spirit, is spirit. Since “gennao” tells us of a person's origin,(it originates at the point of being “gennao”), and Paul tells us of the origin of his flesh, [Rom 1:3 “…Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;”] [“genomenon” of a woman” [Gal 4:4] there is no room in scripture for a pre-existent Jesus. Quote Think what you want to. I know that Jesus is the Word who was with God in the beginning, then became flesh, and dwelled among mankind with the glory of the only begotten from the Father. No, Mike, you do not know that. You have a doctrine that needs that, because there is no scripture that says that. You cannot tie any scripture to any one man. John did not say “And the logos became a man” – John said “the logos became flesh.” And the reason John chose this terminology was specifically because he did not want to tie the logos to any specific one man. I have shown you countless posts that prove Jesus is not the logos of God, but rather, the logos of God is a concept of   “Christ living in you.” You take one word out of the logos of God and try to force it to mean the whole concept. I could do the same thing with “you” and insist the logos of God is “you” because Paul says  the logos of God is “Christ living in “you”. I could even make the same argument you are making only substitute the word “living” because “living” is also one fourth of the concept “The logos of God.” “The Logos Of God” is the name of a concept, mike, it is not comprised of one word, but four. “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” [Col 1:25-27] Quote He is the one through whom God created all things and ages.  He was existing in the form of God, but then emptied himself and was made into a human being. Wrong! “Have this mind in you which is also in Christ Jesus” is a present imperative, neither perfect, imperfect, nor aorist. “Was” is supplied by the translator, and is not in the passage. Jesus' mind is not gone, but is alive and well at the right hand of God, and Paul tells us to have the same mind Jesus has; the same Jesus who being in the form of God while a man (because it is present tense); and having been born to be a king [John 18:37]; could have commanded angels [Mat 25:53]; instead, emptied himself when he washed the disciples feet, taking upon himself the form of a servant and being found in fashion as a man.” Paul does not say the Fatther “made him a servant” he says Jesus “took upon himself the form of a servant” which Jesus certainly did in John 13 when he washed the disciples feet. And Paul does not say God made him in the fashion of a man, because “made” would then be active; nor does Paul say Jesus “made” himself in the likeness of a man, bur rather, because ginomai is in the middle deponent, should rather be translated “became” in likeness, a man; and in the next verse, tells he he was “found in fashion as a man.” “As” in that verse is Greek “ws” which is a particle of comparison; Paul is comparing what Jesus has made of himself, not with kings, but with common man. Quote And in 17:5, he is asking God to bring him back to his place beside Him, and restore the glory he had before the world was created through him. See what I mean Mike,? And you claim you have no doctrinal needs. “Bring him back to his place beside him” is a d octrinal need; it is not found in the verse. “Restore” is not in the verse. “Before the world was created” is not in the verse. If you “have no doctrinal needs” why are you so stuck on the wording of this doctrinal presentation? “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” [John 17:5] Jesus uses the preposition “para” twice in this verse, and both times it is dative, which points us to an indirect object; first, “thine own self” meaning “I want to be glorified with the self of you”  being the indirect object of Jesus' request; The second use of “para” is also dative, again pointing us to an indirect object, in this case “thee” – God the person being the indirect object of Jesus' request. And “pro” tells us that the glory he is referencing has been “before the world” exver since the world has bveen in existence. It has nothing to do with “before the creation of the world.” Do you honestly believe God doesn't know how to reference “before the creation of the world” if that is what he wants to say? “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” [II Tim 1:9] “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” [Titus 1:2] “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,”[Eph 1:4] Quote The rest of chapter 17 confirms this by Jesus saying he will soon be leaving the world and coming back to his Father.  And instead of God giving him the glory he used to have, He exalted him to an even higher position and glory, and gave him rule over heaven and earth for a while. Even Jesus himself knew we should “not look back” but constantly look forward. Why would he look back for glory that was promised? “And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” [Luke 9:62] What you are doing Mike, is saying Jesus was pre-existent, therefore this verse proves he was pre-existent. It is circular reasoning, not exegesis. John 17:5 does not prove the point. Quote That is my understanding which is based, not on my own preferences (for I couldn't care less either way), but on what the scriptures clearly teach us. Why don't you stop with the disclaimers that are obviously false? Your many pages of insistant rhetoric proves otherwise.

Why don't YOU read MY words more carefully?

Hmmm!!!

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2011,13:20)

Hi Ed, Paladin won't agree, and he knows why.   But if he does, it is to be a one question and one answer within a post that is 250 words or less……………and only for me and Paladin.

Paladin won't agree, and he knows why, but Mike has no clue.

Paladin won't agree because Mike has already agreed with the point made in my OP. Why should I debate thaat with which Mike has already agreed?

Here is the point expressed in my OP –

Quote (Paladin @ Feb. 25 2011,00:29)

If I understand this “Incarnation” trinity theory, you are telling me that Jesus preexisted with the Father in eternity, then “incarnated” by the Holy spirit in the womb of Mary. Scripture tells a far different story. At least three times in three different accounts, we are told that Jesus is the seed of Adam or the woman (Eve), in Messianic prophecies. We are told of the seed promise beginning with Gen 3:15, where the woman is told “Thy seed” so the incarnation begins with this woman of prophecy. Then her progeny carry that seed, and passed it on through several generations till Abraham is specifically mentioned by name, as one in a long line of the “seed carriers.” He is promised that “through thy seed” all nations will be blessed. It is similar to the promise first made to “the woman” of Gen 3:15. Then Abrahams line begins in turn, to carry that seed from father to son to son to son through a long line of seed carriers. It goes in promise through Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, Jesse, David, Mary, of whom it is said Jesus “was made of a woman” just like the promise began way back in Gen 3:15. If there is indeed an “incarnation” where did it take place. I contend it would have been in the woman of Gen 3:15, because each carrier of the seed would be “carnate” and the seed would be within, or “incarnate.” The seed had to be passed from generation to generation, for each generation in turn would “excarnate” so the seed would have to have been passed prior to that “excarnation” event. The passing of the seed is parammount to comprehension of the “incarnation” of the Christ.

And here is Mike agreeing with the point –

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,11:57)

Quote (942767 @ April 24 2011,17:13) He wasn't the Son of man until he was born of the virgin Mary, and so, how are you going to explain this to support your doctrine of pre-existence? Hi Marty, First of all, he was the “Son of Man” ever since Daniel prophesied about him.

You seem able to comprehend the point of the OP but then you drop it when it applies to the incarnation of Jesus.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 24 2011,04:15)

And here is Mike agreeing with the point – Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,11:57) Quote (942767 @ April 24 2011,17:13) He wasn't the Son of man until he was born of the virgin Mary, and so, how are you going to explain this to support your doctrine of pre-existence? Hi Marty, First of all, he was the “Son of Man” ever since Daniel prophesied about him. You seem able to comprehend the point of the OP but then you drop it when it applies to the incarnation of Jesus.

Paladin,

This is an absurd claim.  Have you been in outer space for the last 100 pages of this thread?  How do you claim I “agree” with you?

YOUR assertion is that a being began to exist by being prophesied about – which is absurd.

What I was telling Marty is that the being who had glory alongside his God before the creation of the world began to be KNOWN AS the “Son of Man” ever since Daniel prophesied about him.

That you would try to say I agree with YOUR premise of this thread truly shows your deceptive nature.

But since now it's out in the open (as if it hasn't been clearly known all along) that I DON'T agree with your premise – what is the REAL reason you won't do the debate?  

[Pastry]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 26 2011,04:37)

Quote (Paladin @ June 24 2011,04:15) And here is Mike agreeing with the point – Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2011,11:57) Quote (942767 @ April 24 2011,17:13) He wasn't the Son of man until he was born of the virgin Mary, and so, how are you going to explain this to support your doctrine of pre-existence? Hi Marty, First of all, he was the “Son of Man” ever since Daniel prophesied about him. You seem able to comprehend the point of the OP but then you drop it when it applies to the incarnation of Jesus. Paladin, This is an absurd claim.  Have you been in outer space for the last 100 pages of this thread?  How do you claim I “agree” with you? YOUR assertion is that a being began to exist by being prophesied about – which is absurd. What I was telling Marty is that the being who had glory alongside his God before the creation of the world began to be KNOWN AS the “Son of Man” ever since Daniel prophesied about him. That you would try to say I agree with YOUR premise of this thread truly shows your deceptive nature. But since now it's out in the open (as if it hasn't been clearly known all along) that I DON'T agree with your premise – what is the REAL reason you won't do the debate?

Hi Mike! I believe that paladin knows you have so many Scriptures on your side, which He would have to reason away, that He won't debate with you…..My thinking….i read what He said testerday, and I thought NO WAY HOS AH.
Peace and Love Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Pastry @ June 25 2011,14:46)

Hi Mike!  I believe that paladin knows you have so many Scriptures on your side, which He would have to reason away, that He won't debate with you…..My thinking….i read what He said testerday, and I thought NO WAY HOS AH.

Hi Irene,

I'm not a Greek expert, but I can surely read.  And Paladin knows that I will expose every misunderstanding of the Greek language he tries to claim.  I will force him to stand and defend the things he's claimed, instead of running away without a word when he's shown to be wrong – only to claim the same exact thing later.  

He will be left with nothing once I take his confusing misrepresentations of the Greek language away from him.  After all, they're his only claim to fame as it is – and only because others here aren't willing or don't have the time to research what he is saying.  

Unfortunately for him, I lead a very boring life, and have both the time and the willingness to “test all things”.  Add that time and willingness to the fact that the scriptures are on OUR side in this issue, and what chance would he have?

I hope you're feeling better.  

peace and love,
mike

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike………..Your perverted view of scriptures are on your side, as with all Trinitarians and Preexistences , you all can't understand that God the Glory of GOD can exist with a person before they are born , just as King Cyrus's glory existed for him before he was ever born and many others including Man in general also have Glory that exists for them also as scripture plainly say. Your problem is the same as all Trinitarians and Preexistences are, your whole house of cards crumbles if you could see that God Predestines Glory way before it actual happens with all thing including Jesus Himself and mankind in general.

So you force the text to say what in fact it does not say, and if anyone shows you the truth you act like you are greater then they and start to ridicule them and pose stupid and unrelated questions acting all the time as you are some great expounder of the truth of GOD when in fact you have no idea what you are saying and you cause many who would come to see the truth to not see it by your diversions and ridiculing of those who are expounding the truth. I would be more careful if i were you lest GOD start to deal with you according to you folly. IMO

gene

[mikeboll64]

But Gene, can't you even see that the “follies” you accuse me expounding are exactly what I've exposed Paladin as doing?

Didn't you see that he tried to convince unwitting people that the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from speaking of a glory he once had, but had no longer, and wanted back?

What he so confidently claimed was not at all the reality of the Greek words and grammar.  So if he was simply mistaken, as all of us are at times, then why didn't he correct himself when I showed him his error?  Why didn't he humbly apologize to all the people who read his untrue words on this thread?

And “echo” was only ONE of his many claims that I've solidly refuted.  A man who is only after truth would have immediately admitted his mistake and apologized for “unintentionally” misleading folks.  So while I don't claim to know the heart of Paladin, the fact that he hasn't ever apologized or corrected his misleading statements leads me to believe that the “mistakes” he often makes aren't all that “unintentional” in the first place.

Gene, I am only your enemy if you are the enemy of truth.

peace,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 26 2011,08:31)

Mike………..Your perverted view of scriptures are on your side, as with all Trinitarians and Preexistences , you all can't understand that God the Glory of GOD can exist with a person before they are born , just as King Cyrus's glory existed for him before he was ever born

Why did you change the word you used, Gene?

Is it because subconsciously, you can't even bring yourself to speak of a glory that was WITH Cyrus before he existed?

A glory we are predestined TO HAVE is not a glory we HAD already in our past.  But you have to pretend this nonsense is logical to support your doctrine, even though your subconscious word change above tells us that you don't even REALLY believe it yourself.

[Pastry]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 26 2011,11:36)

Quote (Pastry @ June 25 2011,14:46) Hi Mike!  I believe that paladin knows you have so many Scriptures on your side, which He would have to reason away, that He won't debate with you…..My thinking….i read what He said testerday, and I thought NO WAY HOS AH. Hi Irene, I'm not a Greek expert, but I can surely read.  And Paladin knows that I will expose every misunderstanding of the Greek language he tries to claim.  I will force him to stand and defend the things he's claimed, instead of running away without a word when he's shown to be wrong – only to claim the same exact thing later.   He will be left with nothing once I take his confusing misrepresentations of the Greek language away from him.  After all, they're his only claim to fame as it is – and only because others here aren't willing or don't have the time to research what he is saying.   Unfortunately for him, I lead a very boring life, and have both the time and the willingness to “test all things”.  Add that time and willingness to the fact that the scriptures are on OUR side in this issue, and what chance would he have? I hope you're feeling better.   peace and love, mike

Mike! I am so glad that you have the time to confront Paladin in his Greek so called knowledge. He claims to know it all Yet He is so wrong. I too have looked at some Greek and found errors…..
As far as my health is concerned, I am still in some pain. It is taken my Intestine its good old time to heal….. Age has something to do with it….. Thanks for asking…
Peace and Love Irene

[mikeboll64]

You're welcome, Irene.

And I continue to pray for you and yours even though I don't frequent the “Prayer Request” thread.

peace and love,
mike

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2011,02:39)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 26 2011,08:31) Mike………..Your perverted view of scriptures are on your side, as with all Trinitarians and Preexistences , you all can't understand that God the Glory of GOD can exist with a person before they are born , just as King Cyrus's glory existed for him before he was ever born Why did you change the word you used, Gene? Is it because subconsciously, you can't even bring yourself to speak of a glory that was WITH Cyrus before he existed? A glory we are predestined TO HAVE is not a glory we HAD already in our past.  But you have to pretend this nonsense is logical to support your doctrine, even though your subconscious word change above tells us that you don't even REALLY believe it yourself.

Mike ………It is obvious the you do not understand anything about Predestined Glory as Having it existence before it has ever come to place in the future. Yes we (HAD) this Glory from the foundations of the earth in the Will and Plan of GOD and it will come to reality because of GOD alone. If you can't comprehend that , Then listen to PETER, “Jesus was foreordained before the foundations of the earth (BUT) was manifested in our time.

Think about it Mike.

peace and love………………………………….gene

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2011,02:30)

But Gene, can't you even see that the “follies” you accuse me expounding are exactly what I've exposed Paladin as doing? Didn't you see that he tried to convince unwitting people that the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from speaking of a glory he once had, but had no longer, and wanted back? What he so confidently claimed was not at all the reality of the Greek words and grammar.  So if he was simply mistaken, as all of us are at times, then why didn't he correct himself when I showed him his error?  Why didn't he humbly apologize to all the people who read his untrue words on this thread? And “echo” was only ONE of his many claims that I've solidly refuted.  A man who is only after truth would have immediately admitted his mistake and apologized for “unintentionally” misleading folks.  So while I don't claim to know the heart of Paladin, the fact that he hasn't ever apologized or corrected his misleading statements leads me to believe that the “mistakes” he often makes aren't all that “unintentional” in the first place. Gene, I am only your enemy if you are the enemy of truth. peace, mike

“Did too!”

“Did Not!”

“Did Too!”

“Did Not!”

Who wins, Mike, the last one who says “Did…?”

I have given my position, you have stated your position, I am willing to leave it up to the readers to decide. They are a little more intelligent than you give them credit for.

You did not “correct” my Greek, you asserted your own, and claimed victory.

Now you pretend that “the last man standing” is somehow the winner in a disagreement, whoever says “Did too!” last wins the discussion.l

The trouble with that, Mike, is the discussion leaves a record right here online for all to read. All anyone has to do is go back and read my position statments and check them against the Greek grammars. Then read your assertions and see if you have in fact “corrected” anything at all.

And it is my personal opinion that YOU are the LAST person to suggest humility to someone on this thread.

[Pastry]

Paladin! This reader says its childish to say I won and you did not…..It isn't about winning, its about the truth……Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Paladin @ June 28 2011,16:15)

You did not “correct” my Greek, you asserted your own, and claimed victory.

Really?  Then post once again how the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibits Jesus from speaking about a glory he had, then no longer had, but wants back again.

Stick ONLY to the imperfect tense of “echo”, Paladin.  Don't sidetrack and try to muddy the waters as you do so often.

Let's see it.  I'll be waiting.

(And as you said, what we've posted remains in this thread.  So if you NOW post something DIFFERENT than what you originally claimed, I'll bring up the original for all eyes to see that not only did I correct your misunderstanding of the Greek rules of grammar, but that you tried to HIDE that fact.)

[mikeboll64]

Gene,

I asked you a question about why you used different words in your statement about Cyrus.  Will you please address my question?

As far as Jesus being foreordained………..so what?  What point so you think that makes for you?  We may at some point find out that before the earth was founded, God foreordained Michael the archangel to become Jesus' right hand man in the future.  Does that fact mean that Michael hasn't existed all this time anyway?  

And yes, Jesus was made manifest to us 2000 years ago.  Again, does that mean he didn't exist before that?  Read Heb 1:1-2, Gene.  It was only “in these last days” that God spoke to them through His Son, yet this son who wasn't manifested to them until that time is still the same son “through whom God made the ages”.

There are probably billions of angels. How many of them have ever been made manifest to humans? Does that mean they don't exist?

[Istari]

What does the word 'Manifest' mean?

[Paladin]

Quote (Pastry @ June 29 2011,13:46)

Paladin!  This reader says its childish to say I won and you did not…..It isn't about winning, its about the truth……Irene

That's why I did not claim I won.

I said Mike's claim to victory was wrong.

[Paladin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 29 2011,14:59)

Quote (Paladin @ June 28 2011,16:15) You did not “correct” my Greek, you asserted your own, and claimed victory. Really?  Then post once again how the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibits Jesus from speaking about a glory he had, then no longer had, but wants back again. Stick ONLY to the imperfect tense of “echo”, Paladin.  Don't sidetrack and try to muddy the waters as you do so often. Let's see it.  I'll be waiting. (And as you said, what we've posted remains in this thread.  So if you NOW post something DIFFERENT than what you originally claimed, I'll bring up the original for all eyes to see that not only did I correct your misunderstanding of the Greek rules of grammar, but that you tried to HIDE that fact.)

The only thing on this board more childish than claiming victory you never had, is threatening a poster with “You better not change what you said or I'll expose you.”

Take your stupid threats and post them over on the threat board.

For the record of what I previously posted look at threadpage 48, post #4.

I don't think I have changed it Mike.

YOU are the one who changes what you said, usually after you are proved wrong. Mostly though, you just keep repeating your error hoping the opposition will get tired and move on.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 29 2011,15:12)

Gene, I asked you a question about why you used different words in your statement about Cyrus.  Will you please address my question? As far as Jesus being foreordained………..so what?  What point so you think that makes for you?  We may at some point find out that before the earth was founded, God foreordained Michael the archangel to become Jesus' right hand man in the future.  Does that fact mean that Michael hasn't existed all this time anyway?   And yes, Jesus was made manifest to us 2000 years ago.  Again, does that mean he didn't exist before that?  Read Heb 1:1-2, Gene.  It was only “in these last days” that God spoke to them through His Son, yet this son who wasn't manifested to them until that time is still the same son “through whom God made the ages”. There are probably billions of angels.  How many of them have ever been made manifest to humans?  Does that mean they don't exist?

Mike……….All your post is full of holes , first Why would Jesus be FOREORDAINED if he already existed, Why would he be manifested (brought into existence) if he already existed, Where is One scripture that shows Jesus as any kind of being before his berth on earth. Show us ONE scripture that says Jesus was MORPHED into a human form from a different state of being. There is none>

Here is something you preexistences and trinitarians never think about , Why would God even want to take a PREEXISTENT BEING OF ANY KIND TO SHOW MAN KIND ANYTHING, that is about Us human being relating to GOD and receiving eternal life, Why would he use an already perfect being and morphed him into a human , there would be no reason for God to do that but if he took a man from the human race a Man born from a women and (PERFECTED) this man and raised this man from the dead and giving us a Perfect (EXACT) EXAMPLE OF HIS NEW CREATION IN MANKIND. Now that would give all the human race and example of What God can do in all of us who are (EXACTLY) the same as Jesus in our humanity.

As far as Cyrus i used no different words He was Just like Jesus (FOREORDAINED) and was Manifested 200 years after his prediction by GOD. Jesus was (FOREORDAINED) before the foundation of the the earth was predicted to be (A SEED) of a women and a (ROOT OF JESSE AND KING DAVID) He was a DECEDENT OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH BORN FORM AMONG HIS BRETHREN THE ISRAELITES AS MOSES SAID HE WOULD BE.

You preexistences and Trinitarians work is a work of (SEPARATION) you have moved the SON OF MAN, JESUS, and SEPARATED HIM FROM US by your false doctrines and false teachings. This is how I know those who who teach those false teaching are not of GOD because if they were they could easily see and understand that Jesus even though he was (FOREORDAINED) came into HIS EXISTENCE when he was Born on this earth. BY this i know those who are of GOD and those who are not of God. Just as Jesus said to the Pharisees “they were not of GOD because they could not understand His words this is also the same here . Those to whim it has been given do understand it those who can't understand this are simply non of His. IMO

[Author]

Posts