- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Pastry @ July 06 2011,23:46) Quote (Paladin @ July 06 2011,21:14) Quote (Pastry @ July 06 2011,11:54) Paladin! In John 21:15-17 Jesus was asking Peter whether he had agape love. Since Peter denied Him three times, He did not have agape love, and Jesus knew that. Your claim always is you are right and all translators of the English and the German are wrong…..I don't claim to know Greek, but I trust the Translators more then I trust you. The reason is in my previous post, if you have read it….
Besides I trust mainly in Gods Holy Spirit, and I believe it is God that will open our eyes to the truth. And blinds others. There are to many Scriptures that would be faulty according to you. That I don't believe….
Peace Irene
Irene, you have already made your allegiance to Mike quite evident on this board, and on this thread in particular.You have taken his side even when he is obviously wrong, and you even agreed one time that he had “broken my spirit,” (though that was a figment of Mike's over active imagination.
I still called you “friend” and did not chide you for your attitude. And I still do not.
But please, do not post words of war and sign it “peace.”
Paladin! My decision has nothing to do with Mike, even so I agree with His understanding of the Bible, before you even came on the scene. I am not in war with anyone. Just responding with the claim you made in the last post you made.
Your attitude says that you know it better then the Catholic Monks, who translated from the Greek into English and German.
They were trinatarian and in spite translated it were we can prove the trinity wrong. If they wanted to mislead us in any way, they would not have done so. That is why I will trust God's Holy Spirit and know if I am wrong, God will eventually show me. God has done that before, and I acknowledge it, here on Heaven Net, with Nick…..I have nothing against you as a person, you are also Gods Son….. that goes for Gene also. I know He reads this too…but you have always said you are right and everyone is wrong.
Peace Irene
If you will show me the post where I ever said I am right and everyone else is wrong, I will leave the board in peace.Otherwise, I suggest you and Mike both stop making the accusation, as though there is any truth whatsoever to the claim.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2011,12:32) So which HIM would ever have the glory of an only begotten from the Father? Which HIM did John make clear he wrote his gospel about? Which HIM was John the Baptist unworthy to even untie the sandal of? Guess what? It was this same HIM who was with God in the beginning and was MADE FLESH. It was this same HIM without whom nothing came into existence. It is this same HIM through whom the world was made, even though the world didn't know him. It was this HIM who came to that which was his own, but his own didn't receive HIM.
Mike……….Your problem is you are thinking the the HIM or Logos was Jesus and it was not Jesus, It was the LOGOS from GOD that was (IN) the Flesh man Jesus. It was the Logos that created the world and was (in) the world and the World did not Know him even though it was created BY Him. Paladin has explained it right. You are continually trying to make Jesus the Logos and He is Not (HE) “the LOGOS”) was (IN) Him.“The FATHER IS (IN) ME”, i thought you believed Jesus Mike, if you do then why not believe the FATHER was “TRULY” (IN) Him as He said , and THE Father that was (IN) HIM was what created all things. The son of Man (Jesus) can do nothing of himself the Father who is (IN) Me “HE” does the Works”. Do you truly believe this MIKE, it does not appear you do.
Remember Thomas finely come to understand this when He said “MY LORD AND MY GOD” that God part was the LOGOS that was (IN) Jesus. and Can be (IN) us also , as Paladin clearly brought out “That God may be all and in you all”, IMO, When it comes to the LOGOS becoming Flesh we know how a “WORD” can be (IN) a Person, but no Spiritual WORD can ever be FLESH, because it is Spirit (intellect) and is Not flesh. IMO
Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,00:54) Paladin! You tell me where you said YOU were wrong?
Is that the new standard on this board Irene?Paladin is supposed to say “I am wrong” for you to allow me to continue on the board.
Well, tell me Irene, if I am wrong, shouldn't there be something for me to be wrong about?
Care to show it to me?
something I posted that you can demonstrate from the Greek where I am wrong?
And no, I do not mean where your doctrine disagrees, I mean where you can demonstrate my Greek and translation is wrong. And please, don't quote Mike to me as your authority.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 07 2011,01:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2011,12:32) So which HIM would ever have the glory of an only begotten from the Father? Which HIM did John make clear he wrote his gospel about? Which HIM was John the Baptist unworthy to even untie the sandal of? Guess what? It was this same HIM who was with God in the beginning and was MADE FLESH. It was this same HIM without whom nothing came into existence. It is this same HIM through whom the world was made, even though the world didn't know him. It was this HIM who came to that which was his own, but his own didn't receive HIM.
Mike……….Your problem is you are thinking the the HIM or Logos was Jesus and it was not Jesus, It was the LOGOS from GOD that was (IN) the Flesh man Jesus. It was the Logos that created the world and was (in) the world and the World did not Know him even though it was created BY Him. Paladin has explained it right. You are continually trying to make Jesus the Logos and He is Not (HE) “the LOGOS”) was (IN) Him.“The FATHER IS (IN) ME”, i thought you believed Jesus Mike, if you do then why not believe the FATHER was “TRULY” (IN) Him as He said , and THE Father that was (IN) HIM was what created all things. The son of Man (Jesus) can do nothing of himself the Father who is (IN) Me “HE” does the Works”. Do you truly believe this MIKE, it does not appear you do.
Remember Thomas finely come to understand this when He said “MY LORD AND MY GOD” that God part was the LOGOS that was (IN) Jesus. and Can be (IN) us also , as Paladin clearly brought out “That God may be all and in you all”, IMO, When it comes to the LOGOS becoming Flesh we know how a “WORD” can be (IN) a Person, but no Spiritual WORD can ever be FLESH, because it is Spirit (intellect) and is Not flesh. IMO
Gene, my friend, you should slow down maybe, and get fixed in your mind and in your soul, exactly what the difference is between logos and reema.I do not know where you are getting this “spirit intellect” language from. It appears to me to be a source of confusion to some.
I am not saying it is wrong, just confusing to see it when we are used to supplying scriptural terminology for our understanding.
“Spirit” is neuter, and so is “reema;” And Paul tells us that the reema of God is the Holy Spirit. But John tells us the logos, (masculine) was theos (Masculine); and the logos became flesh (feminine) and dwelled among us.
Now let's look at Mat 26:63 for a moment – “But [1]Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the [2]Christ, the [3]Son of [4]God.”
1[] “Jesus” is masculine
[2] “Christ” is masculine
[3] “Son” is masculine
[4] “God” is masculineRECAP
So Logos which is masculine, became sarx, which is feminine; while theos which is masculine did not change.And reema which is neuter, is spirit, which is also neuter.
Logos can change, reema changes everytime it is translated into a new language.
Reema is used to explain logos; i.e, the written word is used to explain the mental concept.
Sure hope this helps my friend.
Gotta go for now,
Quote
Is that the new standard on this board Irene?Paladin! There is no new standard. I am not concerned about the Greek either. I don't care what you think any Scripture means in the Greek.
I go by what the Bible says, Period……It was good enough before you came. Well for this Lady it still is good enough. If you want to know it better then the translators do, be my guest, you do it regardless of what anyone else says…..
Peace IreneQuote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,05:58) Quote
Is that the new standard on this board Irene?Paladin! There is no new standard. I am not concerned about the Greek either. I don't care what you think any Scripture means in the Greek.
I go by what the Bible says, Period……It was good enough before you came. Well for this Lady it still is good enough. If you want to know it better then the translators do, be my guest, you do it regardless of what anyone else says…..
Peace Irene
Then stop insisting I “admit I am wrong” just because you are ignorant of what the Greek says, and don't even care.Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2011,08:11) Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,05:58) Quote
Is that the new standard on this board Irene?Paladin! There is no new standard. I am not concerned about the Greek either. I don't care what you think any Scripture means in the Greek.
I go by what the Bible says, Period……It was good enough before you came. Well for this Lady it still is good enough. If you want to know it better then the translators do, be my guest, you do it regardless of what anyone else says…..
Peace Irene
Then stop insisting I “admit I am wrong” just because you are ignorant of what the Greek says, and don't even care.
Thank you for that compliment….
: 
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2011,12:32) Quote (942767 @ July 05 2011,18:34)
Hi Mike:I suppose that in the Greek as well as the English language there are synomyms, but I believe that God has given me the revelation as I have stated. However, it is possible to miss what God is saying and for this reason, I will continue to study the two words, Logos and Rhema.
Hi Marty,Fair enough. If there are occasions where “logos” has a special conotation, that reason must be shown by the context; for it is clear from the scripture I showed you that the word “logos”, in and of itself, can be and is used to simply relate an ordinary human “word”.
Quote (942767 @ July 05 2011,18:34)
But no, Mike the Word of God has no gender, and so, the Word became flesh or was made flesh (KJV). Not he became flesh.
Read a little farther in the scripture, Marty:And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw HIS glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
That word “HIS” is the genitive form of “autou”. In this scripture, the word is a singular, masculine, personal pronoun. So it literally means “we saw the glory OF HIM…..”
So which HIM would ever have the glory of an only begotten from the Father? Which HIM did John make clear he wrote his gospel about? Which HIM was John the Baptist unworthy to even untie the sandal of?
Guess what? It was this same HIM who was with God in the beginning and was MADE FLESH. It was this same HIM without whom nothing came into existence. It is this same HIM through whom the world was made, even though the world didn't know him. It was this HIM who came to that which was his own, but his own didn't receive HIM.
Marty, this HIM is the same as “the Word” that became flesh. Read the passage again with the knowledge that it truly says “glory of HIM” and not “glory of IT”.
peace,
mike
Hi Mike:I am not denying that John 1:14 is about Jesus, and what is in parenthesis tells us how he came into being, and (we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary.
The whole of the OT speaks of his coming into the world, and this, the Logos, what God has said, became flesh.
And so, the totality of God's Word pertains to him, but he is not the Logos. What God has said pertaining to him is the Logos and became a reality.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Paladin @ July 06 2011,02:02) But that would be more than three words, so you won't read it anyway.
Hey! That IS usually the criteria involved when I decide whether or not to read your posts! How did you know?
Quote (Paladin @ July 06 2011,04:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2011,12:43) Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2011,05:37) Quote (mike @ 64) Paladin, You are confusing an action that WAS continuous IN THE PAST with an action that is STILL ongoing and has NEVER ended.
Not me. I never claimed any such thing. I have never said
“Still ongoing” nor have I said “Never ending.” That is simply another example of your continual approach to my posts, Mike; i.e., you have to “translate” everything I say into
“what you think I meant.” And you are never right when you do that.
Oh, then I misunderstood you and you DON'T claim that Jesus could not have been referring to a glory he used to have, but had no longer?Because it sure seemed to me that you were claiming the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from asking for a glory that he had in the past.
But you now admit that Jesus COULD HAVE BEEN asking to have a past glory returned to him?
GREAT! We agree then – because that's EXACTLY what Jesus was doing.
mike, you and I will never agree, because you always change what is said, for what was not said, and claim, “If you don't mean this, then it must mean that,” when it is not true.Post your own conclusions under your own name and quit trying to put my name to your silly ways of saying things that are not so.
But the world loved darkness, and so would never agree with the light.Why do you play so many games, Paladin? Why not just address what's really happening here?
YOU claimed that the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from asking God to return a glory he had in the past.
Was that claim correct? YES or NO?
If “YES”, then why doesn't the imperfect tense of the same word mean that Barabbas was STILL in Roman custody when Matthew wrote his gospel?
If “NO”, then just plainly admit you made a mistake so we can all move on.
This is really not that hard. Were I dealing with an honest adult here, the whole thing would have been resolved with one or two posts.
Quote (942767 @ July 06 2011,18:24) Hi Mike: I am not denying that John 1:14 is about Jesus……
…….the totality of God's Word pertains to him, but he is not the Logos.
Hi Marty,You only need to follow through what I've showed you about “HIM”. If it was the LOGOS that BECAME flesh, then it was also the LOGOS who dwelled among mankind and was the HIM who had the glory of an only begotten from the Father.
14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Marty, the “his” in the second sentence refers back to the Word from the first sentence.
Btw, were you going to address my post about Paladin from yesterday? Can YOU see that he was mistaken about the imperfect tense of “echo”? If so, will you urge your brother to do the right thing and stop spreading inaccurate information as support to his doctrine? If anyone has to deceive others in order to “prove” their doctrine is correct, chances are their doctrine is NOT correct.
It's bad enough when you guys pretend outrageously non-sensical things, add words into the scriptures, and forget how the English lanuage works just to support your flawed doctrine. But shouldn't we draw a line at flat out lying?
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2011,12:32) Quote (942767 @ July 05 2011,18:34)
Hi Mike:I suppose that in the Greek as well as the English language there are synomyms, but I believe that God has given me the revelation as I have stated. However, it is possible to miss what God is saying and for this reason, I will continue to study the two words, Logos and Rhema.
Hi Marty,Fair enough. If there are occasions where “logos” has a special conotation, that reason must be shown by the context; for it is clear from the scripture I showed you that the word “logos”, in and of itself, can be and is used to simply relate an ordinary human “word”.
Quote (942767 @ July 05 2011,18:34)
But no, Mike the Word of God has no gender, and so, the Word became flesh or was made flesh (KJV). Not he became flesh.
Read a little farther in the scripture, Marty:And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw HIS glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
That word “HIS” is the genitive form of “autou”. In this scripture, the word is a singular, masculine, personal pronoun. So it literally means “we saw the glory OF HIM…..”
So which HIM would ever have the glory of an only begotten from the Father? Which HIM did John make clear he wrote his gospel about? Which HIM was John the Baptist unworthy to even untie the sandal of?
Guess what? It was this same HIM who was with God in the beginning and was MADE FLESH. It was this same HIM without whom nothing came into existence. It is this same HIM through whom the world was made, even though the world didn't know him. It was this HIM who came to that which was his own, but his own didn't receive HIM.
Marty, this HIM is the same as “the Word” that became flesh. Read the passage again with the knowledge that it truly says “glory of HIM” and not “glory of IT”.
peace,
mike
Hi Mike,You keep forgetting that “The Word” is the “HolySpirit”! (Link)
The “HolySpirit” was with God in the beginning,
NOW the “HolySpirit” is with (within) us;
becoming flesh again and again!
The “HolySpirit” is GOD!Eph.4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord,
one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who
is above all, and through all, and in you all.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,00:54) Paladin! You tell me where you said YOU were wrong?
threadpage 24 post #6; threadpage 173, post #9, and two other ploaces I will let you find.Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,00:54) Paladin! You tell me where you said YOU were wrong?
Now, it's your turn. Tell the board the post where you said YOU are wrong!Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,00:54) Paladin! You tell me where you said YOU were wrong?
Now, Irene, plese explain so I can understand it, why you think ignorance is better than knowledge, and blind faith better than faith based upon knowledge.Quote (Paladin @ July 07 2011,20:00) Quote (Pastry @ July 07 2011,00:54) Paladin! You tell me where you said YOU were wrong?
Now, Irene, plese explain so I can understand it, why you think ignorance is better than knowledge, and blind faith better than faith based upon knowledge.
Paladin! I didn't say that ignorance is better then knowledge. What I do mean is that I am not going to learn another Greek language. Learning English was hard enough for me. Also I trust in the translators, why the reason I have given you. Gods Holy Spirit has shown me what I know today. And it is Gods Holy Spirit that reveals us truths.
As far as when I said I was wrong to Nick, is some time ago, and I am not about to go through all treads to find it….If you don't believe me, God knows, and in God I trust and depend….
It is Faith that see's me through. Being 73 years old and sick, I am getting mighty tired of debating about the Greek. I have done some. We have a Greek Dictionary, and the blue letter Bible on the Internet too. I don't believe the translators are that wrong, like you want us to believe….I only know of 2 errors in the King James Bible…..
That's all…
Peace IreneQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2011,14:08) Quote (Paladin @ July 06 2011,04:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2011,12:43) Quote (Paladin @ July 05 2011,05:37) Quote (mike @ 64) Paladin, You are confusing an action that WAS continuous IN THE PAST with an action that is STILL ongoing and has NEVER ended.
Not me. I never claimed any such thing. I have never said
“Still ongoing” nor have I said “Never ending.” That is simply another example of your continual approach to my posts, Mike; i.e., you have to “translate” everything I say into
“what you think I meant.” And you are never right when you do that.
Oh, then I misunderstood you and you DON'T claim that Jesus could not have been referring to a glory he used to have, but had no longer?Because it sure seemed to me that you were claiming the imperfect tense of “echo” prohibited Jesus from asking for a glory that he had in the past.
But you now admit that Jesus COULD HAVE BEEN asking to have a past glory returned to him?
GREAT! We agree then – because that's EXACTLY what Jesus was doing.
mike, you and I will never agree, because you always change what is said, for what was not said, and claim, “If you don't mean this, then it must mean that,” when it is not true.Post your own conclusions under your own name and quit trying to put my name to your silly ways of saying things that are not so.
But the world loved darkness, and so would never agree with the light.Why do you play so many games, Paladin? Why not just address what's really happening here?
YOU claimed that the imperfect tense of “echo” in John 17:5 prohibited Jesus from asking God to return a glory he had in the past.
Was that claim correct? YES or NO?
If “YES”, then why doesn't the imperfect tense of the same word mean that Barabbas was STILL in Roman custody when Matthew wrote his gospel?
If “NO”, then just plainly admit you made a mistake so we can all move on.
This is really not that hard. Were I dealing with an honest adult here, the whole thing would have been resolved with one or two posts.
This whole thing would have been resolved with one post Mike, if you would have actually read what I said. Instead of that, you changed what I said, made your own interpretation of what your translation means, then insisted for forty posts, that I say it like you mean it.I told you a long time ago, I do not respond to bullying tactice, and bootcamp philosophy; and I certainly will not answer all the lies you post while calling attention to them by addressing your buddies.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2011,14:30) Quote (942767 @ July 06 2011,18:24) Hi Mike: I am not denying that John 1:14 is about Jesus……
…….the totality of God's Word pertains to him, but he is not the Logos.
Hi Marty,You only need to follow through what I've showed you about “HIM”. If it was the LOGOS that BECAME flesh, then it was also the LOGOS who dwelled among mankind and was the HIM who had the glory of an only begotten from the Father.
14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Marty, the “his” in the second sentence refers back to the Word from the first sentence.
Btw, were you going to address my post about Paladin from yesterday? Can YOU see that he was mistaken about the imperfect tense of “echo”? If so, will you urge your brother to do the right thing and stop spreading inaccurate information as support to his doctrine? If anyone has to deceive others in order to “prove” their doctrine is correct, chances are their doctrine is NOT correct.
It's bad enough when you guys pretend outrageously non-sensical things, add words into the scriptures, and forget how the English lanuage works just to support your flawed doctrine. But shouldn't we draw a line at flat out lying?
peace,
mike
I see that in order to “win” your little charade, you have to change the wording again, Mike.I don't know what translation you are using, but it leaves out a crucial Greek word that changes the entire subject matter.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2011,14:30) Quote (942767 @ July 06 2011,18:24) Hi Mike: I am not denying that John 1:14 is about Jesus……
…….the totality of God's Word pertains to him, but he is not the Logos.
Hi Marty,You only need to follow through what I've showed you about “HIM”. If it was the LOGOS that BECAME flesh, then it was also the LOGOS who dwelled among mankind and was the HIM who had the glory of an only begotten from the Father.
14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Marty, the “his” in the second sentence refers back to the Word from the first sentence.
Btw, were you going to address my post about Paladin from yesterday? Can YOU see that he was mistaken about the imperfect tense of “echo”? If so, will you urge your brother to do the right thing and stop spreading inaccurate information as support to his doctrine? If anyone has to deceive others in order to “prove” their doctrine is correct, chances are their doctrine is NOT correct.
It's bad enough when you guys pretend outrageously non-sensical things, add words into the scriptures, and forget how the English lanuage works just to support your flawed doctrine. But shouldn't we draw a line at flat out lying?
peace,
mike
Hi Mike:The Logos was made flesh. That means there was a change from Logos to flesh. And so, no it was not the Logos who dwelt among us, but the human being to whom the Logos pertained.
And Paladin is not my hero, Jesus Christ is my hero, but Paladin has greater knowledge of the Greek language than me, for sure, probably you as well, and so, if someone has greater knowledge on some issue than me, I will at least listen to what he has to say.
Love in Christ,
Marty
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
