- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike,
I don't think one begotten or one who begets can get higher than perfect. Perfect begets perfect.Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,21:08) Mike,
What does your Greek guy say about the 'the' in part b?
Hi Kathi,I'm getting ready to order the book. I only have some excerpts right now that I got from my mom just today. I'm waiting to see if I can get the book in “download” format, or whatever you call it. Then I can copy and paste easily. If I can't, I'll have to buy the hard copy of it.
I'll let you know as I find out more. The book is called “Truth in Translation”, you can Google it.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,21:07) Mike,
I don't think one begotten or one who begets can get higher than perfect. Perfect begets perfect.
Well then, Houston, we have a problem………….Because there is only ONE God Most High. And if that God beget another god who is IDENTICAL, then we now have TWO Gods Most High. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………..what does MOST mean again?
mike
Kathi, this quote is what I was saying about the CEV adding the word “truly” and the NET adding the word “fully”………..
“To me, it expresses a lack of courage, a fear that the Bible does not back up their ‘truth’ enough.”
That's exactly why I feel they slant the words to be more Trinitarian. They know without that slanting, they wouldn't stand a chance. For even with it, they don't.
But it is very telling about who I'm up against when they must add words in to drive home their point because the words of scripture alone will not do it.mike
Mike
Quote Because there is only ONE God Most High. And if that God beget another god who is IDENTICAL, then we now have TWO Gods Most High. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………..what does MOST mean again?
One God most high…unbegotten
One God most high…begotten
together they act as one mind.Can you conceive of the Son and Father as being perfect and more perfect. I don't think that is possible…perfect is perfect. The idea of someone being more perfect than perfect doesn't work.
Can you answer what your Greek guy said about John 1:1b and the article?
Hi Kathi,
I'm not going down this path with you again. Jesus is the Son OF his God, and therefore DIFFERENT in many ways. God cannot sin or be tempted with sin. Jesus could and was. They are NOT the same for One is the God OF the other one.
Let's stick to the topic, and you can answer my question about “Dog, the Bounty Hunter”. Or maybe discuss what Jason said. I have answered you as best I can for the time being about Jason and “the God”. So let's discuss what he DID say.
mike
Mike,
Jesus was tempted according to the flesh, not according to His perfect God nature. Also, Jesus died according to His flesh and not according to His perfect God nature. One is God of the other but that doesn't mean one is perfect and the other isn't as perfect otherwise the other wouldn't be perfect at all.As far as Jason, if he doesn't deal with the 'the' in part b then what he says about the 'a' in part c has little bearing.
I forgot exactly how the dog thing went, do you want to repeat it for me, sorry.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,01:24) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 27 2011,14:07) You interpret scripture based on your preconceived belief not that scriptures have taught you anything else otherwise.
I never read a Bible until about three years ago. I didn't go to a church or join HN until I was on my second time through the Bible. In other words, I learned scriptural truth by myself by reading the written word of God. I had no pre-conceived notions going in, and still don't. The “notions” I have are the ones I learned directly from scripture, and no man.I have been corrected on a few minor misunderstandings by being shown scriptures I had not taken into consideration. But the main story of Jesus and God is exactly how I just posted it to Kathi. This is what the scriptures teach, and therefore what I believe.
Now, if you don't reconize Barak Obama as one of the leaders of the free world, then there is nothing I can do for you. THAT is why I bailed. I don't have time to argue your petty disagreements like whether Barak is a leader of the free world or not. It's senseless, a waste of my time, and does not magically add the word “OR” into Gal 4:14, like you want.
mike
So your saying you didnt believe in God until three years ago?
Dude, your own thoughts about scripture can betray you. If you were wrong once, than what makes you think your going to get it right every single time?What if everything you believe is by your own deception.
Doctrine of God comes from above, not by your nose in a book.Those Scriptures you read were translations from Men.
dude WHO CARES ABOUT BARRACK OBAMA, seriously and screw the free world, because there isnt one.
So thats why i didnt even care for it, because it doesnt make any sense.Actually add the word “EVEN” becuase thats in there.
lol MIKE,
IS IT GRAMMTICALLY POSSIBLE TO PUT “EVEN” OR “OR” IN GAL4:14
???pshh
Dude you been stalkking me for awhile and now you want to bail?
Lol what a pushover…Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,01:36) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 27 2011,11:48) Galatians 4:14
and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.
Mike, Its obvious Paul seperated the two statements. He emphasizes how they treated him as if he was an Angel or Chirst Jesus himself.
Its two seperate statements. Maybe you have alot to Learn OLD man.
DennisonTrue. If Paul is saying Jesus is an angel he could have said Jesus was the Angel. But instead he makes a distinction between them and it looks to me he is saying “you recieved me not only like an angel but “Even” as Jesus himself, meaning Jesus is greater than the Angel.
In fact that is what Hebrews tells us but Mike is sticking his head in the sand on this one.
He claims Jesus is our brother yet Jesus is not human.
WJ
Kieth,
Mike doesnt even know what he believes, at least not sure of it.He is so inconsistant and ever-changing to make everything fit in his theology.
For example he says: he takes ALL SCRIPTURES to account and we should believe that just because he says so?
bogusssss Speculationsssss
He says he agrees with scripture, and than again he denies John 10 where Jesus makes it very clear that he is not a “god” amoung other “gods”
He says alot of things, and he always makes his statements as if we shoudl just believe it becaues he says so.
BalonyyyyyQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,02:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,15:59) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,14:27)
The answer is “YES”. Do you know why I know this? It is because there is not one single example of a follower of YHVH calling any being “their” God or god, is there?
I'm gratified and satisfied that you are being reduced to such irrelevant “trinity defending” statements as this one above. Are we to believe that a god is only a god if someone is recorded in scripture as claiming that god as their own?
Interpretation is mike doesn't have any scripture to support his theory that the Bible teaches Polytheism.WJ
Kieth,
I laugh everytime you says such things….lol it amuses me!We all know this debate was over the day Mike agreed that there are other gods.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,08:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,14:44) Mike What do you mean by taking it literally? Don't you take the scriptures literally?
Keith, if scripture says our only true God is THE FATHER, then why don't you take THAT literally?mike
I DOJust like I believe a husband and wife is “One Flesh” literally.
Why are you shouting?
WJ
Keith,Mike keeps ignoring that Jesus was a still a servant when He called the Father “the only true God.” Jesus has returned to His former GLORY and STATUS as God Himself.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,08:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,15:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,14:15) Kathi I find it amazing that like Mike you also use “Trinitarian” quotes to prove the opposite of their conclusions.
Not everything Satan says is a lie, is it Keith?
MikeOh I see, what you don't agree with is satans lies right?
So since you think they are satans source then why use their material at all? Could it be that there is no reliable information found in the “Arian” community?
WJ
Keith,Paul said that the 'god of this age' blinds the minds of men to the glory of Jesus Christ. Mike denies the glory of jesus Christ.
Premise 1: The 'god of this age' blinds the minds of men to the glory of Jesus Christ
Premise 2: Mikeboll denies the glory of Jesus Christ
Conclusion: Therefore, Mikeboll has been blinded by the 'god of this age'
Jack
Quote You guys always want to take this “one god” stuff so literallly, despite the many other gods mentioned in scripture. Come on Mark, how can Jehovah be the “God OF gods” if there aren't any other gods for Him to be the God OF? TO ALL:
According to Mike the word “God” means “ruler.” Therefore, the expression “God of gods” would simply mean “Ruler of rulers.”
There were indeed other “gods” in the sense of “rulers.” But there were NO OTHER “gods” in the sense of deities.
Jesus is called “our only Sovereign” (despotes, Jude 1:4). Therefore, Jesus is the “God of gods” (“Ruler of rulers” by Mike's definition).
Mikeboll said:
Quote Just give it up. Grammatically possible and “correct” are two different things. One can be proven, the other calls for opinion. I'm done with this thread. Talk to me in the Freak Greek thread. I'm tired of discussing the same things in 3 or 4 different threads.
mike
Keith,You have already proven that it is NOT grammatically possible to translate 'a god' on the basis of the absence of the article ALONE.
Example:
Quote It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.
It is NOT grammatically possible to translate John 8:54, “…of whom you say He is a god of you” on the basis of the absence of the article ALONE.Jack
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,20:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,15:15)
KathiI find it amazing that like Mike you also use “Trinitarian” quotes to prove the opposite of their conclusions.
The next page of your source says (emphasis mine)…
Chapter 8.—Whatever is Spoken of God According to Substance, is Spoken of Each Person Severally, and Together of the Trinity Itself. One Essence in God, and Three, in Greek, Hypostases, in Latin, Persons.
9. Wherefore let us hold this above all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, “that whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular“. For as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say “THAT THE VERY SUPREME TRINITY ITSELF IS THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD. So the Father is great, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit great; yet “NOT THREE GREATS, BUT ONE GREAT”. For it is not written of the Father alone, as they perversely suppose, but of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, “Thou art great: Thou art God alone.”573573 Ps. lxxxvi. 10 And the Father is good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, “None is good, save one, that is, God.” For the Lord Jesus, lest He should be understood as man only by him who said, “Good Master,” as addressing a man, does not therefore say, There is none good, save the Father alone; but, “None is good, save one, that is, God.”574574 Luke xviii. 18, 19 For the Father by Himself is declared by the name of Father; “BUT BY THE NAME OF GOD, BOTH HIMSELF AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE THE TRINITY IS ONE GOD. Source
So you see they do not agree with your understanding of the words “unbegotten” and “begotten” Gods. You want to go down that road we can but I assure you that the final conclusion of the church was Jesus is “One God” with the Father and the Holy Spirit and that Jesus had no beginning. The Athanasian Creed does the final blow to the Arians and the RCC has not tossed out the Nicene Creed which only means that their understanding of the two agrees whereas yours doesn't.
WJ
Keith,
Do you always agree with everything the people you quote believe?
Hi KathiNo I don't, but I do not quote them out of context and use their words as a means of teaching something they did not conclude at all.
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 28 2011,10:10) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,08:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,16:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,14:44) Mike What do you mean by taking it literally? Don't you take the scriptures literally?
Keith, if scripture says our only true God is THE FATHER, then why don't you take THAT literally?mike
I DOJust like I believe a husband and wife is “One Flesh” literally.
Why are you shouting?
WJ
Keith,Mike keeps ignoring that Jesus was a still a servant when He called the Father “the only true God.” Jesus has returned to His former GLORY and STATUS as God Himself.
Jack
Mike is also ignoring that Jesus included himself in the statement when he said that knowing both the Father “AND” Jesus Christ are prerequisites to having “Eternal Life” and according to 1 John 1:1-3 and 1 John 5:20 Jesus is the “Eternal life” the “One True God”.WJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 28 2011,01:28) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,02:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,15:59) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 27 2011,14:27)
The answer is “YES”. Do you know why I know this? It is because there is not one single example of a follower of YHVH calling any being “their” God or god, is there?
I'm gratified and satisfied that you are being reduced to such irrelevant “trinity defending” statements as this one above. Are we to believe that a god is only a god if someone is recorded in scripture as claiming that god as their own?
Interpretation is mike doesn't have any scripture to support his theory that the Bible teaches Polytheism.WJ
Kieth,
I laugh everytime you says such things….lol it amuses me!We all know this debate was over the day Mike agreed that there are other gods.
Hi DennisonYea, maybe some day Mike will come to a real knowledge of who and what Jesus is, because without that he can't know who and what the Father is. He hasn't figured it out yet. It will take the Spirit of revelation for him to see it. Pray!
WJ
WJ said:
Quote Mike is also ignoring that Jesus included himself in the statement when he said that knowing both the Father “AND” Jesus Christ are prerequisites to having “Eternal Life” and according to 1 John 1:1-3 and 1 John 5:20 Jesus is the “Eternal life” the “One True God”. WJ
Yeap! Jesus said, “I AM the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me though he were dead yet shall he live.”All anti-trinitarian theology takes scripture out of context and is selective in nature.
Jack
WJ said:
Quote Hi Dennison Yea, maybe some day Mike will come to a real knowledge of who and what Jesus is, because without that he can't know who and what the Father is. He hasn't figured it out yet. It will take the Spirit of revelation for him to see it. Pray!
Keith,Yes it takes the Spirit of God to confess Jesus Christ as Lord. Anyone can confess Him as Lord in their own power in the sense which Mike believes that Jesus is Lord.
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
