- This topic has 3,161 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (terraricca @ April 28 2013,10:48) Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2013,08:09) Quote (terraricca @ April 28 2013,07:24) Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2013,05:09) Mike, T, and all; Quote This would have the same meaning but a different emphasis than the previous list item. This version would put the emphasis on the Word rather than on the nature he possessed. According to Phillip Harner the correct interpretation of John 1:1 is that the Word possessed the nature of God in the beginning.
So applying the pattern “the Word is God” to the clause “Love is God” you get that Love possesses the nature of God. The same goes for other attributes of God, including his Spirit.
Note: Here is my source. T8 quoted it in another forum.
Kerwin'Quote According to Phillip Harner the correct interpretation of John 1:1 this is a man ,why would he be right
according to scriptures God can only be GOD ;he can not be what he possesses,(like his qualities,attributes )
GOD HIS A SPIRIT BEING
T,Phillip B Harner PHD is a Trinitarian source quoted by the JW's to support their translation of John 1:1. Offhand I believe that it is possible that he uses nature as a synonym for kind as that is in keeping with the general interpretation if certain passages used by Trinitarians.
He is not alone supporting this version of John 1:1 though he does oppose the JW's version.
KThis is why I go to scriptures
T,I know you claim to go to Scripture but I have seen that when a man says what you want to hear you believe him but when his words are not want to hear you do not believe him.
Phillip B Harner is an example of this. All that we should be doing is seeking to learn the truth. Phillip B Harner provides evidence to be considered. What he states agrees with one meaning of “is” in the English Merriam Websters dictionary.
I have seen you present little or no evidence to support your own beliefs.
Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2013,15:32) Mike and Gene, We are to fight the evil spirits that are in ourselves and others and not the person(s) themselves. Our weapons are not the weapons of this world.
Ephesians 6:12 New International Version
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.Kerwin, what you've posted is accurate, but incomplete.
You have neglected to take into account the latter spiritual forces of evil, which I've bolded in the verse above.
Which human beings are these latter spiritual forces in, Kerwin? Which flesh and blood human being lives “in the heavenly realms”?
So Gene thinks our struggle is against HUMAN BEINGS who have been possessed, or are guided by, evil spirits. That is a contradiction of what Paul actually said.
You believe our struggle is against the EVIL SPIRITS who are in ourselves and other people. With that I agree, but it is only partially correct.
Our struggle is ALSO against evil spirits who are NOT in us, nor in other human beings. These spirits are able to “masquerade as angles of light” and “blind the minds of the unbelievers” without ever being IN a human being.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2013,10:47) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 27 2013,10:40) Mike…… Yes please do ask them…………. Now what was,said was our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against human beings who are being effected by those darken spirits working in them causing them to do the things they do, and this applies also to the heavenly realm also.
Okay Gene.Kerwin, do you see the contradiction in Gene's bolded words above?
Ed?
Anyone else?
Because I'm seeing: Our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood (human beings), but instead it IS against human beings who are affected by evil spirits.
And to me, this seems contradictory. Is our struggle against human beings, or isn't it?
Which one did Paul say? And which one is Gene saying.
(Of course we all already know that Gene only sees things the way he does because, unlike what he so often posts to others here, it is HIM who doesn't understand what a spirit it, and HIM who doesn't understand that “spirits”, such as angels and demons, are real, live, actual BEINGS who have their own minds and wills.)
Anyone else want to add to my conclusion?
Hi Mike,Ephesians 6:12 New International Version
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.Thats exactly what Gene was trying to tell you.
Peace.
Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2013,17:09) According to Phillip Harner the correct interpretation of John 1:1 is that the Word possessed the nature of God in the beginning.
Okay. Let's assume that is the correct understanding. Wouldn't that mean that “the Word” is someone or something OTHER THAN God, who possessed the nature OF God?So what exactly IS “the nature of God”? God is spirit, right? So the nature of God is “spirit nature”, right?
And who exactly would “possess the nature of God”? Well, it would have to be a DIFFERENT spirit being, right? For only a DIFFERENT spirit being could “possess the nature” of the spirit being known as the Most High God, right?
And if this spirit being possessed the spirit nature of the Most High God, wouldn't he, by nature, be “a god” himself?
But here is the thing that is so obvious, yet most people have the most trouble with: If this thing or person “possessed the nature OF God” in the beginning, this thing or person could not possibly BE the God whose nature he possessed.
Everybody from Trinitarians to non-preexisters tries their best to end up with the Word BEING the very God it was WITH. They seemingly are blinded to the fact that anything that is WITH something cannot possibly BE that something it was WITH.
So let's read John 1:1 the way your conclusion insists it must be:
In the beginning was God Almighty Himself. And God Almighty Himself was WITH God Almighty Himself. And God Almighty Himself WAS God Almighty Himself.
This is the ONLY possible conclusion for ANYONE who believes the Word WAS the very God he was WITH.
Now let's try it Philip Harner's way:
In the beginning was someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself. And this someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself was WITH God Almighty Himself. And this someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself possessed the nature OF God Almighty Himself.
Can you see how my (and Philip Harner's) finished product actually makes perfect sense? Can you see how the finished product of anyone who concludes the Word actually WAS the God he was WITH does NOT make any kind of sense at all?
So now all we have to do is add the common sense information from the first part of my post: If a being shares the nature OF the Most High God, wouldn't that being be considered “a god” himself?
Of course he would, as is abundantly evident all throughout scripture. The titles “el”, “elohim”, and “theos” refer all throughout scripture to powerful spirit beings. Usually, the spirit being in reference is the “el” who created the heavens, the earth, and everything in them………. but not always. Satan, demons, angels, and Jesus are also powerful spirit beings who are likewise referred to by those titles all throughout scripture.
So why is this so hard?
1. We know from scripture that Jesus was the powerful spirit being through whom God created all things.
2. And we know from scripture that “the Word” is the powerful spirit being who was with God and existed in the nature of God in the beginning.
3. And we know from scripture that God created all things through this powerful spirit being called “the Word”.
Seems like a very easy hattrick to me. Why is it so hard for so many?
Quote (abe @ April 28 2013,11:35) Hi Mike, Ephesians 6:12 New International Version
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood………….Thats exactly what Gene was trying to tell you.
Abe,What do those first words mean to you:
A. Our struggle IS against human beings?
B. Our struggle IS NOT against human beings?
Which one, please?
Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2013,17:09) So applying the pattern “the Word is God” to the clause “Love is God” you get that Love possesses the nature of God.
There is no clause “Love is God”, Kerwin. So there is no pattern to be applied.You keep bringing up the fact that one of the definitions of “is” is “equals”.
Do you mean like 2+2 IS 4 is the same as saying 2+2 EQUALS 4? Yes, we agree that the word “is” sometimes means “equals”. But does it ALWAYS mean you can evenly swap the first thing mentioned with the latter thing mentioned – just because they are separated by the word “is”? Of course not.
1. Love is a chemical reaction.
2. A chemical reaction is love.
Does #1 EQUAL #2, Kerwin? Does the fact that scientists think love is a chemical reaction mean all chemical reactions are “love”?
You are in way over your head on this on – like I keep telling you. I could list 1000 examples a day just like the one above. How many will it take?
Kerwin, God is power. Is power “God”? YES or NO?
Jesus is love. Is love “Jesus”? YES or NO?
You're asking Pierre to “present evidence”. I guess he was thinking that common sense was enough. Kerwin, if “Love is God”, then you worship LOVE as the Creator of all things. Well………………………. DO YOU? Do you bow your head and pray to LOVE? YES or NO?
Let it go, man. You're embarrassing yourself.
Mike,
Quote Wouldn't that mean that “the Word” is someone or something OTHER THAN God, who possessed the nature OF God? That is what I understand.
Quote So what exactly IS “the nature of God”? God is spirit, right? So the nature of God is “spirit nature”, right? No, as you are doing the same thing Jammin and others do and equating nature to kind. Nature is more fluxible than that.
Quote Now let's try it Philip Harner's way: In the beginning was someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself. And this someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself was WITH God Almighty Himself. And this someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself possessed the nature OF God Almighty Himself.
Mr. Harner is a Trinitarian, which leads me to hypothesise he sees it like Jammin. In short he believes the Word is Yawheh kind.
Quote Can you see how my (and Philip Harner's) finished product actually makes perfect sense? It sounds fine to me.
Quote Can you see how the finished product of anyone who concludes the Word actually WAS the God he was WITH does NOT make any kind of sense at all? I do not view the Word as being literally God. Trinitarianism does not make sense.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2013,23:11) Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2013,15:32) Mike and Gene, We are to fight the evil spirits that are in ourselves and others and not the person(s) themselves. Our weapons are not the weapons of this world.
Ephesians 6:12 New International Version
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.Kerwin, what you've posted is accurate, but incomplete.
You have neglected to take into account the latter spiritual forces of evil, which I've bolded in the verse above.
Which human beings are these latter spiritual forces in, Kerwin? Which flesh and blood human being lives “in the heavenly realms”?
So Gene thinks our struggle is against HUMAN BEINGS who have been possessed, or are guided by, evil spirits. That is a contradiction of what Paul actually said.
You believe our struggle is against the EVIL SPIRITS who are in ourselves and other people. With that I agree, but it is only partially correct.
Our struggle is ALSO against evil spirits who are NOT in us, nor in other human beings. These spirits are able to “masquerade as angles of light” and “blind the minds of the unbelievers” without ever being IN a human being.
Mike,I was not specifying others as just being human. For example we are instructed to resist the devil and he will run away.
Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2013,14:05) Mike, I was not specifying others as just being human. For example we are instructed to resist the devil and he will run away.
I agree……….. which brings us back to the reason I invited you into this disagreement:Gene says our struggle IS against human beings who are possessed (or whatever) by evil spirits.
You and I seem to agree with Paul that our struggle is NOT against the human beings themselves, but against those evil spirit beings who sometimes DO possess humans, and sometimes DO NOT. But whether or not those spirit beings are currently IN a human being, our struggle is STILL against THEM – not any human being.
Now do you see the CONTRADICTION between Gene's words, and what Paul actually said?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 25 2013,05:27) Mike……..The powers of this world are men and world leaders who control the world governments and “IF” the Spirits working “IN” them are evil then those Spirits are influencing them to do those evil works. The spirits themselves have no power but to effect what they are in which is the Power source they use human “BODIES” , Rather Clean or unclean Spirit they work the same way. So indeed our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against human beings being effected by the darken Spirits in them and even against these same evil forces in the heavenly realms. Remember LIFE consists of both Spirit forces , Good and Evil, it take both because Good explains what is evil and evil explains what is good you can't have one with out the “KNOWLEDGE” of the other We are all learning from these two forces at work in all things. IMO But none of that make these evil forces a God of any kind unless you are worshiping them , then they are your God as i explained before the word God consists of “two” things, one “POWER” and the other, that which you “TRUST” in or put your “FAITH” in . There is no God to you without both things Power and Trust. Even the True God is no GOD “to you”, unless both of these things exist. Sincere FAITH and Worship is a REQUIREMENT for a personnel GOD. Therefore as it says, “it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God without Faith”. Faith is a requirement in worship and serving a God, any kind of God. So you can see it is not Just Power but FAITH and WORSHIP that makes a GOD. Mike there is ONLY ONE “TRUE” GOD to me, no matter how many “UNTRUE” God's men have made for themselves.
Peace and love to you and yours…………………………………..gene
Hi Mike,I think this is the original.
Peace.
Quote (abe @ April 28 2013,11:18) Quote (terraricca @ April 27 2013,20:51) Quote (abe @ April 28 2013,09:04) Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2013,18:13) Quote (terraricca @ April 28 2013,07:32) Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2013,13:46) Quote (terraricca @ April 27 2013,06:50) Quote (kerwin @ April 27 2013,03:40) Quote (kerwin @ April 26 2013,11:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2013,07:22) Hey Kerwin, I was looking for something to help me in a post to jammin, and came upon this from the JWs:
The apostle John writes: “God is love.” (1Jo 4:8) He is the very personification of love, which is his dominant quality. The converse is not true, however, that ‘love (the abstract quality) is God.’ He reveals himself in the Bible as a Person and figuratively speaks of his “eyes,” “hands,” “heart,” “soul,” and so forth. He also has other attributes, among them justice, power, and wisdom. (De 32:4; Job 36:22; Re 7:12) Moreover, he has the capacity to hate, a quality the very opposite of love. His love of righteousness requires his hatred of wickedness. (De 12:31; Pr 6:16)
These are points I've already made, but they seem to have said them better than I did.
Mike,They fail to make argument to support their claim.
I agree it is poetic but I do not agree “is” is not a synonym of equals.
Merriam-Webster
Quote a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : symbolize
Mike,Love is God is expressing the idea that the nature of Love Divine. T8 quoted something along the same lines about the Word in the thread about Origon in the Archaeology forum.
Kerwinit seems you have learned nothing through our conversation ,why ??
T,Because you choose to insist your word it true despite all evidence to the contrary.
Reasoning involves not only making a claim but also revealing the work that brought you to those conclusions the both can be cross examined.
At this point you choose to ignore any evidence that disagrees with you. You can't even explain why you believe “is” is not a synonym of “equals”.
KERWINyou are with a word ,i go by what the entire scriptures are telling me of what God his ,it is God himself that make him known to us ,
and with many words in many ways ,BUT YOU ARE STUCK ON ONE WORD ,AND LOOK FOR TRUTH IN OTHER MAN INTERPRETATION ;WEN THE BIBLE GIVES SO MUCH EXPLANATION ABOUT GOD YOU DO NOT EVEN TRY TO SUM IT UP AND SEE,TO UNDERSTAND,
YOUR EVIDENCE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL ,SHOW ME SCRIPTURES FIRST AND LET SEE IF YOU CAN REFUTE WHAT I HAVE SAID ,
T,Why should I quote Scriptures you do not understand?
I instead seek to discuss Scriptures so as to come to understand them.
Hi Kerwin,Amen.
Peace.
AbeYou want to be fed ,but you want that the food taste and looks the way you want it
Hi T,1Cor.1:5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but One God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Ex.23:13 “Now concerning everything which I (God) have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth.
but One God, the Father,
Do you understand? YET ?
Peace.
ABEthis is now 4 or 5 times you show those scriptures ,I have told you that I have no problem with those scriptures at all ,they very true ,
it is you that do not understand the discussion ,but then you are not interested in it anyway ,this is why you like useless repetition
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2013,23:55) Quote (abe @ April 28 2013,11:35) Hi Mike, Ephesians 6:12 New International Version
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood………….Thats exactly what Gene was trying to tell you.
Abe,What do those first words mean to you:
A. Our struggle IS against human beings?
B. Our struggle IS NOT against human beings?
Which one, please?
mikeEph 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power.
Eph 6:11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.
Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Eph 6:13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
Eph 6:15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
Eph 6:16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
Eph 6:17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Eph 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saintsI UNDERSTAND “FLESH AND BLOOD” AS TO FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN EGO,OR NEEDS AND WANTS ,;THIS WOULD BE CONTRARY TO GOD'S WILL AND SO THE FIGHT DOES NOT LAY THERE BECAUSE WE AS CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT HAVE THOSE ;DESIRES OF THE FLESH (ONLY FOR A TIME) BUT TO STAY FAITHFUL WE HAVE TO OVERCOME THE OTHER OBSTACLES SHOWN HERE BY PAUL,IF NOT WE COULD BE OVER RUN BY IT
Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2013,11:54) Quote (terraricca @ April 28 2013,10:48) Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2013,08:09) Quote (terraricca @ April 28 2013,07:24) Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2013,05:09) Mike, T, and all; Quote This would have the same meaning but a different emphasis than the previous list item. This version would put the emphasis on the Word rather than on the nature he possessed. According to Phillip Harner the correct interpretation of John 1:1 is that the Word possessed the nature of God in the beginning.
So applying the pattern “the Word is God” to the clause “Love is God” you get that Love possesses the nature of God. The same goes for other attributes of God, including his Spirit.
Note: Here is my source. T8 quoted it in another forum.
Kerwin'Quote According to Phillip Harner the correct interpretation of John 1:1 this is a man ,why would he be right
according to scriptures God can only be GOD ;he can not be what he possesses,(like his qualities,attributes )
GOD HIS A SPIRIT BEING
T,Phillip B Harner PHD is a Trinitarian source quoted by the JW's to support their translation of John 1:1. Offhand I believe that it is possible that he uses nature as a synonym for kind as that is in keeping with the general interpretation if certain passages used by Trinitarians.
He is not alone supporting this version of John 1:1 though he does oppose the JW's version.
KThis is why I go to scriptures
T,I know you claim to go to Scripture but I have seen that when a man says what you want to hear you believe him but when his words are not want to hear you do not believe him.
Phillip B Harner is an example of this. All that we should be doing is seeking to learn the truth. Phillip B Harner provides evidence to be considered. What he states agrees with one meaning of “is” in the English Merriam Websters dictionary.
I have seen you present little or no evidence to support your own beliefs.
KI know what I believe and you have shown me what you believe ,
so you are satisfied with your men ,quotation found ,you have come up with many weird things in the past by digging into words ,but it did not do more than use time energy ,no truth was fund in them
Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2013,13:59) Mike, Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Wouldn't that mean that “the Word” is someone or something OTHER THAN God, who possessed the nature OF God? That is what I understand.
Okay, good. So right off the bat, we know that the translation “and the Word was God“ is faulty, right?The Word was with “God”, right? Now you and I both agree that the “God” the Word was with is the entire being of God Almighty, Creator of the heavens and the earth, right?
So John couldn't have possibly meant that the Word was WITH the entire being of God Almighty, and the Word WAS the entire being of God Almighty, right?
So if we in English translate that first “theos” in part b as “God” – with a capped “G”……….. and we in English understand that word “God” – with a capped “G” – to refer to the entire being of God Almighty, then we can't possibly use the word “God” – with a capped “G” – to refer to a person or thing OTHER THAN the entire being of God Almighty in part c.
Do you understand this?
Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2013,13:59) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Now let's try it Philip Harner's way: In the beginning was someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself. And this someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself was WITH God Almighty Himself. And this someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself possessed the nature OF God Almighty Himself.
Can you see how my (and Philip Harner's) finished product actually makes perfect sense?
It sounds fine to me.
Great! Now, how do we find out exactly WHO this “someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself” was?Should we read the context of John 1, and consider the many other things said by John about this “someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself”?
Should we then compare those things with things said about others in the scriptures, to see if any one particular person in scripture matches ALL of the things said about this “someone OTHER THAN God Almighty Himself”?
Doesn't that make complete logical sense, Kerwin?
Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2013,13:59) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Can you see how the finished product of anyone who concludes the Word actually WAS the God he was WITH does NOT make any kind of sense at all? I do not view the Word as being literally God. Trinitarianism does not make sense.
Fantastic!!! Then you will agree with me that the translation, “and the Word was God“ is faulty, because we both know that the Word most definitely WASN'T the “God” he was WITH.Quote (abe @ April 28 2013,16:33) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 25 2013,05:27) Mike……..The powers of this world are men and world leaders who control the world governments and “IF” the Spirits working “IN” them are evil then those Spirits are influencing them to do those evil works. The spirits themselves have no power but to effect what they are in which is the Power source they use human “BODIES” , Rather Clean or unclean Spirit they work the same way. So indeed our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against human beings being effected by the darken Spirits in them and even against these same evil forces in the heavenly realms. Remember LIFE consists of both Spirit forces , Good and Evil, it take both because Good explains what is evil and evil explains what is good you can't have one with out the “KNOWLEDGE” of the other We are all learning from these two forces at work in all things. IMO But none of that make these evil forces a God of any kind unless you are worshiping them , then they are your God as i explained before the word God consists of “two” things, one “POWER” and the other, that which you “TRUST” in or put your “FAITH” in . There is no God to you without both things Power and Trust. Even the True God is no GOD “to you”, unless both of these things exist. Sincere FAITH and Worship is a REQUIREMENT for a personnel GOD. Therefore as it says, “it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God without Faith”. Faith is a requirement in worship and serving a God, any kind of God. So you can see it is not Just Power but FAITH and WORSHIP that makes a GOD. Mike there is ONLY ONE “TRUE” GOD to me, no matter how many “UNTRUE” God's men have made for themselves.
Peace and love to you and yours…………………………………..gene
Hi Mike,I think this is the original.
Peace.
Abe,I have supersized the parts of Gene's post which contradict Paul's words. In the first supersized part, Gene claims our struggle is against the powers of this world, WHICH ARE MEN.
Abe, do you believe that is what Paul said? YES or NO?
In the second supersized part, Gene says our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood ……………… but against HUMAN BEINGS.
Abe, do you agree that Paul, by using the words “flesh and blood”, was referring to HUMAN BEINGS? YES or NO?
And if you are able to understand this, are you able to also see how Gene, in effect, was saying our struggle was NOT against human beings, but against human beings? YES or NO?
What you might not know is that Gene doesn't believe in spirit beings. He does not believe Satan is a spirit BEING. He does not believe demons are spirit BEINGS. He does not believe angels are spirit BEINGS. He doesn't even believe God is a spirit BEING.
So Gene can't understand that our struggle is actually against spirit BEINGS, who have minds and wills of their own. Therefore, he must “explain” Paul's words in a way that makes sense to HIM – despite the fact that HIS way isn't even close to what Paul was actually teaching us.
So I ask you again: Was Paul teaching us that our struggle is NOT against human beings, but against SPIRIT BEINGS? YES or NO?
Quote (terraricca @ April 28 2013,19:21) I UNDERSTAND “FLESH AND BLOOD” AS TO FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN EGO,OR NEEDS AND WANTS
So Paul was saying that our struggle is NOT against our own selfish desires and ego?Who then are these “rulers”, “authorities”, “powers of this dark world” and “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” that our struggle IS against?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2013,17:48) Quote (abe @ April 28 2013,16:33) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 25 2013,05:27) Mike……..The powers of this world are men and world leaders who control the world governments and “IF” the Spirits working “IN” them are evil then those Spirits are influencing them to do those evil works. The spirits themselves have no power but to effect what they are in which is the Power source they use human “BODIES” , Rather Clean or unclean Spirit they work the same way. So indeed our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against human beings being effected by the darken Spirits in them and even against these same evil forces in the heavenly realms. Remember LIFE consists of both Spirit forces , Good and Evil, it take both because Good explains what is evil and evil explains what is good you can't have one with out the “KNOWLEDGE” of the other We are all learning from these two forces at work in all things. IMO But none of that make these evil forces a God of any kind unless you are worshiping them , then they are your God as i explained before the word God consists of “two” things, one “POWER” and the other, that which you “TRUST” in or put your “FAITH” in . There is no God to you without both things Power and Trust. Even the True God is no GOD “to you”, unless both of these things exist. Sincere FAITH and Worship is a REQUIREMENT for a personnel GOD. Therefore as it says, “it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God without Faith”. Faith is a requirement in worship and serving a God, any kind of God. So you can see it is not Just Power but FAITH and WORSHIP that makes a GOD. Mike there is ONLY ONE “TRUE” GOD to me, no matter how many “UNTRUE” God's men have made for themselves.
Peace and love to you and yours…………………………………..gene
Hi Mike,I think this is the original.
Peace.
Abe,I have supersized the parts of Gene's post which contradict Paul's words. In the first supersized part, Gene claims our struggle is against the powers of this world, WHICH ARE MEN.
Abe, do you believe that is what Paul said? YES or NO?
In the second supersized part, Gene says our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood ……………… but against HUMAN BEINGS.
Abe, do you agree that Paul, by using the words “flesh and blood”, was referring to HUMAN BEINGS? YES or NO?
And if you are able to understand this, are you able to also see how Gene, in effect, was saying our struggle was NOT against human beings, but against human beings? YES or NO?
What you might not know is that Gene doesn't believe in spirit beings. He does not believe Satan is a spirit BEING. He does not believe demons are spirit BEINGS. He does not believe angels are spirit BEINGS. He doesn't even believe God is a spirit BEING.
So Gene can't understand that our struggle is actually against spirit BEINGS, who have minds and wills of their own. Therefore, he must “explain” Paul's words in a way that makes sense to HIM – despite the fact that HIS way isn't even close to what Paul was actually teaching us.
So I ask you again: Was Paul teaching us that our struggle is NOT against human beings, but against SPIRIT BEINGS? YES or NO?
Hi Mike,Mike……..The powers of this world are men and world leaders who control the world governments and “IF” the Spirits working “IN” them are evil then those Spirits are Influencing them to do those evil works. The spirits themselves have no power but to effect what they are in which is the Power source they use human “BODIES” , Rather Clean or unclean Spirit they work the same way.
So indeed our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against human beings
being EFFECTED by the darken Spirits in them and even against these same evil forces in the heavenly realms. Remember LIFE consists of both Spirit forces , Good and Evil,Mike, why didn't you put the WHOLE post in?
He doesn't even believe God is a spirit BEING.
That I find hard to believe?
And if you are able to understand this, are you able to also see how Gene, in effect, was saying our struggle was NOT against human beings, but against human beings? YES or NO?
He didn't say that. Read the whole post.
So I ask you again: Was Paul teaching us that our struggle is NOT against human beings, but against SPIRIT BEINGS? YES or NO?
Yes. Spirit beings in human beings.
Peace brother.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
